Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do you think Rove wants people to read the Woody book?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:34 AM
Original message
Why do you think Rove wants people to read the Woody book?
I'd guess it's about shoring up their base--they figure that the religious right will be so delighted Chimp thinks he's been picked by god to kill all the rag heads that they won't notice that all the heroic stuff in the book is self-serving stuff from chimp himself.

I don't know what's more troubling: that a president's campaign thinks most Americans are stupid , or that they might be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. An image from the "Yellow Submarine" comes to mind
The sea monster that started consuming everything until all that was left was self consumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Because Karl Rove knows it's safe to suggest this...
...as most repugs will get the book to say they have it, but will read the Reader's Digest version only and never actually read Woodward's book itself.:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. This has been a Karl Rove psy-op presentation
The White House--that is, he--approved the book, so what else can he say? He's just pretending that there's nothing dangerous in the book because he knows people are reading it anyway. Rove doesn't come out into the open unless things are in dire straits.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. They also approved Clarke's book.
They have to vet anything like this to make sure "secrets" aren't being published.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MO_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I agree, rock
Rove thinks by endorsing the book, people will begin to think they are telling the truth that there's nothing damaging in the book, and many people who might read it, won't, and the people who do read it won't believe their lying eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think it's less damning than Clarkes book
And they want Clarkes book to dissappear ASAP. Clarke was more of an insider and is far less deniable. Woodward can be tossed off as just part of that darn "liberal media." Or at least he can be more EASILY tossed off.

Rove tactics. Deny, distract, move on. Repeat as needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddy22600 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. the whitehouse has completely denied most of Clarke;s
book, and almost everyone that is a repub believes clarke is a disgruntled employee. That is the way most of the media is now presenting it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. That's it "DENIABLE"!
Just couldn't come up with the right word, and there it was tucked neatly into your reply. The negatives in Woodward's book are more easily deniable. Thanks R4C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. You're welcome.
I get stuck looking for words all the time.

But this is seriously one of Roves tactics. When something awkward comes up they first deny it. Then, before the denials can be debunked, they blast out tons of junk, amongst which are some things they can forcibly deny.

Their critics get scattered and lost. Some debunking the original denials. Some fending off outright lies in the junk. Some getting into tit for tats over the few facts recently presented.

Meanwhile the original, damning issue, fades away.

How many things have faded away now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-04 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Today's
DU Home Page article "Time To Go For The Jugular" could very well have been answering YOUR right-on question :) .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. Woodward portrays Junior as interested, involved, in-charge, and
... interested. Overall, from the series posted in WaPo, Woodward paints a picture of Dim Son that's impossible for me to swallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I totally agree.
Woodward makes Bush look like he is trying to do the best he can for the country and any mistakes are the mistakes of his staff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. precisely
I'm having trouble swallowing it too. I went to buy it yesterday but put the book back down when I saw John Deans WORSE THAN WATERGATE. From what I've read so far, He's dead on about Bush. In my opinion Worse Than Watergate is the more important book to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
9. Always remember the "three groups":
(1) Those who always support you; (2) those who always oppose you; & (3) the undecided. A poll on MSNBC on Monday asked "will this book hurt bush in November?" 67% said yes, and 33% answered no. This means that those who always support bush say "no, it won't hurt," while those opposed AND undecided believe it will. Thus, Rove is playing exclusively to the undecided .... by pretending to embrace a book by the author of the brown-nosed "Bush At War." If they fully attack Woodward, it brings more of the issues involved into question. By trying to make the jackal Rove's "welcoming" the book the issue, they hope to dilute the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
12. This is the only book so far
where * is portrayed as a hands-on decision-making president instead of the doofus he really is. Woodward could hardly portray him otherwise, given the first book. This is probably why they're willing to pretend they're pleased with this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
13. Here's your answer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040421/ts_washpost/a28729_2004apr20

>>
"We're urging people to buy the book," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "What this book does is show a president who was asking the right questions and showing prudence as well as resolve during very difficult times. This book undermines a lot of the critics' charges."
>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
15. He doesn't ....
He knows there will be more people NOT read the book than read it so he will attempt to tell them a fairy tale....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. Two groups
Those you mentioned, and ordinary independents. The independents who "hate the politics of personal destruction." Some of them helped bring about positive changed in the 98 midterms because they were just reacting to the bullshit. This time they might react to what they THINK is bullshit just because it is negative information about a president coming out close to an election.
I have talked to a guy who hates party politics and truly believes that that is the only reason anyone would say anything bad about Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC