From Jake, it looks like Newsweek is looking for a new low in standards, publishing a concern troll piece by Karl Rove that’s probably best taken as a list of things for Barack Obama not to do in proper concern troll style. It’s sickening the way Rove is treated by the mainstream media—he should be received by decent people as if Jeffrey Dahmer walked into a room, but instead, he’s treated like a prince. All for his “brilliant” ability to be meaner and more soulless than even most Republicans. (At least in terms of political operatives. Surely those who run death squads and mercenary firms are even worse, though it might just be that Rove is incompetent at that kind of evil instead of unwilling.) But I suppose for the mainstream media, he’s a godsend, since he represents this sort of formal permission to replace legitimate analysis with shit-flinging and bullying. The country thanks this patriot for making all of us collectively stupider. In Rove’s America, there’s no more room for talking about issues that matter, and everything is potshots, innuendo, fear-mongering, and the favorite tactic of the right—”where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. (I was interviewed in the Austin-American Statesman, where I talk some about this in light of the Catholic League assault on myself and Melissa McEwan.) Mainstream media’s got to love him for making room for simple-minded bullying to become the prominent form of discourse. Maureen Dowd probably sleeps with a picture of him under her pillow.
This piece is a really shining example of how Rove’s moronic impulses are why he’s loved. Even the dumbest internet denizens would realize that this is very silly concern trolling. Right off the bat, he pushes the “elitist” slur, which sadly is so stupid it will probably take in the media, because black is white and up is down and the people who are fighting for greater justice and equality are more elitist than those who try to lift up the rich and stomp down everyone else.
But the real weak sauce, the demonstration that he’s just throwing shit against the wall to see what will stick, is in the list:
1. Your stump speech is sounding old and out of touch.
Translation: Your stump speech is a stump speech! Ooooh, burn. That’s what the wonder boy of Republican politics can come up with. Next, he’s going to whine that Obama wears a tie, a clear demonstration that he’s a follower and not a creative mastermind of innovative fashion.
Then he hammers at the Reverend Wright pseudo-scandal some, which fits into his “brilliant” strategy of exploiting bigotry that has been his main strategy from the get-go. But what really amuses me about Rove is that he is clearly someone who has read “The Art of War” and thinks that makes him a mastermind of psychological jiu-jitsu, but actually he’s just kind of simple-minded. For instance, his idea of attacking an opponent’s strengths amounts basically to lying about those strengths and concern trolling in a really obvious manner. On the first:
3. Your lack of achievements undercuts your core themes.
Rove (and Clinton, sadly) correctly realizes that Obama is an extremely accomplished man, with a long career battling it out in some of the most hair-raising political environments. Therefore you attack this strength, but apparently just by saying, “Nuh-uh! No takebacks!” Sun Tzu would not be impressed, especially since such blatant lies aren’t so much clever as relying on a lazy media that doesn’t fact check.
But the concern trolling is awesome.
It’s counterintuitive, but spend less time campaigning and more time working the Senate.
Rove says this knowing that Obama’s managed to come this far on the strength of his willingness to shake every hand under the sun. The media treated Clinton like an inevitability early on, and so Obama had to get out there and give people a chance to see him in action to get votes. This advice is equivalent to a concern troll showing up on your blog and saying, “Wouldn’t you be more persuasive if you shut the fuck up and closed down your blog? I’m only saying this out of love.” Remember: Rove is supposed to be a brilliant tactician, and yet he’s stupid enough to think anyone would take this advice seriously.
23 Responses to “Karl Rove: Concern Troll”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I too am concerned that Obama’s stump speech is sounding old and out of touch. Indeed, I’m getting the sense that Obama himself is getting old and out of touch. He’s really so two months ago, when you think about it. That’s why I’ve decided to support the exciting, fresh, new kid on the block, the one who promises a clean break with the tired slogans of the past — John McCain.
“Remember: Rove is supposed to be a brilliant tactician, and yet he’s stupid enough to think anyone would take this advice seriously.”
There is at least ONE group who take Rove’s advice seriously: The McCainiacs.
Of course, they’re not listening to his “advice” to Obama - you’re right, nobody takes that seriously. Rove is giving them an entirely different kind of advice, which is why this election year is going to be one for the textbooks.
I really hate to think it, but this year looks more and more like 1968 every day…
Gee, who can the Democrats get to write the “Dear Karl Rove” letter?
Anybody know a Democratic pit bull who can type?
Frankly, I’ve seen very little evidence for Rove’s purported ‘genius’. From his conduct and strategies, he always seemed more ruthless than smart - I mean, how clever do you really have to be to engage in that kind of blatant lying and primitive mudslinging? Now, if he were to actually give a coherent, intelligent argument for the positions of the candidates he supports, that would be impressive.
