Posts Tagged ‘Karl Rove’

VAL 2016 | Det fascinerande med Donald Trump är att han inte låter som andra politiker med sina på förhand testade svar på frågor.

The Hollywood Reporter - August 2015 - Issue 28

Trumps frispråkighet är en del av hans kampanjstrategi. Han vågar t.o.m. vara kritisk när det gäller delar av Ronald Reagan politik. Vilket inte säger lite när det gäller republikanska presidentkandidater.

Jämför man Trump med övriga republikanska presidentkandidater (eller demokratiska för den delen) framstår de som riktiga sömnpiller.

Här är ett exempel från Janice Mins intervju med Trump för tidskriften The Hollywood Reporter tidigare i år.

You voted for Reagan, right?

I did. I was friendly with him.

Is he your model?

No, he’s not a model. I didn’t like NAFTA [NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, but Reagan first proposed a ”North American accord” in a 1979 speech, and a precursor to NAFTA was signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1988.], I didn’t like some of the economic policies. But he was a man that I respected and liked, and he liked me.

But he also could broach moderates, conservatives, Democrats.

He did. Well, he was a Democrat with a liberal bent as a younger man. And then he became a conservative Republican. He had a great way about him. A great sense of dignity. And he was a wonderful father for the country in a sense. He had a great feel for what the country represents.


If you’re in this for the long haul, do you have to be more diplomatic in the media?

A little bit. A little more selective, I would say, more than diplomatic. And I’m very capable of doing that.

You’re friends with the WWE’s Vince McMahon. Critics have said your campaign is like pro wrestling — it’s just theatrics.

One of the reasons I tell people about my level of intelligence — like, for instance, I had an uncle, Dr. John Trump, who was at MIT, like totally brilliant, became a professor at MIT — is when you’re a Republican conservative, you have to build up your credentials a little bit. But I can pivot any way. I can be a very elegant, highly refined person, I can be a very politically correct person where I would never ever say anything that’s even slightly over the edge, or I can be who I want to be. It’s very time-consuming to be politically correct. And I don’t have the time. It’s also very boring to be politically correct. Right? You wouldn’t be here if I was totally politically correct.


Obviously, the power of your celebrity and brand means something.

If I weren’t a successful person, it wouldn’t work as well. Voters have great confidence in me because I really have been successful. I have an income of over $400 million a year. I don’t need anybody’s money. I was offered $5 million last week by a lobbyist to put in the campaign. I said, ”No, I don’t need it.” He said, ”What do you mean, ‘I don’t need it?’ ” I said I don’t need it. This is a guy that I know well, a good lobbyist, a tough cookie. He’s not giving to me because he thinks I have the most beautiful hair he’s ever seen. He’s giving to me because when he has one of his companies in trouble or needs something, they want to call me and say, ”Hey, Don, how you doing? Remember me?” I don’t need that stuff. Whereas Jeb Bush, with $114 million that he raised [so far this year], and Hillary with the $60 million [CBS News reports she raised $47 million in the campaign’s first quarter] and everyone else with the money they raised, they’re going to be called upon, and they’re going to have to do those things like little puppets. So people do respect that about me. I don’t need it.


These campaigns get dirty and ugly. Would you ever use Karl Rove?

No. Is he a friend of yours?

No, but he’s been a godfather of elections for the GOP.

What happened is Karl Rove in the last cycle spent $436 million, and he didn’t win one race. And on election evening [when he challenged Fox News’ Obama victory prediction], he had a bad night. The result was wrong! I guess you’re using that name as an example. I’ve got a lot of people against me. And in a way, it emboldens me. I don’t like it, but it emboldens me. I mean, Fox has not been nice to me, in my opinion. Not just at the debate. You see some of these pundits get on, and they don’t know what they’re talking about. They’ve been predicting my doom for a year.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Hollywood Reporter, augusti 2015, (nummer 28).

Read Full Post »

Jack Ohman - May 19, 2014

Läs mer: ”Karl Rove vs. Hillary Clinton: Whisper campaign explodes on Internet” av Cathleen Decker. 

Bild: Jack Ohman. Fler teckningar av Ohman på GoComics.com

Read Full Post »

Läs mer: ”Adviser: Romney ‘shellshocked’ by loss” av Jan Crawford på CBS News. Bild: Jeff Danziger. Fler av hans teckningar på GoComics.com.

