Shots In The Dark
Sunday, August 19, 2024
  The Goods on Rove
It's easy to trash Karl Rove without knowing exactly why you're trashing him, just assuming that he's the man responsible for much of the disaster that is the Bush administration.

But this Washington Post story gives you the specifics you need to trash Rove in an informed manner. (Would have been nice if they'd published it before he quit, eh?)

Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees....

But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.

..."What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week.

Anyone else think the next five years are going to be good ones for political investigative journalists? This may well turn out to be not only the most incompetent administration in history, but also the most corrupt.
 
Comments:
Already known to be the most corrupt. Seriously, why have you waited till now to be informed?

Not that much in the Post article is new.

It's the LAST five years that should have been halcyon days for political journalists. They were asleep at the switch. --People who've been paying attention know who the exceptions are....

SE
 
Several times they mention Rove's obsession with keeping to federal guidelines. Now, people may differ with Rove's interpretation of those guidelines/laws, but if he was complying (and, perhaps more importantly, encouraging compliance), then that's not exactly "corrupt" in the legal sense of the word, is it? You could call it misuse of time, misguided, fanatical...a lot of things, but going purely by the content of the Post article, it does not equal criminal behavior. Right?

If legislators don't like it, change or clarify the rules, don't simply bash strategists for obsessively exploiting those rules. That's like getting mad at former basketball couch Dean Smith for playing "four corners" back in the day at UNC (you get the lead and then use ball control to pass between the corners of your half-court, thereby running out the clock/game - games were often won with less than 20 points). It wasn't any fun for the spectators and it wasn't really fair play, but there was no shot clock. So because of Dean Smith, they instituted the shot clock. That's why Smith is known as a genius and not a cheater. I know SE will return with a "Smith didn't appoint/politicize..." but I think the point is sound.
 
The point would be sound if it were true that Rove didn't break the law. But he did, the thoughtful little caveats of his colleagues notwithstanding. Even if it were true that he THINKS he adhered to the letter of the law, his interpretation of that letter is not necessarily the same as a judge and jury's.

Moreover, 'corrupt' is not identical with 'illegal.' If Dean Smith had pumped his players full of steroids, back before there were any rules against it, you would call him corrupt even though he wasn't a rule-breaker.

But again -- time, and a cleaned-up DOJ, will tell; Rove was a crook.

SE
 
There is a rumour going around that Karl Rove is, in fact, Chinese. Can you confirm? That would explain a lot.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name: Richard Bradley
Location: New York, New York
ARCHIVES
2/1/05 - 3/1/05 / 3/1/05 - 4/1/05 / 4/1/05 - 5/1/05 / 5/1/05 - 6/1/05 / 6/1/05 - 7/1/05 / 7/1/05 - 8/1/05 / 8/1/05 - 9/1/05 / 9/1/05 - 10/1/05 / 10/1/05 - 11/1/05 / 11/1/05 - 12/1/05 / 12/1/05 - 1/1/06 / 1/1/06 - 2/1/06 / 2/1/06 - 3/1/06 / 3/1/06 - 4/1/06 / 4/1/06 - 5/1/06 / 5/1/06 - 6/1/06 / 6/1/06 - 7/1/06 / 7/1/06 - 8/1/06 / 8/1/06 - 9/1/06 / 9/1/06 - 10/1/06 / 10/1/06 - 11/1/06 / 11/1/06 - 12/1/06 / 12/1/06 - 1/1/07 / 1/1/07 - 2/1/07 / 2/1/07 - 3/1/07 / 3/1/07 - 4/1/07 / 4/1/07 - 5/1/07 / 5/1/07 - 6/1/07 / 6/1/07 - 7/1/07 / 7/1/07 - 8/1/07 / 8/1/07 - 9/1/07 /


Powered by Blogger