Rove Revels in Democrat Kerry's Lead

[Emillereid]

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 18, 2004; Page A15

By early February 2004, White House political adviser Karl Rove could see that Iraq was turning into a potential negative. The violence on the ground continued. The U.S. military had more than 100,000 troops there and would require that many or more for some time. American soldiers were being killed at too high a rate, and the administration hadn't reached a political settlement. Turning the government over to the Iraqis looked shaky. The failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, and President Bush's and CIA Director George J. Tenet's public acknowledgments that the intelligence might have been wrong, were potentially big setbacks.




Previously, Rove had claimed he was salivating that the Democrats would nominate former Vermont governor Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential race. But Dean had imploded and Sen. John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, had won 12 of the first 14 Democratic primary contests and appeared to be headed for the nomination. Politics is a game of recovery, adaptability and optimism. So Rove had a new line.




"The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee," Rove now argued to an associate in his second-floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq war could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. "One of Dean's strengths, though, was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there." But Kerry was very much a part of the Washington crowd, and he had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove got out his two-inch-thick, loose-leaf binder titled "Bring It On." It consisted of research into Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate. Most relevant were pages 9 to 20 of the section on Iraq.




The record was that Kerry had been all over the map. Sounding like a method actor who believes his lines, Rove offered some readings from the Kerry record. ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19692-2004Apr17.html

I think this article pretty much sums up my fears about Kerry being our candidate -- he has a record a mile long of that Rove can exploit. Kerry has, and keeps trying to have, it every which way on the Iraq war -- God, I wish he had the spine to stand up and say: "The Iraq war was wrong and as President I will get American forces and corporations out of there, pay reparations for the tremendous damage inflicted on that all but defenseless country and leave Iraqi history to the Iraqi people. Yes, I voted for the IWR for a lot of complicated reasons, but I now see that it was a mistake to give war authority to this imbecile President and I regret it. But may history judge me kindly if as President I do everything in my power to undo all the damage that Bush and his gang have done." Now that would be a candidate I could vote and work for!

[AP]

1. He's trying to sow the seeds of 'buyer's remorse' among Democrats.

Kerry is a way better nominee than Dean, regardless of circumstances.

[w13rd0]

3. That remains to be seen...

...but Kerry has my vote, so you can wax all jubilant...

[alittlelark]

15. He has my vote too.

And after his masterful (-Israel)performance I understand why Rove would be shakin' in his boots

NEXT STOP - War Crimes Tribunal (If Kerry signs on to it)

[Walt Starr]

32. Kerry no longer has my vote sewn up.

The war is my #1 issue and Kerry has not a whit of difference in his approach to Iraq from Bush.

Because of his, I am an undecided voter in 2004 and am waiting to see for whom I will cast my vote.

[sangh0]

36. "no longer"??

You say that as if you once were a strong supporter

[Walt Starr]

38. I was once ABB

and Kerry had my vote sewn up as the "not-Bush".

I no longer see Kerry being the "not-Bush". In fact, in some ways he seems far Bushier than Bush.

[sangh0]

51. I see, he had your vote "sewn up"

but not "sewn up" enough for you to end up voting for him.

I believe ya!

[Vinceklortho]

40. You have to realize, sangh*

that many of us lefties (I refuse to call myself a Democrat - I'm a socialist) does not like what Kerry has been portraying thus far.

I think you need to begin thinking about the following especially from Kerry's MTP appearance last week:

* Right of return for Palenstians refused
* Agree with Bush on Sharon policy
* Condemning the Spanish PM on the troop withdrawal.

Thusly, agreeing with Bush in all current issues. That'll go well in the presidential debates.

Doesn't smell like a true Democrat to me. He's gone too far to the right.

VinceK

[sangh0]

52. I understand *that*. What I don't understand

is how a vote that is "sewn up" for Kerry, can end up going to someone else.

* Right of return for Palenstians refused
* Agree with Bush on Sharon policy
* Condemning the Spanish PM on the troop withdrawal.

...Doesn't smell like a true Democrat to me.

Nearly all of the Democrats (including Democratic voters) agree with Kerry. Since when does YOUR opinions count as the "true Democrat" positions?

