“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” – Thomas Jefferson (1762- 1826) - 3rd President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence
The news this week that the Iowa Democratic Party has voted to bring forward the date of its caucuses to January 3rd has, for many, brought the presidential election campaign of 2008 sharply into focus. While national polls have Hillary Clinton enjoying a 30 point advantage over her nearest challenger Barack Obama, the most recent survey of potential caucus voters in Iowa show the two Democratic heavyweights in a statistical dead heat.
Some commentators are already referring to Clinton as the nominee, however as history has shown, a candidate with a big lead in the national polls going into the first big caucus challenge of Iowa should not take the nomination for granted. So before Hillary self anoints herself as the nominee she should recall what happened to Howard Dean in 2004. Going into the Hawkeye state caucuses four years ago, Dean held a commanding lead over John Kerry only for Kerry to win and go on to the nomination while Dean’s campaign imploded.
There is no doubt that there is a ground swell of support for radical change in the way government works in this country. The majority of Americans want to become engaged in the political process, however their sense of reality is being continually blurred by the ineptitude (and timidity) of most of the television and cable news networks to talk in any real, substantive way to the issues facing Americans today. On the other hand, FOX News is essentially the propaganda arm of the Bush White House and a host of fear mongering racists from Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter to Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh are using issues like immigration, terrorism, religion and the so called liberal agenda to scare the crap out of people.
Amidst the cacophony however there are some people out there that can not only speak in a constructive way to the issues facing Americans today, but to also suggest workable solutions. And you know what? The public wants to listen.
Last night I, along with 750 others, each paid between $15 and $25 to attend a lecture given by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman in downtown San Francisco. I was fascinated that such a crowd would turn out to hear a journalist speak on a cold Tuesday evening the night before Halloween. That was before I found out that Krugman is the author of 20 books and also a Professor of Economics at Princeton University. Krugman treated us to a 90 minute lesson on the history of American politics and economics since FDR's New Deal of the 1930’s.
In summary, he contends that economic policy IS driven by politics and that race is the card that has been played by Republicans to win elections over the past 40 years. Quoting a myriad of statistics, Krugman outlined why, since the adoption of the so-called “Southern Strategy” by Richard Nixon in 1968, white Southern males have left the Democratic Party and switched their allegiance to the GOP. Republicans have never been able to run on their economic record so they have appealed instead to people’s base fears and prejudices; initially race and segregation and latterly religion, national defense and terrorism.
As a result, government policy is directly affected by ideology, which in turn directly impacts the economy. It comes as no surprise therefore to learn that in the last 7 years of the Bush presidency, where the country has been at war for over 6 of those 7 years, America has not had a balanced budget and the national debt of the United States has almost doubled, while on the other hand no progress has been made, for example, on universal health care for all Americans.
The moral of the Krugman lecture, however, is that Americans want to engage with their politicians on the issues. The many questions from the floor last night were insightful and clearly thought through. Barack Obama is coming to San Francisco in mid November so I myself will have an opportunity to hear his message for America. For the Democratic candidates going into the Iowa caucuses, rhetoric, double speak and clichés will no longer suffice for voters. We have had 7 years of that and America is morally bankrupt because of it.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Election '08 Comment: Fred Thompson and the Personality of Toilet Brushes
“The achievements which society rewards are won at the cost of diminution of personality” – Carl Jung, Swiss Psychiatrist 1875-1961
With a little over three months to go before the start of the 2008 Presidential primary season, the race for the Republican nomination is beginning to take shape. Whilst the staying power of third tier candidates like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul is admirable, the combination of their lack of adequate support within the GOP grass roots, severely restricted campaign budgets and practically no national media coverage means that they will fall by the wayside even before “Super Tuesday” next March. They are consigned to join Jim Gilmore and Sam Brownback as early casualties of a long campaign cycle.
Perhaps not surprisingly we are left with the usual suspects to fight it out for the nomination, Messrs Giuliani, Romney and McCain. While each is an attractive candidate to different elements of the Republican base, none of them can command cross party support for reasons as diverse as religion, abortion, gay rights, fiscal policy and the war in Iraq.
Enter Fred Thompson; actor, senator, lawyer and former lobbyist. In a race where the vast majority of Republicans were, and are, not happy with the choice available to them in 2008, Thompson was seen by many as the ideal candidate who could garner cross party support. His conservative voting record in the Congress and support of the Iraq war, coupled with his dominant physical presence and actors’ charisma led many romantics within the GOP to believe that Thompson was the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century.
