Rove to join Fox News

Drudge: “FLASH: Karl Rove will join FOXNEWS as contributor; likely used throughout Super Tuesday coverage…” Heh. I would say this will make liberals hate Fox even more, but I’m not sure that’s actually possible.

Rove, incidentally, has an article in today’s WSJ about the “new rules” (and some old rules) of presidential politics.

19 Responses to “Rove to join Fox News”

  1. Condor says:

    I’m no fan of the Rove, but that was a pretty insightful article, except for his notion that the Dem. debates have no substance and are all about race and gender.

  2. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    WILL join? Let’s be honest. He has been a member of the Fox News team since Bush’s cousin – and a Fox producer – prematurely called the election for Bush in 2000.

  3. kcatnd says:

    Yeah, his swipe at the Democratic debates at the end ruined what insight the article had. Rove may have won some elections, but I don’t think history will treat him kindly.

  4. Joe Mama says:

    I don’t see how the race on the Dem side — in which the policy differences between Clinton and Obama can be seen only with a microscope — has been about anything but race and gender. Rove is exactly right.

  5. Joe Mama says:

    Let’s be honest. He has been a member of the Fox News team since Bush’s cousin – and a Fox producer – prematurely called the election for Bush in 2000.

    Let’s really be honest – every network called the 2000 election prematurely … and not all for the same candidate.

  6. Joe Mama says:

    Actually, I take back the last part of my previous comment. I’m pretty sure all the initial erroneous calls on election night in 2000 were in Bush’s favor.

  7. Brendan Loy says:

    OMG it’s a conspiracy!1!!11!

    That stupid Rove/FOX thing is seriously the dumbest shit ever. Whenever I hear a conspiratorial lefty talking about it, I want to smack them upside the head. Yes, the Fox News powers-that-be are obviously going to potentially torpedo their channel’s own journalistic reputation* by prematurely stating the winner of an election for President of the Untied States because… wait for it, wait for it… somebody’s cousin told them to!! That is completely plausible, and moreover, it’s the only possible explanation for what happened on Election Night 2000. Also, unicorns exist, the Tooth Fairy is real, and the Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance!!

    *Insert zinger here! Ha ha ha! Fox r teh suxxors!

  8. Brendan Loy says:

    Your initial comment was right, Joe. Nobody called the whole election for Gore prematurely, but all the networks called Florida for Gore prematurely (based mostly on exit polls, like 10 minutes before the polls had even closed in the Panhandle) — and it was, of course, well understood that, for Bush, losing Florida probably meant losing the election (especially since Pennsylvania had already been called for Gore).

  9. Brendan Loy says:

    Oh, and also, all the networks prematurely called the election for Bush at the end, as I recall (only the Associated Press refrained, I believe). Certainly Fox wasn’t alone, because I know we weren’t watching Fox in the Daily Trojan newsroom (what respectable, earnest-liberal college-newspaper staff would watch Fox?), and yet the network we were watching — I think it was CNN — said Bush had won.

    Oh yeah, and AL GORE HIMSELF called it prematurely for Bush too, and even prematurely conceded.

    But I guess George W. Bush must also have had cousins on all the other networks’ decision desks, and in the Al Gore campaign war room, huh?

  10. Joe Loy says:

    Meself: “Leanna! Brendan’s post says Karl Rove is joining Fox News!”

    Herself: “Oh, well, That should turn it around.”

    :}

  11. Joe Loy says:

    PS ~ yes & a little later on, said Al Gore Himself (the damn fool) also Prematurely, utterly Unbidden, and for no discernible reason Whatsoever, abruptly announced that he would Never ask any Redstate Presidential Electors to consider voting for the national popularvote People’s Choice when they convened at their sundry State Capitols to conduct the Presidential Election in mid-December of 2000. // Hm. Perhaps Senator Barackennedy O’Bama should tell his Peeps to quit lobbying for the kiss of death from Endorsement of the Saviour of our global Climate, after all. ;| Chill, Al. :}

  12. Joe Loy says:

    PS ~ yes & a little later on, said Al Gore Himself (the damn fool) also Prematurely, utterly Unbidden, and for no discernible reason Whatsoever, abruptly announced that he would Never ask any Redstate Presidential Electors to consider voting for the national popularvote People’s Choice when they convened at their sundry State Capitols to conduct the Presidential Election in mid-December of 2000. // Hm. Perhaps Senator Barackennedy O’Bama should tell his Peeps to quit lobbying for the kiss of death from Endorsement of the Saviour of our global Climate, after all. ;| Chill, Al. :}

  13. David K. says:

    in which the policy differences between Clinton and Obama can be seen only with a microscope

    Only to those so far on the right that ANY democrat looks the same…oh right its Joe Mama!