[qanda]

60. lefties (I refuse to call myself a Democrat - I'm a socialist)

This is the exact same thing somebody else new said. I mean to the letter. That is strange-- I mean, very strange.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Would you ever vote for Junior?...

And if so, why?

[Vinceklortho]

43. No.

I'm going to write in Howard Dean. That's my intent. If we Deaniacs show that the support in November is strong, then the Hillary '08 idea will be stomped to death, leading the way for a true Deanocrat victory.

VinceK.

[Walt Starr]

44. Yes, under certain conditions I would vote for Junior.

If LaRouche were the Democratic nominee, I would vote for Junior.

If the constitution had been amended to allow foreign born people who later became citizens to run and a foreign born Democrat was on the ballot against Bush, I would vote Bush.

With a Kerry v. Bush race this year, I am undecided between Kerry and voting third party, casting no vote, or writing in somebody.

[saskatoon]

47. your decision doesn't really make sense to me

It's between the 2 of them and it boils down to "the lesser of two evils" if you will.

[Walt Starr]

50. I don't see it as "the lesser of two evils"

Every day it becomes nothing more than Evil-Dee and Evil-Dum.

there is not a whit of difference between Evil-Dee and Evil-Dum on the issues that matter most to me.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RummyTheDummy]

57. Hey Walt, you live in Illinois right?

In that case, we don't need your vote.

[Vinceklortho]

39. Well, I'm a Deaniac

and I'll tell you, I am still for Howard Dean, and he has earned my write-in vote in November.

I will not be voting for another Skullsman. Sorry about that.

VinceK

[saskatoon]

48. Know what you mean

but if we all did that, then the Rep. would win the Presidency wouldn't they?

[King of New Orleans]

2. Oh boo freakin hoo

Go sit in a corner quivering in fear of Rove.

You can't undo the damage Bush has done anyway, you've got to pick up the pieces.

[wtmusic]

4. Dean had strong advantages

but weaknesses as well.

They are both Winston Churchill compared to *.

[mouse7]

22. All 10 original candidates were Churchill compared to *

Run through the list... Graham, Gephardt, Clark, Moseley-Braun, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards, Lieberman, and Kerry... all look like Nobel Prize Winners among grade school children in comparison to the neo-cons.

[Libertarialoon]

33. Churchill

You'd be well-advised not to compare anyone you admire to Churchill. Certainly, he was a brilliant orator, but he was a bloodthirsty warmonger above all else. He was largely responsible for drawing America into World War I (a calamitous decision for the world), he advocated using poison gas on the Kurds, he was the architect for the fire-bombings of German cities that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and he espoused admiration for Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin at different occasions in his life. He is closer to the paradigm of neoconservatism than many current neocons. Just because he opposed Hitler doesn't mean he wasn't a war criminal himself.

[daleo]

56. I can't agree with some of that

By 1917 he was pretty much in disgrace, so I don't see how he could have drawn the U.S. into the war - the Zimmerman telegraph, the Lusitania, and perhaps a nascent desire for a bigger role in the world are more credible causes. Churchill certainly didn't mind seeing the U.S. come into WWII in 1941 however. Whether he was largely responsible for that decision is debatable - other people deserve some of the credit.

On the other hand he was not averse to terror bombing a la Dresden (although there was no shortage of U.S. leaders who agreed with him). He also advocated the use of gas warfare to suppress uprisings in the Middle East.

He was with the Liberal party for a while and actually advocated some progressive policies (pre WWI). One would have to be careful about context before judging what "espousing admiration for Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin" means, given the sweep of time and historical circumstance that applies.

I have mixed feelings about Churchill - he was probably the right person at the right time in terms of resisting Hitler, but the British were probably wise to jettison him once the job was done. In most respects he was very comfortable as a Tory, with all that implies.

[Spazito]

5. Rove wanted Dean to be the nominee so bad he could taste it...

this is just cover, imo! Kerry is bad news to Rove and his "protege" there is no question.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Rove was salivating over Dean

Now he pretends to be relieved. The fact is, in this country, it's harder for Bush to go up against a war veteran who supported pressuring Sadaam Hussein with IWR and who can plausibly state he would have done a more professional job building a coalition than someone who is purely antiwar and has no foreign policy or military credentials.