After less than 60 days as an announced candidate however, my instincts tell me that the light has already gone out for Thompson. Despite an initial shot in the arm after announcing his candidacy on September 5th, he has slipped back to the position he held in the minds of voters prior to getting in the race. His performance at the most recent Republican presidential debate in Michigan was awful, where he looked ill prepared, not fully versed on the issues, and gave way completely to Giuliani and Romney whose strong personalities and presence dominated the event.
His inability to effectively engage on the issues and argue his position was striking to most commentators, including many leaders in the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. In what seems like an ominous development for Thompson’s chances, he was recently thrashed by James Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family, thusly, “He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to’….and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail. And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
For me, I have never understood Thompson’s appeal. I see him as a wooden and one dimensional character with, to borrow a quote from one of my best friends, about as much personality as a toilet brush.
With a little over three months to go before the start of the 2008 Presidential primary season, the race for the Republican nomination is beginning to take shape. Whilst the staying power of third tier candidates like Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul is admirable, the combination of their lack of adequate support within the GOP grass roots, severely restricted campaign budgets and practically no national media coverage means that they will fall by the wayside even before “Super Tuesday” next March. They are consigned to join Jim Gilmore and Sam Brownback as early casualties of a long campaign cycle.
Perhaps not surprisingly we are left with the usual suspects to fight it out for the nomination, Messrs Giuliani, Romney and McCain. While each is an attractive candidate to different elements of the Republican base, none of them can command cross party support for reasons as diverse as religion, abortion, gay rights, fiscal policy and the war in Iraq.
Enter Fred Thompson; actor, senator, lawyer and former lobbyist. In a race where the vast majority of Republicans were, and are, not happy with the choice available to them in 2008, Thompson was seen by many as the ideal candidate who could garner cross party support. His conservative voting record in the Congress and support of the Iraq war, coupled with his dominant physical presence and actors’ charisma led many romantics within the GOP to believe that Thompson was the Ronald Reagan of the 21st century.
After less than 60 days as an announced candidate however, my instincts tell me that the light has already gone out for Thompson. Despite an initial shot in the arm after announcing his candidacy on September 5th, he has slipped back to the position he held in the minds of voters prior to getting in the race. His performance at the most recent Republican presidential debate in Michigan was awful, where he looked ill prepared, not fully versed on the issues, and gave way completely to Giuliani and Romney whose strong personalities and presence dominated the event.
His inability to effectively engage on the issues and argue his position was striking to most commentators, including many leaders in the Christian conservative base of the Republican Party. In what seems like an ominous development for Thompson’s chances, he was recently thrashed by James Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family, thusly, “He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to’….and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail. And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
For me, I have never understood Thompson’s appeal. I see him as a wooden and one dimensional character with, to borrow a quote from one of my best friends, about as much personality as a toilet brush.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
October 2007: The Political Rehabilitation of Al Gore
“As for the battle, that ends tonight. I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shake the soul and let the glory out” – Vice President Al Gore in his concession speech in 2000 after the U.S. Supreme Court handed the election to George W. Bush
The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, once wrote that “the best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury”. In the annals of American presidential politics this was never truer than for Albert A. Gore Jr.; for the man who used to self deprecatingly refer to himself as the former next President of the United States is today experiencing the sweetest revenge over his arch nemesis George W. Bush. During the 1992 presidential campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush’s father, sitting president George H.W. Bush, mocked Gore as the “…ozone man”, however it has been Gore’s dedication to raising awareness on the phenomenon of global warming that this month led the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to honor him for his enduring work over a period of twenty years.
At a time in his presidency when Bush’s popularity numbers are hovering at about 30%, the decision of the Nobel Committee is sweet, sweet revenge for the man who was actually elected President of the United States in 2000, before the highest court in the land snubbed its nose at 225 years of judicial precedent and decided to enter the presidential debate and hand the Presidency to the Governor of Texas. As president, Bush has proceeded to ignore the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations framework on climate change, ratified by 172 sovereign nations and a deal part brokered by then Vice President Al Gore. At a time when the European Union and other leading industrial nations are making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and their dependence on fuels that harm the earth’s atmosphere, the United States under this president has shirked its responsibility.
