This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

     In 2010, Karl Rove published his 520 page autobiography Courage and Consequences: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight.

     Parts 1 and 2 detail his early life and offer some campaign tips and observations.   Part 3 is a partisan telling of Rove's GW Bush years.

     Rove is the preeminent Republican election strategist of his generation.  Rove’s election successes are notable: including Republican primaries, Rove’s client won more than 80% of the electorial contests. Rove’s crowning achievements were directing George W. Bush’s two Presidential campaigns.  Whether Rove’s successes winning election campaigns were good for the Country is another question.  Rove remains very influential.  He currently directs American Crossroads, a Republican lobbying PAC boasting revenue exceeding $200 million per year.  

     Like most autobiographies, Rove extols his successes and omits or minimizes failures.  A partisan Republican by age 9, Rove delights in bashing his adversaries.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

    Karl Rove was born on December 25, 1950. His autobiography, Courage and Consequence:  My Life as Conservative in the Fight was published in 2010.     Rove describes himself as very, very competitive, loving to win, hating to lose.  He has been very successful. Rove believes all his acts show courage: he defines "courage" as Rove's side winning.

     There is a Chinese saying: “Many those consider heroes are actually folk who will save their horse or 2nd best mistress even if it costs the entire world.” It seems to apply well to Rove.    

     Despite the book's title, Rove ignores consequences.

     For example, Rove devotes 3 pages to the Afghanistan War, which according to Rove, ended in rousing success in 2001. (Chapter 18, pages 285-287).  Rove devotes 18 pages to bragging about his pranks.  (Chapter 32 Yes it was Fun 485-493.)  

     Rove's book is divided into three parts:  Rove’s early years; How Rove runs campaigns and some insights into the election process; and Rove’s years with George W. Bush.  

     The second part is very good, containing insights of a generational election specialist talent. Whatever Rove's ethics, these should be useful to any campaigner.

1. Rove’s early years

     Rove comes from a broken family.  Rove explains that his biological Father abandoned Rove’s family to live with another man.  Rove became a Republican partisan by age 9, when he was a big Richard Nixon fan.

     Rove does not discuss any religious beliefs.  His high school years were spent in Utah at a 90% Mormon school. An already committed partisan, Rove loved Milton Friedman's right wing platitudes but gives no indication he placed them under any critical scrutiny.  

     In high school, Rove proved an energetic talented debater.  He also entered politics and rose quickly to prominence.  In 1969, Senator Ralph Smith hired Rove to work on his campaign.  Smith lost his election; Rove describes Smith as running a  stupid campaign. Through that work, Rove made enough contacts to run for the College Republicans election.

“I was asked if I could fly standby to Washington, D.C. on a regular basis, work three or four days, and sleep on a mat on the floor of the current [CR} executive director.  …the current executive director would probably take umbrage and I wouldn’t get paid.  How could I pass up an offer like that?...[Later] Our bitter infighting soured the RNC on the College Republicans.” Chapter 2 King of the College Republicans, p 26-27.

     Rove learned important lessons.  His CR wins catapulted Rove to a high level within the Republican party ranks by age 20.  (The loser of the CR election was thrown out of  the Republican party after he complained about Rove to a newspaper.)  Rove started a mail fund raiser company and became a campaign manager.  Rove ran for Congress and lost.  

     Rove’s first wife was from Houston.  Studying demographics, Rove felt Texas would shift Republican.  Rove left the University of Utah without receiving a degree and moved to Texas.  He claims the move was for his Texas politically connected wife.  Apparently, she was a work widow and soon divorced him.  Rove remarried and has one child, who is very briefly mentioned in Rove's autobiography. (Rove's 2nd wife divorced him and Rove has remarried in 2012.)

     In addition to his direct mailing and fund raising business, Rove worked for various campaigns, both as fund raiser and as strategist.  In the 1990’s, George H.W. Bush hired Rove to work on his Presidential campaign.