Why on earth would anyone take what Rove says about our candidate seriously?

[Tellurian]

8. I'll bet he was...

Dean is throwing his manpower and support to Kerry.

[Vinceklortho]

46. Actually.. Rove fears Dean

Because Dean can defeat Bush in ALL of the issues that has gone wrong.

* Iraq
* Economy
* Health care
* Job creation
* Peace vs War

Dean was right in all of the issues, and the people failed to see it, thus Kerry is the perceived nominee, unless Kerry fucks up big and needs to be booted out of the DNC and choose another compromise candidate such as Howard Dean.

I still will vote for Kerry, but I need to bring a barf bag and a cellphone to call 911 in case I faint.

Dean wins.

VinceK

[Tellurian]

7. Rove is whistling past the graveyard...

The Dems are more united than ever...

thanks in part to his unusual political style...

Rove works well under the cover of darkness but in the

cold light of day...he sucks, big time.

[Voltaire99]

9. Oh, what a surprise!

It's not as if this wasn't abundantly clear from the start. And yet what were the Kerry-do-or-die people saying? That he was Mr. Electable; that Dean was too far left. Of course, that must account for Kerry's tremendous surge in the polls. Right?

Maybe if Kerry would back off his support of the failed Iraq occupation, we'd get somewhere. Maybe if he weren't arguing in favor of corporate tax cuts and instead were promoting public spending on jobs programs, we'd get somewhere.

[Uzybone]

29. LOL

well at least one person here believes Rove.

[markses]

10. Yeah, Rove's so happy that he spent $40 million to no effect

Uh huh.

Sure.

No, no. It's brilliant Rove strategy. Bush is supposed to look weak and in trouble, even to the freepers, at this point in the race. The $40 million the GOP spent on "definoing" Kerry is supposed to have had little or no effect on the polls. See. It's brilliant, I tells ya! Brilliant!

</sarcasm>

[KissMyAsscroft]

11. Anything Rove puts out is garbage meant to trip us up..

Just ignore the crap. I think he revels in the whole idea that Democrats fear him, he gets a kick out of it.

These little "releases" are just him toying with us. Don't fall for it...just ignore the little fat kid.

[w13rd0]

12. Exactly...

...the same people who were crowing about what Rove thought ("Rove wants Dean") are now poo-poo'ing, and vice versa. Rove = Eric Cartman. Who gives a shit what he says, we know it's all lies and manipulation. The man BUGGED HIS OWN OFFICE for crying out loud...

[Sagan]

13. Oh, spare me..

First Rove wanted Dean, so we shouldn't support Dean, unless it's a trick and Rove really DIDN'T want Dean. Now, Rove loves the idea of running against Kerry and is happy he's behind in the polls. So we should not support Kerry and make sure Chimpy is ahead in the polls so Rove won't be happy... This crap is ridiculous...

Rove will say anything to make him look like a winner, no matter how bad he's doing. If someone dropped an anvil on his head, he'd say he planned it that way. It's a little psychosis I've noticed in the MisAdministration. No matter how bad they're losing, they're always winning in their own minds.

We'd do well not to pay attention to the ravings of delusional people.

[shockingelk]

16. Exactly TX dem!

Bush misled congress on alleged Iraqi WMD. Would it have been "patriotic" to question Bush's unequivocal assertions that Saddam could attack with weapons of mass death? As described in John Dean's book, the WH first told congress Iraq had WMD and then echoed the congressional echo as the presidential "determination" that the Iraq war resolution required Bush to show before he attacked Iraq.

It seems as though Rove wants it both ways: that congress (Kerry) should not have echoed the WH claims that Iraq could attack NYC at will, and that invading Iraq, yet that congress' echo is the very thing that made the WH no more culpable than congress.

If the American people believe this burning the justification at both ends makes everybody except the WH wrong, the American people deserve four more years of Bush*.