In the aftermath of the award, it is perhaps natural that the thoughts of many have turned to whether Gore will now enter the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. An independent draft Gore campaign has been working for months to build support across the country for a potential candidacy but Gore himself has refused to be drawn into the debate. It is completely understandable that the man who believes that he has been already elected President once, would not have the stomach for another run at the White House. There is no doubt that Al Gore would like to be President but there are many valid reasons why he shouldn’t and probably won’t run.
Firstly, as an undeclared candidate he is running at about a 12% preference rating among potential Democratic primary voters. That places him about 35 points behind Hillary Clinton and about 15 points behind Barack Obama. Even though an announced candidacy now would give him an immediate boost in the polls, the lack of a campaign organization, as well as the fact that most serious political donors have already committed vital election cash to the existing candidates, means that Gore would almost certainly come up short in the primaries.
Secondly, it is fair to say that Gore can have a bigger impact on the global warming debate by remaining outside the election cycle that will engulf the country in the next 13 months. If he were to enter the primaries now, his attention would be diverted to dealing with the many other significant issues facing the United States today, thereby sharply reducing his ability to drive on the environmental cause at a time when the topic is foremost in the minds of humanity.
Democrats believe that Gore rightly won the election in 2000 and that the result was illegally stolen from him. After two utterly disastrous Bush presidencies one can only look back and wonder what might have been, had the will of the American people been recognized and Al Gore been inaugurated in January 2001. It is inconceivable that the United States and the world would not have been in a much better state had Gore been America’s 43rd president.
As for the presidential election of 2008, David Remnick of “The New Yorker” magazine offers this opinion. “It may be that Gore really has lost his taste for electoral politics, and that, no matter what turn the polls and events take, an Al-versus-Hillary psychodrama in 2008 is not going to happen. There is no substitute for Presidential power, but Gore is now playing a unique role in public life. He is a symbol of what might have been”.
The rehabilitation of Al Gore is complete, and not before time.
The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, once wrote that “the best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury”. In the annals of American presidential politics this was never truer than for Albert A. Gore Jr.; for the man who used to self deprecatingly refer to himself as the former next President of the United States is today experiencing the sweetest revenge over his arch nemesis George W. Bush. During the 1992 presidential campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush’s father, sitting president George H.W. Bush, mocked Gore as the “…ozone man”, however it has been Gore’s dedication to raising awareness on the phenomenon of global warming that this month led the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to honor him for his enduring work over a period of twenty years.
At a time in his presidency when Bush’s popularity numbers are hovering at about 30%, the decision of the Nobel Committee is sweet, sweet revenge for the man who was actually elected President of the United States in 2000, before the highest court in the land snubbed its nose at 225 years of judicial precedent and decided to enter the presidential debate and hand the Presidency to the Governor of Texas. As president, Bush has proceeded to ignore the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations framework on climate change, ratified by 172 sovereign nations and a deal part brokered by then Vice President Al Gore. At a time when the European Union and other leading industrial nations are making efforts to reduce carbon emissions and their dependence on fuels that harm the earth’s atmosphere, the United States under this president has shirked its responsibility.
In the aftermath of the award, it is perhaps natural that the thoughts of many have turned to whether Gore will now enter the race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. An independent draft Gore campaign has been working for months to build support across the country for a potential candidacy but Gore himself has refused to be drawn into the debate. It is completely understandable that the man who believes that he has been already elected President once, would not have the stomach for another run at the White House. There is no doubt that Al Gore would like to be President but there are many valid reasons why he shouldn’t and probably won’t run.
Firstly, as an undeclared candidate he is running at about a 12% preference rating among potential Democratic primary voters. That places him about 35 points behind Hillary Clinton and about 15 points behind Barack Obama. Even though an announced candidacy now would give him an immediate boost in the polls, the lack of a campaign organization, as well as the fact that most serious political donors have already committed vital election cash to the existing candidates, means that Gore would almost certainly come up short in the primaries.
Secondly, it is fair to say that Gore can have a bigger impact on the global warming debate by remaining outside the election cycle that will engulf the country in the next 13 months. If he were to enter the primaries now, his attention would be diverted to dealing with the many other significant issues facing the United States today, thereby sharply reducing his ability to drive on the environmental cause at a time when the topic is foremost in the minds of humanity.
