Karl Rove: Death of an Attack Strategist?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of a potential Obama victory on the future of Rovian attack politics. Participants explore the effectiveness and morality of attack strategies in political campaigns, comparing historical and contemporary tactics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if Obama wins decisively, it could signify the decline of Rovian attack politics, which focuses on dividing voters rather than building consensus.
  • Others argue that Rovian tactics may persist regardless of election outcomes, citing that many candidates lack the charisma and fundraising capabilities that Obama possesses.
  • A participant claims that the strategy of personal attacks is not new and has been utilized by various political figures before Rove, indicating a long-standing tradition of aggressive political campaigning.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for the Republican party to adapt and continue using divisive tactics, especially if they seek to disenfranchise voters in future elections.
  • Some express frustration with the current political climate, suggesting that both sides have historically engaged in attack politics, and that the notion of building consensus is misleading.
  • There are references to historical examples of attack politics, indicating that such strategies have deep roots in American political history.
  • Participants discuss the vilification of liberals by the Republican party, suggesting that this has become a widespread tactic rather than targeting individuals.
  • One participant emphasizes their personal support for Obama based on his character rather than specific policies, highlighting a shift in voter motivations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether Rovian attack politics will decline or persist. Some believe it may be temporarily diminished, while others argue it is likely to continue in various forms.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference historical political strategies and their evolution, but there is no agreement on the effectiveness or morality of current tactics. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of opinions on political behavior and voter sentiment.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
If Obama wins and the Dems enjoy a relative landslide, will this mark the end of Rovian attack politics?

Before Rove, the goal was to build a consensus. But Rove had a new idea: Divide the nation and keep a majority. All that it takes is a fraction over 50% of the voters.

Well, he certainly succeeded in dividing the nation. But will this strategy win any more elections? It is reported that above all, the undecided voters are the most disgusted with personal attack politics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think an Obama victory ends the Rovian philosophy, because Obama had such a fundraising advantage, and is clearly far more charismatic than McCain. Most candidates can't rely on those, so they can't copy Obama's tactics. Most people only became disgusted with McCain's attacks when it became obvious he was using them as a replacement for talking about the economy
 
Ivan Seeking said:
If Obama wins and the Dems enjoy a relative landslide, will this mark the end of Rovian attack politics?

Before Rove, the goal was to build a consensus. But Rove had a new idea: Divide the nation and keep a majority. All that it takes is a fraction over 50% of the voters.

Well, he certainly succeeded in dividing the nation. But will this strategy win any more elections? It is reported that above all, the undecided voters are the most disgusted with personal attack politics.

I think Rovian political philosophy is dead for the time being. Although, I wouldn't rule it out from arising again. Maybe in the next 10 years or so.
 
Dirty hard-knuckle politics didn't start with Rove, though he managed to elevate them to a high art and kept them in play full-time. If McCain loses, the Republicans will start figuring out better ways to disenfranchise voters and game the system so that they can steal future elections. The first thing that Obama should do is institute sweeping election reforms, with paper ballots for EVERY voter, and optical scanners to tabulate them. The technology is very low-tech, and if anomalies show up, the ballots can be re-tabulated with scanners or by hand, if necessary. Voting is a right. Accurate tabulation of the votes is a MUST for a nation that even pretends to be a democracy.
 
I believe it was Newt Gingrich (Go Pak)? who started the policy of attacking the opponent until he was so busy responding to the attacks that no issues could be addressed.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
If Obama wins and the Dems enjoy a relative landslide, will this mark the end of Rovian attack politics?

Before Rove, the goal was to build a consensus. But Rove had a new idea: Divide the nation and keep a majority. All that it takes is a fraction over 50% of the voters.

Well, he certainly succeeded in dividing the nation. But will this strategy win any more elections? It is reported that above all, the undecided voters are the most disgusted with personal attack politics.

:rolleyes: seriously? the goal has never been to build a consensus. both sides have always gone after one another shamelessly. the only thing that has changed is that the current president has failed domestically, turning even old supporters against him. i don't expect much true bipartisanism, but a lot of talk claiming it. same as it ever was.
 
The Republican party seeks to villify all liberals - not just one person. And tactics once reserved for the likes of Nixon and McCarthy are common. This was once the sanctuary of fringe idiots and crooks, but Rove and the Republicans, hate radio, and Fox, have turned half of the country against the other half.
 
For that matter, people here, and one in particular, have repeatedly accused me of being a closet liberal just because I have supported Democrats of late. Anyone unhappy with the crook Bush is a liberal; if not unpatriotic!

The truth is that I may not agree with half of what Obama plans to do, but I don't care. I am voting for the man, not the issues. He's an incredibly smart and talented person with a good heart, and I firmly believe that he is uniquely positioned in history. I am motivated entirely by his qualities as a person and his potential for greatness. And Bush is a crook who has betrayed the nation, destroyed the economy, and is who is leaving a nation mired in two wars. This has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

McCains Palin pick was the nail in his coffin as far as I am concerned. He too has betrayed the nation. And members of his own party - pre-Rovian and mainstream Conservatives - say much the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
The Republican party seeks to villify all liberals - not just one person. And tactics once reserved for the likes of Nixon and McCarthy are common. This was once the sanctuary of fringe idiots and crooks, but Rove and the Republicans, hate radio, and Fox, have turned half of the country against the other half.

lol, you mean like Michele Bachmann? she got skewered!
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking said:
This was once the sanctuary of fringe idiots and crooks, but Rove and the Republicans, hate radio, and Fox, have turned half of the country against the other half.
Which half has turned against which? :rolleyes:

Here's some interesting attack politics from a few elections back...
Thomas Jefferson was attacked by ministers who accused him of being an “infidel” and an “unbeliever.” A Federalist cartoon depicted him as a drunken anarchist, and the president of Yale warned that if Jefferson came to power, “we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution.” A Connecticut newspaper warned that his election would mean “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced” — though the paper, which is now the Hartford Courant, did apologize some years later.
http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=1511

I can't find the whole quote, but here's a narration put to video (as if it were a tv ad): http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/03/09/the-anti-jefferson-attack-ad-of-1800/

It goes much further than anything we see today.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Might as well post it here

CNN Rick Sanchez Catches McCain Spokesman Mike Goldfarb Lying

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
98K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K