Reality inversions are the right's favorite weapons. And as Ron Suskind detailed, no one knows the game better than Rove. There may be a number of reasons to be concerned but it doesn't mean there aren't dangers. A movement based on hysteria and derangement tends to collect the hysterical and deranged. Let Rove be their shepherd.

Rove's using the 'straw man' straw man. Which I guess makes him the straw straw man straw man man

Rove's persistent habit of writing/speaking/expressing drivel is -- entirely, 100%, unsurprising. I can't get too worked up about that. It's who he is.

But what gets under my skin is that HE KEEPS GETTING PUBLISHED.

Steve, why are you always linking to and quoting Repbulican/Right wingn op eds. It's incessant and somewhat annoying.

Thomas Frank had a great editorial yesterday in the WSJ why didn't you link to it? Because it wasn't linked to or talked about on 925 other liberal blogs? Amplify our own message and refute their's when need be. This Rove shit is a complete waste of our time.

grinning cat, if you don't like it, why don't you start your own blog?

Mr. Rove's persistent habit of writing drivel is troubling.

Rove was hired to produce drivel - the editors could not have reasonably expected anything else. The question is, why was that desireable? What does it say about the publication?

Next thing Rove will say that Obama is mangling the language whenever he speaks and will poke fun with "Obamaisms". Then he'll accuse Obama of cutting brush in Crawford.

Hey strawmen are only wrong when Bush does it.

Just like the deficit is only a problem when Republicans are in power.

If Obama would just say less we would have less of a DOW drop.

Oh, Karl. How I look forward to the day the Sergeant at Arms for the US Congress shows you that Congressional subpoenas are, in fact, not optional.

I bet he'll have a lot less to say on that day.

Quicksand and Tom Hilton nailed it - Rove's pathological lying is so unsurprising it's boring.

What's troubling is that national news outlets continue to give him a platform for his lying.

The idea that Republicans accuse the left of the sleazy tactics they themselves employ with relish, so that any accusations on their character is met with a he-said-she-said-they-all-do-it-I'm-gonna-lie-down indifference is common knowledge. Part of the GOP's modus operandi is to suppress the vote, and one way to do that, ironically, is not to be better people but to insinuate that the Democrats are just as bad, so you don't vote. And a voter who doesn't vote, in their point of view, is just as valuable as a voter who votes for the GOP. When you don't vote, Republicans win. So, they figure, just make everyone think Washington is SO corrupt, it's not worth figuring out. Obama is one of the first politicians in a long long time to hammer home the notion that politics are worth figuring out, for all our sakes, and it's best to keep informed and abreast, which in turn will make more people want to vote, which will keep Republicans out of power. I truly hope, with all my heart, the shameful con artistry of the GOP I've witnessed my entire adult life is finally falling out of popularity, that even voters who align themselves with Republicans' supposed values, know that tax cuts for the wealthy will be their only goal. You can only fool enough of the people enough of the time for so long.

Oh, and grinning cat? No one's putting a gun to your head and insisting you partake in discussion.

What's especially insidious is that Rove's (and Bush's) "straw men" are designed to deliver vile and unsubstantiated messages that they could then plausibly deny as their own personal views, while Obama is simply trying to maintain a veneer of civility by saying "those who take the view" when he could, with perfect accuracy and plenty of documented evidence say simply "Republicans."
Never shy on chutzpah, Rove writes "On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, 'I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.' Who exactly has that view?"
Mr. Rove, did you listen to Governor Jindal when he said on Tuesday night that: "Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people. In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government. We oppose the national Democratic view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
Who holds that view, Karl? The GOP, that's who. President Obama is just trying to be polite.

You have described a time-honored republican political device of turning reality on its head. Anything they have done, their opponents will be accused of eventually. A more common term for it is lying. Remember, you heard it here first: it won't be long before they claim Obama is torturing prisoners, or republicans.

Aside from Thomas Frank, the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal is reliably unreliable, full of falsehoods, delusions, ignorant claims and foolishness. I have found that my blood pressure does much better if I don't read those three pages dedicated

I don't understand why news part of the paper puts up with the proud-to-be-ignorant-and-wrong opinion section. Aren't they insulted that there are opinion pieces that are contradicted by actual news, sometimes in the same issue?

The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to "the wealthiest few."

Actually, they were.

Steve, you fail to understand a basic of right wing philosophy. Those tax cuts were targeted at everyone. All they had to do to take advantage of them was to get rich. The cuts were a motivating factor for poor people to get off their asses and make the millions of dollars which are their birthright as Americans.

