As NewsBusters reported Thursday, Karl Rove, the famed former adviser to President Bush, is now writing for Newsweek.
If you thought Rove would be constrained in this assignment given the liberal leaning of his new employer, your concerns should quickly be laid to rest with this first article just published.
Entitled "How to Beat Hillary," the piece was practically a strategy memo for the eventual Republican presidential nominee to defeat the Democrat candidate Rove believes will successfully get through the primaries (emphasis added throughout):
[Hillary] is tough, persistent and forgets nothing. Those are some of the reasons she is so formidable as a contender, and why Republicans who think she would be easy to beat are wrong. The Republican presidential nomination is the most fluid and unpredictable contest in decades, but the Democratic nominee is likely to be Hillary. Not without a fight, not without losing early contests (probably Iowa, for starters) and not without bruises and bumps.
[...]
The GOP nominee must highlight his core convictions to help people understand who he is and to set up a natural contrast with Clinton, both on style and substance. Don't be afraid to say something controversial. The American people want their president to be authentic. And against a Democrat who calculates almost everything, including her accent and laugh, being seen as someone who says what he believes in a direct way will help.
[...]
Go after people who aren't traditional Republicans. Aggressively campaign for the votes of America's minorities. Go to their communities, listen and learn, demonstrate your engagement and emphasize how your message can provide hope and access to the American Dream for all. The GOP candidate must ask for the vote in every part of the electorate. He needs to do better among minorities, and be seen as trying.
Be strong on Iraq. Democrats have bet on failure. That's looking to be an increasingly bad wager, given the remarkable progress seen recently in Iraq. If the question is who will get out quicker, the answer is Hillary. The Republican candidate wants to recast the question to: who will lead America to victory in a vital battleground in the War on Terror? There will be contentious fights over funding the troops and over intelligence-gathering right after the parties settle on their candidates. Both battles will help the Republican candidate demonstrate who will be stronger in winning the new struggle of the 21st century.
Strong stuff you never expected Newsweek to publish less than twelve months before a presidential election, wouldn't you agree? In fact, how's he going to last writing conclusions like this:
The conventional wisdom now is that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. In reality, she's eminently beatable. Her contentious history evokes unpleasant memories. She lacks her husband's political gifts and rejects much of the centrism he championed. The health-care fiasco showed her style and ideology. All of which helps explain why, for a front runner in an open race for the presidency, she has the highest negatives in history.
While the prospective Republican nominee is talking about her now, the time will come soon when he must spend more time telling his story. By explaining to voters why he deserves to be our next president, he will also make clear why that job should not go to another person named Clinton.
Any bets as to how long Newsweek tolerates articles this antagonistic to she who everyone in the media wants in the White House two Januaries from now?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Anti-Hillary
November 18, 2007 - 04:25 ET by KC MulvilleFunny. Newsweek added both Kos and Rove as special columnists. Just a couple of NB posts ago, Noel, you reported that Kos is not happy with Hillary. Now Newsweek is allowing Karl Rove to give advice how to beat her.
I wonder who Hillary pissed off at Newsweek/Washington Post? Do you think the Hillary gang may have tried to intimidate WashPost like they actually did against GQ? And the Post didn't like it? Or maybe it's something else. Maybe the Post has something on her, and they're softening up the readership before they deliver it?
Fun to think about, isn't it?
}}---> KC
November 18, 2007 - 05:00 ET by Cool ArrowAnd given the way marKOS is butting heads with CNN, I'm not entirely sure she has a sitting representative at Newsweek yet.
Could it be Newsweek is actually interested in covering the election rather than shaping it? Naaaah!
Admit it, you thought I was serious for a second didn't you?
Plant crops - not questions
You had me going there for a second
November 18, 2007 - 13:26 ET by KC MulvilleFor a moment, I thought, jeez he might have a point there. Then the word "Newsweek" flashed before my eyes, and the Klaxxon alarms went off as if starship Enterprise was on red alert.
Thank God it only lasted for a second ...
Newsweek
November 18, 2007 - 05:20 ET by old croNewsweek has hit on an "ingenious" way to attract more readers to
stop the hemorrhaging going on in the liberal print media. It will be
interesting to see their circulation numbers six months from now vs. today’s if
they allow such articles to be published.
Carl Rove out of the administration and into the
private sector with his wisdom is a good thing for the conservative movement; I
may even subscribe just to read him.
