ABC Again Insinuates That ‘Bitterly Polarizing’ Rove Was Behind Swift Boat Ads

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
  • Bookmark and Share

According to ABC’s Terry Moran, Karl Rove’s brand of politics can be defined by a mixture of "divisiveness, anger" and "ruthlessness." During a segment on Monday's edition of "Nightline," the co-anchor derided the "era of Karl Rove" as one that exhibited "bitterly polarizing politics."

Moran also left the impression that it was Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush, who was behind the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads against John Kerry:

[File footage from 2004] George W. Bush: "The architect, Karl Rove."

Terry Moran: "That was back in 2004 and President Bush was thanking Rove for planning and executing his reelection strategy. But look around at American politics today and you see that there is much, much more that Karl Rove built."

Clip from Swift Boat Veterans ad: "John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

As the MRC’s Brent Baker previously noted, Monday's edition of ABC's "World News" also inaccurately blamed Rove for the Swift Boats commercials, which were actually created by a group of Vietnam veterans and not funded by the White House.

In a tease, Moran began the segment by deriding Rove, who will be leaving the White House at the end of August, as "The Divider" and "The man who made our politics a no-holds barred battlefield..." He went on to quote William Slater, author of "Bush’s Brain," a phase that has become a favorite for liberals as a way to belittle the President. Just before that, however, the ABC anchor ascribed some exceedingly negative traits to Rove’s brand of politics:

Moran: "Divisiveness, anger, ruthlessness. That’s what you might call Rovian politics. Karl Rove didn’t invent Red America vs. Blue America, he exploited it relentlessly."

Wayne Slater (co-author, "Bush’s Brian"): "Karl Rove really approached politics from the very beginning as a game of division, even when George Bush ran as the uniter not the divider, Rove was running a campaign that was designed to divide the field, wedge issues, attacks on opponents, extraordinary political strategies designed to cultivate and motivate just enough voters to win. But in the process, you alienate forces against you."

Moran went on to describe these tactics as "scorched earth." However, while the "Nightline" host added the caveat that Rove "didn’t invent" tough campaigning, has he forgotten the era of Bill Clinton? After all, it was James Carville, a top Democratic operative, who smeared Clinton accuser Paula Jones as trailer park trash. It was Paul Begala, another Clinton aide, who last year slimed Rush Limbaugh as a "drug-addled gasbag."

The subtext of Moran’s piece became very clear with the help of some visuals: At the close of the segment, he wondered if the country has "had enough of [Rove’s] bitterly polarizing politics? Or will the era of Karl Rove continue?" During the "had enough" portion of the sentence, video of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton accompany the audio, when Moran asked if the Karl Rove era will continue, President Bush can be seen. Subtle, Moran is not.

A partial transcript of the August 13 segment, which aired at 11: 35, can be found below:

Terry Moran: "Tonight on Nightline: The Divider. Inspiring awe or anger, scoring historic victories for a polarizing president. The man who made our politics a no-holds barred battlefield, Karl Rove."

Moran: "Good evening. I'm Terry Moran. Well, he may be the most powerful American political figure nobody ever voted for. After more than 30 years as George W. Bush’s right-hand man, the past six and a half in the White House, Karl Rove is calling it quits. He was a political strategist almost without peer and a policymaker in the Bush administration almost without rival, but what Karl Rove really did was shape contemporary American politics by dividing and conquering. Love him or hate him, there is no denying his impact. When it comes to American politics, for better or worse, we have all been living in the era of Karl Rove and no one knows it better than George W. Bush."

George W. Bush: "The architect, Karl Rove."

Moran: "That was back in 2004 and President Bush was thanking Rove for planning and executing his reelection strategy. But look around at American politics today and you see that there is much, much more that Karl Rove built."

Clip from Swift Boat Veterans ad: "John Kerry cannot be trusted."

[Clips from talk shows]

Bill O’Reilly: "He’s the villain. He is the villain in Massachusetts."

Ann Coulter: "The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No."

Moran: "Divisiveness, anger, ruthlessness. That’s what you might call Rovian politics. Karl Rove didn’t invent Red America vs. Blue America, he exploited it relentlessly."

Wayne Slater (co-author, "Bush’s Brian"): "Karl Rove really approached politics from the very beginning as a game of division, even when George Bush ran as the uniter not the divider, Rove was running a campaign that was designed to divide the field, wedge issues, attacks on opponents, extraordinary political strategies designed to cultivate and motivate just enough voters to win. But in the process, you alienate forces against you."

Moran: "Rove's scorched earth style brought Republicans and George W. Bush a string of remarkable victories, but those days are gone."

.....