Democrats believe that Gore rightly won the election in 2000 and that the result was illegally stolen from him. After two utterly disastrous Bush presidencies one can only look back and wonder what might have been, had the will of the American people been recognized and Al Gore been inaugurated in January 2001. It is inconceivable that the United States and the world would not have been in a much better state had Gore been America’s 43rd president.
As for the presidential election of 2008, David Remnick of “The New Yorker” magazine offers this opinion. “It may be that Gore really has lost his taste for electoral politics, and that, no matter what turn the polls and events take, an Al-versus-Hillary psychodrama in 2008 is not going to happen. There is no substitute for Presidential power, but Gore is now playing a unique role in public life. He is a symbol of what might have been”.
The rehabilitation of Al Gore is complete, and not before time.
Friday, October 5, 2007
September 2007: Bye, bye Gonzo
“Every clique is a refuge for incompetence. It fosters corruption and disloyalty; it begets cowardice, and consequently is a burden upon and a drawback to the progress of the country. Its instincts and actions are that of the pack” – Madame Chiang Kai-Shek”
The website of the US Department of Justice states that “…the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested”. What it doesn’t say, but should, is that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States should have the requisite prosecutorial qualifications and experience, be endowed with strong and effective leadership skills, be impartial and non biased in enforcing the law, uphold the Constitution and most importantly be competent. Unfortunately, the now former Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, failed the test in the vast majority of these qualifications. Just so you don’t think that I am picking on Gonzo, as he has become affectionately known in the U.S. media, I will be the first to admit that Gonzales is only one of many former Attorneys General who have either been handed this plum job through nepotism (Robert F Kennedy/Presidency of JFK) or been convicted of corruption and political cover up while in office (John Mitchell/Presidency of Richard Nixon); only days after his departure, Gonzales is being hailed as one of America’s worst Attorney Generals and very likely its most partisan.
Leaving the incompetence and the partisanship to one side, perhaps the greatest accusation to be leveled at Gonzales is that, while ostensibly the Attorney General of the United States, he was in fact a Bush puppet, a private lawyer pulling the levers of powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the land at the behest of President Bush. Since Gonzales was sworn in as AG in January 2005 there has been a catalogue of events that have proven this to be the case, not least the Machiavellian way that Gonzales authorized the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys (all Democrats) for supposedly poor job performance at the end of 2006. In the last 6 months it has transpired that all 8 were in fact among the best performing U.S. Attorneys in the country, spurring the Congress into a flurry of investigation and subpoena issuing not seen since the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. Throughout the entire investigative process, during which Gonzales testified under oath before various Congressional committees, he repeatedly lied about his involvement in various Bush sponsored initiatives; from illegal wiretapping, to the firing of U.S. attorneys for blatantly partisan reasons to usurption of the so called Patriot Act to undermine the civil liberties of Americans.
However, when you analyze the Gonzales biography, you encounter the same recurring themes of cronyism and corruption that have been synonymous with Bush insiders like Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Bush is notorious for protecting his inside “family” and has consistently rewarded old colleagues and buddies from his years as Governor of Texas with plum appointments within the government. What seems lost on the President however is the fact that most of his buddies have been conspicuously under-qualified and in some cases; downright incompetent, to do the job. Enter Alberto Gonzales. It has been known for years that Bush refers to his friend Gonzales as “Fredo”, leaving many commentators unable to resist making the comparison between this modern day gangster George Bush and his weak yet loyal underling, Alberto Gonzales, and the famous Godfather relationship between Michael Corleone and his weak and easy going younger brother Fredo.
At a time when the Bush administration can’t take any more political heat, whether it is from Democrats, the media or in excess of 70% of the American population, George Bush did what Michael Corleone did; he consigned his own Fredo to the deep, dark waters of political oblivion. Depending on what political pundit you talk to you will hear phrases like “…he walked the plank for George Bush”, “…Gonzales resigned before he was fired”, “…he was thrown under the bus by President Bush”, however one thing is for sure, Gonzales was sacrificed to save George Bush further public humiliation. Bush carried out a controlled explosion on Alberto Gonzales before his own Fredo timed out, self detonated and brought the whole White House down with him.