Just as the rich are as equally as free to sleep under the bridge as the poor, so the poor are equally free to qualify for tax breaks.

I don't understand why news part of the paper puts up with the proud-to-be-ignorant-and-wrong opinion section. Aren't they insulted that there are opinion pieces that are contradicted by actual news, sometimes in the same issue?

What about Darth Cheney saying that we'd be attacked by terrorists if Obama won?

Which Republican ran against him on fear, conflict and discord?

Um, all of them?

What do I win?

And Karl failed to even mention that time that President Obama sat around reading "My Pet Goat" to those school kids...

"grinning cat, if you don't like it, why don't you start your own blog?"

I thought this was an exchange of ideas? I like Steve's blog but feel he spends way too much time on republican talking points (i.e. lies). Karl Rove is a disgraced, criminal, laughingstock but somehow remains employed by the leading newspaper in the U.S. and on the leading news network. That is what matters to me and what I would be interested in hearing more about.

Navigating the vortex of bullshit coming from the mind of Karl Rove is useless since anything coming out of his mind in print or on t.v. is 2 parts bullshit to equal part lies. We all know it why even bother stooping to the level to take it as serious discourse since it is not.

Bill Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Why isn't Karl Rove incarcerated yet?

Yes, but he is writing in the Wall Street Journal, aka DrivelCentral.

"Rove's persistent habit of writing/speaking/expressing drivel is -- entirely, 100%, unsurprising. I can't get too worked up about that. It's who he is.

But what gets under my skin is that HE KEEPS GETTING PUBLISHED."

What gets under my skin is that HE KEEPS NOT GETTING ARRESTED FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.

Someone remind me why Karl Rove is able to have a national platform in this debate?

Is this why he's too busy to respond to his subpoenas?

It's curious that Steve and the other posters here don't even attempt to refute Rove's accusation that President Obama routinely resorts to straw man arguments. I wonder why that is? It seems their defense of President Obama boils down to, "The Republicans did the nasty and now it's our turn."

Mr. Rove's persistent habit of writing drivel is par for the course.

Corrected.

-Z

It seems their defense of President Obama boils down to, "The Republicans did the nasty and now it's our turn."

Since nobody here is saying that, it appears that you are made of straw.

Accuse the other party of doing something you yourself mastered and the MSM prints it and it becomes truth for the ignorant.

I don't see Rove's columns as quite the pointless drivel that you do, Steve. In fact, I can quite easily see the point.

"History" is going to rule in the Bush Administration--a lot faster than Bush hoped it would--and Karl Rove knows that the verdict on Bush is the verdict on him. I think he's still fighting to legitimitize his tactics and the Bush/Cheney Administrations as a means of self-protection. As long as he's a part of the massive failure that was the last eight years? He has neither patronage nor power.

Rove's lying is not pathological. That implies some lack of intentionality. His lying is so sophicticated that it deserves a new category all its own. Haven't got a name for it. Sociopathology isn't quite it. Suggestions?

DBL says: "It's curious that Steve and the other posters here don't even attempt to refute Rove's accusation that President Obama routinely resorts to straw man arguments. I wonder why that is? It seems their defense of President Obama boils down to, "The Republicans did the nasty and now it's our turn.?""

BZZT, wrong as usual. Steve took two of Rove's examples and showed why neither of them were a strawman. Please go away if you aren't interested in being honest.

qwerty - what conclusion should I draw from the fact that you are apparently unable or unwilling to defend President Obama against the charge that he routinely attacks straw men?

Poster "Orwell" misses the point, willingly perhaps? Obama recognizes that deficits are a problem (unlike Dick "Deficits don't matter" Cheney). Unfortunately, a severe recession is exactly the wrong time to reduce spending. But the long term goal is, indeed, to reduce the deficit. Clinton did it. George W. Bush did not (to understate it somewhat).

About the straw men: note that the post explicitly refutes two "examples" that Mr. Rove offered.

Good tag team effort on the refutation question, Tom. Ironic that DBL repeated this dishonest claim at the same time our replies were posting.

Karl Rove has misappropriated the old Southwest brag, and thinks it is an American thing to just lie on demand! What a sorry excuse of a patriot! -Kevo

the snotty responses to grinning cat, i think, were unnecessarily rude and inappropriately unwelcoming.

he does in fact have a valid point.

i'm glad to have the reports about rove et al but if thomas frank, or any other proponent of rational thinking, had "a great editorial" in the wsj or any other venue, i'd like to see links to them here as well.

as we should have learned from the example of the republicans/conservatives/fundagelicals, opposition isn't good enough. talking about solutions is far more productive than snickering about the last predictably asinine thing that rove et al said.

hilzoy's post last night about the house passage of the captive primate safety act was like a drink of cool water.

more posts about stuff that matters, please!

