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
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.











he left out certain key items - Rove and Bush get the award for the greatest and most lies ever told the American Public
bobbyvee
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
SallyVee
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
bobby - grow up dude. Take some pills or see a shrink or something. If you believe your crap you are mentally ill.
McTex
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
Steve1964
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
Lisa- you are an outstanding interviewer.
koolidge
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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?
McTex
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
sharonann
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
settembrini
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
RickMV
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
ToastOnDayOne
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
rheajack
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
Karl Rove,
Does it feel good to lie?
pressgirl
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
NormFrink
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
pressgirl,
It feels fucking fantastic.
Your friend,
Karl
hippyleftist
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
treyevans
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
Californio
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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
SallyVee
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
ford67ponyfb
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
settembrini
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
jmwilson57
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
rickw
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
Karl Rove is the Freakin' Bomb!!! You know how I know?? Because liberals hate him...
The_Final_Word
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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).
rickw
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>
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.
National_Insecurity
<$MTCommentDate %B %e %Y$>