"I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to see
him in a department store and he asked for my autograph."
-Shirley Temple
Hmm
November 18, 2007 - 05:25 ET by well99I actually agree with Rove.
"Go after people who aren't traditional Republicans. Aggressively campaign for the votes of America's minorities. Go to their communities, listen and learn, demonstrate your engagement and emphasize how your message can provide hope and access to the American Dream for all. The GOP candidate must ask for the vote in every part of the electorate. He needs to do better among minorities, and be seen as trying"
The Democrats have claimed they have a big tent party.To be truthful it is more like a pup tent.Ask Joe.
Now the Republicans can do the same thing or they can decide who they are going to represent.Find something that people have in common and build on that.If your urban or rural you want a good education for your kids.Doesnt matter what race,religion,economic background parents want to see their kids get ahead.The one key is not to give empty promises because if you do then you will tear down what you have built.If the Republicans want to win they have to reach out to all including working class and minorities.Just dont feed them BS because they have gotten that over the years from Dems.So they know what it smells like.
Well said . . .
November 18, 2007 - 09:44 ET by WingletDriverWell said Well99!
I can't cite the poll, but I saw that African-Americans overwhelmingly support school choice. A part of Bush's platform in 2000 was to reform education funding in the US. After he was elected, he turned that task over to Ted Kennedy. Boo.
Why don't the Republican's education vouchers and tax deductions a plank in their party. Every Republican should run on this. Turn it into a civil rights issue (it really is one). Who are they going to lose? Teachers' unions who oppse these are decidedly liberal Democrats.
I agree
November 18, 2007 - 12:40 ET by well99They do need to go to the voucher system.Education is important and Teachers Union seems more bent on teaching their political agendas than the 3 R's.
Following Rove's advice would be a disaster
November 18, 2007 - 11:58 ET by RJ"Go after people who aren't traditional Republicans."
What, exactly do you people think this means?
This pandering Rovian philosophy is exactly what President Bush has disasterously followed for the last seven years. He and Rove ignored many "traditional" Republican values and fruitlessly chased the "non-traditional" in areas such as spending, Global Warming, immigration, etc.
In doing so, they lost Congress last year and if his advice is followed, it will lose the next election, too.
Hi RJ - I agree with Rove
November 18, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Dee BunkI don't think he means that you have to compromise the principles. You just have to explain them in our terms not the media's and the liberals. There is no reason in the world that 98% of African Americans should be voting Dem except for the fact that Dems paint Republicans as Racist. We need to stop accepting that and turn it around.
Candidates can go in these poor areas and ask questions like: How many more decades are you willing to let the American dream pass you by because Dems convince you that you can't do it on your own despite evidence to the contrary? African Americans are just as smart and hardworking as the majority and other minorities why do you let the racist policies of the left hold you down and make you dependent on government when you can do much better on your own?
Hi Dee. Sorry, but I'm no fan of Rove or his philosophy
November 18, 2007 - 12:42 ET by RJYour suggestions are correct for conservatives to follow, but Rove and GWB are not conservatives.
As such, they wouldn't go to "non-traditional" Republican voters and show them why we're right. Instead, they would continue pandering and trying to out-Democrat the Democrats.
Rove and GWB may not be in this election, but you can bet that if the spineless Republican Party tried to follow his suggestions, they would also continue his philosophy.
The problem is no longer the RINOs, but the CINOs.
P.S. Wish I could continue, Dee, but have to go to a Veteran's
November 18, 2007 - 13:01 ET by RJCeremony to dedicate a new flagpole put in by our Scout Troop (Eagle Project). I'll check in later. :^)
"The GOP nominee must
November 18, 2007 - 12:36 ET by well99"The GOP nominee must highlight his core convictions to help people understand who he is and to set up a natural contrast with Clinton, both on style and substance."
I thought rule of law was a core conviction?I agree that we shouldnt reward illegals or pander to other special interest.There are still many common values that are shared.The Democrats get their message out but Republicans need to get theirs out.I dont mean by some sound bite or 1000 dollar dinner.Dont Republicans support small buisnesses?Do you think working class people want to pay more taxes?Dont you think they want to keep the tax breaks?
Do you think they want pork barrel spending?Just a note dont you think the Abramoff scandel and Foley had something to do with the lost of seats?