The website of the US Department of Justice states that “…the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested”. What it doesn’t say, but should, is that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States should have the requisite prosecutorial qualifications and experience, be endowed with strong and effective leadership skills, be impartial and non biased in enforcing the law, uphold the Constitution and most importantly be competent. Unfortunately, the now former Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, failed the test in the vast majority of these qualifications. Just so you don’t think that I am picking on Gonzo, as he has become affectionately known in the U.S. media, I will be the first to admit that Gonzales is only one of many former Attorneys General who have either been handed this plum job through nepotism (Robert F Kennedy/Presidency of JFK) or been convicted of corruption and political cover up while in office (John Mitchell/Presidency of Richard Nixon); only days after his departure, Gonzales is being hailed as one of America’s worst Attorney Generals and very likely its most partisan.
Leaving the incompetence and the partisanship to one side, perhaps the greatest accusation to be leveled at Gonzales is that, while ostensibly the Attorney General of the United States, he was in fact a Bush puppet, a private lawyer pulling the levers of powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the land at the behest of President Bush. Since Gonzales was sworn in as AG in January 2005 there has been a catalogue of events that have proven this to be the case, not least the Machiavellian way that Gonzales authorized the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys (all Democrats) for supposedly poor job performance at the end of 2006. In the last 6 months it has transpired that all 8 were in fact among the best performing U.S. Attorneys in the country, spurring the Congress into a flurry of investigation and subpoena issuing not seen since the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. Throughout the entire investigative process, during which Gonzales testified under oath before various Congressional committees, he repeatedly lied about his involvement in various Bush sponsored initiatives; from illegal wiretapping, to the firing of U.S. attorneys for blatantly partisan reasons to usurption of the so called Patriot Act to undermine the civil liberties of Americans.
However, when you analyze the Gonzales biography, you encounter the same recurring themes of cronyism and corruption that have been synonymous with Bush insiders like Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. Bush is notorious for protecting his inside “family” and has consistently rewarded old colleagues and buddies from his years as Governor of Texas with plum appointments within the government. What seems lost on the President however is the fact that most of his buddies have been conspicuously under-qualified and in some cases; downright incompetent, to do the job. Enter Alberto Gonzales. It has been known for years that Bush refers to his friend Gonzales as “Fredo”, leaving many commentators unable to resist making the comparison between this modern day gangster George Bush and his weak yet loyal underling, Alberto Gonzales, and the famous Godfather relationship between Michael Corleone and his weak and easy going younger brother Fredo.
At a time when the Bush administration can’t take any more political heat, whether it is from Democrats, the media or in excess of 70% of the American population, George Bush did what Michael Corleone did; he consigned his own Fredo to the deep, dark waters of political oblivion. Depending on what political pundit you talk to you will hear phrases like “…he walked the plank for George Bush”, “…Gonzales resigned before he was fired”, “…he was thrown under the bus by President Bush”, however one thing is for sure, Gonzales was sacrificed to save George Bush further public humiliation. Bush carried out a controlled explosion on Alberto Gonzales before his own Fredo timed out, self detonated and brought the whole White House down with him.
August 2007: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove
"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.” – Adlai E. Stevenson, Democratic Governor of Illinois 1949-1953, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 1961-1965 and twice beaten by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower for President in 1952 and 1956.
In the year 405 B.C., Greek playwright Euripides died when he was mauled and killed by a pack of bloodthirsty dogs loosed upon him by one of his rivals. Enter into the lexicon the term, “every dog has his day”, the context of the term being that “even the lowliest person will at some time get revenge on his oppressor, no matter how powerful the man may be”. In the life and times of Karl Christian Rove, alternately referred to as “Bush’s brain”, “the architect” or “boy genius”, his own Greek tragedy is finally playing out in full glory in front of the American people. This month, the man who has been at the side of George W. Bush for 34 years and who has been Bush’s chief advisor since W won his first election as Texas governor in 1994, has announced that he will resign his position effective August 31st. In an expansive ceremony on the White House lawn, with the presidential helicopter sitting in the background, Bush lauded his political ally of half a lifetime. With Rove embroiled in bitter battles with the now Democratically controlled Congress over his Machiavellian involvement in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in 2003 and the firing last year of 9 Democratic U.S. District Attorney’s, it’s not surprising that Democrats are saying good riddance to W’s right hand man. Congress has issued subpoenas in Rove’s name, demanding he testify under oath to his involvement in these and other controversies, but he has been saved time and again by Bush exerting what is called executive privilege, a right he has under the Constitution to keep conversations in the White House free from disclosure. Bush is walking a delicate path, as Richard Nixon found out in 1974 when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that secret White House tapes be handed over to the Congress, which eventually resulted in Nixon’s resignation from office. We are not yet at that point and time will tell if the Democrats will intensify their hounding of Rove now that he is a regular citizen again. One thing is for sure, Rove is as shrewd a political operative as one can expect to find and be in no doubt that he hasn’t decided to ride off into the sunset unless he feels he will be adequately protected by executive privilege for the rest of his days.
