Rove Is Rejected By Time
For the record, I heartily approve of both of Newsweek’s recent pundit hires–Rove and Markos. After all, news outlets dump a lot of money to pay pundits whose predictions turn out to be wrong year after year. So why not hire two guys who at least have contributed historic innovations to elections–the guys who execute campaigns, rather than talk about doing so? Plus, there’s a wonderful bit of symmetry here. Rove, direct mail, and the Republican party represent the past. Markos, online, and the Democratic party represent the future. I even love that it pits a fat white guy from Utah against a multicultural guy living in the Bay Area.
So I’m not necessarily gleeful with the news that Time Magazine rejected Rove’s advances, at least not because it might validate the opinion that Rove was a poor choice for Newsweek. Rather, I’m curious by the terms by which Time rejected Rove.
For its part, Time magazine said nothing publicly about Rove’s arrival at Newsweek, but a well-placed source told me that Bob Barnett (every Washington literati’s favorite lawyer, including Bill Clinton) had traveled to the Time-Life building on Sixth Avenue to offer Rove’s services before Newsweek snared them. Time‘seditors apparently felt the cost/benefit analysis wouldn’t be in theirfavor if they embraced the man who has done more than anyone to keepthe spirit of Joe McCarthy alive and well in American politics. (Read Joshua Green’s definitive profile from the Atlantic in 2004.) "Time thought this wouldn’t be like hiring George Stephanopoulos," my source explained. "They think Karl is essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies."
Well, yeah, I wonder whether Newsweek has done its due diligence on Rove. After all, it would suck for them if the Abramoff scandal USA Purge scandal email scandal wholesale politicization of government scandal anything arose to hurt Rove’s brand.
But I’m most amused that Time magazine–the company that spent very large chunks of cash to withhold details about Rove’s nefarious leaking of Valerie Wilson’s name from Patrick Fitzgerald–would call him "an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies." Time, after all, probably could have swung the election in 2004 (and they thought they could, too), had Matt Cooper simply revealed that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson’s identity. ("I’ve said too much already," Rove said.) That would have saved the American public from at least one out of a string of felonies.
So nice that Time magazine takes this moment to object.
I don’t read either one of those rags.
Interesting that TIME has also done some great reporting on the Siegelman case, where Rove’s fingerprints once again show up.
Yes, it’s irritating that it’s taken TIME this long, and this much wretched enabling, to come to its senses.
But better late than never.
After all, Newsweek is paying the sleazebot, which is indefensible.
At least TIME isn’t playing that game. Good on ’em.
So when it doesn’t cost them anything, Time tells the truth. About Time…it’s always about Time.
i think the rude pundit got it right…
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com…..itsas.html
timeless title
Hmmm. â€Newsweek†is the magazine arm of â€The Washington Postâ€, no? I wonder how much WaPo’s editors had to do with Rove’s hiring.
How long before Rove says civilization is only strong when Republicans are leading by balancing the budget on the backs of the socioeconomically downtrodden; only Republicans are brave enough to vacuum all telco traffic and declare it is state secret; only one interview away from the ladies awaiting him at the door, the ladies he depicts as Betsy Ross without flags to sew, people who acquiesce before the moral problems Republicans solve by condoning torture. In an era when pulp publications are a failing paradigm, Time proved once again that although mired in bureaucracy, it is more attuned to propriety and more averse to foolhardy risk than the more conservative magazine which hired him in the last. Some interesting ladies are still waiting for that impromptu interview of Rove.
ROTL — â€After all, Newsweek is paying the sleazebot, which is indefensible.â€
What makes me mad is the fact that any news organization would give this d*ckhead any credibility, much less pay him. Before, he was just out there — a fat, sleazy white guy who could steal elections and do all kinds of other underhanded things. Now he is a noted columnist. This is the same guy who has helped to destroy news media credibility — and now they are legitimizing him.
I am not so sure that I am going to renew my Newsweek subscription…
JohnLopresti… I thought Rover’d already said that multiple times 8-0
sojourner…
I’m sooooo tired of Rove being ’the story’. He’s a Cautionary Tale, so your point about them legitimizing him is trenchant, IMHO.
ROTL, thanks for your comment! All of these idiots seem to think that the world wants to hear what they have to say, and I guess there is an element out there that likes to be told what it should believe. It won’t be long before they are all making the lecture circuit trying to cast themselves as heroes, talking about how they tried to prevent what has happened.
â€Yes, I told Dick not to do it, but he wouldn’t listen to me…â€
Karl Rove has managed more than any other person to create millions of grey areas in places where there shouldn’t be any. He has helped ’push’ the boundaries out of place so that no one can know what the truth is. And then Newsweek wants to make him legitimate.
