< What You Can Learn From Top Chef's Top Chef | Main | Judas Speaks >

Karl Rove Likes What He Sees

Gqeditorshed_3

Karl Rove Likes What He Sees

With his new gig at Fox and a seven-figure political memoir in the works, Karl Rove has officially crossed over from shadowy 'Wizard of Oz' territory to somewhat approachable public personality. But as Lisa DePaulo finds out, that doesn't mean he's any less…pointed with his opinions

Karl_rove_2

Photograph by Gillian Laub

i can see karl rove standing outside the restaurant, on the phone, yakking, pacing, occasionally peering at me through the etched-glass window and sticking a stubby finger in the air to indicate that he'll just be just one more minute. Eighteen minutes pass. He enters brusquely, with apologies and a crack about my "bright red purse" but also with the clear message that he is in control. Uncomfortable in this position, somewhat wary, constantly checking his watch ("Gotta go soon… Gotta go… Couple more minutes…"), not diggin' it, but always in control. Karl Rove is not a guy who kicks back with a drink—even coffee's a stretch ("I'm a decaf guy," he says)—and shoots the shit for a few hours. This isn't about a charm offensive—he gives the impression that he's not even sure why he's doing this. But: To be with Rove is to listen to a man who is utterly articulate and insightful and at the same time utterly…what's the word? Plain? Normal? Caucasian? If you didn't know he used to be Bush's Brain, if you didn't know he is widely credited/blamed with leading the Republican Party to an era of total world domination, if you didn't recognize him (as numerous gawkers inside the Muse hotel restaurant do) as the man W. famously dubbed "Turd Blossom," you'd think he was a middle-management sales lackey in town to sell Ginsu knives or something. The nondescript gray suit and overcoat, the geeky glasses and bald-on-the-top-with-peach-fuzz do, the briefcase (in middle school, he was the only kid with a briefcase, which pretty much sums it up). In what ways is he cool? We can't help but ask. "None," he says. "I am the antithesis of cool." We should also point out that Rove is exceedingly polite and well-mannered and, at moments, as prickly as the little cactuses on his tie. He has the demeanor of a man who had more power than he'll ever admit but is never really far from the 9-year-old who once got into a schoolyard fight over Richard Nixon, and lost. To a girl.

karl rove: Sorry to be late. I have a lunch with the Big Boss shortly.

gq: The Big Boss?
Mr. Murdoch.

Ah, that big boss. Does that mean you'll be getting more money out of Fox?
No, it doesn't.

Do you like being a TV analyst?
Uh, it's odd. You know, it's weird for me. But it's interesting.

Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced?
I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity.

You also sold a book recently.
I did.

What'd ya get?
A lot.

And you're doing speeches, too, right? I read that you just gave one at Penn—
I like speaking to the college campuses.

And the first question, someone called you a cancer.
Right. Oh, sure.

You must get that all the time.
Uh, I get it some. When I go to campuses. But did you hear what I did? I just let him rant. And when he was finished, he had no question, he just wanted to accuse me of undermining the Constitution and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. And I said, "Thanks for your thoughtful rant." And he sat down. And I said, "Now do you feel better about yourself?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, I want you to feel better about yourself." And everybody laughed, and we went on.

But is it hard when people—
No. No. Look, everywhere I go, people say nice things to me. I don't live for that. I appreciate it, and I'm grateful for their kind words, but I don't live for it. And similarly, when people say ugly things? It doesn't affect me. They want their words to affect me. And as a result, I'm not gonna let 'em.

But when people say, "You've created this climate of fear—"
I laugh.

You laugh?
Yeah. I laugh. Sure. How? What, exactly? I'm not apologetic about what this administration has done. It's protecting America. It has won important battles in a war that we as a nation better win or we will leave the future to our kids, a much darker and dangerous future.

What's the biggest misconception about your role in the Bush White House?
That it was all about politics.

If that's the misconception, what's the overlooked truth?
Look, I'm a policy geek. What I've most enjoyed about my job was the substantive policy discussions. Being able to dig in deeply and, you know, learn about something, ask questions, listen to smart people, and form a judgment about something that was from a policy perspective.

When you look back at your career, especially in the Bush administration, what's the worst thing you did?
I'm not gonna be good at answering that.

