Rove vs. Carville Provides Heated Exchange

By Paul M. Banks on June 4, 2009 into Chicago Blue State

I never thought I'd want to side with Karl Rove; or his acolytes. But during the final edition of "Speaker Series: The Minds that Move the World," I actually wanted to hear the evil genius speak. The final installment of the series consisted of Charlie Rose interviewing James Carville and Karl Rove. Protestors and audience members screamed in disgust shortly after it began. Luckily these people were thrown out and one sensible audience member echoed my sentiments exactly, "We're not here to hear you." It was Rove's evil genius that I came to listen to, not some random malcontent. Of course, that's about the only time I'll stick up for the Dark One. I was amazed that Rove elicited almost as many cheers and applause lines as Carville. This was in Chicago, the bluest city in the bluest state. However, the rich old conservatives of the second city came out to voice their approval for the Rovian propaganda.

The Ragin' Cajun James Carville did a good job counterbalancing Rove, putting the necessary sour cream on his spicy salsa of lies. Carville probably had the best line of argument of the night when discussing the torture issue. He mentioned the people he had on his team (the most well experienced generals and veterans like Petreaus, McCain, and Colin Powell) versus who's on Rove's team (the usual suspects of far-right bloated bloviating blowholes: Gingrich, Limbaugh, Cheney). As Carville said, "Join my team, we have five LeBrons," referring to another James. This was before the Cleveland Cavaliers' star made his gaffe triggering a PR fiasco, of course.

Many of the arguments Rove makes are based on fallacies built on easily decipherable euphemisms. He echoes the GOP talking points calculated by linguistic experts like Frank Luntz. He speaks of U.S. military interventions that "add stability to the region" or "stabilized" that country. The word "stabilize" actually equals "made more conducive to American military and economic hegemony." Stabilization is another code word for empire. Rove and company like to rail against "judicial activists," as if justices are on the bench with picket signs and petitions. If it weren't for these so-called "judicial activists," then women and people of color would have almost no rights in our society today. It's bad news that Rovian doublespeak is uttered all over the mainstream media today. The good news is, it's flimsy and easily broken down.

I agree with social theorist Noam Chomsky that the business press is almost always more transparent and straight=shooting than the regular news media, but that institution has its own set of oft-repeated lies and misnomers ("it's summer driving season," "the stock market is a leading indicator of the economy," "jobs are a lagging indicator of the economy") that continue to go unchallenged. Rove and Carville finished the show by discussing the economy of course, but it would have been entertaining to see them challenge some of these dead wrong, but widely believed "conventional truths."

Paul M. Banks is also a contributor to NBC Chicago.com, Walter Football.com and Founder of The Sports Bank.

Comment

The following Reader Blogs are neither edited nor endorsed by The Washington Times. These bloggers are responsible for their own content.

There are 5 Comments

factsnotopine

Mr. Banks you need to quit sports long enough to study history. Need I remind you that if it weren't for the Republicans, people of color and women would have no rights not what you said. It wasn't "judicial activists" that set them free and gave them voting rights. Folks, this is what happens when people don't think for themselves and "check the facts." And pretending you wanted to hear Mr. Rove is obviously not to be believed by your own words. You consistently refer to him negatively and disrespectfully, calling him the Dark One. You lost ALL credibility with your doublespeak.

Mark as offensive

paul_m_banks

Facts, thank you for stopping by I appreciate your feedback and point of view. first off, don't be silly, of course I wanted to hear Rove speak- that's why I opened the column by making that statement. "Lead with strength" they say. I'll be the first to admit I probably have much more in common politically with the people in the audience screaming "Waterboarding is torture" than Rove himself, but I didnt attend this event to see these people. I came to hear Rove, (and Rose and Carville). I came to do a story on the vocal opinions of these 3 men, not random, rude and disruptive audience members. Since you brought sports into it, I'll put it like this. I'm a die hard White Sox fan, and despise the Minnesota Twins because they (typicaly) stand in the way of my team making the playoffs. But would I turn down a chance to cover a Twins game? no. If some Bush league player ran on the field and knocked Joe Mauer out of the way, I would say "hey, get that idiot out of there" I came to see Mauer play, not you. Did I refer to Rove negatively? Yes, and I'll do it again. Because hating him (like hating the Twins) is worth it to me because I only hate those whose strength and talents I respect. Like Ayn Rand said "indifference, not hate is the opposite of love"

Mark as offensive

paul_m_banks

re: your 2nd pt. of course, there are republicans who have advanced the causes of civil rights in our society, Lincoln on the Emancipation Proclamation, Nixon creating the EPA, but that's not what this is all about Denouncing "judicial activists" sets a very dangerous precedent. Two things happen 1.) this falls into the false-choice debate created by the GOP. This fallacious Manichean line of reasoning says that a.) if you're not a judicial activist, then you must be a "strict constructionist" which is obviously wrong. and if you adhere to that category, you believe law and society should remain stagnant from the Constitutional Convention of 1789 b.) casting "activism" in a pejorative light is especially maladaptive to society, because if it wasn't for "activists" in American history then women and people of color would still be considered property today.

Mark as offensive

tarareid1117

Mr. Banks, as a fellow Chicagoan, I look forward to your posts. Mr. Facts, I hope you and your fellow conservatives continue to read Mr. Banks' columns; they're a great insight into the sea of red that is often the Midwest. Mr. Facts, as a fellow history enthusiast, one would hope you would be so savvy as to check your facts before calling out Mr. Banks. If you remember, in Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, his goal was to preserve the union, not to free the slaves. Perhaps if you need a refresher: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm I applaud you Mr. Banks for being well versed in both sports and politics. You aren't afraid to tackle difficult issues with integrity and candor. You GAINED credibility in my book.

Mark as offensive

holly1

Go Tara!!!

Mark as offensive

Please login or register to post a comment