See my reply to Dee above
November 18, 2007 - 12:49 ET by RJYou mention immigration and rule of law in the same breath. Do you think Bush/Rove were following rule of law when they proposed amnesty for the illegals? Or when they dragged their feet on border security for two terms?
And, yes, Bush was conservative on taxes, but the rest of his fiscal policy was liberal.
Yes those things did also influence the election, but I believe the primary reason for the loss of seats came from disgusted conservatives no longer willing to support this non-conservative President.
This isnt about Bush Or Rove
November 18, 2007 - 13:17 ET by well99It is about Republicans getting their message out.That is the bottom line.Do you think the msm is going to give a honest view of Republican values?Do you think they wont distort the message?
"You mention immigration and rule of law in the same breath. Do you think Bush/Rove were following rule of law when they proposed amnesty for the illegals? Or when they dragged their feet on border security for two terms?"
The answer is no.I not a fan of Bush/Rove.I dont dislike them.They were wrong on many things in my view.Illegal immigration and border security are big issues with me.I dont need anti worker Dems or Chamber of Commerce Repubs selling us out.
Of course it's about Rove and Bush
November 18, 2007 - 16:50 ET by RJYou're not being consistent. Please re-read the thread. I responded to your statement that Rove's prescription is a good one. I made it very clear that following Rove is very different from following conservative principles.
My point
November 18, 2007 - 17:13 ET by well99Was it isnt about the messenger.It is about the messege.I did miss the post to Dee.Also you might notice I am talking about Republicans not conservatives.I am neither but Clinton and the left would hurt the country.So I am against them.I want who ever will serve the people in this country in office.IMABHO it isnt he Dems.They are to far to the left.
You're not conservative?
November 18, 2007 - 17:23 ET by RJWell, heck, no wonder you agree with Rove's proposals....his strategy (what you call his "message") isn't conservative. ;^)
Never said I was
November 18, 2007 - 17:33 ET by well99I not a republican either but I be damn if I want some left wing yutt as president or in charge of congress.
philosophical agreement?
November 18, 2007 - 17:54 ET by RJWell, it took awhile, but we seem to agree, philosophically, that Rove's strategy is inappropriate for conservatives....or, if not actual agreement, then at least an understanding of why you like it and I don't. ;^)
ok lol
November 18, 2007 - 19:49 ET by well99We can agree that we disagree but agree on disagreement.First cup of coffee after a nap.
Ohhhh!
November 18, 2007 - 08:47 ET by heldmywI went to Newsweek <shudder> and read the whole thing. It's good, sound, rational, reasonable advice from a mature, seasoned, experienced professional.
You should see the 'comments'. The Kostards are hysterical! Nearly illiterate, painful, senseless metaphors... (all spelling errors are original.)
Posted By: droopydrawers
@ 11/18/2007 3:32:11 AM -Comment:
The Rat has alread been found in the kitchen. Littte does he know there
are mousetraps set out for him now.The gall of this misfit, from the
same grain of GeorgeJr. and Cheney. Deciet.
This one is priceless (in a 'babbling dunderhead kinda way)! "The 'alomo'", "Elemer Fudd". Heh!
Posted By: nomeski
@ 11/18/2007 12:27:34 AM-Comment:
remember the alomo that is your south carolina primary where you on
drydock a great GOP CANDIDATE. GO TO it MR ELEMER FUDD. shame on you,
karla rove, again and againnnnnnn!!!!!!!!
And, not to be outdone by the other loonies: Cue the Plame/SwiftBoat/Katrina/voter fraud/rumor mongering/etc./etc...
Posted By: okie_magic
@ 11/18/2007 12:08:22 AM
Comment:
Bush's Brain sure writes a boring column. He also left out his
"winning" election tactics like spreading rumors about the opposing
candidate having a child of color out of wedlock, being gay or a
pedophile.
Then there was the outing of Valerie Plame, firing
US attorneys for not prosecuting non existant voter fraud, being a
honcho in the White House Iraq Group, helping Swift Boat John Kerry,
ignoring Katrina victims and the list goes on and on. For all his talk
about mirrors, I don't see how Rove can stand to look at himself in
one. Hard to believe one fat little neocon t u r d like Karl could do
so much damage.
And don't be fooled by his talk about Hillary.
Rove has been rooting for Hillary from the start. I'm sure he'll have
another smear and fear campaign ready for the Clintons come election
time.