But is there anything you feel guilty about? Or wish you did differently?
[exasperated laugh] Off the record?

No! Don't go off the record.
Off the record.

Okay, let's look back, to the very beginning of the Karl Rove story, when you got handed the keys [from Bush the father, to deliver to Bush the son] until now. And you look at where the president's approval ratings are today—
Yeah.

What did you do wrong?
Oh, look, I did a lot of things wrong. But the main thing is, we're fighting an important but unpopular war.

You still think it was the right thing to do?
Absolutely. Absolutely. And you know, one of our biggest mistakes was, the first time Harry Reid got up and said, "You lied and you deliberately misled the country," we should have gone back immediately and hit back hard, and we didn't. We let that story line develop. In reality, you go back and look at what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore—I'd be happy to supply you the quotes—what they said about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

What are you most proud of?
Being part of a group of people I have a great deal of respect and admiration for in service of the country.

If you had to make a bet, can Hillary pull it off?
The odds are long, but improbable things have happened almost every month in this race. She wasn't supposed to win New Hampshire, and she did. So we'll see. You know, she's got a lot of strengths, and he does, too. We got two wellmatched opponents going at each other hammer and tongs. It's fun to watch.

If it's mathematically impossible for either of them to get enough delegates, how will this get resolved?
Somebody can get to a majority, but they're gonna have to get to a majority with superdelegates. Neither of them can win enough delegates to win it on just simply the elected delegates.

So if it comes down to superdelegates, doesn't that become a question of who can be more ruthless?
Well, you know, people will have to decide whether they're going to act as reflectors of the popular vote in their districts or states, or whether they're going to exercise independent judgment. I think this is the big dilemma the Democrats face: Are they going to choose a nominee who essentially is chosen, validated, by a minor aristocracy, by essentially an undemocratic group? Because, look. Does anybody think that Patrick Deval [sic], governor of Massachusetts, and Senator Ted Kennedy are gonna respect the wishes of their home-state crowd and go for Hillary Clinton, who won their state? No.

So how ugly is it gonna get?
Well, I—we don't know. We have geological ages that are gonna pass. It's not that ugly today. The wounds are fresh, but there's plenty of time for them to heal. The question is, will the wounds get deeper and more difficult to heal? We don't know. My gut tells me it happens, but I don't know.

If you could run one of their campaigns, which one would be the dream campaign to run?
Neither one.

Why?
Because I don't believe in what they say.

But just as a strategist, just to get in there and—
Yeah, well, see, for me it's not divorced from who they are and what they're all about and what they would do.

What did you think of the red-phone 3 a.m. ad?
It was a gutsy, dangerous move. She figured out that she had to do something to raise the issue of: Is he fit to be president? And this was a way to do it. I happened to be in Texas a week before the ad popped, and all of her surrogates were hitting him pretty hard on the thinness of his experience. They were pretty brutal. And this ad sort of fed into that.

Isn't that the kind of ad you would have done?
Uh, look, that's the problem. She can't run an ad—you know, the more powerful ads she can't run against him, because she's afraid of looking too moderate. He's got essentially… His argument is twofold. "Vote for me because I'll bring Republicans and Democrats together; we're not red states, blue states, we're the United States." And second of all—and he said this most passionately in the Wisconsin victory speech: "There are big issues facing the country, and it requires leadership and energy to solve them." Well, the two best counters to those are Hillary saying, "I've actually worked with Republicans and Democrats to get things done." Or McCain saying, even more pointedly, "On all the big issues where Republicans and Democrats have come together, I've been in the middle of bringing them together, and you've been way out there on the fringe. When we pulled together the Gang of Fourteen, you were out on the fringe. When we pulled together a bipartisan answer on the terrorist-surveillance program, you were way out there on the fringe. When Democrats and Republicans, regardless of where they were on the war, came together to give our troops everything they needed while they were in combat, you were way out there on the fringe." Now, she can do some of that, because she's actually tried to work with Republicans over the years. He has not since he got there. He's been coolly detached and sitting on the side. His fingerprints are on, at most, a couple of small items. And then, on the leadership issue, she can say, "Look, I've been in the middle of these big battles. I've been providing the leadership. Sometimes we won, sometimes we lost. But at least I've been involved." And McCain will be able to sharpen that even more.

