The Karl Rove Con and How To Fight It

It has begun. Things are revving up on the politikal front. It is sad to say that it looks like we are in for more of the same. The GOP, or Grand Obfuscating Party, have begun their usual shenanigans. These tactics have worked for the Republikans for many years now, but I think this election year will be different.

Folks of all political stripes are coming to understand the consequences of falling for the Karl Rove Con, or KRC. Look at President Bush's popularity ratings. No one is happy (well, the vast majority of us, anyway). And those that do still approve of Bush are much like the President himself: stay the course at all costs and reality be damned!

The Republican Rasputin has worked wonders for his Party over the years. That must be the reason the RNC had Rove for their keynote speaker, a little reward for a job well done. Kongratulations, Karl!

Okay, enough of the intentional misspelling, you get my point. Or not.

Since I do not trust Karl Rove to tell the truth, I appeal to the people themselves. John or Joan Q. Public, what's up? I do trust you, even if we may be on opposite sides of the political fence. Please tell me, have things been improving for you? Is your standard of living on the rise?  Have you put more money in the bank for the kid's college education? How did your Enron portfolio perform for you? What about the dollar? Going to Europe this year, bringing the kids? How about taking the Hummer out to California this summer since air fares are so outrageous? Did your house increased in value this year? No? Well at least your property taxes are going down as a result, right? No? Well, at least you are getting better public services for your tax dollar. What, not so?

We need a little critical thinking exercise here, to prepare for the onslaught against our common sense. We need to know how the game is played, to be able to recognize when and how we are manipulated, managed, confused and betrayed. We need to look for the signs, the keywords. We need to be able to discern statements of facts from statements that appear to be facts but instead are mere opinions. In other words, we need to understand the Karl Rove Kon. Oops, I mean the Karl Rove Con.

This is a very subtle mind-control thing, so don't feel bad if you've been a victim and didn't know it. The politicos spend millions of dollars on focus groups, exit polls and psychological studies at the leading learning institutions, just to find out what makes you tick and how to influence you when it comes time to vote.

And don't feel bad or ashamed if you voted for Bush, even if you did it twice, as long as you have learned from the mistake or mistakes you have made. I hope the following discussion will assist you in reclaiming your mind, as it comes with the added benefit of helping to fish the country out of the toilet.

A vibrant democracy depends on an informed electorate. One would think that knowing the facts on an issue is sufficient to achieve an informed electorate, but not so, not in the 21^st century. It is not that easy. This is the first lesson to be learned: it is not enough to simply know the facts, for the same reason statistics (numerical representations of facts) may be used to support opposite positions. What is needed is a way to put the facts into a relevant context.

I think a current and local example of the Karl Rove Con would be useful. Let's look at how a Master player of the game does it. And then, let us deconstruct the statements and expose the KRC. Let's take a look at recent statements made by our incumbent Senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman, on the heels of his official party endorsement. My source material is from NPR's Mark Zdechlik's on-line article "Coleman acknowledges tough race ahead". Here is the link to the entire article:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/29/colemanprofile/

Example 1:

"One of the things I always pride myself on is bringing people together and getting things done," he (Norm Coleman) said. "Bringing Minneapolis and St. Paul police together is a very big deal, by the way so I take great pride in that. That's a big accomplishment."

Okay, let's look at this. Bringing police together does not seem to me a big deal. A bomb scare or sale on doughnuts can achieve the same thing. This is a non-accomplishment. This statement should be interpreted as "Norm Coleman takes great pride in his non-accomplishments."

If Norm could bring together, let's say gays and fundamentalist Christians, now that would be something. That would be an accomplishment. Give that a try, Norm!

Example 2:

"I (Norm Coleman) am running on my record because, unlike my likely opponent, I actually have one," he said in March during his formal campaign kick- off.