  14. Joe Mama says:

    One would reasonably expect David to follow-up his last comment with all the substantive differences between Clinton and Obama that would lead him to make such a lame attempt at insult. Of course, one would be wrong.

  15. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Ummm, the differences between Hillary’s positions and Obama’s positions include these…

    Healthcare – Hillary wants to essentially extend the Congressional health care program to Americans without health care coverage. At the same time, she thinks employers will keep their existing coverage, which they won’t. They will drop health plans entirely and let their employees apply for the Congressional program (how the hell does the country pay for that???). Obama at least is proposing a private/public sector solution that will bring costs down for those who have no health insurance.

    Sub-prime Mortgages: Hillary wants to fix interest rates for five years. In other words, price controls. Only two things will come of that – a huge credit crunch where millions of Americans simply won’t be able to qualify for a mortgage at all and, when the cap is ultimately lifted, an explosion in interest rates. Horrendously stupid idea. Obama seems more inclined to work through existing programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help those home owners willing to work out refinancing packages.

  16. Angrier and Angrier says:

    (Fox News) CEO Roger Ailes was formerly a media/image consultant for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Controversy was generated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York City, when it was revealed that Roger Ailes was sending political advice via “back channel messages” to the Bush administration through its chief political aide, Karl Rove. According to Bob Woodward, in his book Bush At War, the messages consisted of warnings that the American public would quickly lose support for the Bush administration unless it employed “the harshest measures possible” in response to the 9/11 attacks.

  17. Joe Mama says:

    Ummm, the differences between Hillary’s positions and Obama’s positions include these…

    Healthcare –

    Ummm, yeah, that must be why in response to the very first question in last night’s debate which asked Obama and Clinton to list their biggest differences, Obama conceded with respect to healthcare that “about 95 percent of our plans are similar.”

  18. Alasdair says:

    This thread reminds me of the famous Campbell’s Soup TV Advertisments in Scotland years ago, and comparisons of Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock …

    “What is the difference between Joe Biden and Neil Kinnock ?”

    “The difference is in the thickness !”

    Similarly, the difference between Barack’s positions and Hillary’s positions …

  19. Brian Foster says:

    I realize I’m a little late to this party, but regarding Rove’s article and whether his “swipe” at the Dems “ruins” the “insight” he otherwise showed —

    First, as a general matter, if a person makes seven great points and one bad one, only in extremely unusual circumstances would the badness of the one point undermine the goodness of the other seven, so even assuming Rove was wrong re the Dems, I don’t see how that could undermine or ruin everything that came before it.

    Second, let’s be clear about what Rove said w/r/t the Dems:

    Ideas still matter. Both Democrats and Republicans are in spirited and, at times, heated contests. The difference is Democrats are running a nasty race that has as its subtext race and gender. The Republican race, on the other hand, is a serious debate about serious ideas. Over the last several months, we have been seeing men who represent different strands within the GOP battle each other. The debate can get personal at times-but at core the debate it is about ideas rather than personalities, which can no longer be said about the Democratic race.

    He didn’t say that the Dems “had no substance” or were “all about race and gender” (emphasis added). He said their race was nasty, and had race and gender as a subtext, and that the “core” (not the entirety) of the debate was no longer about ideas rather than personalities.

    All Rove said was that while on the GOP side, the ideas take center stage in the debate, on the Dem side the ideas take a backseat to personality and race/gender. As Joe says, that’s pretty much exactly right.

    Even if there are non-trivial policy differences between Clinton and Obama, the candidates themselves do not talk about them. They talk about Change and Experience and Martin Luther King Jr. and It Takes A Clinton To Clean Up After A Bush.

    They — both of them — are trading on their skin color, lack of external genitalia (okay, maybe not so much for Obama on this one), and famous/unusual names, in order to craft a public argument that their very identities represent the Change (or Experience) the country needs — as if a woman or a black man would, simply virtue of being female or black, inherently know better how to run the country. That’s the very essense of a personality or identity-based campaign that subordinates ideas to superficial appearances.

    None of which is to say that substantive differences do not exist. Only that if such differences do exist, neither candidate seems particularly interested in focusing on them, or what they should mean to voters.