It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic?
I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions.

Do you think Obama would be easier to beat?
I try not to think about those things. Because that inevitably leads you to believe, I would like to have A or I would like to have B. You need to keep your mind open about both of them.

You've said—what was the phrase you used about Hillary? "Fatally flawed"?
Fatally flawed. I just thought her flaws would show up in the general election. I didn't know they'd show up as early and as strong as they have.

Which flaws?
Uh, calculating. You know, she went through the period where she had the calculated laugh, she went through the period where she had the calculated accents, and you build that on top of a person who already has the reputation that anything she says is calculating, you know…

Is calculating a terrible thing?
It is if people think it's phony. And that's what her problem is. That and the sense of entitlement. You know, the sense of "This is mine, I deserve it; we're the Clintons, this is ours." And I think that really caused a lot of people to say, "You know what? It's not yours." And do we really want to go back? The '90s were nice in a lot of respects, but do we really want to go back to all that drama?

There is something ironic about Karl Rove criticizing someone for being calculating.
Right. Look, it's one thing to calculate and say, "What's the best way for me to do this?" It's another thing to say, "What's the best way to do this, even if it means the sacrifice of my fundamental principles?" When she stood up there and said, "I'm in front of an African-American group in Alabama, so let me adopt a phony southern accent!" And when she sat there and said, "You know what? I need to warm myself up, so for the next weeklong period I'm gonna sit there and laugh and cackle at anything that is even remotely funny." You know, when both she and he, who are free traders by instinct, went to Ohio and said, "We're gonna renegotiate NAFTA," when they know that (a) there's no provision to renegotiate NAFTA, and (b) the Canadians and the Mexicans are not gonna want to renegotiate NAFTA, and (c) when both of them understand that trade liberalization, particularly with our neighbors, has been to our economic advantage, who are they kidding?

But when people call you calculating, do you take that as a compliment?
Look, what I'm charged with is, in politics, taking the material that I have to work with—which are the views and values, convictions and principles, of my candidate or client—and charting the best path to victory. That's different than saying, "How am I gonna take a fundamental belief or a reality of me as an individual and discard it?"

So there's good calculating and bad calculating?
Absolutely.

If Hillary pulls it out, will Mark Penn [her chief strategist] be considered a genius?
Mark Penn is a very smart guy regardless of whether or not she pulls it out. He's a very smart guy.

But don't you think there've been a lot of mistakes?
Sure. But if you have to lay them at the feet of one person, you lay them at the feet of the candidate. The candidate sets the tone.

Are you surprised at how Obama exploded?
You know, I want to be careful—I think we need to be careful about not getting carried away with a narrative that doesn't truly exist. Like the story this morning in The New York Times about "the Obamacans"—the Republicans who support Obama.

You don't buy that?
No. Do I buy that there are Republicans who support Obama? Sure, I do. But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it's nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it's three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why. There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who's looking down his nose at 'em. Which he is. That comment where he said, you know, "After 9/11, I didn't wear a flag lapel pin because true patriotism consists of speaking out on the issues, not wearing a flag lapel pin"? Well, to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism. It's a statement of their patriotic love of the country. And for him to sit there and dismiss it as he did—

You're not wearing a flag pin, Karl.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But I respect those who consciously get up in the morning and put a flag lapel pin on.

Do you see the elitist thing in other ways?
Obama is coolly detached and very arrogant. I think he's very smart and knows he's smart, but as a result doesn't do his homework.

So the Dems have two rattled candidates?
Right. Now, you got one candidate who's got an appeal to the blue-collar Democrats: Clinton. I call them the beer drinkers. And then you got the white-wine crowd, which Obama appeals to. There's a brilliant article by Ron Brownstein in the latest issue of National Journal in which he charts the change in the nature of the Democrat-primary vote, and it's becoming younger, more affluent, and more liberal. And that means that blue-collar Democrats, whatever's left of them, are on their way out of the Democratic Party.

What do you make of this whole thing where Hillary was talking him up as a vice president and he came back saying, "Wait a minute, I'm winning—why are you asking me to be your number two?"
Very calculating on the part of the Clintons, and a mistake for him on his part.