2.  How Rove sees the World of Elections

“Being a college Republican  [helped me learn] the power of new technologies to communicate our message.  We saw that politics was not about power or status, but about ideas and ideals.  To view it as about power was to treat it as a game, cynical and ultimately meaningless and cruel.  But to understand it was about great principles was to understand that politics could be a hopeful and important exercise of our democratic experience.”  Chapter 2, Page 33
    Getting elected is mostly about power and status.  Rove claims that the overall policy is important.  But nowhere in his autobiography does he mention any study of policy, of what makes laws good or bad, which programs worked or did not.  Instead, Rove explains in detail how he was busy selling messages and winning campaigns; his main regard is whether campaign messages help his candidate win.  One example:
    “In 1999 and early 2000, I became convinced that George W Bush could win West Virginia, something others considered dubious [because WV had been heavily democrat for years]…. The State’s coal industry was under attack from the Clinton administration, many democratic voters were pro-life-, pro-prayer, and pro-gun even if they had voted democrat for decades.”  Chap 4, Page 71
    Rove characterizes regulation as placing “the industry under attack.”  He has no discussion of whether he actually looked at or evaluated any regulation.  No discussion of a general understanding of rules and why we have them.  No discussion of whether allowing mines to function without or with relaxed safety standards is a good or bad thing.  No discussion of whether he had evaluated the pollution levels, or cared whether the extraction industry’s opposition to pollution laws were justified or not.   Similarly, Rove ignores the mine and worker safety regulations.  Wage and hour laws.  Rove's book has no analysis of any facts relating to these rules.

     Readers are familiar with the gun control arguments. Again, Rove makes no analysis or any pro's or con's for such rules.  Ronald Reagan was the last person able to seriously push a Federal level gun control law; Clinton rode Reagan’s coattails to institute a assault rifle ban in 1994.  Since then, gun control laws have been under harsh assault. Proponents don’t have the votes.  

     Rove's only concern is that a “They are coming to take your guns and then make you a slave” campaign sells easily, true or not.

    As to prayer, we again lack any analysis of whether the Government promoting religion or superstition is good for anyone.  The Constitution prohibits establishment of a State religion. Is undermining this rule good for the country?  Rove does not care.  

     Good or bad policy arguments aside, there is another question.  Rove has no religious background himself.  So was Rove actually promoting religion or just manipulating an easily manipulated group to get them to vote Republican?  

     A GW Bush insider, David Kuo, detailed the Rove directed cynical manipulation of the religious right to help GW Bush win his first election.  

     David Kuo was a well connected evangelical Christian.  He helped GW Bush get elected by coordinating the religious right and was rewarded with a position as Special Assistant to President GW Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI). Kuo’s tell all book, Tempting Faith, was published in 2008.  

     Kuo claims that while others were nominally in charge, Rove actually directed multiple offices, including the FBCI and Political Affairs. After explaining how the Bush campaign relied heavily on the religious right to win the election, Kuo quotes promises from Bush’s inauguration speech to give Christians “an honored place in our plans and in our laws,” What actually happened?  Kuo writes that upon joining the White House staff in January 2001:

“[Bush appointed Don Willet, a Texas lawyer not affiliated with the Evangelical movement, to run the new office of FBCI].  On a good day one plan after another was rejected.  On most days [requests for a staff,  budget, or plan] were simply ignored…..  

“[Upon transition] Every other White House office was up and running.  The Faith based Initiative still operated out of the nearly vacant transition offices.

“Three days later, a Tuesday, Karl Rove summoned Willet to his office to announce that the entire faith-based initiative would be rolled out the following Monday.  Willet asked just how—without a director, staff, office, or plan—the President would do that.  Rove just looked at him, took a deep breath, and said, “I don’t know.  Just get me a f*%ing faith based thing.  Got it?”  Willet was shown the door.”   Tempting Faith, Ch 9, pages 135-140.  

    Kuo later explains that the Bush Administration would glad hand the religious right leaders to their face.  But privately referred to them as "nut jobs."

     To bring this back to his successful West Virginia campaign, Rove's statements and actions show Rove's his main consideration is which advertising campaign worked best sell West Virginia voters--not good policy nor, as Kuo's account details, keeping campaign promises.

