Thursday, November 8, 2012

Looking Back At The Campaign Of 2012


Karl Rove looked back at the political campaign that culminated in the 2012 reelection of President Obama and wrote a column that was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 8 under the title: “The President's 'Grand Bet' Pays Off”. Coincidentally, there appeared on the same page on the same day an article by editorial writer Stephen Moore under the title: “2004 All Over Again” which is about the political campaign that culminated in the 2004 reelection of President George W. Bush.

What makes this coincidence a strange thing is that Karl Rove was involved in both campaigns. He managed the campaign of the incumbent, George W. Bush in 2004, and he ran a Political Action Committee that backed the challenger, Mitt Romney in 2012. Thus, it can be seen that Rove's involvement in the two campaigns was so symmetrical, the close juxtaposition of the two articles easily lends credibility to the temporal relation known by the scientific name: Synchronicity.

Look what Stephen Moore says about all this: “The Democrats stole a page out of the Karl Rove play book to win … Bush won a second term by adopting the Karl Rove strategy of demonizing his opponent, John Kerry.” As to the Rove article, it says this about President Obama: “While victorious ... his campaign was unprecedented in its negativity and ugliness ... [it] may have produced a re-election victory, but it will exact costs.” Has Rove unwittingly cursed himself and the work he did during the 2004 campaign?

To get a sense as to what the answer may be, we need to define the key word which is “demonize.” To this end, we say that to demonize someone is to describe him as being demonic even though he does not deserve the description. And this prompts the following two questions: Was John Kerry demonized by the Bush campaign handled by Karl Rove in 2004? Was Mitt Romney demonized by the Obama Campaign of 2012?

What Rove did in 2004 was seize on the Kerry claim that he served his country well during the Vietnam war, and he disputed the claim in a way that demonizing the man. The claim was to the effect that he commanded a team of swift boat riders who carried out dangerous missions in the rivers of that country. No, said Rove, the man did not serve as well as he claims he did. To prove the point, Rove brought in a handful of former teammates who contradicted some of the claims made by Kerry. Rove's attack was so effectively done that Kerry's campaign was derailed, and the expression “swiftboating someone” entered the American political vernacular.

And swiftboating Romney is what Stephen Moore says the Obama team did to the man's campaign. But is this true? The answer is no, it is not. And this is because the Obama team did not say a thing that Romney did not himself reveal about his financial dealings. All that the Obama people did was interpret what Romney revealed then challenged him to give an alternative interpretation by divulging information he preferred to keep hidden even though it is the sort that everyone divulges.

What Romney did instead was to say that at the time he engaged in that sort of accounting, the practice was legal. It is still legal, he added, which is a bad thing. But he would like to change all that – which is why he was running to be President. And this, my friend, is like a bank robber saying he is running to be sheriff because he does not like what he was doing which is why he wants to catch bank robbers. He will not divulge how he did what he did but he wants the voters to trust him on this score. Well, this is so mind boggling; it only deserves being called demonic.

As to what Kerry's former teammates said about him; it amounts to less than a hill of beans. In fact, what they said shows only that the worst thing the man could be accused of is that he exaggerated the contribution he made to the war effort. And no matter which way you look at it, this matter is no worse than seeing someone tell a story about the big fish that got away. It comes nowhere near being at the level of a demonic act.

When you add to all this the consequences that will flow from Romney's act, as well as the consequences that will flow from Kerry's act, you reinforce the view that Romney was demonic and Kerry was not. This is what the voters have done in their own minds – which is why they voted the way that they did.

Remember the saying: You can fool some of the people some of the time but...