Why?
Because they wanted him to get down to their level. They want him to look like, you know, not the golden inspiring figure but instead, you know, like an average ordinary pol who's got three years in the United States Senate. So they lay it out there. And rather than having it be dismissed by a surrogate, instead he goes out there! And rather than having an inspiring, forward-looking message, instead he's out there as an ordinary pol saying, "Hey, I'm number one, I'm in first place! I won more states than she did. I won more delegates than she did. What the hell's she doing offering it to me? That's insulting." And he did it in an arrogant way that I don't think made him look that good.

So you don't think his response played well?
No. Take a look at the footage. Turn the sound off and look at it. You can tell that he is arrogant, and you can tell that he's a little bit angry, and you can tell he's very dismissive. He takes his hands and he sort of, you know, waves his hand like, "I'm dismissing something." That was the moment to say, you know, "Look, I know what my opponents are saying, but you know what? I'm focused on one thing and one thing only, which is to help bring Republicans and Democrats and independents together to move America forward." Instead of "Hey, lemme just remind you, I'm winning! I'm beatin' her!"

So he took the bait?
He took the bait.

Have you gotten to know Hillary or Barack to any degree?
Yes, I have.

What have been your dealings with them?
Well, you know, I used to have her office at the White House. And I got to know [Obama] because we have a mutual friend, Ken Mehlman, who was his law-school classmate at Harvard. And so as a result, whenever in the last three years he's been around at the White House, I've gotten to see him, and we sort of would hang around and chitchat about things. I'm actually in his book. He wrote that "people like Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Ralph Reed, and Karl Rove say we are a Christian nation." And I did not say that. I confronted him about it. At the White House.

And what did he say?
Well, first he denied that I was in the book! And then he denied that it said that I said that it was a Christian nation. And then when I pulled out the thing [he had a copy of the offensive page with him] and showed it to him, he sort of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah- blah-blah. And I thought, That's who he is. I mean, look, he may claim that he's for a different kind of politics, but that was a cheap shot. And I'm not certain if any of the four said it either. But it was like, you know, Let's just strap it in there and see if it goes someplace. Another example: Him saying, "We honor John McCain for his fifty years of service" was a cheap shot. He was going out of his way to say John McCain's old.

Is John McCain too old?
No.

Do you think Obama's gotten a free ride from the press?
Yes.

How so?
I don't think they hold him to the same standards. You know, look, his Web site is full of all kinds of proposals written by academics galore. But he's not required to defend them. He's not required to explain what it is he wants to do. Now I think that's changing. I think, when you have an editorial in USA Today that says, in essence, Where's the beef, what's the substance? When reporters start asking him tough questions about his relationship with Tony Rezko—you know, what was the value of the lot? What was the price that you paid? How many fund-raisers did he do for you? How much money did he raise at those fund-raisers? When they start asking him those questions, then it starts to change. I mean, the kind of questions that have been routinely asked of other candidates—about their background and associations and involvements—have only recently begun to be asked of him.

I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama.
Off the record?

Please don't go off the record.
Off the record… [Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]

Damn! Now say that on the record.
No. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Let's try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him.
Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uh—she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has.

Let's talk about Bill. You've gotten to know him better, right?
Yeah.

What do you think of him now?
He's a very entertaining rogue. He's a larger-than-life character. You can't help but sort of like him. But boy, he has made some missteps in this campaign.

Yeah, what's up with that? He's supposed to be this political genius. What's going on?
He's all wrapped up in it. He's lost his detachment. Sometimes you can be more detached about yourself than you can be about members of your family. He's all revved up about her and making mistakes.

Do you buy any of the pop psychology that there's a part of him that's sabotaging her?
I—I—that is way beyond. I have never… I don't have a couch that anybody could sit down on, and… I don't know, I don't know.

But you were surprised to see how he handled the South Carolina thing?
Well, it may have been calculated, I don't know. Maybe they made a calculated decision that, Hey, we need to send a message that all he can do is win states with African-American voters. But I don't think it played—even among Democrats.

Recently, in a meeting with some people from the Republican National Committee, you said, "Do not use 'Barack Hussein Obama.' "
Right, right. Um, in politics—

Is that because it's not right?
It's wrong. But not only that, it's counterproductive. In politics, there are arguments that are seen as not factual and not fair, or trivial, and they blow up in your face. And this is one that people look at and say, "You're trying to imply something about him that's not true. I think you're going a bridge too far, and I'm reacting negatively." I mean, he didn't pick his middle name, somebody else did. And he doesn't go out of his way, like Hillary Rodham Clinton to, you know, emphasize it.