3.  Dirty Tricks

     There is some early footage of Rove discussing dirty tricks with another young Republican.  At the time, Rove was one of those zealots who would be expected to actually do such tricks.  Later, he would be the one who managed them (if they were done at all) not the spear thrower who would carry them out.  For what it is worth, Rove claims his attempts at dirty tricks mostly failed so he left those behind.  

     Rove explains he likes to lure opponents into making unfounded charges.  Then he squashes them.

“An important thing to remember [about attacks] is that a counterpunch is often stronger than an initial punch.  That may mean a candidate tries to maneuver his opponent into striking the first blow on a topic.”  

Then Rove has a pre-planned response, a counter attack which destroys the attacker.  (See Chapter 4, pages 76-77).  

    3rd parties report that sometimes Rove himself writes the original attack ads, falsely claims they are from the opponent, and then delivers the counter attack.  He typically times this a week or two before the election, when there is no time for response.

   In 1970, Rove used a false identity to enter Democrat Alan J. Dixon's campaign office.  Dixon was running for Illinois Treasurer. Rove stole 1000 sheets of Dixon's campaign letterhead, then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing."  He had these fake fliers distributed at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally. Dixon, however, won the election.  In 1973, Rove bragged about his deed to the Dallas Morning News. His autobiography claims, "It was a youthful prank... and I regret it."

     There is no record of Rove repaying the victim for Rove's theft. There is, however, evidence that the very rich conservatives want someone who cheats.  This would explain why Rove admitted being a forger and a thief to a Dallas Newspaper.  

     Rick Perlstein wrote an article for The Baffler discussing Republican mail fund raising techniques, providing a view quite different from Rove's and listing events eerily similar to Rove's theft and forgery in the Dixon election.

     Rove does not mention it in his book.  But in at least two of Rove's campaigns--Governor Richards Governorship of Texas and a Justice See's 1996 run for Associate Justice in Alabama--whisper campaigns started claiming Richards was a lesbian and See a pedophile. They are not one of us/they are dangerous seems to be common Rove campaign theme.  

    Excerpt from The Long Con: Mail-order conservatism by RICK PERLSTEIN
The Baffler  November 21, 2012

      "Once, I gave a speech to a marquee assemblage of true members of the conservative elite, from William Bennett to Midge Decter to Alf Regnery, at the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, a conservative think tank that rich donors convinced Princeton University to house under its auspices. (Karl Rove made a cameo appearance, during which he bragged about making a Republican congressman cry.)

      "In my remarks, I laid out what I took to be a disturbing moral pattern, what I naively thought would stir these folks into something like shame. Why was it, I asked, that whenever Richard Nixon needed someone to brazen out some patently immoral, illegal, or dishonest act, he frequently and explicitly sought out a veteran of the conservative movement—the same conservatives whose ideology in policy contexts he usually derided? Because, I said, “Nixon knew that if you had a dirty job to get done, you got people who answered the description he made of E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy: ‘good, healthy, right-wing exuberants.’”

       "I gave half a dozen examples of latter-day conservative exuberance, in my own admitted exuberance to rain down the shame: the phony “middle of the road caucus” formed to secretly take over a National Student Association meeting from the right; the fliers the RNC put out during the 2004 election announcing that a President John Kerry would institute a plan to ban the Bible; the time Jerry Falwell lied that he’d never argued for the elimination of the public school system—“lying for the Lord,” as Mormons call it. Then, as the question-and-answer period approached, I trembled, anticipating the conservative elite’s chastened response. Yes, reader: I was once just that naive.

       "M. Stanton Evans, a legendary movement godfather, stood up. He said my invocation of Richard Nixon was inappropriate because Richard Nixon had never been a conservative. He proceeded, though, to make a striking admission: “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate”—at which point, apparently, Nixon finally convinced conservatives he could be one of them."  http://www.thebaffler.com/...

    While a bullet point for rich Republican donors, Rove does not tell the possibly fabricated Made a Republicans Congressman Cry story in his 520 page autobiography.    

