Kinder And Gentler GOP Due To Rove's Waning Influence?

mcjoan writes of a Kindler, Gentler GOP based on Rudy's pass at calling Democrats traitors. Maybe it's due to this?

Rove's Word Is No Longer G.O.P. Gospel

Mr. Rove remains a dominant adviser to President Bush, administration officials say. But outside the White House, as President Bush's popularity has waned, and as questions have arisen among Republicans about the White House's political acumen, the party's candidates are going their own way in this difficult election season far more than they have in any other campaign Mr. Rove has overseen.

Some are disregarding Mr. Rove's advice, despite his reputation as the nation's premier strategist. They are criticizing Mr. Bush or his policies. They are avoiding public events with the president and Mr. Rove.

Influential conservative commentators have openly broken with the White House, calling into question the continued enthusiasm of evangelicals, economic conservatives and other groups that Mr. Rove has counted on to win elections. . Some Republicans are ignoring Mr. Rove's efforts to hold the party together on issues like immigration and Iraq...

The diminishment in Mr. Rove's influence reflects the fact that his power is to some extent a function of Mr. Bush's popularity. In some cases, Republican candidates have made a deliberate strategic decision that the way to win is to distance themselves from the White House.

in fact, it is remarkable that the Times, in keeping with post-Judy Miller policy, added this:

The White House said that Mr. Rove would consider an interview for this article if it were conducted off the record, with the provision that quotes could be put on the record with White House approval, a condition it said was set for other interviews with Mr. Rove. The New York Times declined.

Americans have a poor opinion of Rove.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds that Americans have a more negative than positive opinion of presidential adviser Karl Rove, a pattern that has been consistent over the last year. Rove's current ratings have recovered somewhat from the low point measured in April, shortly after some of Rove's White House duties were reduced and as reports continued to suggest Rove might be indicted in the CIA leak investigation. His current ratings are roughly in line with his ratings from last October.

 

Rove has always represented the sleazier side of politics, with under-the-table innuendo and targeted bigotry as valuable tools. Along with the waning of conservatism as a unified movement, any diminution of Rove-style Swift Boat politics would be a wonderful thing for Americans. The fact that his boss is disparaged in so many quarters (and that's no exaggeration - as the most polarizing President in modern history, who governed on a 50+1% straterery whenever possible, Bush brought this on himself) doesn't help Karl much these days. Who wants a 38% approval rating draped around one's shoulders? And who wants to sacrifice everything for a failed President? The good times in the GOP are over, and it's Republicans who know it best (they're more pessimistic about burns in montana than we are).

Oh, for a world where the media and the GOP refer to the Democratic party, not the Democrat party. For one thing, it would mean the political strategy assholes like Rove have all been relegated to the dumpster where they belong. It would mean comity and bipartisanship would have meaning again - not Lieberman style, as a club to hit opponents with (when not capitulating to a stronger politician), but as an actual governing mechanism with a loyal opposition.

emptywheel discusses why this matters in a practical sense. But I would love to start dealing with America's real enemies without having the spectre of Max Cleland in the background. It would mean, among other things, the reintroduction of reality-based judgement into Washington, and discussions based on ideas and not simply fear. And that would be a very good thing for America and the world.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

This article probably wedges open this crack in the Repub wall of discipline - or at least the perception of the solidity of this wall. And once the perception is out there, it can stick. We need to make this a "tough to put Humpty together again" moment. Democratic leaders should be out there with a talking point to the effect of, "their party is in disarray"; they're squabbling; they can't figure out what they believe in anymore, etc.

[Mike G]

Rove may have less influence, but the only reason is the current state of election polling. The second his fearmongering, divisive tactics will work for Republicans, they'll be back in action. It's up to the American voting public to enforce civility through votes. No way do I think it'll happen with the slate of current authoritarian Republicans or the steno-pad-carrying traditional media.

[Daniel DiRito]

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of Karl Rove singing his familiar songs with his usual ensemble...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

This is a significant shift.