You probably never thought, eight years ago, that John McCain would be the nominee.
You know what? In politics, second acts are either really bad or really good. And so the question was gonna be, Who might want to succeed Bush? McCain was always a possibility. He's always harbored a desire.

What do you think of him now?
I like him. We bonded in the '04 campaign.

Do you have to hold your nose to vote for him?
No, no, not at all. I enthusiastically voted for him. I just sent in my absentee ballot [in Texas], and I gave him $2,300.

So what's your life like now, Karl? Are you based in Washington still?
We're splitting our time between Washington and a place we have in the panhandle in Florida. And a little place in Texas. We're looking to be in Texas more permanently starting this fall. We've enjoyed Washington, but look, I don't wanna be like… I got a guy, lives around the corner from us in Washington, who had a prominent role for six months in the Reagan administration, and he's still living off of it twenty-some-odd years later. I don't intend to do that.

What do you intend to do?
I'm trying to figure that out. I've got a couple years between the book and the speeches and Fox and my Newsweek column and my writing for the Wall Street Journal and some things I'm doing in politics under the radar.

What do you do for kicks?
I read and go hunting. And travel with my wife.

Tell us about your wife.
She's a terrific, courageous person.

Is it hard being married to you?
Uh, I don't think it's hard being married to me. I think it's hard being married in public with me.

Let's talk about the last couple of scandals you've been involved in. Don Siegelman in Alabama [the Democratic governor whom Rove was recently accused of trying to sabotage by forcing U.S. attorneys to bring corruption charges against him prior to an election]. What happened?
[rolls his eyes] Will you do me a favor and go on Power Line and Google "Dana Jill Simpson" [the Republican lawyer who told 60 Minutes that Rove asked her to take a picture of Governor Siegelman cheating on his wife]? She's a complete lunatic. I've never met this woman. This woman was not involved in any campaign in which I was involved. I have yet to find anybody who knows her. And what the media has done on this… No one has read the 143-page deposition that she gave congressional investigators—143 pages. When she shows up to give her explanation of all this, do you know how many times my name appears? Zero times. Nobody checked!

Then how did this happen?
Because CBS is a shoddy operation. They said, "Hey, if we can say 'Karl Rove,' 'Siegelman,' that'll be good for ratings. Let's hype it. We'll put out a news release on Thursday and then promo the hell out of it on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday." And Scott Pelley—the question is, Did [60 Minutes correspondent] Scott Pelley say to this woman, "You say you met with him. Where? And you say that he gave you other assignments earlier. When did he begin giving you assignments, and what campaigns did you work with him in? What evidence? I mean, this woman, she said she met with him: Okay, you met with him—where? Did you fly to Washington?" Now she says that she talked to me on the phone and she's got phone records. Of calls to Washington and Virginia. But what's Virginia? I don't live in Virginia. And it's 2001. What is in Virginia? It's not the Bush headquarters; that was in Austin, Texas. What is in Virginia? So—but look, she's a loon.

What about the U.S. attorneys? Should you have had a role in hiring and firing?
[a little peeved now] What was my role in firing those U.S. attorneys?

Your position has been—and tell me if I have this wrong—that you basically relayed complaints?
To the counsel's office. Correct.

And that was an appropriate thing to do?
Oh sure. Sure it is. Sure it is.

What's your relationship with the president now?
Good. Really good.

Do you talk a lot?
Yeah.

Did you know that Laura called you Pigpen?
Yeah. [laughs] Laura Bush intimidates me. All the Bushes—well, most of the Bush men marry incredibly strong women, and they all intimidate me. Barbara Bush I've lived in fear of for thirty-seven years.

What's your goal with this book? You intend to set the record straight, as you see it?
Absolutely, absolutely. Sure. You bet. I intend to set the record straight.

I imagine you're going to have a lot to say.
Yeah, exactly. Available soon for $29.95…. I gotta go! I gotta go!

Wait, quickly: Do you believe Roger Clemens?
Um, yes, I do.

If he gets nailed on perjury charges, is that the kind of guy Bush might pardon?
I'm sorry?

Do you think if he got nailed, that would be the type of person Bush would pardon?
I'm not gonna answer that. I mean, he's done nothing wrong.

Should Scooter Libby be pardoned?
I'm not gonna answer that. Just not. Just not. But thanks for asking.

lisa depaulo is a GQ correspondent.

Comments

he left out certain key items - Rove and Bush get the award for the greatest and most lies ever told the American Public

Kudos once again to GQ and Lisa DePaulo for another fun and fascinating interview. Never thought this 40-something white Republican chick would be spending so much time around this place.

Lisa managed to capture a good chunk of the real Karl Rove. And though I've long been his admirer, I like him even better now as a person. I was not one who thought he'd be a good TV pundit, but boy was I wrong. FoxNews should be extremely grateful... Rove has saved its Prime Time bacon. Most nights beginning with O'Reilly, I keep it on with the sound muted, and only tune in when Rove appears.

Love the little tidbit about Obama's book, and how Obama choked and prattled on when confronted. Also love Rove's "off the record" redaction about who Rove respects more -- Clinton or Obama. Obviously, it's Clinton and I cannot believe I am about to agree with him about that. But I do, robustly.

So now I'm reading GQ *and* sticking up for Hillary Clinton. Will wonders never cease.

bobby - grow up dude. Take some pills or see a shrink or something. If you believe your crap you are mentally ill.

I actually like Karl Rove and I think he's a political genius. BUT your reporter nailed him at the very end of the interview when she asked whether he believes Roger Clemens, and he answered that he did. Anyone who believes Roger Clemens given the evidence we have is either daft (which Rove definitely is not) or willing to say anything for one of his guys.

Lisa- you are an outstanding interviewer.

Bobby - Put one lie up and support your contention that it was a lie. First, check the definition of the word "lie".

he left out certain key items - Rove and Bush get the award for the greatest and most lies ever told the American Public

bobbyvee
Apr 2, 2008 1:41:41 PM

Dzib - people like Bobby voted for Bill Clinton and now have to play the transference game because of their guilt for voting for someone who lied more than he told the truth.

And Bobby - unlike you I can substantiate my claims. Would you like me to? I guess that all depends on what the meaning of 'like' is, eh?

Hey Bobby stop drinking so much spiked cool-aid. Your comment about the most lies told by Bush and Rove. Prove it--words are cheap that's why the Clinton's were so good at it. They would throw things out and hope something sticks. Remember Hillary's claim of "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Now, she's stepping back from her belief (shared by hubby Bill--there are papers to prove this--go check) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, add to this her "war zone" dodging bullets lie and her going along with Bill on conjuring up lies about the travel agents (who were later exonerated)just because they wouldn't step down and she and Bill wanted their own people in there. Add to that Whitewater, pretending she did nothing wrong and all those accusations against the women for being liars. It turns out Hillary was the one lying (she always knew of her husband's affairs) but couldn't stomach what it could do to her political career so she went after them. We still have yet to find out what really happened in the death of Vince Foster---so please Bobby go drink your cool-aid and go back to bed. I may not like Obama (he's essentially an empty suit), but at least for his supporters he will be the change that people say they need. Finally, one caveat to "change"--be careful what you wish for-you just might get it". Of course, as so often happens, it's worse than what just left the White House.

I'm sorry, but you let Rove get away with lie after lie, failing to press him on the fact that his grubby hands were all over the US attorney scandal -- something attested to by both Republican and Democratic attorneys -- and the Siegelman case. Instead he smears an innocent woman and tries to blame the right's favorite boogeyman, CBS. Rove's first lie -- Simpson had never made these allegations before. Fact: Simpson made the same allegations to reporters as early as last July. Rove's attorney then lied and said CBS never contacted him. Fact: Rove spoke with CBS, then refused them permission to go on the air with his comments.

Furthermore, his insights on the Democratic race are worthless. This man's entire career is hinging upon Obama losing the presidency, so he cannot be trusted as an objective observer. After all, if by 2008 he turned a "permanent Republican majority" into Democratic control of the House and Senate (possibly filibuster-proof), with a black Democrat in the White House, Karl Rove will go down in GOP circles as the most myopic, disastrous political adviser in history. To the left, he'll become an unwitting hero.