I reject that: congress arguably laid the case against Iraq with the WH as the supposed "facts" on Iraq originated from an ostensible honest WH,

[shockingelk]

18. ps

I never accepted Bush's* assertions, and I do blame all who voted for the resolution - but on top of that the requirement that the WH show, before using the authorization that:

a. Peaceful efforts were n longer effective
b. Iraq had something to do with 9-11

... were both satisfied. They weren't. Here is the language:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Quite complex to make into an issue for the average voter, but I believe this could be boiled down to "Iraq didn't have WMD, and diplomatic methods alone could have determined this" and "The president in no way showed that Iraq was an actor on 9-11".

[w4rma]

14. Good grief. Rove has flip-flopped.

Even though Dean isn't the nominee, I think it is extremely obvious that he did a FANTASTIC job as a decoy. Even though it wasn't the plan to act as a decoy, that tactic appears to have knocked the GOP off balance for the moment.

[Lexingtonian]

17. Oooh, scary! Not.

No one cares. Really, in the end no one cares. Okay, maybe a subset of Dean people do.

If you live in a Republican area where Rove's Believers flock, well, it keeps them happy. Obviously God wouldn't allow an unbeliever in Bush's Catechism of Divine Voices In His Head to win in November! Actually, that God wouldn't let anyone other than Bush win no matter what.

Yet the trials and tribulations seem not to end for them:

Zogby, April 18: Kerry 47, Bush 44

That's a 51 to 46 win in real life, and getting into the details in swing states simply doesn't matter at this point. (Swing states by definition resemble the national average very closely in polling.)

[Democat]

19. Rove is happy he's behind in the polls? He'll be happier in November!

When he loses the election.

I wonder if the Washington Post will run a bullshit story then too.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. then Rove is a masochist

he's a sick fuck. Who gives a shit?

[soothsayer]

21. spin, spin, sugar

Damn, I hate to waste such a great song on him, but that boy spins faster than a spider.

[The Stranger]

23. Too many Democrats start crying at the mention of the "Rove."

You can get better advice from some of the political consultants on these boards. If he didn't have the mass media as his mouthpiece, we'd see him as the imbecile he is.

[emulatorloo]

24. I swear, should we nominate a baby in diapers w no record

to "thwart" Karl Rove?

To put it bluntly, Karl Rove is an evil jerk.

I would think it would make sense to nominate someone w experience and a long record. Only in bizarro war should we look for somebody w no record/experience just to accomodate KR.

All of our candidates had records! All of them. Rove would have gone after any of them.

OTOH Bush has a record, and it is not good. Let's exploit that.

[qb]

25. Rove = PeeWee Herman: "I meant to do that!"

After a spectacular wipeout on his bike.

[sidpleasant]

26. Karl Rove isn't a genius

He's not even very good at his job. Never forget that his candidate lost four years ago, and that even staunch Bush partisans thought Rove's "Mission Accomplished" stunt was a really bad idea that had a high risk of backfiring on Bush.

[cap]

27. if Rove is reveling now in Kerry's lead, then ...

he should be in ecstasy on Election Day when Kerry wins.

[KoKo]

28. Emillereid, I totally agree with your view, but I still think Kerry

is following the DLC "Strategy," because he has to. When Dean imploded in Iowa they looked at what he said and realized that being against Iraq was not going to play with voters. Dean was a way of "testing the waters" about whether the voter was ready to hear how bad things were going to be for us in Iraq.

Unfortunately Kerry doesn't have wiggle room with his vote for the war and the fact that Dean went down because he didn't support it.

Kerry's comments about supporting the killing of the second Hammas leader and "Israel's right to defend itself" make it very hard for some of us not to think he's gone TOO far in trying to tilt to the right, but it's the only "Strategy" the DLC/DNC have to beat back Bush.

They and we are stuck with it, hoping it will win overwhelming votes so that there is no question of voting machines being able to fix it for Bush in November. And that's all that matters, unfortunately. It's sad that our Party has been driven to this. If Dean had been able to get through Iowa and NH and pick up a few states it might have turned out differently. And, if more Dems in the House and Senate had stood up when Bush was "Selected" and fought him every inch of the way, we might not be in this position of having to support a candidate who is forced to support Bush in his war mongering policies. :-(

It's our Party's fault for having no spine. We live with it until we can change it.

[DaveSZ]

30. This is what Rove does

He uses reverse psychology in hopes of tripping up his opponent.

Anything he tells the press is usually strategic.