Since, y’know, that would be impossible.
Rove’s “genius” is simple. While every political operative knows that the press can be manipulated, Rove figured out the magic balance of intimidation, manipulation and ego-stroking needed to completely geld the press corp.
People in his line of work consider that an act of genius. Future generation, I suspect, will have a much dimmer view.
One of the key insights of Barbara Tuchmann’s The March of Folly is that many of history’s worst mistakes were done by people who were doing the right things for their careers and to gain advantage over their peers. Even when they fail their society massively, they often succeed at elevating themselves.
It’s counterintuitive, but spend less time campaigning and more time working the Senate.
Wait.
What?
In order for Obama to successfully be elected president in one of the craziest elections in a century, he should stop campaigning and go back to just being a senator, in hopes that potential supporters will do the work of researching who he is, what he stands for, and how he’s different from his opponent?
I’m not sure whether that’s, like, pro-level concern trolling, or just really, really transparently ridiculous.
Or maybe he really meant to address this to Clinton but got confused? Because if there’s anyone who needs to go pay some attention to their actual job, it’s her.
“…he should stop campaigning and go back to just being a senator…”
I think it’s to further emphasis the meme that he doesn’t have enough experience, so he hasn’t “earned the right” to campaign instead of “do his job”. It’s yet another dog-whistle.
It’s not about getting people to vote for McCain, it’s getting them to vote against Obama…
THAT’S considered ‘genius’? *scoff* Any mediocre hack could come up with that tripe.
Rove’s such a genius that the GOP is facing a great number of years in the wilderness. Where was this alleged ‘genius’ in 2006 when the GOP got their butts handed to them (apart from Ahnold, nearly all of them lost)? And now he hops from interview to interview like he’s some sort of kingmaker. Bush got ‘reelected’, but was an inept lame duck for his entire second term. Social Security Privatization? Nope. Immigration Reform? Nope. Federal Gay Marriage Amendment? Nope. FISA gutting? Nope (not yet, anyway). He got his middle and lower-class hating SCOTUS justices, but that’s it.
Genius my ass.
It really is infuriating to see this vile person that lacks all decency slither from interview to interview instilling his wisdom and imploring people to listen to him as if he’s some sort of omnipotent kingmaker.
Rove: Listen to me, you wretched peons. I know everything.
It’s as if he didn’t realize that his strategies LOST in 2006 and are still LOSING now. His ‘math’ continues to tell him otherwise.
Karl Rove is just another has-been. If the last couple elections have taught us anything at all, it’s that the shelf-life of “brilliant” campaign managers and consultants is very, very short. This is probably because, 9 times out of 10, their genius consists entirely of figuring out how to be a huge asshole in a new way, and pretty soon there’s a new generation of even more creative assholes who’ve already learned all their tricks.
Right off the bat, he pushes the “elitist” slur, which sadly is so stupid it will probably take in the media, because black is white and up is down and the people who are fighting for greater justice and equality are more elitist than those who try to lift up the rich and stomp down everyone else.
Agreed. Though, I always thought there was something subliminal going on with the “elitist” slur. IMHO, “elitist” is a racist code word for “uppity”. The type of people who this would work on (i.e Republicans and some racist independents) are exactly the type of people who would respond to this and think: “oh, hell no, I’m not going to let some black man tell me what’s what”.
About the Rove piece: It would behoove the Democrats to do the exact opposite of everything on the list if it is to believed Rove is some sort of Machiavellian maestro.
“IMHO, “elitist” is a racist code word for “uppity”.”
Yep. “He thinks he’s better’n us. I’ve been gettin’ that from smartass college kids all my life. And I don’t have to take it!…”
…and another vote gets cast for Bushworld, Part 3…
Shorter Rove: Drop out of the race and spend your time advancing Republican legislation in the Senate.
Rove, like all the other right-wing concern trolls that have penned similar advice columns to Democratic candidates in recent months, can’t honestly expect their advice to be followed, can they? Are they really that delusional. These type of “advice” columns seem like they’re targeted at Wingnuttia, giving them talking points to use against the Democratic candidate. Furthermore, why do the various media outlets pay money for such crap? Rove and his cohorts ought to be paying to have their crap printed.
I can’t imaging the Obama campaign doing anything other than laughing their asses off over Rove’s column.
IMHO, “elitist” is a racist code word for “uppity”
On the other hand, they did the same thing to Kerry, a white man. I think at this point it’s just a standard tactic of the Right. Because everyone knows that all Republicans are salt-of-the earth types you’d want to have a beer with, whereas all Democrats are pinot noir swilling urbanites.