For you dead-enders who still maintain that we have not been lied to by these criminals, why not start backwards with his latest claim -- Congress pushed Bush to make a decision on the war prematurely. This lie was refuted by his own buddy, Andy Card. The White House wanted a war vote before mid-terms, because with Rove, everything is political. Nevermind that we had no plans for an occupation.

Rove is truly a sociopath.

Great interview. One of the most puerile characteristics of the left is their insipid, knee jerk reaction to the publication of any views that conflict with their own spoon fed pablum: "Bush Lied", "Rove is the devil", "Bush and his administration is the worst in history". Stay in the friendly confines of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post echo chambers if you can't tolerate varying points of view. There you can cover your ears, chant "LA LA LA LA LA" and pretend the rest of the country agrees with you. I'm sure that GQ will run plenty of puff on Obama and endorse him when the time comes but at least they have the balls to do some objective journalism. The inevitable infantile and hyperventilating whining which will no doubt fill this board should be seen for what it is: the closed minded ranting of the least informed of us all.

If we continue messing about in Iraq and do not concentrate our efforts in Afghanistan (and Pakistan too if necessary) to kill OBL and the remaining Taliban and al Qaida who were actually, as opposed to fictionally, responsible for 9/11, we lose the war on terror. Why? Doing in essence nothing to root them out gives the bad guys a permanent operations base, apparently sheltered by Pakistan's sovereignty and perhaps also its tiny nuclear umbrella. Until and unless we finish the real job over there, Bush's 2001 warning to nations contemplating hosting terrorists planning to attack us (i.e. that we will bring justice to them) is a paper tiger. Obama, unlike Bush/Rove/Cheney/etc., has the wisdom to see this, and that's why he said he would unilaterally launch military operations inside Pakistan if necessary. We will get, and deserve to get, more of the same from McCain and whatever future incarnations of Bush follow him, if we do not say enough.

Well, this sells me 100% on Obama.

When Karl Rove who is the biggest liar, the mastermind behind the global failure called the Bush Admin, the destroyer of America's middle class, hints that he favors Clinton...

This article sucked with all the "off the record" comments, but thanks Karl Rove for making me finally choose a candidate.

Karl Rove,

Does it feel good to lie?

It's interesting to see all the liberals, who sign in under false users names and support candidates for president who have been truth challenged at best, chanting liar, liar at Rove.

I'm generally a Rove fan and found the interview interesting despite the interviewer's snide cattiness.

I do, however, agree with the earlier comment that the statement about Clemens is disturbing and needs some explaining. There is obviousle some Clemens-Bush connection that leads to both this comment and the Republicans' performance at the hearings. Rove and the Bushes should come right out and say what the connection is(I assume it comes from GW's baseball involvement, but maybe not) and admit it makes them biased regarding the accusations against the Clemens.

pressgirl,

It feels fucking fantastic.

Your friend,

Karl

Did y'all not read the interview? Can you not see that Rove is as normal a person as any successful political adviser? I would venture to say he is less so.
Rove is so outrageously over-hyped. He is a political and campaign adviser, and handled many of Bush's domestic decisions. Such is the case, to assume that he had a heavy hand in foreign affairs is just silly.

HA Ha. To all those who are convinced Rove/Bush are evil genuises who are also total retards - I recommend you watch the skit of Phil Hartman portraying a maniacally smart Ronald Reagan - who only "pretends" to be an avuncular dummy in public but who masterminds complex conspiracies and speaks multiple languages to foreign leaders in private. So which is it? Because they do seem to be mutually exclusive characterizations.

When Lisa asks Rove about the Gov. Siegelman/Dana Simpson "scandal" ginned up recently by 60 Minutes, Rove references an article written by a lawyer at Powerline blog. Indeed it is very well done and utterly devastating. Apparently Dan Rather's fabrications embodied the rule at CBS, not an exception. Read it here:

DISSECTING THE 60 MINUTES SCANDAL
http://tinyurl.com/226a38

A few of the comments here are composed mainly of "Bush/Rove lied" and just a general 'horror' that someone dared speak to Karl Rove, lest his Evil Karma rub-off on her. To them I say: *CHILL*, get a sense of humor -- just read the article (I hope you are open-minded enough to read the article, and not post a negative comment just because it's about a person you "don't like") as a fun piece, if his opinions don't match yours then (surprise!) you're both in the right.

