"Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove," by Paul Alexander

Excerpt:

How Karl Rove played politics while people drowned
Hurricane Katrina posed a huge test to Bush's administration. But instead of bailing out Louisiana, Karl Rove played Blame the Democrats.

On Monday, August 29, 2005, at about 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina slammed into the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. A category 5 hurricane until just before landfall, it was one of the worst storms ever to hit the Gulf Coast. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, had been briefed extensively about what to expect when the storm hit, which was why, on the Friday night before the storm reached the coast, she signed papers declaring Louisiana to be in a state of emergency. Based on what she had been told by her advisers and what she knew from being a native Louisianan, she understood that Katrina, creeping gradually toward land with sustained winds of a strength rarely seen in a hurricane, could prove to be catastrophic for Louisiana, and particularly for New Orleans.

Over the weekend, Blanco and her staff monitored the storm from an emergency headquarters in Baton Rouge. As the storm was hitting on Monday morning, Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, met with the governor and her staff. Brown had arrived in Louisiana the night before, supposedly ready to deal with the disaster. When he got to the headquarters that morning, Brown told Blanco he was prepared to help. "He showed up Monday morning," says Bob Mann, a senior aide to Blanco, "and gave us the feeling we would have everything we wanted and needed. He was nothing if not an effective bullshitter." Specifically, there was talk of FEMA buses. "Michael Brown told me he had 500 buses," Blanco says. "They were staged and ready to roll in."

Meanwhile, as a deadly storm of historic proportions ripped into three Gulf Coast states that Monday, Bush, on a working vacation at his ranch in Crawford, stuck to his schedule for the day. He traveled to Arizona, where he gave a stay-the-course speech about the war in Iraq. He even made himself available for a photo op after the speech, posing with a guitar next to someone wearing a sombrero, seemingly unaware that the Gulf Coast of the United States was in the throes of a horrific natural disaster perhaps unparalleled in the nation's history. For a president who often seemed to care more about developments in Iraq than those at home, here was a singular moment. Never had Bush appeared to be so out of sync, at least when it came to events unfolding in the homeland. To make matters worse, in this case the disaster was not happening on the other side of the world or even the other side of the country, but in a state next door to Texas.

More:
http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/index.html

wondering how long it will be til be gets busted.

He'll make a good bunk mate for bubba!

Those poor people went through hell.

Paul Alexander is a former reporter for Time magazine who has also written for Rolling Stone, the New York Times Magazine and various other publications. He is also a radio talk show host for WABC and the author of a series of popular biographies, including one of the most appealing portraits of John McCain, Man of the People, published in 2004. Alexander hones his skills as a biographer with a headline-grabbing look at the life and career of Karl Rove entitled Machiavelli’s Shadow, just out. I put six questions to Alexander about his book.

1. You start your account with Rove’s appearance earlier this year at the University of Iowa which reminded me of an account recently given by a trustee at Choate of Rove’s appearance there: the audience was mixed, and certainly included some well-disposed listeners, but the young people in general revile Karl Rove, they seem to view him as the architect of nearly everything they see as wrong in the country. Yet a victory in two successive presidential elections is the standard definition of political success and a recent survey placed Rove as the most influential political pundit in the country, he is routinely labeled a “political genius” and he seems to command air and print space at will. How can these points be reconciled?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003167

Being dubbed "Machiavellian" is not necessarily a bad thing. Rovian on the other hand....