I can't say for sure if my being within spitting distance of Karl Rove was the cause or the result of the full lunar eclipse last week, but the two events did converge at the same time.
This past Wednesday, February 20, we experienced a full lunar eclipse and I attended a Q&A "keynote" session with Karl Rove. It was not an intimate affair, so I was not able to introduce him to his quasi-dopplegänger, but I was able to listen to him speak in long-form about his beliefs, feelings, and approaches to the issues of the day and of the Bush Era.
I paid close attention to what he said, and how he said it in an effort to dig deeper into the mind of my antithesis. What I was able to re-confirm was that Karl Rove is every bit as bright, driven, and savvy as I had expected him to be. What I learned was that he is also quite ideological and protective, while still being a very effective communicator.
I have posted my brief review and analysis of Karl Rove on the Election Integrity blog (interestingly enough, Karl expressed a deep concern for election integrity).
Please post any of your thoughts and comments in the comments area here on OKR.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lunar Eclipse Sheds Light on Karl Rove
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Add OKR to your RSS reader
10 comments:
oh hahahahaha!!!
"karl rove expressed a deep concern for election integrity"
that's right up there with "the priest expressed great concern for the troubled youth in his parish," and "jeffrey dahmer has had a lifelong interest in meat cutting."
i don't know how you could stomach being in the same room with that tool. he is despicable.
BABs,
It seems that Karl Rove has a lot of deep concerns. What else would explain the amount of work and focus he puts on his initiatives?
It's just that his view on EI is quite different than your or my view. His view is that the media unfairly interferes with the voting process, and that both parties are incented to advocate voting fraud strategies.
Of course, if you yourself are a fraud-monger, you automatically assume that everyone else is too.
Like I said in my EI post, it rang a bit convenient. But I do not doubt his level of concern for the things he's passionate about.
He just has different passions than you and I.
Jon
BABS is right on the money. Rove is one of the most scurrilous political operatives I've ever had the misfortune to see. He is at his most gleeful when he is lying and being listened to as if what he is spewing is legitimate....kind of like the serpent in the Garden of Eden. I'm amazed that anyone would assume any credibility in any utterance from Rove, and then spend any of his precious time on this earth analyzing this criminal's hallucinations!
RG
"Know your enemy." These words were put to paper 2600 years ago in China (Sun Tzu: The Art of War) and I am stunned that to this day people completely ignore this advice. Those who think it's a mistake to analyze or even to listen to what Karl Rove has to say are not different than the people who go to war against Iraq without knowing what the hell they're getting into. I constantly hear open minded people to declare the need for dialogue, yet, they diss the opportunity to have one with the other side because they cannot "stomach it".
I think Jon had a wonderful opportunity here to learn about "the enemy" and I applaud him for trying to communicate with him (even though he was unsuccessful).
Simply dismissing Karl Rove as "evil" is as much a mistake as thinking bin Laden is just a stupid caveman hiding in Afghanistan. Wake up, America! Throughout the centuries those evil people who came to power and shaped the history of our world were far from being stupid: they were smart, driven and passionate about their beliefs. Unfortunately, they used their smarts for the WRONG reasons.
The obligation of good people is to study evil so their weaknesses can be exposed in order to defeat them.
Believing that Rove is profoundly evil does not mean that I or anyone believe him to be stupid. However, to credit him with having any abiding, heartfelt concern for election integrity is naive and deluded. Just look at what he has done, then say whether he possesses integrity on any level. He's radioactive. He's poison. I don't need to touch or taste to know or understand the danger. If Jon can't figure out another reason explaining why KR devotes the "amount of work and focus he puts on his initiatives", he hasn't been paying attention. I feel dirty now just from spending time discussing that troll.
Hi Richard,
First, I need to comment on your use of the word 'evil.' Evil is part of the Bush Era vocabulary and framework of reality. Your very use of that word makes you an unwitting supporter of Bush's worldview (where there is "good" and "evil" vs. "good" and "bad").
With words like evil, radioactive, and poison, you've decided to demonize Rove. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion and approach to dealing with him. But there are two things that you seemed to have missed in the nuance:
1. My recounting of Rove's concern over electoral integrity is two-fold: 1. Read the full post on the EI blog - you'll see a subtle reference to the fact that Karl Rove's definition of EI might be different than your or my definition of EI.
2. Rove's EI concerns reek of convenience, as he blames the media just as much as other factors (typical conservative perspective).
Yet, Rove did equate America's EI with that of a third-world country. So, he clearly sees something that many of us also see.
In the end, alluding that I am 'naive and deluded' sounds like you might be someone who is not a regular reader of Our Karl Rove.
I recommend you browse around, search, and read some of the insights and strategies published here before you determine exactly how naive and deluded Our Karl Rove is.