The most hilarious (and/or scary) thing about tarring Obama with that brush is just that it’s so not true that they have to really strain to come up with anything. He didn’t order coffee at the diner! He can’t bowl for shit! I mean, at least with Kerry there was the windsurfing angle.
Oh, I forgot my favorite “Obama’s an elitist!” smear — apparently because he’s from Hawaii, that makes him some sort of jetsetting blueblood on a permanent tropical vacation in his families summer home in Maui, or whatever.
On the other hand, they did the same thing to Kerry, a white man.
True, true, that’s a good point. But Kerry (and we can quibble over the exact details) was sort of a privileged East Coast blue blood who came from old money and married into a helluva a lot more money. Even though I disagree with labeling him an elitist, you can’t argue with the fact that he did grow up with a lot of privileges and his upbringing is in sharp contrast to Obama’s. So, in this regard, labeling Kerry an elitist is a bit different than labeling Obama an elitist. The “elitism” label isn’t quite the same in both instances. In fact, the whole elitism slur came about when Obama made a comment about bitter, rural, white voters. He was labeled an elitist because it was perceived that he was treading on ground he had no business treading on — hence, he was acting out of place and being “uppity”.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Bill Clinton being labeled an elitist despite the fact he did champion the cause of the underprivileged during his campaigns. I’m not saying he followed through with those causes during his presidency or anything, but he certainly wasn’t labeled an elitist for talking about issues concerning underprivileged. In fact, given his Southern accent and humble roots, the label foisted on him was “trailer trash”.
Apropos of what Will said above - Rove has done the smart thing by going into the private sphere in this election. This is when all the turkeys come home to roost for the GOP, thanks almost entirely to the Rove/Delay strategies of the past eight years. They’ll take a beating, and Rove will quietly point out that the beating came on someone else’s watch, lying the blame for the blowback from his own policies on someone else. I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if he’s maneuvering to ensure the blame falls on his strongest competitor. After the smoke clears, he can step back in as the savior of the party.
“Maureen Dowd probably sleeps with a picture of him under her pillow.”
Oh, no. No no no no no no no. Even MoDo ain’t goin’ there.
But Kerry (and we can quibble over the exact details) was sort of a privileged East Coast blue blood who came from old money and married into a helluva a lot more money.
Tis true. What I’m wondering is whether it worked so well for Kerry and others that the right is trying it on Obama to see if it’ll stick, or whether you’re right and there’s something more. Either way, it definitely plays into white people’s racial insecurities. I’d also guess that Obama’s race means that his actual behavior has to rate much lower on the ‘elitist’ scale to be counted as elitism. I mean, really, who is Obama to be able to afford waffles*! Elitist! Shouldn’t he be eating government cheese or ramen noodles or something?
* WTF is all this waffles stuff about, anyway? Baffles the mind…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Bill Clinton being labeled an elitist
I don’t know - I was too young at the time to be aware of the nuances. Though I overheard something to the opposite effect on some Sunday morning punditry show this morning. Something about Bill having to prove his working class cred early on in the ‘92 election. Clinton also had such a classically dirt-poor childhood that it would have been extremely difficult to brand him elitist.
In contrast, Obama is the son of an academic and a political wonk, grew up in Hawaii, and was able to get scholarship access to a world class education (including an undergrad stint in the Ivies). It’s much easier for the right to paint him as elite to the unwashed and ignorant masses who can only picture non-elitism if it comes in the form of a housing project, one-room shack, or trailer park.
It’s much easier for the right to paint him as elite to the unwashed and ignorant masses who can only picture non-elitism if it comes in the form of a housing project, one-room shack, or trailer park.
Yeah, I can see that. I’d also like to add: Republicans are extremely adept at labeling their opponents in order to “other” them. For all their bluster over the use of identity politics, they certainly engage in them in the most malevolent way. The labels “elitist” or “trailer trash” are thrown about for one purpose only: to communicate to the base that Democrats are Not Like Us.
Yeah, and of course so much of it is based on othering buzzwords, like “windsurfing” vs “clearing brush”. There’s no pause to look at the nuances of who someone actually is. Not that I think we should be branding people elitist either way; considering the fact that approximately every single US president so far has had many years within the elite before running for the office, it’s not like it’s actually meaningful. Which is, I think, what the whole farce is meant to hide. Sure, both Obama and Clinton had modest childhoods. But they also both have decades of wealth behind them.
It’s not like we’re choosing between Mr. Burns and Homer Simpson, here.
Waffles?
“Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”
Stupid.