Yes, Norm Coleman has a record all right, but it isn't a good one. It is one of political expediency. He has re-invented himself more times than Bob Dylan, from long-haired hippie protester to Democratic politician to Republican lapdog (Al Franken's tag). Marching in lockstep with the current administration during the height of Bush's popularity, Coleman has transformed himself once again as a centrist by distancing himself from the Bush administration, now that the President is at the lowest point in his popularity. This is called "political expediency". In other words, Norm Coleman is not working for you, Norm is working for Norm.

Example 3:

And he (Norm Coleman) suggests that Franken, with his wealth from his entertainment career, would be hard pressed to understand the concerns of working Minnesotans.

Remember talking about looking out for signs and keywords? Here's a perfect example. Beware the word "suggest" or "suggestion". It is there to put ideas into your head that may or may not be true. In this case, the suggestion is not true. It is not a lie as such, but it is not true. It is however irresponsible to have such statements come from the mouth of our public servants. "Suggestion" is the technique used by hypnotists to get people to do things they normally would not do.

Let us also expose Coleman's hypocracy here. By extension of Coleman's "suggestion", President Bush, to the Manor born, must truly be hard pressed to understand the concerns of the working class (which I believe is true in Bush's case but not in Franken's). President Bush spent his formative years (in fact, all his years) as a scion of one of the most privileged families in America. Do you see how twisted this suggestion is?

And why, the astute reader asks, is it true for Bush and not for Franken? Bonus points for those who raised the issue! Double bonus points for those who know the answer. Anybody? Okay, I'll tell you: something was left out of Coleman's statement, something true, something that, if known, would make it obvious to the reader that Coleman is full of it. Specifically, the fact that fame and fortune came much later in Franken's life, well past his formative years, the tender years that set an individual on a course from which he or she rarely strays. Both Al Franken and his wife Franni come from middle class families. I personally have friends from St. Louis Park who went to high school with Al Franken, and these are just regular working class guys. In the same article, Coleman makes a big deal about Franken moving his family from New York to Minneapolis, as if he were a carpetbagger and had never been here before.

Again, this example further underscores the following lesson: it is not enough to know what is said in a statement. Sometimes you also need to know what information is withheld. You can see the difficulty here. How do you know what is not there unless you know first hand what is missing? Ah, here is the genius of the KRC. Did you note, as well, that it took five long paragraphs to disassemble a two line statement?

Example 4:

Coleman said he has a much closer connection to voters than does Franken.

Remember I stated that we need to be able to discern statements of facts from statements that appear to be facts but instead are mere opinions? Example 4 is a case in point. This statement is declarative, supposedly a statement of fact. But is it? How does Coleman know this? I'll tell you: he doesn't. This is wishful thinking and is at best an opinion. Do not be fooled. Like I said, subtle business here. Just know this: Coleman is trying desparately to decieve you with the KRC.

Example 5:

"I'm the only guy in this race who has had to empty out part of his IRA to pay for his kid's college education," Coleman said. "I grew up in a middle class family and didn't go to fancy private schools. Big difference between me and Al Franken."

A couple of things here. First, "empty out a part" is a curious statement and is potentially misleading. On the one hand, it implies that Coleman drained his entire IRA to pay for the kid's education, a noble thing indeed if true. But then this is played against the word "part", which implies that he did not entirely drain his IRA.  Which is it, all or part? Was the part that was left equal to the part that was drained, was it way larger and hence of little significance. We don't know and we don't care, it's just a weird statement.

The second thing that's weird is the line about his education. The fact that Coleman did not receive as good an education as Franken is telling. Same thing with Bush, but in Bush's case it was not that he couldn't afford good schools, he just did poorly in them!

Not a very smart statement by Coleman.

I have an idea! Let's vote smart people into office! Be daring, give it a try!

By the way, I must say that I do agree with Coleman on one thing: there is a big difference between him and Franken!

Example 6:

Coleman insists he's been his own man in Washington. He said that has meant sometimes supporting and sometimes opposing the Republican White House.