Karl Rove has been involved in politics since 1968, when as an 18 year old he got involved in the Utah Republican Party. Two years later, and in perhaps the first glimpse at the kind of political dirty tricks that Rove would employ in the coming decades, he used a false identity to enter the campaign office of a Democrat running for the office of Illinois State Treasurer, stole 1000 sheets of campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” and distributed them at rock concerts and other events, with the effect of disrupting the campaign of the Democrat. Even though he was granted his draft deferment to serve in Vietnam due to him being classified as a University student, records now show that Rove was only a part time student before dropping out completely in 1972. In 1973, a serious of bizarre circumstances brought Karl Rove to the attention of the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC); George H.W. Bush, later Bush 41. Rove became a special assistant to Bush the elder in the early 1970’s on the RNC and thus was born the Rove-Bush relationship that would ultimately catapult Bush’s son, W, to the White House.
The relationship between Rove and Bush the elder has been rocky to say the least. He was fired by Bush 41 not once, but twice, first in 1980 during H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful bid for the White House and then again in 1992 when Bush senior was running for a second term as President, this time against Bill Clinton. Interestingly, he was fired on both occasions for planting and leaking information to the press, the second time to conservative columnist Robert Novak. They say coincidences never happen twice, so no one was really surprised when in 2003 the same Robert Novak told the world that the man who told him that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and said exactly that in his newspaper column; was none other than Karl Rove. Rove masterminded the election of George W Bush as governor of Texas in 1994 and 1998. Famously, one anecdote stands out from the ’94 election. Allegedly, Rove used pollsters to call voters to ask such things as whether people “…would be more or less inclined to vote for (incumbent) Governor Ann Richards if they knew her staff were dominated by lesbians”. While only circumstantial evidence links Rove to these activities, his history as a political operative leaves one with little doubt as to his modus operandi.
The chief reason Rove is hated by Democrats is because they believe that he is responsible for stealing the election from Al Gore in 2000. For anyone that is in any doubt about Karl Rove’s influence on the outcome of the 2000 election and the subsequent manipulation of the feelings and anxieties of the American people in a post 9/11 world, pick up a copy of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” at your local video store. The first time I saw it was on the day of its release in American cinemas in June 2004 in Modesto, California, at an 11am showing. The cinema was packed to the rafters and the movie received a 5 minute standing ovation. It is a damning indictment of how Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore and in the words of one American political commentator, Chris Matthews, elevated a man to be Chief Executive who by himself hadn’t the intelligence to be President.
To quote another commonly used expression, Karl Rove’s chickens are now coming home to roost. Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff in the administration of Ronald Reagan recently commented on Rove, “The problem for Karl was that the art of campaigning required different talents than the art of governing. In the art of campaigning, it fundamentally has to do with defeating your opponent. The art of governing means you have to hold your opponent closely and continue to cultivate him or her for the next vote and the next vote and the next vote”. To quote Al Fournier of the Associated Press however, “…that was never Rove's style. His combative nature no doubt influenced what may have been Bush's biggest mistake -- using Sept. 11 to divide Democrats and Republicans rather than uniting the public behind a grand cause or shared sacrifice. He was the perfect strategist for an imperfect era, when polarization and the pursuit of power often trumps common sense and decency”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. In the end, every dog DOES have his day.
