This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/karl-rove-hillary-clinton-brain-damage-outrage
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Karl Rove's comments about Hillary Clinton's 'brain damage' are an outrage | Karl Rove's comments about Hillary Clinton's 'brain damage' are an outrage |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Karl Rove's recent fiendish theorizing about Hillary Clinton suffering a traumatic brain injury is not just offensive, but tellingly so. He deftly dialed down the accusation in the original report and simultaneously kept the issue alive on Tuesday afternoon, saying "Of course she doesn't have brain damage" – but that "she is going to have to be forthcoming" about the details of where, how and when her injury happened. | Karl Rove's recent fiendish theorizing about Hillary Clinton suffering a traumatic brain injury is not just offensive, but tellingly so. He deftly dialed down the accusation in the original report and simultaneously kept the issue alive on Tuesday afternoon, saying "Of course she doesn't have brain damage" – but that "she is going to have to be forthcoming" about the details of where, how and when her injury happened. |
| Such inflammatory messaging suggests the depths to which the GOP will go to destabilize Clinton's earned reputation for competence – ironically, a trait that conservatives had a hand in crafting. It's the Republicans who repeatedly cast her as an über-manipulative Lady Macbeth, whispering plans and moving pawns and knights into place. Like all successful smear campaigns, that label has stuck because of its relationship to an observable truth: Clinton, while sympathetic as a wronged wife, has never seemed powerless, much less confused. Rove's grasping at a brain injury diagnosis could have just been a trial balloon for a new anti-Hillary message from the GOP, an attempt to replace "dangerously clever" with "dangerously impaired". | Such inflammatory messaging suggests the depths to which the GOP will go to destabilize Clinton's earned reputation for competence – ironically, a trait that conservatives had a hand in crafting. It's the Republicans who repeatedly cast her as an über-manipulative Lady Macbeth, whispering plans and moving pawns and knights into place. Like all successful smear campaigns, that label has stuck because of its relationship to an observable truth: Clinton, while sympathetic as a wronged wife, has never seemed powerless, much less confused. Rove's grasping at a brain injury diagnosis could have just been a trial balloon for a new anti-Hillary message from the GOP, an attempt to replace "dangerously clever" with "dangerously impaired". |
| I doubt it will work. | I doubt it will work. |
| But what frustrates me the most about the news of Rove's remarks is that no one seems to have nailed down the context of them. He "stunned the conference" he was at; he was there with former White House advisor Robert Gibbs and CBS correspondent Dan Raviv; the conference was "last week" and "near Los Angeles". It can't even be narrowed down to something obviously political or think-tank-y or ideas festival-esque, because Rove and Gibbs have been been appearing anywhere that can fork over the $100,000 or so they have been charging for a joint appearance since Gibbs left the White House. | But what frustrates me the most about the news of Rove's remarks is that no one seems to have nailed down the context of them. He "stunned the conference" he was at; he was there with former White House advisor Robert Gibbs and CBS correspondent Dan Raviv; the conference was "last week" and "near Los Angeles". It can't even be narrowed down to something obviously political or think-tank-y or ideas festival-esque, because Rove and Gibbs have been been appearing anywhere that can fork over the $100,000 or so they have been charging for a joint appearance since Gibbs left the White House. |
| As one might expect, there are a lot of universities on their tour – Duke, Stanford, Hofstra and even the fundamentalist Christian Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson. (Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was also present for that particular "Clash of the Titans".) They have even peddled their shtick at select trade associations and industry conferences, including the Council for Responsible Nutrition, medical technology marketer the TriZetto Group, the Urban Land Institute, the National Ethanol Conference and the Marcus Evans CXO Summit. | As one might expect, there are a lot of universities on their tour – Duke, Stanford, Hofstra and even the fundamentalist Christian Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson. (Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was also present for that particular "Clash of the Titans".) They have even peddled their shtick at select trade associations and industry conferences, including the Council for Responsible Nutrition, medical technology marketer the TriZetto Group, the Urban Land Institute, the National Ethanol Conference and the Marcus Evans CXO Summit. |
| I'm not sure which is worse: the idea that Rove and Gibbs might be imparting valuable insider information to these paying audiences at largely closed-door events; or that they've willingly emptied out whatever convictions they have about politics and agreed to play-act as partisans for sheer entertainment value. | I'm not sure which is worse: the idea that Rove and Gibbs might be imparting valuable insider information to these paying audiences at largely closed-door events; or that they've willingly emptied out whatever convictions they have about politics and agreed to play-act as partisans for sheer entertainment value. |