And I "insist" that I'm the Tooth Fairy. Easy to say, yet it is impossible to prove the negative. Go ahead, I challenge you to prove that I am not the Tooth Fairy! Beware of the word "insist". There is a certain insecurity or shadiness associated with that word. Like the used car salesmen who "insists" that you won't find a better deal anywhere else, or the real estate agent who "insists" that his waterfront properties are a great investment (though he does not mention that all the properties are in post-Katrina New Orleans).

Again, this is an opinion disguised as a fact by use of the word "insist". Look for the keywords!

But wait, that's not all! Coleman claims to be his own man in Washington and supports this by stating that he sometimes votes with and sometimes against the Republican White House. Ah, another opportunity to show an example of misleading by omission. What is missing is the fact that he supports the White House when the President's approval rating  is high and against the White House when the President's approval rating is low. Don't believe me? In the same article (follow the link above), we find this paragraph:

Congressional Quarterly's analysis of Coleman's voting record indicates Coleman voted with President Bush 98 percent of the time in Coleman's first year in the Senate. During his third and fourth years Coleman's support for Bush fell into the 80 percent range. Last year Coleman cast votes in support of the Bush White House just 68 percent of the time.

Once again, political expediency, Norm working for Norm.

Example 7:

Analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics shows Coleman has collected more than $1.8 million from the financial, insurance and real estate sectors and more than $600,000 from the health care industry. But Coleman insists he is not beholden to special interests.

Once again we find the word "insist", as if "insisting" is all it takes to make the words ring true. Let the facts of the preceding example speak for itself.

Example 8:

But his (Norm Coleman's) position changed. By February of last year he was questioning the president's troop surge plan. Months later Coleman characterized the surge as a success. Last fall Coleman himself voiced support for a proposal to withdraw several thousand troops by the end of last year.

A flip-flopper! Horror of horrors! The GOP sure made an issue of it with John Kerry. Yet again, Norm working for Norm. It seems to be the norm.

And then you get this:

Example 9:

"If 2008 proves as bad for Republicans as 2006, it's almost like these incumbents are being beaten by the political environment more so than by their challenger," she (Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report) said.

What!!? This is a twisted statement. It's not that the incumbants are being beaten due to any fault of their own. Oh no, it is the political environment that is beating them! Once again, missing information here, which is that the incumbants are responsible for the current political environment!

Ms. Duffy would have us make a disconnect between the incumbants actions during their term and the current political environment, and at the same time discount what the challenger is bringing to the table (the challenger in this case is Al Franken)! Outrageous! This doublespeak comes to you from someone at a supposedly non-partisan research group. I am more and more impressed with George Orwell every day.

Example 10:

"This is no question a tough election cycle," he (Norm Coleman) said. "It's a tough election cycle because people out there are hurting right now." And Coleman said people are worried about the cost of gas, health care and the value of their homes.

Here is another tactic, stating the obvious and expressing empathy, coupled with a lack of accountability. Clearly, by expressing empathy, Coleman would have us belive that he had nothing to do with the suffering of the people. The tactic encourages a disconnect in people's mind. It's a tough election cycle out there for Coleman because Norm is working for Norm and not the people. The people are finally understanding what has happened and how they have been bamboozled by the power-seekers. Am I to suppose that we should give thanks to Norm Coleman for his participation in this sorry state of affairs by re-electing him to the Senate? No thanks.

These 10 examples exposing the Karl Rove Con was extracted from a single, small on-line article. Multiply this by 10,000 and you get an idea of the overwhelming nature of the problem. Oh, I forgot to add in all the TV ads, print ads, radio ads, and internet activity, so multiply again by 10,000. It hard to know the truth, and the truth is critical. Just because a statement is not a lie does not mean that it is true!

Now that you see how the game is played, look for the signs, the keywords, the contradictions and hypocracy. Be aware of missing information if you are lucky enough to know something about it. Otherwise imagine what that missing information might be, and suspend belief in suspect statements accordingly.

Your homework assignment for the rest of the campaign season is to read Al Franken's bestselling books. I've learned from him and you can too. Not only will you be amazed at the insights Franken offers, you'll laugh your head off at the same time.