Bush throws a tantrum, but will he throw someone under the bus?

Crossposted from Town Called Dobson& My Left Wing

click to enlarge

There's more...

It's an ESCALATION, Not a "Surge"

This is right on. The Republicans and Big Media have successfully bamboozzled the Democratic leadership in DC into seemingly going along with this escalation of troops. It's a direct contradiction of the '06 mandate given to the Democrats to stop Bush and get out of Iraq. It is the Democrats that will bear the costs at the polls, if they allow an escalation to happen. Bush and Rove know that, whereas the Democrats, once again, seem like they just wish the war would go away. Jerome

If there's one thing we've learned about Karl Rove's MO it's that his job number one is to start by figuring out the poll-tested term that has the best chance of selling Bush's policies to the public and then job number two is making sure that that term is the one everyone in the media uses. Prominent examples include "social security reform" and "personal accounts" instead of "social security privatization" and "private accounts;""sectarian violence" instead of "civil war;""healthy forests" instead of "clear cuts;" you get the idea.

So I don't mean to chide anyone in particular for using the term "surge," since everyone else is doing it too. But why on earth is everyone calling it a "surge" when in any other combat situation in history the same shift on the ground would be called an "escalation?"

For examples of progressive blogs using the term, and a few closing thoughts, there's more below:

There's more...

What are the predictions for

Abramhoff, De Lay, Libby, Cheney and Rove in this upcoming year of trials and tribulations?

There's more...

An Update on The Southern Strategy

Remember the new conservative coalition that was to provide a "permanent Republican majority?" Today that pipe dream is mostly associated with Karl Rove, but originally it was envisioned by Richard Nixon as the fruit of his Southern Strategy.

There's more...

Hillary Clinton and the Bush/Rove Playbook

While I have a lot of quibbles with individual parts of the recent Mark Halperin and John Harris book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 (not the least of which is their awkward and mistaken attempt to exonerate their respective news organizations from the accusation of Freak Show influence {pp. 41-42}), on the whole it has fascinated me and I feel I have learned a lot from it.  It has given me a fresh perspective on the presidential race to come, and its lessons, I feel, can be applied to potential candidates not even mentioned in its pages.

I wish to address, however, one the main subjects in their book, the viability of the candidacy of Senator Hillary Clinton.  Many times, Halperin and Harris assert that Mrs. Clinton has been diligently learning from the political successes and failures of the past sixteen years; lessons learned not only from her husband, but from the two failed Democratic candidates and the successful George W. Bush.  The book goes on to give a laundry list of choices and tactics Mrs. Clinton may choose in her upcoming campaign, and which traits of hers she will likely play up or gloss over.  I have decided to use this framework and take it one important step further.

My theory is that Senator Clinton will essentially run a tweaked version of the George W. Bush 2000 campaign, though I suspect with fewer push-polls, and less involvement from the Supreme Court.  Senator Clinton will no doubt wield her Democratic Clinton Credentials like a broadsword, but I believe her playbook will be an adaptation of the one written by Karl Rove.  It will, that is, if she's smart.  And she's smart. Read on...

There's more...


Advertise Blogads