Read Full Post »

Information: American Crossroads är en super-PAC som leds av Karl Rove. Rove var en av president George W. Bushs strateger.

Read Full Post »

USA | Karl Rove har kallats George W. Bushs hjärna. Han är också hjärnan bakom Crossroads som är en av valets viktigaste organisationer.

De organisationer som av skattemässiga skäl i USA har beteckningen ”527” (s.k. super-PAC:s) eller ”501(c)(4)” kommer att inta en framträdande plats när man snart skriver historien om valrörelsen 2012.

Organisationerna får lagligen inte samordna sina aktiviteter med presidentkandidaternas egna kampanjorganisationer.

Men alla utgår i realiteten ifrån att det finns tysta strategiska överrenskommelser kring vilka politiska budskap organisationerna skall driva för att det skall gagna den egna favoriten i valet.

Dessutom kan dessa organisationer attackera motståndaren på ett sätt som knappast någon av kandidaterna skulle våga för att inte riskera att stötta bort väljare.

Och i år är det de organisationer som attackerar Barack Obama – och därmed indirekt gynnar Mitt Romney – som drar in mest pengar.

Men vad som ofta glöms bort när det rapporteras om organisationerna i media (inte minst i Sverige) är att det var liberala grupper, sympatiskt inställda till demokraterna, som drog igång vad som idag har blivit en gigantisk penningslukande verksamhet.

Paul M. Barrett, Bloomberg Businessweek, skriver:

In the strange realm of campaign finance, the Internal Revenue Service classifies Crossroads GPS as a nonprofit, nonpolitical “social welfare” organization—a 501(c)(4) in tax code parlance—that does not have to identify its backers. Crossroads GPS channels money into “issue” advertisements, which implicitly, but not very subtly, attack Obama and other Democrats.


To maintain its supporters’ anonymity, a social welfare group like GPS must not have a “primary purpose” of a political nature, and it cannot coordinate strategy with candidates. In an election season, however, only a very naïve or obtuse viewer would miss the point of the organization’s prolific ads.

For conservative donors willing to reveal themselves, Rove designed a sister group, a “super PAC” called American Crossroads, which operates from the same offices as GPS, with some of the same executives, employees, copywriters, and consultants. It, too, is technically independent from the Romney campaign. Known as a 527, it does report its donors to the Federal Election Commission, and it can indulge less coyly in pushing Romney and other Republicans.


Back in the 2000s, Rove says in an e-mail interview, it was Democratic-leaning labor unions and liberal plutocrats such as hedge fund financier George Soros and insurance tycoon Peter Lewis who provoked the unlimited-outside-money boom. Whoever started the gonzo fundraising wars—and in 2010, the Supreme Court played an important, if misunderstood enabling role with Citizens United v. FEC—the Crossroads operation is way out in front this election cycle. Along with the billionaire Koch brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other conservative allies, the Crossroads-led offensive is collectively poised to spend more than $1 billion on the 2012 elections, according to Republican operatives. That’s roughly twice—repeat: twice—what Democrats expect to spend by means of their super PACs and social welfare groups.


It irritates Rove that Obama has succeeded in crafting the conventional wisdom on Citizens United. According to Obama’s account, a 5-4 conservative judicial pronouncement liberated a cabal of zillionaires and corporations to launch a hostile takeover of American politics.


“The left,” Rove notes, “pioneered the use of 527s and 501(c)(4)s years ago, spending millions of dollars to influence public opinion and the policy landscape, on issues spanning the environment to the Iraq War. Drawing on their example, Crossroads was being planned before Citizens United, and would exist with or without Citizens United.”


In 2004 a 527 called America Coming Together led a $200 million initiative, partly financed by Soros and Lewis, to unseat George W. Bush. One reason many forget this liberal financial surge is that it failed; Kerry, a diffident campaigner, lost by 34 electoral votes. Republicans, for their part, didn’t fully appreciate the advent of outside groups because they were lulled by Bush’s talent for gathering direct-contribution checks with the assistance of “bundlers,” the dedicated supporters and lobbyists who aggregate individual donations.