I guess some of you didn't bother to read Mr. Rove's article. Here are three straw men that he claimed Mr. Obama had attacked:

[1] "On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity." Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity."

[2] "Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations?"

"Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, removed restrictions on banks owning insurance companies in 1999. If so, were Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers (now an Obama adviser) motivated by quick profit, or by the belief that the reform was necessary to modernize our financial industry?"

"Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms."

[3] "Even in an ostensibly nonpartisan speech marking Lincoln's 200th birthday, Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying "a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges.""

"Whose philosophy is this? Many Americans justifiably believe that government is too big and often acts in counterproductive ways. But that's a far cry from believing that in "every" case government is the problem or that government should be "dismantled" root and branch. Who -- other than an anarchist -- "constantly rejects any common endeavor" like building levees, roads or bridges?"

Steve did not address these charges - perhaps he didn't think they were important, or perhaps he thought they were accurate, I don't know.

None of the rest of you addressed them either. Intead, I count at least 15 posts above devoted to showing what scoundrels Republicans in general and Mr. Rove in particular are for using "straw men" tactics.

Well, OK, but don't you think that Mr. Obama was stretching things a bit when he attacked Republicans for opposing roads and bridges?

Is "DBL" short for "Dribbling Idiot?" Wait, I'm serious! DBL's comments evidence no understanding of the discussion, nor reading of anything that came before his/her own comments. Does this mean that DBL is a dribbling idiot sui generis?

"but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling."

No, Mr Rove, what's troubling is that you refuse to abide by subpoenas. What's equally troubling is that your ass hasn't been thrown in jail for it. I have a solution for this. Republicans love Guantanamo Bay, so maybe Mr Rove should be sent there for his non-cooperation. He's obviously an enemy combatant, so let's treat him that way. And it's not like we'd be mistreating him. Gitmo is a luxury resort, after all. He can bask in the fluorescent lights with a urine and feces cocktail. San Tropez can't come close to that luxury.

"On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, 'I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.' Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity."

So Obama should've said "government needs to have a minimalist role that doesn't get in the way."?

How is that differenet than saying government has no role?

"Mr. Obama also said that America's economic difficulties resulted when "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market." Who gutted which regulations? Perhaps it was President Bill Clinton who, along with then Treasury Secretary Larry Summers,.."

He left out a few other players, like Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley. You know, the senators who crafted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill.

Oh wait, they're Republicans, they don't count. Along with the 53 other Republicans in the Senate who voted for it.

So Karl's argument here is that deregulation didn't cause the economic meltdown, or that Obama didn't mention Clinton and Summers as the culprits? Where's the strawman?

"Perhaps Mr. Obama was talking about George W. Bush. But Mr. Bush spent five years pushing to further regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was blocked by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. Arriving in the Senate in 2005, Mr. Obama backed up Mr. Dodd's threat to filibuster Mr. Bush's needed reforms."

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the main cause of the problem (it didn't), and if Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were solely responsible for it (they weren't, and I am suprised Karl failed to blame Clinton with them), then I would believe this.

But alas, this arugment, like much of what comes out of Karl's mouth, is bullshit.

"Mr. Obama used a straw-man argument, decrying 'a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all.' Whose philosophy is this?"

Someone who says that government should practice "reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies"? Sound familiar, Karl?

"Who -- other than an anarchist -- 'constantly rejects any common endeavor' like building levees, roads or bridges?"

Actually, he said "rebuild" not "build". As in, fix, replace worn out or broken sections, and generally ensure their safety.

But okay, let's replace "reject" with " mostly ignore". That pretty much sums up your administration's actions towards improving levees, roads, and bridges, wouldn't you say?

I suppose I should be more sympathetic to poor Karl. His dreams of a permanent Republican majority were cut short by, well, reality.

But I can't.

He'll always be a cold-hearted, unscrupulous, lying, pig-eyed, sack of shit.

On second thought, calling Karl Rove a "cold-hearted unscrupulous, lying, pig-eyed, sack of shit" is a huge insult to the world's population of cold-hearted unscrupulous, lying, pig-eyed, sacks of shit.

"He'll always be Karl Rove" is all you need to say.

what conclusion should I draw from the fact that you are apparently unable or unwilling to defend President Obama against the charge that he routinely attacks straw men?

That 1) the Republican attacks are too dishonest to dignify with a response and 2) it's tactically stupid to let you jackasses change the subject by putting up a response to each of your bullshit accusations.