11:43pm

Donna Brazile (Former Democratic operative) : "I would hope that Democrats are not popping champagne about his departure from Washington because, one, he's not going far. Two, he has the President's number. And I mean, real number. And three, Karl Rove in his heart still wants to win at all costs. So, I suspect that at some point he will re-emerge."

Moran: "But the question now is, [video of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama plays] has the country had enough of his [Video of George Bush and Karl Rove] bitterly polarizing politics? Or will the era of Karl Rove continue?"

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yea..yea....right......

How can you Say "the man nobody voted for" and the "Era of Carl Rove" in the same Article  ?  Doesn't make sense....Last time someone Vetoed a Pelosi Bill, was it Bush or Rove ? ?

History will show Bush was elected into the "W" Era, The Era of NO NEW Terror Attacks since 911 on the USA, compared to Spain, England, etc...... Carl will be a footnote somewhere behind the Deputy Administrator of Press Release Reviews.

The Press builds their own strawmen, and now they are building a straw Republican...I guess you gotta do what you do best...making mountains out of Rove hills.        

 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Moran, another ignorant

Moran, another ignorant blabbermouth, al a Mathews and Ohberman

Karl Rove and his ilk

Karl Rove and his ilk politicized EVERYTHING - they were (are) all about power, they did not come to Washington to serve the American people, only to gain absolute power for Republicans and their corporations

wow..... everything....

wow..... everything.... that's a lot of things...

That means you should be able to easily provide even one single quote of Karl Rove instigating a politicization of an issue that was previously neutral.  I don't mean some crap that you read somewhere in a newspaper that made up a boogeyman story to scare readers, I mean a quote from Karl Rove.

After all, nobody in the media would suspect him of villainy if they had NO evidence of wrongdoing like a single quote... or would they?

 

You're obviously an expert in Washington's inner workings... so much so that you're able to psychoanalyze the intentions and motivations of people you've probably never met, and then state those findings as unequivocal fact.  Tell me, oh informed one, without going to google, can you name Karl Rove's "ilk"?  You know, the other campaign strategists and PR advisers?

 Or maybe you're jsut parroting the same hateful speculative crap that the NYT spits out without provocation.  Gee, where did the divisiveness REALLY come from?

 

Karl Rove evil...

Tell that lie, tell it big, and tell it often, and it will become the truth.  That's the strategy Hitler himself invented (that's a quote from him).. too bad you're as easily brainwashed.

As opposed to Bill Clinton

they did not come to Washington to serve the American people, only to gain absolute power for Republicans and their corporations -katlee

As opposed to Bill Clinton who came to Washington to serve the American people by taking confidential FBI files, slandering and firing the Travel Office staff,, gutting the military, selling nuclear secrets and advanced technology to the Chinese, accepting foreign campaign contributions...is that enough "service" for you?

Monica offered her "service"

Monica offered her "service" too!  ) :

"Dick Cheney shot someone in

"Dick Cheney shot someone in the face and got away with it. Bill Clinton shot someone in the face and got impeached"

Legendary 1960s rocker Mitch Ryder, 8-12-2007

ROFLMAO!!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Del, That comment of

Del,

That comment of yours deserved a warning title....sheesh!

Would someone help me up off the floor please?

Excellent!

 

I'm stealing that one, Del!

I'm stealing that one, Del!

I almost included that, but

I almost included that, but decided to go the high road....there's enough real stuff without including the priapic one's extra-curriculars.

but decided to go the high road

Normally I would agree, but he degraded the Office of President, there ought to be a law...

v

You forgot about the 192 Fired US Attoneys..a la Clinton

Mamamia belt....you forgot about the firing by Clinton of the  192 US attorney's.....That's Gonzales times 21....I think we ought to Investigate the 193 one, the one Clinton did not fire..the only one...Why ? 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

Yes, dear.  

Yes, dear.

 

Who's Polarizing?

Who's  Polarizing?

That's what I thought.

Bassackwards

"they did not come to Washington to serve the American people, only to gain absolute power for Republicans and their corporations"

You have it exactly backwards.  Clinton served himself and had himself served.  He faked bi-partisanship and then crapped on his own Party-Members.  He stepped on anyone who got in his way.  He let others serve the jail time he deserved:  Tucker, McDougal etc.  And he never met a lie he didn't like - as long as it served his purpose.

Bush is the exact opposite.  He's trying to humbly serve his country - whether he's doing a good job of it is debatable, but your statement is ABSOLUTELY WRONG and, in reality, applies to your hero - Billy Boy...a man who did anything and everything to get elected, even destroy his own supporters!

WAKE UP!!!