Rove and his consultant friend Ed Gillespie—now a paid senior adviser to the Romney campaign—had warned from the inception of McCain-Feingold that it would lead to problems for Republicans. Borrowing from the chorus of the classic Sonny Curtis song, Gillespie joked that as RNC chair for the 2004 election cycle, he “fought the law, but the law won.” In 2009, Rove and Gillespie decided it was time for Republicans to stop whining and turn the tables.


“It’s ironic,” he says, “that many of those who are squealing the loudest now [about Crossroads] are the same people who were mute when groups on the left were pioneering the use of 527s and 501(c)(4)s. … Liberals cheered then but are now quick to try and stop conservatives from using the techniques they used in the past.”

He and his acolytes are clearly enjoying themselves. This is something that Rove’s many psychoanalysts in the media and among Democrats seem to forget: He really loves the fight.

Bild: Tidskriftsomslaget är Bloomberg Businessweek den 30 juli-5 agusti 2012.

Read Full Post »

POLITIK | Mitt under Super Bowl sändes en reklamspot från Chrysler som nu misstänks vara förtäckt politiskt stöd för president Barack Obama.

Chryslers reklamvideo är smått briljant. Till och med republikaner som kritiserar reklamen erkänner det.

Och det är en del av problemet. Hade det varit ännu en anemisk reklamfilm med en tillsynes förarlös bil som planlöst susar omkring i ett anonymt landskap skulle ingen bry sig.

Men filmen sticker inte bara ut för att den har bra bild och manus (och Clint Eastwood i huvudrollen). Filmen har dessutom ett budskap.

Och budskapet låter som något en kreativ kampanjstrateg för en Super PAC med sympatier för Barack Obama skulle ha kunnat hitta på.

Oavsett vilket skall man komma ihåg att Chrysler, precis som General Motors, räddades med hjälp av skattebetalarnas pengar under president Barack Obama (och George W. Bush).

Filmen kan uppfattas som ett tack till Obama för hjälpen.

Karl Rove, f.d. politisk rådgivare till president George W. Bush, säger:

I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they’ll never pay back.

Texten till ”It’s Halftime in America” i sin helhet:

It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.

It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game.

The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.

I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead.

But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.

This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.

Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.

Namnet “It’s Halftime in America” låter påfallande likt Ronald Reagans klassiska “Morning in America” (som officiellt heter ”Prouder, Stronger, Better”). Vilket naturligtvis bara förstärker känslan av att filmen har politiska undertoner.

Read Full Post »

DONALD TRUMP sonderar terrängen för en eventuell presidentvalskampanj. Men hans främsta tillgång är inte miljonerna på bankkontot utan det föga imponerande republikanska startfältet. Så kanske kan han bli partiets kandidat. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Sheelah Kolhatkar skriver;

Here are a few things we know about Donald Trump: He likes to brag; he’s an excellent salesman and a master brander […] he exaggerates as a strategic tool and a birthright. He has learned over time that if he says something often enough and is willing to ignore evidence to the contrary, eventually people will stop bothering to challenge him on matters ranging from his net worth to unsubstantiated claims about President Obama’s citizenship—and, that if they do, he can brush them aside and bluff onward, making him the perfect avatar of the truthiness age.


So far, Trump has spoken to at least five Republican strategists in his search for political advice, including Tony Fabrizio and John McLaughlin. […] Trump has also laid plans for appearances in key states such as New Hampshire and Nevada, which he planned to visit on Apr. 27 and 28, South Carolina on May 19, and Iowa in June. ”He’s a known commodity. You’ve got to think beyond the man to the larger brand,” says Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster with whom Trump has also had talks. ”He just seems to be able to say things and do things that no one else can.” But, she adds, ”My vote is, don’t beat Obama on where he was born, beat him on where he’s taken this country.”

That Trump is being seriously considered by anyone as a candidate for President is due to a unique confluence of circumstances. Some of it is luck and timing. The Republican Party is struggling for a strong establishment candidate. Thus far, Democrats appear united, and President Obama’s fundraising advantage and campaign machinery is formidable.


Trump’s adventure has not charmed the core of the party he’s flirting with. Trafficking in the birther issue is seen by all but the outer fringe as a waste of time. ”This is a mistake and it will marginalize him,” Karl Rove told Bill O’Reilly on Fox News on Mar. 30. ”Barack Obama wants Republicans to fall into this trap because he knows it discredits us with the vast majority of the American people.”

