Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > August > 20 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOne last time: Karl Rove on Max Cleland and the 2002 race
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You can’t be surprised by the fact that, when Karl Rove made the rounds on Sunday for his final round of interviews as President Bush’s top in-house political advisor, Max Cleland was there to haunt him.
Here’s a snippet of the Associated Press transcript from “FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace”:
WALLACE: All right. There are a few big raps against Karl Rove, and I want to give you the…
ROVE: Only a few?
WALLACE: Well, yeah. In any event, we had to winnow them down.
ROVE: Thank you.
WALLACE: And I want to give you an opportunity to give your side on a few of them.The first is that with unprecedented national unity after 9/11 that you decided to turn the war on terror into a campaign issue.
And Exhibit A in that is an ad that was run in the 2002 Senate campaign against Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. Let’s take a look.
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP
ANNOUNCER: America faces terrorists and extremist dictators. Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that’s not the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, I understand that as the chief strategist to the president, you weren’t sitting there writing ads in Georgia for Max Cleland or against Max Cleland, but were that and other attacks on Democrats, turning the war on terror into a campaign issue, just in 2002 — was that a mistake?
ROVE: First of all, you’re right. They did that ad. The White House didn’t. It would be — surprise you, but we’ve got better things to do than write television ads in Senate campaigns in Georgia.
I do think it’s important to look at the context of this. Senator Cleland was running a television ad saying that he supported the president on homeland security, when he was one of the senators who was blocking the passage of the homeland security bill because of a special interest provision that would have allowed the labor unions to organize the Department of Homeland Security.
You know, we have — John Kennedy set in place a policy in the early ’60s that said that government departments connected with national security had the right to declare certain parts of those agencies off-limits to union organizing. This was signed into law by James Earl Carter.
And what the homeland security bill had was a provision that would undo that for the Department of Homeland Security.
WALLACE: Forgive me. I don’t want to re-fight the Cleland race in Georgia in 2002. I want to ask a bigger question, though, because this was far from the only time that you called — you — called Democrats soft on terror.
Let’s take a quick look at some of Karl Rove’s greatest hits.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROVE: Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROVE: When it gets tough and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party’s old pattern of cutting and running.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, Democrats are clearly far from blameless in all of this, but should you and the president — we’re talking now just a year after 9/11 and ever since. Should you have made the war on terror something that unified the country, not divided it?
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Nicholas
August 20, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
Unless it’s an apology then whey should anyone really don’t care what Idiot Rove has to say about the 02 race!
By c. fletcher
August 20, 2007 5:35 PM | Link to this
typical chicken** rove tactic. blast a good man — a true american hero — for the sake of conning a few right-wing voters. the sooner this man crawls out of the capital, the better.
By GodHatesTrash
August 20, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this
Karl/a Rove is a fat Texas candya-ss - no wonder Dumbya and so many Georgia rednecks love him.
Trash loves trash.
By JB
August 20, 2007 5:45 PM | Link to this
So Cleland blocked the homeland security bill to give union thugs the jobs, but he doesn’t like being called on that by the GOP?
Awww
By Adam perkin
August 20, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this
Senator Cleland wrote the HS Bill with Sen. Lieberman. The President originally did not want it. When he realized it was inevitable, he decided to turn it into a political wedge issue. Senator Cleland wanted the DHS, and was defeated when he did not kowtow to this administration
By Steve Shiver
August 20, 2007 6:26 PM | Link to this
Well done Mr. Rove. Facts drive the left nuts. Frankly, Sir, ‘bout time.
By RJ
August 20, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this
Too much credit is given to the political ad for Max’s defeat. The facts are that he had a very poor constituancy service Program. Max got a little too big for his britches. He surrounded himself with too many yes people.
Groups would trip to Washington asking for his support on a particular piece of legislation and instead of listening he would wound up arguing with them. He did not have the sense to at least give them the impression that he was giving serious thought to their interests.
Max Cleland is a great Georgian and a Great American but he must accept a large part of the responsiblity for his defeat. When he does that healing from the defeat of his Senate Camppaign will begin.
By Steve Shiver
August 20, 2007 10:20 PM | Link to this
Whatever. Cleland was weak on terror. This is a problem most democrats have. The fact is there are certain folks who want to hurt us. The USA should fight them and Conservatism is the answer. Rove was and is right. Debate the issue, RJ. Rove was right on Cleland.
By RJ
August 20, 2007 11:44 PM | Link to this
Shiver, Folks wanted to hurt us even when this governing crew was in diapers. The right priorities and a keen focus were our successful strategies.
Conservatism, among other things, stands for less government and fiscal restraint. The very opposite has occured under this crowd.
Got to give the devil his due, they have played the Evangilical crowd like suckers.
By Steve Shiver
August 21, 2007 12:07 AM | Link to this
Errors have happened. Unplanned events plague all wars. Do you want the US to win or leave? It is that simple. Even we uneducated Mercer grads can discern right form wrong. By the way, I just left my latest snake handlin’ service and the snake was wearing a pants suit. Dig it?
By Steve Shiver
August 21, 2007 12:24 AM | Link to this
Come on caterpillar, engage. Let us debate, whilst I am not praying.
By Steve shiver
August 21, 2007 12:38 AM | Link to this
RJ., I am calling you out. Perhaps a debate in Iambic pentameter? Will you? Will you? Will you? Will you?
By RJ
August 21, 2007 9:08 PM | Link to this
Shiver… You all are a forgiving bunch. Will you be kind enough to explain how the exponential growth in the budget deficit, growth in the number of government employees, tax breaks for the rich, unprecedented intrusion into our private lives square with Republican principles?
Contrary to what you might think all things that adversely affect America do not begin and end with the war in Iraq.
By Anonymous
August 21, 2007 9:20 PM | Link to this
The U.S. cannot “win” a war with no purpose, which is what we’re facing in Iraq. We need to leave, as the Iraqis have requested (remember their sovereignty… supposedly a goal of invading?)
The Republicans have had their chance, and they’ve blown it. They’ve alienated real conservatives with their deficits and free-spending and pork, they’ve alienated the religious right with their corruption and pedophilia, and they’ve alienated the rest of us with their sheer arrogant incompetence.
Get ready for a Democratic president… hopefully one who will actually address the threat of terrorism, instead of screwing around in Iraq like Gee Dubya has.
By Steve Shiver
August 22, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this
RJ, you’re right. Not all things that adversely impact this country have to do with Iraq. Most of them can be traced back to ill planned, liberal democratic policies going back to the 1930’s. Anonymous, you are in for a huge let down. The Democrats are going to nominate Mrs. Bill Clinton. If you thought the ABB (Anybody but Bush)mantra of the was loud in 04, the “Anybody but Hillary” cry will be deafening. This next election will not be a referendum on Bush. Rather, it will be a referendum on Hillary. Happy hunting fellows, happy hunting.