Set aside partisan stuff on this one. (recurring theme huh?) Well, ok who cares? I'm really just posting in awe of the guy. Don't like him, but one has to appreciate how he works. There are good things to be learned here, that can be clearly differentiated from the poor application of the ideas.

Rove just kicked all sorts of ass. His understanding of people, our system and political factors is amazing.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000719.htm

While history will probably focus on all the ramifications of his acts, and rightfully so, wonder if we will see the same focus on how he got it all done?

I'm actually hoping this is the case. We need to do some general fixing. What better roadmap do we have? I suspect we've not seen the last either? Who wouldn't want to take a swing at that kind of resource?

He may be damaged goods, but in the right circles, that's a badge of honor. Proven, in other words.

Coupla catch phrases come to mind:

-manage expectations

-perception is reality.

Rove fully groks both of these. (and I mean grok literally --they are a part of him, such that the word "lie" really is difficult to pin down from his perspective.)

So here is the noodle twister. He leveraged a specific group of people. These people and their value judgments are fairly easily exploited. That's a given, otherwise many of his tactics would not have worked as well as they did.

Are there other similar groups out there? Perhaps not quite formed or potent because they've not been pandered to? If we were to apply the Rove, "Nothing off the table, no holds barred." approach to winning, could it be done again with another nacent movement?

President Bush 1, lost his reelection, primarily because his top political operator, Lee Atwater died. Bush 2 was able to get elected and reelected, because he had one of the best political operatives around. Clinton also had a great one in James carvele.

It's surely not true that Bush I lost in 1992 solely because Atwater died. There were numerous reasons. For one, Bush was caught rather flat-footed in 1992 even needing to have to campaign hard, because he assumed that after his Gulf War popularity he was probably a shoe-in for re-election. Plus, he never dreamed people would elect someone like Bill Clinton (draft dodger, peacenik, moral lapses with women) rather than himself, an upright, moral, experienced president with good character (in his view).

Beyond that, Bush had a tough time rallying the conservative base after breaking his "read my lips: no new taxes" pledge; Pat Buchanan's protest primary run 1992 got a lot more support than it should have against an incumbent president, for that reason. And Bush never managed to bond with the Christian Right the way his son would.

Also, let's not forget the fact that things weren't going well in 1992 - the economy was in the toilet and Bush seemed badly out of touch (aides later blamed medication Bush was taking for Grave's Disease for making him less focused than he had been in 1988). And, Bill Clinton ran a superb campaign in 1992, certainly the best a Democrat has run in more than a generation. Republicans probably weren't expecting that, either, after the inept effort of Dukakis in 1988.

It's true Bush didn't run a great campaign in general in 1992, but it's also likely another Atwater-88-style sleaze campaign wouldn't have worked, either.

Andrew

Wanna bet that Karl Rove becomes WAY out of favor in about 4-6 years?

No. I will not take that bet.

Evil never goes out of favor Vitalogy.

Bush 1 lost in 1992 ... because, as Andrew says, he sat on his laurels.

Two big contributing factors: Bill Clinton nailed it perfectly ... and Ross Perot was a big contributing factor here too, and he hurt Bush a LOT more than Clinton.

I figured he was sitting on something else, like turdblossom. Ooh, look! A diamond! Oh wait, it's just a crappy Rhinestone.

Hah he probably sat on that Rhinestone hoping it would turn into a diamond.

"Are there other similar groups out there? Perhaps not quite formed or potent because they've not been pandered to? If we were to apply the Rove, "Nothing off the table, no holds barred." approach to winning, could it be done again with another nacent movement?"

Missing, I think this is a good question. He appealed to the weakest minds in America: The folks who cannot make it through a week without the unity of prejudice. I do not honestly know if there is a more easily manipulated group than frightened sheep with something to hide.

Karl did not universally appeal to people of traditional faiths. This movement to the right was not made by en masse by Mennonites, or Quakers, traditional Protestants or Catholics. This move was endorsed and followed by churches founded in the era of newspapers, railroads, and later, broadcasting.

He appealed specifically to the squirmy guilty disgusting kind of Christian. The ones who need to hide with five hundred other borderline personalities in a mall like setting. These are cults by virtually any definition, but because they hide behind Jesus they are accepted by the greater community.

These churches are easy to spot. They are full of folks who screwed the pooch so badly the first time that they have to deny themselves any history. They refuse to learn from mistakes. Thanks to bright ideas from the church, they simply bury them like turds and get born again every time they blow it. Guilt and remorse are just part of the script and nothing is learned.

Rove knows that these folks will always be easy to steer around. After all, if they had any sense, they would be out helping people like millions of other Christians. They would have a soup kitchen, a clothing center, a clinic, a place for abused mates, or a really nice playground for the neighborhood kids. Nope, they just have a big place where desperate people go to feel part of anything at all.

These people sit in their cars, sit at work, sit in their pews, and sit on their couches in front of the television. When day is done, you can find them sitting on the edge of the bed, praying earnestly for a comfy chair in heaven.

Sheeple. I'll be asleep before I can count a hundred of them.

Mark my words, 4-6 years from now, those on the right will loathe Karl Rove. Although he led the GOP to some victories, he ultimately will have led them to defeat. I look at Karl Rove like I do Bob Whitsitt. Talented, motivated, win at all costs. And look where ole Trader Bob is today.

BrianL writes:
Ross Perot was a big contributing factor here too, and he hurt Bush a LOT more than Clinton.

Actually, exit polling suggested that Perot hurt both Clinton and Bush about equally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

Some conservative analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.

Andrew

Permanent Republican Majority -- NOT! What Rove did quite sucessfully was drag the GOP into tatters, heh. Idiot.