Read Full Post »

gop-elefant1GOP: Karl Rove, tidigare rådgivare till president Bush, har tagit fram tio rekommendationer för hur det republikanska partiet skall kunna återhämta sig efter alla valförluster.

Rove konstaterar att Barack Obama bara fick ”3,1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4,6 points more than John Kerry in 2004”. Demokraternas seger är lika mycket ett resultat av republikanernas och John McCains många felsteg som demokraternas vinnande strategi.

Istället för att i panik vända upp och ner på partiet föreslår Rove att partiet måste fortsätta att omhulda ”both tradition and reform: grass-roots Republicans want to apply timeless conservative principles to the new circumstances facing America”.  

De tio förslagen:

1. Undvik att opponera bara för opponerandets egen skull. Istället bör republikanerna stödja president Obama när han har rätt (Afghanistan), försöka övertyga där det är möjligt (handelsfrågor) och opponera där frågorna så kräver (skatter).

2. Se till att bli lika trygga i att debattera vård och utbildningsfrågor som man är i att driva skattefrågor och säkerhetspolitiska frågor.

3. Att vinna kriget mot terroristerna är fortfarande en fråga om nationell överlevnad. Här bör man samarbeta med Obama om det är möjligt, annars se till att han hålls ansvarig.

4. Republikanerna måste nå bättre resultat hos viktiga väljargrupper. Detta gäller speciellt bland de unga och bland de spansktalande.

5. Ansiktet utåt för partiet kommer för en längre period nu att vara ledarskapet i kongressen. Det gäller att utnyttja de främsta man har i både senaten och i representanthuset.

6. Att vaska fram goda kandidater börjar redan nu. Delstaterna är det bästa stället för att hitta nya kandidater. Att välja fler guvernörer är därför en bra strategi.

7. Att hitta partiets presidentkandidat för 2012 är något som bara kan växa fram organiskt. Det går inte att redan nu bestämma vem det skall bli. Rove poängterar att republikanerna tror på marknaden så varför inte låta idéernas marknad få avgöra vilken kandidat som är mest lämplig.

8. Hjälp till självhjälp. Alla politiker som är intresserade av presidentvalet 2012 måste vara behjälpliga även 2010. Detta gäller även think tanks, författare och tänkare. Alla bör delta i idédebatten och i dansen kring kandidaterna.

9. Värdefrågorna får inte överges. Inte minst för att dessa frågor – t.ex. abortfrågan – ofta är mer populära än de kandidater som förespråkar dem.

10. Republikanerna måste lära sig hantera det nya medielandskapet.

Read Full Post »

KAMPANJ: Karl Rove – framgångsrik strateg för George W. Bush i två presidentval – förespår nu en klar seger för Barack Obama. Segern – enligt Rove – blir 338 elektors röster för Obama (+86 jämfört med 2004) och McCain 200 (-86 för 2004).


Roves gamla strategi – att satsa fullt ut bara på väljarbasen och strunta i mittenväljarna – var en strategi som aldrig skulle fungera i detta val.

Både Obama och John McCain har varit kandidater som har haft anhängare i motsatta lägret och bland oberoende väljare (s.k. Independents).

Att försöka attrahera demokrater och icke-partianknutna var speciellt viktigt för republikanen McCain eftersom alla var trötta på Bush och skandaler bland partiets egna politiker. Finanskrisen och Irakkriget har inte heller gjort saken bättre för McCain.

När McCain då valde Sarah Palin till vicepresidentkandidat brände han därmed också alla möjligheter bland mittenväljare och demokrater. Att det ändå blev Palin berodde på att McCain aldrig skulle klara att vinna om han inte äntligen fick igång gräsrotsengagemanget bland sitt partis väljare.

McCain har aldrig varit populär bland de egna gräsrötternas kärnväljare utan har alltid uppfattats som ”moderat”.

Karl Rove har rätt att Obama kommer att vinna stort. Vad han inte säger är att det beror på hans egen strategi under två tidigare valkampanjer för Bush har bidragit till att göra detta val så infekterat för republikanerna.

Read Full Post »