The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz poses an interesting question: is resigned White House political maven Karl Rove a creation of the press as much of as of President George Bush?
From the moment he leaked word of his departure to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Karl Rove has been lionized and vilified by the media hordes.
He is either a political giant, shrewdly plotting a series of victories during the Bush presidency, or a nation-wrecker, sowing the seeds of division to boost the GOP. The nicknames — “Bush’s Brain,” “The Architect” — match the portrayal of an important historical figure.
But what if journalists are part of an unspoken conspiracy to inflate Rove’s importance — not for ideological reasons but because it makes for a better narrative? What if they are the architects, using well-placed aides to build a stage for inside-dope stories involving Rove and his colleagues?
Or perhaps there’s a cruder explanation: that some journalists believe Bush lacks the intellectual heft to achieve big things on his own, so they attribute his most consequential decisions to a powerful Svengali at his side.
Perhaps there is a bit of BOTH at play here — with the heaviest ingredient being what fits into a narrative.
Anyone who has worked on a newspaper knows how it goes. A conventional wisdom forms around a person or an event. Other journalists then try to build on it and find a new twist in this story or to advance the story. But what if the original story is overblown or underplayed? Future stories are built on what was written or broadcast before. MORE:
This is not to play down Rove’s crucial role as the president’s longtime confidant and chief strategist, who indeed helped engineer his election triumphs and map a governing approach that emphasized the care and feeding of Bush’s conservative base. But was Rove’s decision to quit, 17 months before the end of Bush’s term, truly deserving of lead-story status in the New York Times, The Washington Post and the three nightly newscasts?
Kurtz discusses the relatively recent rise of the political consultant as a major news figure and quotes blogger/journalism Professor Jay Rosen (one of this site’s favorite writers) on Rove. He details some of the major controversies swirling around Rove and Rove’s role itself. Then he writes:
Rove has seemed impervious to media criticism, preferring to grant interviews to conservative allies, such as the Journal’s Paul Gigot, who got the exclusive on Rove’s departure. Rove told Rush Limbaugh, in another such interview last week, that he ignores sniping by the press: “I mean, if you have to wake up in the morning to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you’ve got a pretty sorry existence.”
In the end, Bush’s tenure will be defined by such overarching events as Iraq and Katrina, where the quality of presidential decision-making — and performance — mattered more than packaging. Even the most influential White House aides are ultimately hired help.
But part of what has happened to Rove is this:
Just as political candidates who won’t appear before the press or at debates can be “defined” others (which can work in a positive or negative way), Rove’s relatively limited access to some key reporters and some friendly conservative talk show hosts and op-ed writers meant other members of the media had to analyze from afar and draw their own conclusions about him.
This helped him greatly when things were going his way — and became a wind-blown House of Cards when things went back.
BUT lest you think Mr. Rove is retiring — think again.
It’s pretty clear that altough he supposedly resigned to spend more time with is family, his family is going to have some competition for his time.
He still plays the news media like a guitar:
Master GOP strategist Karl Rove won’t let up in his attacks on Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the intriguing question is why.
Is it a sign that Rove, who masterminded Bush’s two presidential victories, is worried about Clinton? Or a calculation that the GOP attacks will get Democrats to rally to her side because the GOP would prefer not to take on Democrats John Edwards or Barack Obama?
Can you guess which (you’ll find out below):
“The Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it’s going to be her,” President Bush’s departing political adviser said Sunday, noting her negative rating with the public is very high.
He appeared on three Sunday talk shows after announcing last week he was leaving the White House at the end of the month to spend more time with his family.
It’s clear from this story that Rove indeed does seem to be using reverse psychology, going after Ms. Clinton to draw more attention to her and rally Democrats to her, to increase her chances. Just read THIS:
Asked why he was helping Clinton by saying she would headline the ticket, Rove said: “Didn’t know that I was. Don’t think that I am.”
Then he harshly criticized Clinton, saying more people have an unfavorable than favorable opinion of the New York senator and former first lady.
“She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll,” Rove said.
“It just says people have made an opinion about her. It’s hard to change opinions once you’ve been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years.” In a USA Today-Gallup poll this month, 49 percent viewed Clinton unfavorably compared to 35 percent unfavorable for Obama and 34 percent unfavorable for Edwards. Clinton’s favorable score in that poll was 47 percent.
So he’s not going after her, but he’s going after her and seems pretty intent in getting the word out that he’s going after her.
Rove might be revisiting his 2004 play book. Bush’s re-election team aimed its harshest comments at Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the eventual nominee, because it wanted Bush to take on Kerry rather than Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina.
The Los Angeles Times on Sunday reported that Bush’s former pollster and strategist Matthew Dowd said at a 2004 Harvard University conference that Bush’s re-election team went after Kerry because they were more afraid of Edwards.
If you boil all this down it suggests:
A lot of people won’t have Karl Rove to kick around anymore (or maybe not quite as much).
But we haven’t heard the last of Rove who is likely to advise Bush behind the scenes and periodically emerge to say something in an attempt to change the political dynamics and help the GOP.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.