Rove: McCain went ‘too far’ in ads
Man, it’s like being called a sleazeball by Larry Flynt…
Karl Rove never does anything without a reason, but I must admit this has me stumped. Is he planting the seeds for a backlash defense of McCain?
Or maybe he just wanted to keep a small measure of credibility. I watched this at work this morning, he was very critical of Obama and very reluctant when talking about McCain. He basically said Obamas adds went too far and when pressed on it he admited McCains weren’t 100% truthful either, but its not like he came on and critized McCain out of the blue.
Classic misdirection. Keep the attention on a surface “controversy” that will be forgotten & change no one’s vote, and away from the real issues.
Here’s what I said about it on another thread here.
On one hand, he said that Obama using the “lipstick on a pig” phrase was no coincidence.
On the other, he said that some of McCain’s ads don’t pass the 100% truth test. Someone who speaks a language other than political-spin would probably have used the word “lies”.
So I guess we give Rove credit for being fair & balanced.
I can’t help but wonder what standard he’s using for “too far.”
His swift boat campaign slander of John Kerry or the lies his boy told to get us into Iraq?:dubious:
My favorite part of the article in the OP is the McCain camp’s “defense” against Obama’s charges:
I’m strangely reminded of the Chewbacca Defense…
“And Obama did sayeth, Lord, may thou send me a soundbite, that I may useth it against my enemies, that I may forge it into mighty advertisements and let them play in all states that shine with the color purple, that I may remix it and replay it upon the YouTubes, that I may reference it obliquely, yeah even in the debates. And Low, did the Lord sendeth such a soundbite, and that from the very mouth of Obama’s enemies, and indeed was great political hay made from it, and it was good.”
Also “not passing the 100% true test” is now my favorite euphemism for what’s more commonly known as “lying”.
ETA: I had something more serious to add, but I think Menocchio more or less nailed it.
I expect that Karl is just tossing out a few soundbytes of dissatisfaction so that when POWboy goes down in flames again, Mr. Rove can point to his own wise council and say “if only John had listened to me…” This will help Rove achieve more $$$ in the 2012 election cycle.
Did you read the actual exchange? He spends most of the interview trashing Obama, and only comes up with the anti-McCain soundbite when pressed by the interviewer. I don’t think it was a pre-planned statement.
I don’t really buy the Rove as super-genius for whom everything is planned and for whom every seeming mistake is actually part of some meta-strategy. I don’t think there’s anyone who can parse every statement they make in the public eye in such a way to constantly avoid giving the occasional damaging soundbite. Certainly I’ve haven’t seen anyone pull it off in the decade or so I’ve been following national politics. Ultra-savy politicians like Clinton can’t do it, politicians like Bush who make every effort to remain “on message” and respond to every question with a prepared soundbite can’t do it, and I don’t buy that Rove can do it either.
He screwed up, wasn’t prepared for Wallace’s question and so responded with a watered down but truthful statement, figuring he could sound less partisan, not realizing, at least until it was out of his mouth, that a “Karl Rove calls McCain a liar” soundbite would be on Obama’s Christmas list of things he’d like to get this year, but didn’t really think would show up under the tree.
Exactly, thank you. Rove is good at what he does, no doubt, but he’s not some kind of transcendentally intelligent evil genius. Now that he’s doing public commentary, he’s going to make a lot more blunders like this. Or at least, he will until his image as evil genius is tarnished enough that no one notices anymore.
But for now, we give thanks for this gift that he has given us.
Rove is not a genius. He is a man of average intelligence who simply has no inhibitions whatsoever. That isn’t genius, that’s a sociopath.
If he says McCain’s ads go too far, that only means he thinks they’re backfiring. That’s a judgment only about their effectiveness, not their honorability.
He’s shedding crocodile tears from one eye while scrutinizing the copy for tomorrow’s reprehensible spots with the other. It doesn’t matter what he says on the Sunday punditry forums or in a throwaway bit in the middle of the hour on an afternoon cable-channel bloviation show; those are for specialized audiences, while the average voter will neither hear nor see anything he says. The ads, meanwhile, will keep airing. It’s just bullshit cover noise.
That few people hear the actual quote in context is sort of the point of these soundbite mini-scandals. Almost no one will watch the actual clip of the interview, but the Obama campaign will make sure everyone hears “Rove called McCain a liar”.
Similarly, how many people went back and actually saw the quote that originated the “Gore invented the internet” meme. Probably only a small portion of the electorate, but the Bush 2000 campaign made sure that everyone in the US heard their version of it, and it helped them spin the tale of Gore as a serial exaggerator.
If only the candidates got to pick the way soundbites would be edited. The choice to make the pig-lipstick nonsense an “issue”, one which has a number of pretty intelligent people thinking “Obama called Palin a pig”, was made by Fox. Do you think MSNBC would do the same favor for Obama that Fox did for McCain?
When Satan says you’re going too far then you’re truely going too far.
Btw love the irony of the donate to McCain’s “compliance fund” ads in this thread. Talk about creepy.
Wow. It’s like the BTK killer saying “Dude, that’s sick!”