Note how Rove expected to continue setting the conditions under which the press would operate. Note that the NYT finally (finally!!!) said, "Bullshit. We're no longer playing by your rules, Rover."

One small step for the NYT; one giant step for Accountability.
Kudos to the NYT.

[hauksdottir]

Emptywheel,

[I tried emailing this, but the link to the right no longer works.]

You are a lawyer, IIRC, and a few other legal minds frequent this site. Decades ago, when I was in law school, I learned something about being "on point"... seeing to the heart of a problem. I was startled at something in the NYT article on Rove, yet nobody else seems to have caught the ramifications. Either I'm in Wayne Madsen territory, or something seriously wrong is being glossed over (or both).

Given that Rove has publicly acknowledged betraying the identity of a CIA agent, among other misuses of classified information, why does he still have his security clearance?

1) The government has long been collecting information on its citizens. No matter what name (TIA, Carnivore, etc.) or what departments the information retrieving, gathering, analyzing fall under, it is obvious even from the outside that massive amounts of information are being data-mined. Why else would the NSA require the electricity to power a small city, and have it not be enough?

2) Every bit of computerized data from both public and private records can be vacuumed up: medical records, SSNs, voting, driving, financial, educational, Census, police, immigration, emails and search terms. Slurp!

3)Whether deliberate or not, too many laptops full of critical information has been compromised, and not by bored 12-year-olds in Warezvania. However, even without hacking or stealing, nothing computerized is safe.

OK, most people think they have nothing to hide, so why worry if the government knows they smoke and shop at Wal-Mart, or they are buying baby stuff, or their cat eats better than they do? Why worry if the government knows who you voted for or what prescriptions you refilled (electronic scanners and barcodes)? Why worry if the government knows how long you worked at your last job and how many bathrooms are in your house (Census). If the information is aggregated, we are still safe, right? Anonymous little compound numbers... part of a greater whole, like single knots in a tapestry.

But what if it isn't?

From the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/03rove.web.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=ace162f43b729e50&hp&ex=1157256000&partner=homepage

"The Republican National Committee expects to spend over $60 million, which would be a record, for the midterm elections. Officials say half of that would pay for get-out-the-vote operations in the targeted states.

In states where Mr. Bush’s presence could be problematic, like Pennsylvania and Connecticut, the turnout operations give Mr. Rove a way to provide below-the-radar help.

Mr. Mehlman, whom Mr. Rove assigned to master get-out-the-vote techniques years ago, has handed custom compact discs with lists of voters, along with information on their voting and consumer habits, to every state Republican chairman." [my emphasis]

If I'm reading this correctly, my state's Republican chairman got CDs matching voting lists (names and addresses and registration history) with consumer data (how much debt, how much insurance, type of car, degree field, name of dog, preferred stores and dress sizes). To be useful, those CDs will get duplicated and passed out to the county chairs, and duplicated again and divided up by precincts. So some total stranger walking up the street with a clipboard could stop in front of one house and note ('voted for McGovern and reads too many books, skip this one'), a couple houses down ('father in nursing home, try the prescription gambit'), the other side (minister's widow, push the religion button and pray together'), or a corner (young couple-first house-never voted, try social security privitization and long term fears').

Rove with his security clearance would have the latest and best collection of data from the government's secret files. Instead of sharing that data with those who have the "need to know" (such as a doctor accessing a hospital file), he is filtering it to those who will use it to further his political agenda. And it will fall into the hands of many, many total strangers, some of whom will sell it or misuse it.

So, why does Rove still have this sort of access?

And why hasn't any reporter questioned the merging of voter files with consumer data and government records? Or at least checked the dispersal arrangements? Are the CDs encrypted? With all of the flurry about internal spying, as well as the stories about the release of information, why no questions about how the government really uses personal information???

Carolly

[freepatriot]

hauksdottir

you recall incorrectly

ew is not a lawyer