If you haven't, you should do your homework before you judge people based on what seems like an 'ideology of what is evil' vs. the truly liberal thinking processes of understanding, empathy, and open-mindedness.
Jon, you're right. This was my first visit to the "Our Karl Rove" blog. You're also correct in that I didn't read the full post on EI; and, yes, without a doubt, anytime that KR expresses a deep concern about election integrity, his definition is going to be different from mine. I was glad to see you say that the concern KR expressed for EI reeked of convenience. Well said. But there is nothing benign about this guy. In my view, he doesn't deserve to be handled so well...so academically. Handled like a criminal, a sociopath, a traitor; yes, you bet. Anything less than that, nope.
I appreciate your forebearance. I'll read the whole piece next time.
Richard, did you read LaLa's posting? S/he is totally right: you must know your enemy! Rove's tactics absolutely need to be scrutinized, dissected, taken apart and displayed throughout the world so everyone can see his moral bankruptcy.
You say Rove is not worthy of any kind of academic study? Really??? Hitler has been the subject of intense critical study, as has Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot... name a dictator, and there are countless, peer-reviewed study on them.
Why do you suppose that is? Is it because the authors sympathize with their worldviews? It's possible I guess, but for the most part highly unlikely. No, scholars seek to understand the person, not the myth, and in doing so try to avoid mistakes from the past.
I for one applaud Jon for enthusiastically embracing the opportunity to watch Rove work his magic. If I heard Rove was coming to my neighborhood to speak, I'd be more inclined to throw up. But Jon did a courageous thing and tried to understand the man behind the myth.
Karl Rove is a true evil genius. He plays very well to the worst in America - and gets results.
I personally believe the the 2004 election was lost for Democrats by Gavin Newson (mayor of SF) and Janet Jackson. Gay Republicans (believe it or not, there are some) rallied the gay community in san francisco to stand in long lines at City Hall and get married. Gavin Newson, an opportunist, was happy to step up in this "defining moment". Newspapers across the nation were suddenly fixated on gay marriage. During the election, 16 states passed measures stating that marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. The top concern on voters minds in Ohio, for example, was "moral values". What???? We have an illegal war going on with a president who openly erodes the balance of power and the privacy rights of citizens - and who is bankrupting our nation - how could 'moral values' have become #1? Because Karl Rove played to the worst in people - the fear of people that are different - and made that an issue in 2004.
Political blogs like this are great - but i think more comprehensive change will come when we figure out a way to reach the less educated that vote based on emotion and fear - rather than informed decision and debate. There are parts of eastern Oregon, for instance, where you can only get Fox News. On the reporting of John McCain and his affair with a lobbyist - Fox News actually had a panel of people talking about Bill Clinton and Lewinsky. The conversation then turned into a Hillary bash session. And they always have these "experts" with questionable credentials. Crazy! How does McCain's transgressions turn into anything Hillary?
There has to be a way to reach these remote voters - 1 vote from them is equal to 1 vote from any of the educated on this blog. There has to be a way to bring them into informed discussion - so that they are not voting based on fear and a herd mentality. Otherwise Karl Rove's will always be able to divide and conquer.
lalo,
A great analysis and focal point. And it's so true.
Yet, I fear it's always going to be an uphill battle for progressive ideas not rooted in fear.
Fear is the more primal survival instinct, and it's the emotion of choice for the conservative movement.
In fact, if you are familiar with the Freudian hierarchy of consciousness... there's the id, the ego, and the super-ego. I would assert that conservatives trade in the id-sphere and progressives trade in the superego-sphere.
Because the id is fully developed in all of us, it is the lowest-common-denominator of connection and communication. It's the basic protectionist, survivalist, and most selfish aspect of our consciousness. It's what keeps us alive when we're in danger.
So, if we believe we're in danger, we tend to rely on our instincts (id-sphere) to guide us, not our more developed socially conscious super-egos.
Yet, when we are not in fear, people are blessed with the abilities of empathy and social consciousness that allow us to make decisions based on our superegos. The "we should know better" aspect of consciousness.
Because the less educated do live in more fear (as they should), they will more likely be driven, guided, and tuned into the id-level debates that play on basic human emotion.
Because more educated people tend to feel more empowered, they have the luxury to rely on the superego to guide their consciousness, and they have the luxury to feel good about being good to others.
In the end, unless you're a true hero, protecting #1 always comes first (conservative), protecting family(loved ones) comes next, protecting ones tribe comes next, and only if all of those are considered safe do people have the psychic energy to care about people who they don't know or personally care about. That's the hight of empathy and liberalism.
And this is why a progressive/liberal government in this country will always be outside of the mainstream. We are a country developed and designed to live under constant stress of pioneering, innovating, and looking out for ourselves as rugged individuals.
Liberalism, I suggest, is the price of freedom.
Post a Comment