    Rove describes another trick I think he and many Republicans use. In his early debate career, Rove explains how through great preparation he and his partner would find some little known fact written by someone.  They would quote the conclusion and the source, then chortle condescendingly when their opponents proved they were not omniscient.  

     You still see Republicans using this trick--based on the fact people are not omniscient--when their “experts” get on national TV talk shows.  They cite some obscure report and claim it shows their opponent incorrect and incompetent.

4.  Elections and How Rove Wins Them

     The best parts of the book, in my opinion, pertain to election tactics.  Rove is no doubt a master.  In chapters 1 through 5, Rove provides some explanation as to how he wins election campaigns.  

     First, he works extremely hard to obtain all the information he can.  Although Rove denies any chicanery, it is curious how Rove repeatedly obtains secret inside information from within his adversary’s camp.

      Second, he uses information to form a plan, using ideas to mask the underlying fight for space and control.  

      Rove spins this into a self-aggrandizing statement.  He claims he looks for the best ideas, not to win.  But his results indicate the opposite conclusion.  Rove tells no stories about how he supported the better candidate on principle (how could he as a right wing zealot?); rather, they focus on how and why people won or lost.  Rove writes,

“A campaign’s essential argument must be easily understood, capable of being widely disseminated, backed by evidence, and authentic.  [Even if negative, it should be framed in a positive way.]”  Chapter 4, Page 66
    One of Rove’s claims is that the Democrats moved so far left it was losing elections.  But, as 3rd parties know, this is simply a message framing.  The Republican party itself has shifted far right and the Democrats have followed, adopting many of the same programs espoused by Ronald Reagan.  Rove ignores these shifts.

     Third, Rove makes sure he is in complete charge of the campaign.  Rove explains that without a “shot caller” who can plan strategy and control tactics, campaigns usually fail.

     Fourth, Rove plans for contingencies and prepares responses.   He assesses not only his candidate’s strengths and weaknesses but also his opponents.  Then he crafts plans based on likely positions.

     Fifth, Rove relies heavily technology and marketing research.  He takes care to align his messages as dictated by the marketing responses.

     Sixth, Rove explains that a campaign must be carefully budgeted and planned.  Rove emphasizes candidate discipline, both on message and in running the campaign.

      Seventh, Rove emphasizes that attacks need to come from trusted sources—and who different groups trust varies considerably.  He writes:

“[A]nother rule to keep in mind:  People are inclined to disregard attacks whose source is either unknown or suspect.  To be effective, an attack must be launched by someone with credibility and defended when [the target], the media, or credible third parties, or some combination launches a counterattack.  A candidate must be willing to defend and stand behind his charge.”  Ch 6, page 77.
    In this regard, Rove has worked very hard to encourage his party to discredit anyone who has or might attack the Republican party. Thus, the cynical logic behind the constant barrage of advertisements and coordinated statements branding the so-called “biased liberal media” and the adjunct creation of an ever stronger right wing echo chamber.  

5. The GW Bush Years

     Rove describes a brilliant, humane administration dealing competently with massive emergencies.  They are sometimes undone only by unaffiliated Republican bumblers and by the always inept, dishonest, nefarious Democrats. That's Rove's view.

    Is the writer an accurate Historian of the events they witnessed or summarized?   Are all important facts—even the damaging ones—mentioned?   Rove’s versions of events fails scrutiny. As the following examples show, Rove is not a credible historian.  The first three examples use first hand eyewitness statements by Berntsen, McClelland and Kuo, all dedicated, long time Republicans. The fourth, the budget deficit.  Due to length (and time) considerations, problems with Rove's Katrina and MMA narratives are skipped but no less problematic these examples.  

5.1 Afghanistan

     C&C's introduction brags about how Rove informed GW Bush of the 9/11 attack and how masterful GW Bush was in response.  Rove devotes 3 pages to the Afghanistan War itself.  According to Rove, that war ended in 2001 with a rousing victory.  