| It's not a news flash that political debate has morphed into entertainment, but there's something unseemly about the format being commercialized so blatantly. Their glad-handing we're-all-really-friends"appearances – and Gibbs and Roves are far from the only culprits – cheapens any debate about issues or real ideological differences, and gives Americans yet more evidence that party divides are largely for show (and that the real divide in American politics is between the powerful and the powerless). It's not so much that they're friendly with each other – I'm for being friends! – it's that they've chosen to link arms and walk on a treadmill of pointless conflict. | It's not a news flash that political debate has morphed into entertainment, but there's something unseemly about the format being commercialized so blatantly. Their glad-handing we're-all-really-friends"appearances – and Gibbs and Roves are far from the only culprits – cheapens any debate about issues or real ideological differences, and gives Americans yet more evidence that party divides are largely for show (and that the real divide in American politics is between the powerful and the powerless). It's not so much that they're friendly with each other – I'm for being friends! – it's that they've chosen to link arms and walk on a treadmill of pointless conflict. |
| What's more, however skillfully Gibbs might argue his ideology and policy with Rove, his convictions are undermined by continued presence on the stage – especially in this instance, given Rove's outrageous "brain damage" hypothesis. Gibbs refused to comment on the quote, which seems to confirm that Rove did make the accusation, and absolutely makes Gibbs (and perhaps Raviv) complicit in legitimizing it. | What's more, however skillfully Gibbs might argue his ideology and policy with Rove, his convictions are undermined by continued presence on the stage – especially in this instance, given Rove's outrageous "brain damage" hypothesis. Gibbs refused to comment on the quote, which seems to confirm that Rove did make the accusation, and absolutely makes Gibbs (and perhaps Raviv) complicit in legitimizing it. |
| Think about it: Rove apparently unleashed this idea in front of a seasoned news reporter and a Democratic operative personally familiar with Clinton... who apparently said nothing, let the comment pass or nodded sagely! Neither Gibbs nor Raviv are responsible for that Rove said, but their apparent silence underscores what might be the larger problem with Rove's comment: he made his musings in a for-profit setting where outlandish accusations generate more bookings, and substantive debate and principled moral stands give you more time at home with your principles. | Think about it: Rove apparently unleashed this idea in front of a seasoned news reporter and a Democratic operative personally familiar with Clinton... who apparently said nothing, let the comment pass or nodded sagely! Neither Gibbs nor Raviv are responsible for that Rove said, but their apparent silence underscores what might be the larger problem with Rove's comment: he made his musings in a for-profit setting where outlandish accusations generate more bookings, and substantive debate and principled moral stands give you more time at home with your principles. |
| Appearing with Rove validates him, and appearing with him dozens of times, debating the exact same topics, over and over, says that you have no real interest in moving the conversation forward – and creates the suspicion than that you might not take the conversation very seriously to begin with. | Appearing with Rove validates him, and appearing with him dozens of times, debating the exact same topics, over and over, says that you have no real interest in moving the conversation forward – and creates the suspicion than that you might not take the conversation very seriously to begin with. |
| Look, if you dangled a $50,000 speaking fee in front of me to appear alongside Karl Rove, I would probably take it. But I can't imagine doing it for years on end without, at some point, wanting to throttle him. See, I actually have fundamental philosophical disagreements with Rove. I think that what he did over the years is objectively bad for America. I believe that he helped create policies that led to the needless loss of thousands of American lives. He is one of the men behind the signature military failure of modern American history. He is the architect of the plan that used fear-mongering about gay marriage to turn out GOP votes. He helped steal the 2000 election. This is not "agree to disagree" stuff. I don't respect him and I don't think I would learn from him. | |
| The reason I'd like to debate Rove is that I'd like to win the debate, to delegitimize him and to prove that his ideas are dangerous and wrong. Furthermore, if I were to debate Karl Rove multiple times over the course of several years and discovered that people still took him seriously, that would mean I had failed, and I wouldn't have earned the money I had been paid – and I wouldn't blame you if you lost respect for me for taking it. | The reason I'd like to debate Rove is that I'd like to win the debate, to delegitimize him and to prove that his ideas are dangerous and wrong. Furthermore, if I were to debate Karl Rove multiple times over the course of several years and discovered that people still took him seriously, that would mean I had failed, and I wouldn't have earned the money I had been paid – and I wouldn't blame you if you lost respect for me for taking it. |