[Emillereid]

35. According to Woodward he was talking in private with an associate.

His assessment of Kerry's vulnerabilities is the one that I came up with on my own without any help from him months ago. I do not think it serves the Democratic party well to be blinded so much by our own partisanship that we lose our ability to size up a candidate honestly. Now if Kerry could find some real progressive conviction inside himself and 'let it rip' like Gore said he would do if he had the chance again, Kerry could transform this race and give the American people the choice they deserve -- but unfortunately, Kerry is probably too managed and too cautious to be real; he's been in Washington too long.

[Emillereid]

34. I don't think that the voters rejected Dean because of his

anti-war message. I think the media brought Dean down with DLC help. Apparently the ads in Iowa were especially nasty and unfortunately Dean's ads weren't very good. Also I think too many of Dean's caucus leaders were too young and had difficulty holding their ground against more experienced leaders from the other candidates. After Dean said in an interview that he would break up the media monopolies, negative comments of him went sky-high (this has been documented) -- and the drum beat began that he was 'unelectable'. I wouldn't doubt that Rove didn't have a hand in this. How 'uninspiring' Kerry emerged as our presumptive nominee before I even had a chance to vote here in CA was amazing -- seemingly out of no-where Kerry was the 'electable one.' Democrats, so traumatized by Bush and so eager for ABB, seemed to have hypnotically repeated the Kerry is electable theme right into the voting booths. Personally, even if one sets aside his 'right wing views', I think he's a terrible candidate -- he's too much of an inside the Beltway politician, with a past rife with inconsistencies. He's about as inspiring as cold molasses. He is another Democratic party candidate without any defining sense of vision or conviction. He's afflicted with that perennial Democratic Party disease of wanting to be everywhere at once on an issue, seemingly afraid of standing proud for our long history of a progressive, life improving policies, and instead like sheep allow the Republicans the ground to define the issues and move the conversation so far to the right he ends up looking little more than a Bush's shadow -- especially on the morally defining issues of the day like Iraq and Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. God how I wish he would stand up to the Repukes on so-called defense issues -- and start leading the conversation instead of being reactive. I know some people that even liked Kerry until his more recent pro-war, pro-Likud party stuff -- now they're in a quandary about whether or not they'll even vote for him. I think this election is his to lose -- and if he keeps up with the campaign strategy he seems to have adopted, lose he will. My only hope is that Bush will continue to defeat himself -- and people will half-heartedly pull the lever for Kerry instead as the lesser of the two evils.

[Cocoa]

31. the article "sums up your fears"

exactly what Rove is aiming for.

[truthisfreedom]

37. hey karl, if you're happy now you'll be thrilled out of your freaking mind

on election day. we gonna whoop your ass, boy.

[daleo]

41. Today's anomalous Gallop poll will be disappointing then

It has Bush leading, which seems peculiar.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Gallop has been typically skewed 5+ points toward Junior in every poll....

...and this poll doesn't appear to be any different, IMHO.

[daleo]

55. You are right

It is easy to move a poll a few points by careful wording, order of questions, re-weighting of samples, setup questions, subtle biasing of the sample frame, etc. And U.S. political polls are essentially zero sum (Republicans and Democrats will be make up 95%+ of the poll), so shifting a few points from one to the other has a large effect. So, the source of the poll always has to be considered, as does the time trend.

[sadiesworld]

53. And if Dean had been the nominee, Rove would say...

"We were privately concerned about Kerry b/c of his war record and foreign policy experience."

[FemaleDemfromMass]

54. Rove is a moron uhhhhh....Republican

These people crack me up when they say they were once sure to vote for Kerry, now they don't know. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

John Kerry is an excellent person, excellent Senator and will make an excellent President - if you people stop believing the Repub Spin Daily. You know they are doing and saying everything they can to bring Kerry down. Stop listening and believing everything they say.

[John_H]

58. HA! Thanks for the commentary which proves yet again that Barnum was right

[rocktivity]

59. Rove only speaks to the press when desparate.

If he really believed this, the LAST thing he'd do is tell the public. It's no secret that he didn't want Dean to win.

This has been a Karl Rove Psy-Op presentation. Resistance to the GOP is futile.

:headbang:
rocknation