Ohhhh! Thanks kidz! I needed a good laugh! And these go on and on! This is going to kill the nutroots as a political power. They may think they're in happy, safe, dKos, or DU, where stupidity, profanity and illiteracy are ways of life, but Newsweek is a little different.
They're showing themselves to a much broader (if still Left) audience. I think the moderate Left will disown these nuts in a heartbeat, out of sheer embarrassment, if nothing else!
Thank you Karl, and thank you Newsweek! Exposing this vein of hysterically funny, badly written lunacy is worth a FORTUNE in political capital! It's virtually a sucker punch to the gut.
Markos must be so proud!
ratings gambit
November 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by Wolf PanglossThis Point-Counterpoint thing is a ratings gambit by Newsweek. Nuff said.
If Karl Rove is the guy who
November 18, 2007 - 11:54 ET by riff_raffIf Karl Rove is the guy who advised Bush on things like signing McCain-Feingold, granting amnesty to illegal aliens and refusing to veto half a dozen bloated, pork-packed federal budgets, then he should be right at home at Newsweek.
I don't get it
November 18, 2007 - 12:46 ET by ChenZhenI don't get it. What did you think they expected when they brought Rove in?
Just a few days ago when Kos announced that he was going to be featured, Josh Stephenson sarcastically quipped "What liberal bias?". Now we have a post pointing out the fact that Newsweek appears to be favoring an unbiased approach after all.
Chen
November 18, 2007 - 12:52 ET by botgLooks like a point-counterpoint scenario with Kos and Karl. No real effect on the overall position of Newsweek
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
OK
November 18, 2007 - 13:15 ET by ChenZhenI guess that I'm left to assume that's a very "liberal" thing to do.
you assume much Chen, My
November 18, 2007 - 13:22 ET by botgyou assume much Chen, My point is that the Kos-Karl thing is a high visibility gimmick to attract readers. (Neither liberal nor conservative) How do you get your assumption from my next statement, with no effect on the overall position, unless you equate 'no effect' with 'very "liberal"'?
Survey the publication not the gimmick to find it's overall leaning. (something i have not commented on but you saw anyway, watch out for seeing what you want and not what is in front of you)
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
I agree on the point about
November 18, 2007 - 13:41 ET by ChenZhenI agree on the point about the gimmick. They need to make money like anyone else, and featuring these two is a great idea on their part IMO. So this decision would probably be best described as "capitalist", and the bottom line agenda with the recruitments isn't a "liberal" one per se.
Exactly Chen
November 18, 2007 - 13:51 ET by botgagreed, i don't believe i ever referenced this action as liberally motivated.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
botg
November 18, 2007 - 14:07 ET by ChenZhenWell, Josh clearly did, and I implied from Noel's last line there that he believes that Newsweek's problem with Rove would be based on ideology as opposed to his effect on the bottom line.
ok then
November 18, 2007 - 14:14 ET by botgit is fair to ask them, go for it
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
CZ
November 18, 2007 - 13:37 ET by Noel SheppardCZ,
I'm not sure what Meacham expected. Are you?
Look, this is a left-leaning magazine, agreed? This is a magazine that has largely been favorable towards Hillary. My question is how far to the right -- and, especially, antagonistic towards Hillary -- is Rove going to be allowed to consistently go.
Newsweek's gamble here is that it can bring in conservative readers interested in Rove's views without offending its regular patrons.
As such, I'm looking at this from a business perspective rather than a media bias one: if Hillary gets the nomination, and Rove continues to point out her flaws, at what point is the gain in conservative readers wiped out by the loss of liberal ones the magazine has historically catered to.
Make sense? ns
Kos?
November 18, 2007 - 13:56 ET by ChenZhenI'm not sure that the addition of Rove alone would result in a significant loss in liberal readers, but one could apply the same argument from the other direction in regards to Kos (repelling some of the conservatives that they were hoping to attract).
CZ
November 18, 2007 - 14:03 ET by Noel SheppardCZ,
You could. And that's why I refer you to my review of Kos's first piece.
Look, this is an interesting and very valuable experiment for Newsweek. I applaud them for doing it.
However, probably like you, I'm not sure whether both contributors have an unfettered leash, or if some slack will be pulled in at some point depending on reader response.
As such, I'm just posing questions. Do you think that's unfair of me? ns