     The US invaded Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda organization, who were being protected by the Taliban, then the Afghanistan rulers.  The prior Afghan regime had been so corrupt its populace turned to the Taliban.  While religious fanatics, apparently the Afghans initially thought the Taliban more honest than its predecessors.

    In chapter 18, Striking Back, Rove describes the war on the Afghanistan Taliban.  Bush wanted something done quickly.  Shortly 9/11, special forces and CIA operatives hired Tajik tribesman (the Northern Alliance).  Supported by CIA operatives, the US Air Force and small teams of US special forces, they invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban.  Best information indicated Bin Laden was hiding in the Tora Bora fortress.

     The man leading the CIA surge was a long time Republican, CIA operative Gary Berntsen, who wrote JawBreaker.  The invasion was an initial great success.  As Berntsen details, the Bush administration had no follow through plan for anything.

     As of 2013, US forces remain in Afghanistan.  Despite Rove's claim of GW Bush "courage" and their emphasis on "consequence", after the photo ops were done, the administration decided to invade Iraq.  They basically ignored the Afghanistan problems for seven years, leaving killing Bin Laden and resolution of the Afghanistan problems to Bush's successor.

     There is something specific I wanted Rove to discuss after reading Berntsen's book.  On December 7, 2001, Berntsen was waiting for the 800 Rangers he had requested to kill Bin Laden, who they had positively identified as in the Tora Bora fortress.  Berntsen writes this was consistent with his pre-war intelligence.  However, the request for only 800 troops was refused (over 130,000 troops were initially sent into Iraq) and he was ordered to pull out.  Berntsen writes:

“..I tossed and turned that night….[i]t didn’t seem right…. [We had risked our lives and succeeded beyond anyone’s dreams.]  Now that we finally had Bin Laden and his al-Queda cadres trapped in the White Mountains why was headquarters pulling us out? And why was Washington hesitant about committing troops to get Bin Laden?  These were the questions that kept me up at night.”

 Gary Bernsten  Jawbreaker chapter 19, pages 289-298, paperback edition.

    Apparently it was more important to send 130,000 men to Iraq in 2003 then to send 800 men to kill Bin Laden in 2001.  Rove though, had no problem with this decision.  (Rove, Cheney, Rice and other neocons did, however, think it important to take time bashing President Obama after Bin Laden was killed in 2010.)

     Contrary to Rove’s version, the Afghan War remains raging in 2013.  Like the Iraq War and the huge budget deficits—over a trillion dollars per year--the Bush administration left the results of its decisions as problems for the next administration to fix.  

5.2  C&C ignores the critical works of GW Bush insiders Kuo and McClelland

     Berntsen's work did not name Karl Rove as the person who decided not to commit the 800 troops Berntsen thought sufficient to kill Bin Laden in 2001. Rove does not tell us who that person was. But others named Rove as the largest voice in the continuing deception of the American public.  

     In 2006, David Kuo published Tempting Faith An Inside Story of Political Seduction.  In 2008, GW Bush press secretary Scott McClellan published What Happened:  Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.   Both books are highly critical of Karl Rove’s constant deception and the the effects of this deception on the American people.  By Rove’s standards, both men are credible sources.  Rove ignores them.

     McClellan wrote that the GW Bush white house attacked those providing facts showing the War in Iraq was based on falsehoods, particularly the attacks on Joe Wilson and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.  McClellan claims there was a constant deception campaign.

     As to the religious right and the continuous campaign to deceive the American public, Kuo wrote,

“Unless a news story is a major one, the media churns through it quickly, keeping the public entertained with ever newer stories.  The rush for new stories make it harder for reporters to dig deep down on a story.  So they are easily fooled.

    “The White House understood this.  Everything it did catered to it.

    “For the harried public, the White House [would prepare a] banner [to place behind the President whenever he gave a speech]….[Sadly] the Christian community which elected George W. Bush didn’t see any of this.  They couldn’t: they trusted their Christian brother too much. ”  Tempting Faith at chapter 14, page 227-228


      Rove’s autobiography attacks many who question Rove’s integrity. But not these insiders.  Why not?  Well, they seem credible sources by Rove's definition, to other Republican's at least.  No need to highlight their complaints.

