January 24, 2006


Rove's Early Warning (E. J. Dionne Jr., January 24, 2006, Washington Post)

Perhaps it's an aspect of compassionate conservatism. Or maybe it's just a taunt and a dare. Well in advance of Election Day, Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, has a habit of laying out his party's main themes, talking points and strategies.

True Rove junkies (admirers and adversaries alike) always figure he's holding back on something and wonder what formula the mad scientist is cooking up in his political lab. But there is a beguiling openness about Rove's divisive and ideological approach to elections. You wonder why Democrats have never been able to take full advantage of their early look at the Rove game plan.

That's especially puzzling because, since Sept. 11, 2001, the plan has focused on one variation or another of the same theme: Republicans are tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown up, vote Republican.

You'd think a paid political expert on the Democratic party would grasp that they can't take advantage because Mr. Rove portrays Democrats accurately. They're the party of the Left in a nation of the Right.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 24, 2006 10:05 AM

I'd like to see polls of the major urban centers on the question: Should your city be excluded from NASA surveilance as it is currently defined and conducted?

Posted by: Genecis at January 24, 2006 11:57 AM

"Republicans are tough on our enemies, Democrats are not. If you don't want to get blown up, vote Republican."

Well, yeah.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 24, 2006 12:07 PM

Has anything the Democrats have done since 1975 disproven that the Republicans are tougher on our enemies than the Democrats? No. Is this expected to change? No. So why shouldn't Rove taunt the Democrats with their impotence? If past performance is a guide they'll go run off and do something hysterically bone-headed to prove they are what they aren't.

Posted by: Mikey at January 24, 2006 12:28 PM

A former DEMOCRATIC Attorney General is presently defending Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and hasn't had to change any of his beliefs or compromise any party principles to do that. The only difference between him and Hillary, Howard, or John Kerry is that he doesn't have to bend himself into a pretzel to get elected to office.

Posted by: h-man at January 24, 2006 1:57 PM

Yes, h-man, there is a refreshing honesty about Mr. Clark's reflexive anti-Americanism. He's still a disgusting human-like being and all that, but the honesty is refreshing.

Posted by: Mikey at January 24, 2006 3:15 PM

So the Repugs are going to run on national security, the economy, and appointing conservative justices, and the Dhimmis are going to run on civil rights for terrorists, the "corruption" in Washington, and the right to kill babies. It's going to be another atypical off-term election with these two issue sets -- Karl Rove is such an evil genius.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 24, 2006 5:15 PM

jd: Don't forget gun-grabbing--your Dhimmicrats still stand for gun-grabbing. Gun rights people know very well that their current silence on the subject is merely tactical.

Clinton told them to quiet down on guns because we were beating them on on the issue. Sound advice, but we can read too, despite what they think, so we know it's a trick.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 24, 2006 6:05 PM