Who divided who

 It's obvious that we see this differently.  2000 election, James Byrd ad accusing Bush of his death because he didn't support a hate crimes law, how devisive is that? The drunk driving story, just days before the election, who brought that out?  Democrats, determining that Florida was the key to the election and attempting to steal in with lies and innuendo, how divisive is that?  Democrats, after the failure to win, but the success at dividing, "Let's blame it on Rove and his form of politics." 

2002 Congressional Elections, Democrats vote for Iraq war, since they're behind in the polls and need something to pick them up.  Democrats trying to politicize the Homeland Security Bill wanting to unionize airport security workers.  Democrats, filibustering judges (which they keep doing until some smart Senators force them to stop) and yet, let's blame Rove for the division. 

2004 elections, National Guard Story, bringing Dick Cheney's daughter into the debates, trying to make John Kerry the "war hero" vs. the National Guard pilot that avoided the war.  Yet, let's blame Rove for the division.

2006 elections, Bush lied, people died and no plan and yet, it's Karl Rove being blamed for the division in the country. 

There has been no political party that has purposely tried to divide a country, for strictly political purposes, than the Democratic Party. Their political strategists, Paul Begala, et al, are the poster boys for dividing the country. 

There are some of us that believe 2006 was an anamoly, a vote against the status quo, not necessarily for the Democrats.  If the Democrats keep going, the way they're going, they could prove us right.  We'll find out who people really believe are trying to divide the country.  

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Real Rove

According to ABC’s Terry Moran, Karl Rove’s brand of politics can be defined by a mixture of "divisiveness, anger, ruthlessness."

No need to read further. Wasn't Rove part of the New Tone?

JDW

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

 

Kerry brought the whole

Kerry brought the whole swift boat campaign on himself with his own actions.  Did he really think he behavior during and after the Vietnam war would not hurt him in a general election?  The irony is that Rove is being villified for using tactics that dems have used in every election for years.  Class and social warfare is the hallmark of the democrat campaign, look at the current crop.

Jean-Claude Kerry chose to

Jean-Claude Kerry chose to make his military "experience" the center of his campaign from the get-go, starting with his hilarious "reporting for duty" stand-up comedy routine at the '04 Dem Convention.

He knew that there was a chance that John O'Neill would come after him; after all the two had been at odds for decades. Obviously he assumed that the "objective" mainstream media would cover for him-which of course they did.

If more people had known about the Swiftie's charges, he would have lost by at least 5 points.

Like a dog that returns to its vomit

Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.  Proverbs 26:11

...

Not to mention the fact that the whole "reporting for duty" schtick was meant to embarass Bush for never having seen combat.  Their smear tactic backfired, so they whine that it was unfair. 

That's right...the

That's right...the "reporting for duty" thing was planned to showcase his military record...then he got ticked off when others actually showcased his military record.....

How DARE they dispute him? Lots of guys went to Viet Nam for 4 months, go 3 Purple Hearts and went home....

Bill O’Reilly: "He’s

Bill O’Reilly: "He’s the villain. He is the villain in Massachusetts."

Ann Coulter: "The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No."

OK, I give up. What in HELL do those two quotes have to do with Karl Rove???????????????????

Motherbelt,  A good

Motherbelt,

 A good question. Perhaps Moran saw these as all part of Rove's divisive nature, something that spread. You know, all those conservatives are the same.

Right....Rove was the

Right....Rove was the puppetmaster...pulling the strings to make those people say mean things. You think Ann Coulter would let Rove take the credit for her remark?

Terry Moran

As we see daily conniption fits the media are experiencing over Karl Rove, - ‘saying it don’t make it so’. They can accuse, blame, fault, censure, charge, allege, and a lot of other words from my Thesaurus, but one must ask the question: “where’s the beef?”, because at no time do they backup their assertions with facts.

People like Moran and Olbermann are nothing more than poltroons, which according to Roget’s Thesaurus means – “somebody regarded as a contemptible coward.”  

And I’m saying it and it ‘does’ make it so!

Swift Boart Ads

I'm surprised and shocked.  Terry failed to blame Karl Rove for global warming in that piece. What an oversight!!!

The swift boart advertisements had more meat to them than Terry Moran's piece. That's why they were effective. (Terry, if Karl had been involved in the ads in violation of Federal law, he would have been found out by the Democrats by now. )

That's the template....every

That's the template....every divisive comment, critical (of Democrats) remark, and political battle can be traced back to Karl Rove. I wonder what the Democrats will do now; who will they blame?

Karl Rove

It is astounding that the mainstreamers level these charges with no evidence. A talking head repeating your point is not evidence. You could as easily put someone on to say "Keep Terry Moran away from your sheep herds".