     (How did the religious right’s leaders respond to Kuo?  To admit he was right would be to admit to their flock that they were all duped idiots.  So what did they say?

     “Conservative religious leaders described themselves as shocked yesterday by a new book's charge that Bush administration staffers privately dismissed evangelical Christian political activists as "nuts" and "goofy."  But their dismay was aimed at the book's author, former White House official David Kuo, rather than at President Bush or his senior advisers."  
 October 13, 2006,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
5.3  Shifting Blame by attacking Democrats

    Rove is big on the Republican good, democrat bad theme.  Anything bad which happens Rove attributes to the Democrats. When caught doing something wrong, attack the messenger. There are several examples of Rove attacking others to deflect blame.  One is the Mark Foley scandal. Rove blamed Democrat Rahm Emanuel. Rove claims that Emanuel received copies of Foley’s emails in late 2005.  Rove speculates Emanuel withheld the information to obtain some later political advantage. Ch 10, page 464-465. Rove writes:

Despite all the [2006 election challenges (caused by Republicans being caught in multiple illegalities) coming into the elections], Republicans had recaptured some momentum… But those advanced evaporated on September 28.  That day, ABC News revealed that Florida Republican Mark Foley [ a deep red Republican] had sent inappropriate e-mails to an underage, former House page.  The network had 36 pages of instant messages from Foley—many messages explicit… [I talked to Congressman Tom Reynolds]…He convinced his colleagues to have Foley immediately resign.

House Democratic campaign chief Rahm Emanuel reportedly knew about the Foley emails since late 2005.  A Democratic Hill staffer had given them to Emanuels’s communication director … according to one report.  But Congressman Emanuel did not report Foley to the Ethics Commission…. perhaps preferring to keep the e-mails for use as a campaign issue. If true, apparently Emanuel didn’t feel any moral responsibility to keep his Republican colleague from preying on other underage pages…I believe Emanuel had a responsibility to report what he knew of Foley’s behavior immediately.  [IBold added]

    So what did happen?  The Foley scandal involved three things:  False statements by Foley that he was straight; Foley's harassment of young pages; and facts showing that Speaker Hastert and other Republicans had covered up this scandal for at least  nine (9) years. (Four things for those who believe homosexuality is a sin).  

     Wikipedia details how Foley homosexual incidents and his harassment of Congressional Pages dated back to 1995.  There were multiple reports made directly to Speaker of the House Republican Jim Hastert dating back to 2000.  Rove, as White House Director, repeatedly states that he dealt with Hastert regularly to pass various GW Bush projects.

     In January, 2004, a reportedly drunk Foley was stopped by a security guard when trying to break into the male page dormitory after the 10 pm curfew.  Foley’s Chief of Staff  Kirk Fordham reported the incident to the Republican Congressional leadership.  

     This was 18 months before Rove claims Emanuel was given a copy of emails by some unknown staffer--and remember, Rove is infamous for planting false information to lure his opponents into making unfounded attacks. (And we have another example of Rove somehow knowing exact details of an opponent's private information).  Wikipedia reads:

“Fordham in turn contacted Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, describing Foley's behavior generally but not mentioning the incident at the pages' dormitory. This account further stated that Fordham followed up a couple of days later with Palmer, who replied that he had "informed the Speaker" and "dealt with it" by talking to Foley directly.

“Testifying under oath before a House ethics committee panel, Fordham said that months before he left Foley's office in January 2004, he had told Hastert's office about the conduct by Mark Foley with male teenage pages. [Hastert’s office denied Fordham made a complaint]   However, on October 6 a second congressional staffer corroborated Fordham's version of the events, claiming that in 2003 a meeting took place between Palmer and Foley, specifically to discuss complaints about his behavior towards pages.

