wow...

On my way home from work I usually listen to Fresh Air, the NPR program hosted by Terry Gross, earlier this week I caught part of her interview with Karl Rove. I knew when I heard that Rove was going to be her guest that it was gonna get interesting, I did not anticipate me spending much of my commute yelling and gesturing angrily at my car radio (though to be honest I guess I should have). As my drive home is usually only about 20 minutes I did not get to listen to the end and as I am apparently a gluten for punishment (and high blood pressure) I went online and found a transcipt so I could see what I had missed. I have linked the transcipt and the recorded version for your reading/listening pleasure. I realize it's long and rage inducing but if you have any desire to listen to the voice of complete deception check it out!

For those not interested in reading the whole thing I have kindly supplied you with some of my favorite bits:

GROSS: Michael Isikoff, in April of 2001, described George W. Bush as the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times. He says it was Rove who shaped the agenda, message and strategy that got Bush, the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times, into the White House. Do you agree that he was the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times? And if you agree, was that a plus for you?

Mr. ROVE: I don't agree. Jimmy Carter had served one term as governor of Georgia. George W. Bush at least was in his second term when he ran. George W. Bush had run a baseball club. He'd been in the oil business. He put together big deals. He'd been part of his father's presidential campaign. He had knowledge of politics that was pretty good.
And look, he certainly had more political experience than a, you know, Democrat state senator from Illinois who was in the middle of his first term for the United States Senate. I mean, Bush had run a big state. He was the governor of the second most populous state in the union.

...

Mr. ROVE: Bush contrived the agenda. In fact, I talked about this in the book. This is what was so attractive of him as a candidate. He had a clear understanding of why he wanted to run. He wanted to reform education. He wanted to reform the juvenile justice system. He wanted to reform welfare. He had thought, over the years, about ways in which he could do it. The number issue for him was education, and how do you have an accountability system that sets goals and standards and holds schools to account for failure.

...

GROSS: Let me read something that Todd Purdum wrote in Vanity Fair in December of 2006. He described an approach of campaigning that always found villains -gays, unions, trial lawyers, liberals, elitists, terrorists - and that candidates could both use this to crack the electorate at a vulnerable spot and to define themselves in sharp relief.
Do you feel like that's what you did, that you found villains that you could use in campaigns: gays, unions, trial lawyers, liberals, elitists, terrorists?

Mr. ROVE: Yeah, he ends the article by saying splitter - Rove is the splitter, and splitters never win. Well, he may be right that splitters never win, but I won. So what does that say about Todd Purdum's underlying argument?

...

GROSS: One of your goals, I think - particularly in the 2004 election - was to mobilize the evangelical vote, to mobilize the Christian right. And one of their...

Mr. ROVE: I'd say evangelicals. I disagree with your idea that there is a Christian right. In fact, the point I make in the book - which, you know, I hope people will read in its entirety - is that the view of evangelicals as a highly political, highly motivated, philosophically conservative, you know, with a well-organized, coherent framework to approach politics is wrong.

...

Mr. ROVE: You know what? You got a good quote there from Cheney, but I could give you quotes from Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bob Graham, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller, even Ted Kennedy, who opposed the use of war - the authorization of the use of force resolution, nonetheless went out a couple of days later and said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
You know, Barbara Boxer, who opposed it, said Saddam has WMD. This was a widespread consensus that was believed by a lot of people. In fact, of the 110 Democrats who vote for the war resolution, I think it is 60 or 76 of them - 67 of them stand up on the floor of the House or Senate and say, Saddam has WMD. So this is a widespread consensus by opponents of the war and by supporters.

GROSS: That consensus was based on information provided by the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. ROVE: No, that's incorrect.


I could go on but I won't. The most striking thing to me is the ease in which Karl Rove lies. And though you could argue that George Bush was an idiot or somewhat delusional and actually believed what he was doing was right and in the best interest of the most people I don't for a minute feel that way about Rove. He is a very smart man and an astute politician, he knew exactly what he was doing. To go back to the quote "Rove is the splitter, and splitters never win. Well, he may be right that splitters never win, but I won. So what does that say about Todd Purdum's underlying argument?". I think the question is what does that say about America because we did let Rove win.