The Swift Board Veterans for Truth believed what they said.  When all is said and done, they had more impact than Terry Moran will every have.

Terry Moran?

Surely you meant Terry Moron.

Source:

Source: http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads

"PAID FOR BY SWIFT VETS AND POWS FOR TRUTH AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES COMMITTEE.

WWW.SWIFTVETS.COM

SWIFT VETS AND POWS FOR TRUTH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT."

So I gotta ask... wouldn't a good reporter contact any one of the swift vets and ask them: "Was Karl Rove in ANY way involved in the creation of your campaign ads? Even so remotely as merely a source of inspiration to emulate?"

Then again, why would a reporter ask an obvious question when they already know the answer screws over their juicy editorial.

And, Terry, did we just

And, Terry, did we just suddenly forget it was Rove who orchestrated and typed up those "fake but accurate" documents and secretly sent them off to poor, unsuspecting Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and CBS to hastily use against Bush in the 2004 election?  Huh? Did we, Terry?  You're slipping, dude!

I'd call him a sh!+ head, but that would be a step up for Moran ... and ABC.

What amazes me is

The vitriol of the left. WOW, it's a sight to behold.

What was it the SWIFT BOAT VETS said that was not true? Oh I see, that is the problem, speaking truth to a liberal brings out the hatred.

   According to ABC’s

   According to ABC’s Terry Moran, Karl Rove’s brand of politics can be defined by a mixture of "divisiveness, anger" and "ruthlessness."

   That's such a stupid quote it's not worth a rebuttal.

    Here's the first swift-boat style ad of the TV era.  Republican Barry Goldwater was portrayed in the media as dangerous and perhaps mentally unstable.  Why? Because he was speaking openly of conservative positions.  Ironically Johnson ran as a peace candidate.  He talks in this ad of 'loving one another' but not long after his election he would have over 500,000 military personel at war.

   The famous ad only ran once but newsrooms ran it many times later as 'news'. (free)  See nothing much has changed in 40 years.

View the ad here

Maybe a little off-topic,

Maybe a little off-topic, but it's about the media "hating" Karl Rove, so I guess this is applicable.

I don't know how the rest of you feel about "Gaggle" -- I find it to be remarkably lame, profoundly childish, and, most of all, unoriginal. But, in regards to today's "Gaggle" knee-slapper: How can one call oneself a "cartoonist," when all one does is switch out text and change the date on a previously published "cartoon"?

http://newsbusters.o...

I mean, shouldn't NewsBusters and its loyal readership demand a little bit more from their resident "cartoonist"? Particularly if he's going to perpetually occupy the lead spot on the website?

 I agree FF Gaggle sucks.

 I agree FF Gaggle sucks. Something with a lot more in your face , stinging satire should occupy that space.

 When the trolls come here the first thing they should see is a warning sign, not a welcome mat. I would like them to leave very informed, but at the same time with their feelings hurt.

 

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

I agree.  Gaggle is truly

I agree.  Gaggle is truly the weakest part of an otherwise brilliant media bias site.  At the very least, it shouldn't be on the front page.  There's quite a few that don't make sense at all (still trying to figure out Walter Cronkite on the Road). 

I think I actually laughed at one cartoon.  It was. . .(scrolling, scrolling) June 15th actually.  I loved that one.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07 

Well, just think about what

Well, just think about what it would take to convince a professional political cartoonist to contribute to this site.  You'd have to convince them that they want no part in the lucrative business of syndicated media, since they sure wouldn't get hired on after supporting something which so obviously doesn't fit their mold.

I applaud our artist for the effort... cartooning is harder than it looks.  I for one don't expect epics.  Objectively though, they are rather weak, and can even be used as a reference to demonstrate a bias of the site.  I for one would rather people come to the site to be educated rather than risking turn them off by something that is obviously slanted.

What I mean by that is... you'll find a lot of people who vote Democrat, but actually hold very conservative values.  They just don't know they're conservatives because they've always been told they're Democrats by the media and that conservative values are evil etc ad nauseum.  These people think they're Democrats, so it's easy to lose this audience right off the bat if they have a knee jerk reaction to something they're "supposed" to hate.  The more non-threatening content we have that calmly and dilligently advances the message, the more likely people are to actually take enough time to read it, and maybe, just maybe, they'll change their mind.

I like Gaggle

It's not perfect, but, overall, I like Gaggle.   Maybe that's because I see it's raison d'etre differently than you folks.  