Sorry Sally, I'm sure "Powerline" is usually a well-respected source of information, but there are several falsehoods in this account. Despite its claim (and Rove's) that Simpson never before made these allegations, a claim aimed at undermining her story as a recent fabrication, Scott Horton at Harper's spoke with Simpson last summer. At this time, she made the same exact allegations she makes now - Rove wanted her to get the goods on Siegelman. The only question is how will Rove undermine her credibility now? As far as I know, she's not married to a CIA agent, so that old trick won't fly. I guess blocking the broadcast of the 60 minutes piece in Alabama was the best his old friends could do.

Funny, none of the apologists have been able to explain Rove's recent lie, debunked by Andy Card (and any account at the time) that it was the Democrats in Congress, not Bush, who rushed into war without a plan.

Fantastic JOURNALSIM! Sad to say (as a former Journalism student) that it is RARE to see real Journalism anymore. Instead, the mainstream media prefers to launch opinion pieces at us every day, proving the rule: "Most people don't think about what they think about." And if you go through life like that -- you deserve what you get.

settembrini, you appear to be sowing disiniformation. What evidence do you have that Simpson had made the later allegations referre to by Powerline at the time she first recounted her story? Reviewing all of Horton's posts at Harpers there is no evidence for this whatsoever. I assume you are referring to a post dated February 27, 2008 where Horton states: "So the accusation that the charges were dribbled out is a lie. The statement concerning Rove was on tape and in an editing room within a matter of a few weeks after this case first broke in the press." But the rest of the paragraph makes it clear Horton is referring to "one single statement in [Simpson's] affidavit", i.e. that she heard "Karl" (which she assumed meant Rove) was involved. This is not at all the later allegation debunked by Powerline (that Simpson was some sort of political operative for Rove). If there are "several falsehoods" in any account, it appears to be yours, rather than Powerline's.

Karl Rove is the Freakin' Bomb!!! You know how I know?? Because liberals hate him...

Also, if (as Horton says) the CBS story took five months to come out, and was aired in late February 2008, this is not at all inconsistent with Powerline's analysis that Simpson's allegations probably date from September 2007, not from the date of her original affidavit (which made mention of Rove without any allegation of a personal connection whatsoever).

Rove is unquestionably an intelligent guy, perhaps a savant when it comes to politics. Reading this it's easy to see why the Bush administration was able to persuade reporters to not follow their instincts and remain skeptical.

That said, Rove complaining that Obama is inexperienced is chutzpah. Isn't Rove the guy to took a silver spoon legacy, C-student, multiple business failure, part-time governor with no international experience and promoted him as western civilization's gift to god? Isn't Rove the guy who was put in charge of Katrina rebuilding and literally disappeared, aside from seeing that billions were steered to certain politically connected contractors?

I have no doubt he'd be a great interview, a wonderful poli-sci professor, a superb pundit, and more entertaining to spend 6 hours with in the Pittsburg airport than his former boss or coworkers. But in all my reading about Rove he is without question a sociopath. I see no evidence of a conscience. I see no evidence that he actually cares how his policies improve the lives of people. If he truly, and I mean at his core, believed the nation was at risk of terrorism, he sure went of his way to demonize other Americans rather than get us to join together. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri walk the earth today because Rove made it politically acceptable to change the focus from Tora Bora to Iraq. And for that last reason, I condemn him.

click to post a comment >
GQ Editor's Blog
join now: post a comment close reglite module
To post a comment, simply fill in the fields below and click "submit comment." To get full access to Men.Style.com's special features & community, join now >
JOIN NOW:POST A COMMENT
All fields required.








Please send occasional e-mail updates about new features and special offers from Men.Style.com
Yes   No


I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its User Agreement and Privacy Policy

submit
sign in: post a comment close sign in and comment module
To post a comment, simply enter your comment with username and password and click "Submit Comment." Not a member? join now >
  • Comment is required.

  • We're sorry, but we could not accept your request. Please try resubmitting your information.
    SIGN IN: POST A COMMENT
    remember me next time

    submit
    not a member click to join now
    already a member click to sign in now
    click here to close
    SUBMIT