Karl Rove: The Republican Mastermind

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Karl Rove's influence in American politics, particularly his role as a political strategist and the implications of his tactics on the Republican Party and broader political landscape. Participants explore themes of political strategy, media influence, and the ethical dimensions of campaign tactics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note Rove's significant impact on the Republican Party, particularly in shaping strategies that have led to electoral successes.
  • Others express skepticism about Rove's methods, describing them as manipulative and indicative of "dirty politics," with references to specific campaigns and tactics.
  • A few participants highlight Rove's ambition for a Republican-dominated political landscape, suggesting he aims for long-term control over key government branches.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of Rove's strategies on democratic principles and the potential erosion of checks and balances within the government.
  • Some participants discuss the media's role in political campaigns, comparing modern political strategies to marketing techniques.
  • There are references to Rove's involvement in controversial political events, including the handling of the Plame affair and the Swiftboat Veterans campaign.
  • Participants question the accountability of Rove and the Bush administration, expressing distrust in their transparency and truthfulness.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reveals multiple competing views regarding Rove's legacy and influence. While some participants admire his strategic acumen, others vehemently criticize his tactics and the ethical implications of his approach. There is no consensus on whether Rove's impact is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to American democracy.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying degrees of concern about the implications of Rove's strategies for the future of American politics, highlighting the complexity of political power dynamics and the historical context of party dominance.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in political strategy, campaign ethics, and the dynamics of party politics may find this discussion relevant.

  • #61
SOS2008 said:
"Root of the Rove controversy is the war in Iraq
*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Smurf said:
*gasp* : NooO! It can't be! I TOTALLY didn't see that coming.
You foreigners are so ahead of the curve--please teach Americans how to do that! :-p
 
  • #63
having to deal with this huge mass of political imbeciles anyone could be called "mastermind"
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Informal Logic said:
"Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status"
Washington Post
Updated: 12:21 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
---------
Three key questions
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

The timing is very suspect--not only as this relates to the leak, but also the speech Bush made later in which he made claims regarding the existence of uranium from Niger, obviously contrary to the memo.
Good point about the timing, Informal Logic - it seems to provide firm evidence of deliberate lying to justify the invasion of Iraq (not that there isn't already evidence about this).

On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's failure to take action against a top aide involved in the outing of a covert CIA operative sends "the wrong message" overseas, former U.S. intelligence officials said on Friday.

At a hearing sponsored by Democrats, the retired agents said U.S. intelligence gathering had been damaged by the leak of Valerie Plame's name two years ago after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, criticized the White House's justification for going to war in Iraq.
...
"What has suffered irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince an overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us," Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer, said. [Own emphasis]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-22T202547Z_01_N2223899_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML
And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' :rolleyes: I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?
 
  • #65
alexandra said:
On the topic of the implications of Rove getting away scott free, a Reuters article of 22 July reported as follows:And this at a time when conflicts are on the rise and the powers that be argue that there is more need than ever before for intel activity and are bringing all sorts of draconian legislation in that will severely impinge on civil liberties to 'combat terrorism' :rolleyes: I mean, how serious are they about 'combatting terrorism' if they don't care about the implications of revealing secret operatives' names?
It should be clear by now to all that this administration has only cared about it's own power, and has pursued it at any cost. In the summer before 9-11 the domestic scene was very worrisome--particularly the economy. Personally I believe Bush, et al, were absorbed with political strategy, and though they may not have realized the degree of destruction per the PDB, they may have even hoped for a distraction (after all, this is in keeping with Rove's MO). If it had not been for the 9-11 attacks and the fear mongering about the war on terror, I doubt Bush would have been reelected. So even if negligence can't be proven, the exploitation of the tragedy can, and this alone is despicable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K