The way I see it, Gaggle presents a running commentary that wryly remarks (a concept that doesn't automatically require "humor") on daily media bias events.   It's not necessary that it offer a "wow, that was funny" statement every day.   By way of comparison, virtually all political cartoons in the MSM are pretty inconsistent. 

As for "risking" the site being seen as biased....guess what?....the site IS biased, and it's SUPPOSED to be biased.   Fearing that non-conservatives might be turned off sounds like our current crop of wishy-washy Republican politicos who are more concerned with being liked than with doing the right thing.  

I'm not suggesting we

I'm not suggesting we should be wishy washy...

Stay consistent in the message, but be consciencious of the delivery.

There's nothing wrong with trying to be liked when it does NOT come at the expense of doing the right thing, as it encourages others to JOIN you in doing the right thing.

Having a snarky comic at the top center of the page is not really a pre-requisite for doing the right thing.

I'd suggest moving it to the bottom of the page.

 I disagree that the site is supposed to be biased... I thought the site was supposed to call out bias and try to move things back to the middle of the road where reason reigns.  Promoting conservative bias would be hypocrisy.  I don't see this site listing news stories about a kitten in a tree being rescued by a fireman.... and then demanding that the fireman be identified as a registered republican since obviously he does good deeds... and blaming the evil democratic dog owner for chasing it up there. 

This site does not attempt to create new politicization where it doesn't already exist.

But I'd guess we'd have to ask the site's creators if they intended it to be biased... that's what any good researcher would do: ask a knowledgeable source.

What about it NB?  Can we get a verdict?

Khyris...

Not biased?   ha.  The perspective of this site is conservative, from the creators to the backers to the editors to most of the posters.   That makes it "biased" toward conservatism, through and through.  

But pointing out bias in the press doesn't preclude, as you suggest, being openly biased toward conservativism....and it doesn't mean we have to give up strongly arguing conservative positions in exchange for your idealistic "middle of the road" concept.

Your "trying to be liked" and "doing the right thing" leads to subduing our disgust, etc, toward many liberals who we see as systematically destroying America. 

Seriously, do you consider yourself to be a "moderate?"  Maybe you should run for office as a RINO in some blue state....   ;^>

And if you think Gaggle is "snarky" and should be hidden at the bottom in order to prevent offending liberals, I'd say it's doing it's job right where it is. 

 

The tag line at the top

The tag line at the top says "exposing and and combating liberal media bias" it does NOT say "... and replacing it with conservative bias"

You have it backwards... I never said pointing out bias in the press precludes open bias toward conservatism. I said pointing out liberal bias does not necessarily INclude bias towards conservatism.  Therefore the premise of the site does not necessarily mandate a conservative bias.  That you, and I, and other posters would demonstrate conservative bias in our user-generated postings is NOT indicitive that the site is "SUPPOSED to be biased" as you put it.

"Subduing our disgust" is what makes us different from a great many liberals.  Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rat's ass if real libs are offended.  Trying not to offend a lib is like telling Jesse Jackson you take your coffee black.  But there's a pointed difference between making sure you don't "accidentally" offend the emotionally stunted, and going out of your way to to offend an essentially undecided group that, given the chance, could be swayed to your side.

The only thing better than one less lib in the world, is one less lib AND one more conservative.

Me moderate? lol!

Khyris...

Not moderate? Well, if you say so, but even if you can't see it, some of your arguments sure follow the philosophy....

For example, your suggestion to hide something as mild as the Gaggle cartoon at the bottom of the page in order to prevent "offending" anyone gives a pretty strong hint.....

  

Terry lost his

Terry lost his "journalistic" credentials in Kerry's case. It wasn't Rove or the Vets swiftboated Kerry, he swiftboated himself with the aid of leftoid media- Dan Rather to be specific...

Like many of the MSM's

Like many of the MSM's accusations and slams against this administration, the villification of Karl Rove has been repeated so often and so much that the charges have lost their sting. If they wanted to be effective, they should have quit while they were ahead - no one cares anymore - they're numb to it...

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

}}---> Swiftboats is a comin'

Doubtless Rove would have been proud of his authorship of the Swiftboat story, but he has more character than to take credit for another's genius.

Meanwhile, John Kerry tried to cop another Purple Heart for a ketchup stain on his shirt.

What a Maroon!

Wait Moran ... John Kerry could be trusted? We know more about Ghengis Khan than we know about Kerry. 

Is Terry the biggest Moran in his family? 

Instead of doing another hit piece on the "divisive, ruthless, bitterly polarizing, Lord Vader." Try doing a real story, about a real threat, a real issue, and not your personal boo hoo's. The divisive, ruthless, bitterly polarizing, hit squad, posing as reporters nonsense isn't fit to print, let alone skew.