In the year 405 B.C., Greek playwright Euripides died when he was mauled and killed by a pack of bloodthirsty dogs loosed upon him by one of his rivals. Enter into the lexicon the term, “every dog has his day”, the context of the term being that “even the lowliest person will at some time get revenge on his oppressor, no matter how powerful the man may be”. In the life and times of Karl Christian Rove, alternately referred to as “Bush’s brain”, “the architect” or “boy genius”, his own Greek tragedy is finally playing out in full glory in front of the American people. This month, the man who has been at the side of George W. Bush for 34 years and who has been Bush’s chief advisor since W won his first election as Texas governor in 1994, has announced that he will resign his position effective August 31st. In an expansive ceremony on the White House lawn, with the presidential helicopter sitting in the background, Bush lauded his political ally of half a lifetime. With Rove embroiled in bitter battles with the now Democratically controlled Congress over his Machiavellian involvement in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in 2003 and the firing last year of 9 Democratic U.S. District Attorney’s, it’s not surprising that Democrats are saying good riddance to W’s right hand man. Congress has issued subpoenas in Rove’s name, demanding he testify under oath to his involvement in these and other controversies, but he has been saved time and again by Bush exerting what is called executive privilege, a right he has under the Constitution to keep conversations in the White House free from disclosure. Bush is walking a delicate path, as Richard Nixon found out in 1974 when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered that secret White House tapes be handed over to the Congress, which eventually resulted in Nixon’s resignation from office. We are not yet at that point and time will tell if the Democrats will intensify their hounding of Rove now that he is a regular citizen again. One thing is for sure, Rove is as shrewd a political operative as one can expect to find and be in no doubt that he hasn’t decided to ride off into the sunset unless he feels he will be adequately protected by executive privilege for the rest of his days.
Karl Rove has been involved in politics since 1968, when as an 18 year old he got involved in the Utah Republican Party. Two years later, and in perhaps the first glimpse at the kind of political dirty tricks that Rove would employ in the coming decades, he used a false identity to enter the campaign office of a Democrat running for the office of Illinois State Treasurer, stole 1000 sheets of campaign letterhead, printed fake campaign fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” and distributed them at rock concerts and other events, with the effect of disrupting the campaign of the Democrat. Even though he was granted his draft deferment to serve in Vietnam due to him being classified as a University student, records now show that Rove was only a part time student before dropping out completely in 1972. In 1973, a serious of bizarre circumstances brought Karl Rove to the attention of the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC); George H.W. Bush, later Bush 41. Rove became a special assistant to Bush the elder in the early 1970’s on the RNC and thus was born the Rove-Bush relationship that would ultimately catapult Bush’s son, W, to the White House.
The relationship between Rove and Bush the elder has been rocky to say the least. He was fired by Bush 41 not once, but twice, first in 1980 during H.W. Bush’s unsuccessful bid for the White House and then again in 1992 when Bush senior was running for a second term as President, this time against Bill Clinton. Interestingly, he was fired on both occasions for planting and leaking information to the press, the second time to conservative columnist Robert Novak. They say coincidences never happen twice, so no one was really surprised when in 2003 the same Robert Novak told the world that the man who told him that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and said exactly that in his newspaper column; was none other than Karl Rove. Rove masterminded the election of George W Bush as governor of Texas in 1994 and 1998. Famously, one anecdote stands out from the ’94 election. Allegedly, Rove used pollsters to call voters to ask such things as whether people “…would be more or less inclined to vote for (incumbent) Governor Ann Richards if they knew her staff were dominated by lesbians”. While only circumstantial evidence links Rove to these activities, his history as a political operative leaves one with little doubt as to his modus operandi.
The chief reason Rove is hated by Democrats is because they believe that he is responsible for stealing the election from Al Gore in 2000. For anyone that is in any doubt about Karl Rove’s influence on the outcome of the 2000 election and the subsequent manipulation of the feelings and anxieties of the American people in a post 9/11 world, pick up a copy of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” at your local video store. The first time I saw it was on the day of its release in American cinemas in June 2004 in Modesto, California, at an 11am showing. The cinema was packed to the rafters and the movie received a 5 minute standing ovation. It is a damning indictment of how Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore and in the words of one American political commentator, Chris Matthews, elevated a man to be Chief Executive who by himself hadn’t the intelligence to be President.
To quote another commonly used expression, Karl Rove’s chickens are now coming home to roost. Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff in the administration of Ronald Reagan recently commented on Rove, “The problem for Karl was that the art of campaigning required different talents than the art of governing. In the art of campaigning, it fundamentally has to do with defeating your opponent. The art of governing means you have to hold your opponent closely and continue to cultivate him or her for the next vote and the next vote and the next vote”. To quote Al Fournier of the Associated Press however, “…that was never Rove's style. His combative nature no doubt influenced what may have been Bush's biggest mistake -- using Sept. 11 to divide Democrats and Republicans rather than uniting the public behind a grand cause or shared sacrifice. He was the perfect strategist for an imperfect era, when polarization and the pursuit of power often trumps common sense and decency”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. In the end, every dog DOES have his day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