“Trandahl, testifying to a closed session of the House Ethics Committee, reportedly also confirmed that Hastert's office was notified of Mr. Foley's behavior in 2003. He stated that he regularly updated Hastert's counsel and floor manager, Ted Van Der Meid, about a "problem group of members and staff who spent too much time socializing with pages outside of official duties." One member of the group was Foley.

“Representative Rodney Alexander (R-LA) stated that he learned of the five initial e-mails from Foley to the 16-year old page from Louisiana in the fall of 2005, after a news reporter brought the matter to his attention. Alexander spoke to the boy's parents, who did not wish to pursue the matter beyond stopping the e-mails. Alexander's chief of staff met with Mike Stokke, Hastert's deputy chief of staff in the fall of 2005.  [Hastert’s office denied knowing details]  The other two congressional representatives on the House Page Committee (including the only Democrat) were not informed, and no formal investigative or disciplinary action was taken.

“After testifying in closed session before the House Ethics Committee, Representative Alexander also announced that "There are many people who know what we know, and have known it for a lot longer period of time than we’ve known." He did not name names publicly, however.

“In the spring of 2006, Representative Alexander mentioned the case to Boehner, who referred him to Representative Reynolds (R-NY) and RNC Chairman. Both Reynolds and Boehner say that they notified Hastert; [who says he could not recall such a notice from them]

“When the story became public, Hastert [claimed he learned about Foley] only when [ABC] news broke [the story] in late September, 2006.”

    Rove mentions none of this.

    It is simply not possible Rove heard rumors about a possible reporting to Emanuel yet  as late as 2010 when writing his book still had no knowledge of the Congressional hearings held about Foley's scandal.  Rove worked closely with Hastert while in the White House.  If Hastert knew, then it is a reasonable inference Hastert discussed this was Rove, just as Congressman Reynolds later did, and Rove and Hastert did....what?      

     Rove's attacks on Emanuel are logically suspect.  Since the inquiry into the Foley matter made clear that Hastert had ignored numerous Republican complaints for years, why would Hastert trust some complaint from Emanuel?  And how could Rove know Emanuel did not report the emails to Hastert--since Hastert “forgot” all the Republican complaints?  Rove takes great pleasure in dismissing speculation about his misdeeds--if you don't have his fingerprints on the act, Rove denies doing or directing that act--so how by his standards can Rove reason about what Emanuel did or did not do?  

      Even if informed, Emanuel had good reasons to be careful.  Foley was a solid conservative vote.  Foley's behavior was a Republican matter to address.  And, knowing Rove and how Rove operates, Emanuel had good reasons to be wary before making any attacks: long time NBC anchor Dan Rather was destroyed after making what proved dubious claims about GW Bush.  

     To believe Rove's slander of Emanuel as honest requires one believe Rove is incredibly stupid and completely incompetent—neither of which is true.  Rove’s attack on Emanuel and decision to omit Hastert's long time cover up of the Foley scandal can only be viewed as an example of Rove’s dishonesty and methods.  

     5.4  The US Budget Deficit

     Rove details his role in getting various legislation passed.  The consequence of these decisions, trillion dollar per year budget deficits, are not discussed.  Rove's hero Milton Friedman did the same thing in his memoir touting the Reagan administration.   In Karl Rove's world, ignoring the consequences is an act of courage.  

6.  Conclusion:  Karl Rove sociopath

     An article on sociopaths explains that they never answer facts.  Instead, they attack the messenger. In his autobiography, Rove does this quite often.  It takes a lot of work, but a critical reader will find Rove's competitiveness comes very, very close to meeting the definition of sociopathic behavior.  

“Fact checking a sociopath requires evidence from outside his circle of influence. Does what he say actually check out in the real world, outside his sphere of direct control? If not, you've probably spotted a sociopath.” : http://www.naturalnews.com/...
    Parts 1 and 2 of Rove’s book is useful for anyone seeking to work in an election  campaign.  The rest of the book is a good example of why the GW Bush administration, as well as previous Republican administrations, have done so much harm to this country.  

     Rove’s autobiography continues his dishonest deception of the American public. A better title would be  Karl Rove: successful sociopath.


Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.