I am beginning to think that the so-called ’traditional’ media deserve whatever happens to it. The major news outlets sold their souls and rolled over and played dead when it mattered most. If Time turned Rove down, he must have been shopping himself looking for some respect. He found another sucker…
Well, I think the challenge is on the other side — can Kos keep it fresh and interesting, and sell lots of copies of Newsweek? (afterall that is the measure of a columnist).
For Rove, the Newsweek readership is not really a new audience, but for Kos many in that audience probably have never surfed into a blog and taken the measure of the form. One wonders what new material Rove has to offer — remembering his political career began working for Harry Dent during the 1972 Nixon Campaign, organizing the Southern Strategy.
Karl Rove is a genius. The only people who take Markos Moukaka seriously are his cult
stagemom, you beat me to the punch- I popped in here to say exactly the same thing. Rude Pundit ftw!
wow, we’re getting on somebody’s nerves, ain’t we ???
does newsweek publish it’s monthly or weekly distribution numbers ???
I was reading the comments thread attached tp kkkarl’s pathetic dribblings, and I think newsweek might have a problem on their hands
I saw about two dozen threats to cancel snail mail subscriptions, and one mouth breather who threaten to cancel if kkkarl was fired
so that makes kkkarl a losin proposition, by a factor of 24 to one
I don’t know if Markos’ gig is dependant on kkkarl’s future employment, but given the piss weak writing, and the overwhelming negative reaction displayed in the comments, I don’t think kkkarl is gonna be a newsweek contributor much longer
The problem is Carville was hired by CNN after he destroyed generations of Americans.
Pfunk – If you can answer this riddle, then you ought to bring a better game with your comments. And, if you can’t answer this riddle, then you really ought to consider joining up with the gang over at little green footballs, because we’ve already got Jodi.
Here it is:
I’ve got some dogs, and you’ve got some dogs. If you give me one of your dogs, then we each have the same number of dogs. However, if I give you one of my dogs, then you have twice as many dogs as I do.
How many dogs do we each start with?
Sojourner, I don’t see Rove being able to write about much more than campaign strategy. But Kos appears to be a conceptual thinker, who can link lots of different topics to the larger theme of political activity, and who is able to synthesize new information. My money’s on Kos.
But I’m fascinated by TIME’s frankness in their public statements about why they didn’t hire Rove. Given the fact that Rove would probably love to slap them (or anyone) with a lawsuit, it’s refreshing to see an explicit statement that conveys, ’We recognize acceptable boundaries for personal conduct; Rove has repeatedly violated those boundaries, and consequently we won’t deal with the sonofabitch.’
Wow.
I’m heartened that they didn’t hire Rove; but I’m practically giddy about the frankness of their explanation. (Their lawyers are no doubt taking megadoses of cardiac meds while they sweat out the New Rules for Public Statements
Okay, feeling very silly here. Apologies. I was so busy chortling over EW’s strikeout that I mistakenly attributed it to TIME. Whoops 8-p
How many dogs do we each start with?
Posted by: radiofreewill | November 21, 2007 at 00:52
I don’t know how many but I do know their names… jodi and Pfunk.
I don’t read either one of those rags.
Posted by: Shit Stain Jodi | November 20, 2007 at 20:47
No one accused you of reading.
Marcy, you asked once for corrections, so here’s one of those:
â€every Washington literati’sâ€
Literati is a plural noun.
Ew great post!
I wish I knew how to get in touch with Patric Fitzgerald. I wonder if he and Sibel Edmonds would not have a lovely chat about Valrie and a few other neferious little deeds that more likely than not involve â€Roverâ€. (no offense ment to any of our four legged friends) Seems like Sibel would have an incredible ammount of knowledge that might help him out, just saying.
Jodi,
Here is a good read for you â€The Pokey Little Puppy†If you come to a word you don’t understand ask your mommy.
Is it possible that Time has more knowledge about Rove’s involvement and the truth?? Maybe they know they were complicit and didn’t realize the scope of their damage because they were spun by Rove at the time? He’s a very manipulative guy. Unfortunately, weak souls can be persuaded to behave against their own morals in the illumination of powerful people like the Rover.
Maybe they know something? (feeling silly, what could they know that our very own brilliant analyst E.W…doesn’t?) never mind. I was hoping. I continue hoping to see a frog march…perhaps for many years to come, that dream will stay alive, and bring me a lift on cloudy cold days.
interesting that first we have the shit stain and then we have the pfunk — a smelly consequence indeed.
I find the the ferocious, angry, completely empty posts of pfunk…quite validating. Threatened much? The rage is wonderfully empty of intelligence, but totally makes it clear that the topic is scary for him.
I feel like pfunk just needs a hug…Tis the season.
Are those Mad Dogs that radiofreewill is having pbunk count?
I find the whole thing quite entertaining. While I don’t usually agree with jodi—I don’t read either mag except in the doctor’s office or in the airport—Newsweek fits the usual MO of today’s media: build a horse race of opposing commentary by the most outspoken and controversial authors available and sell lots of advertising. The decision by Time, and up-front commentary about the decision, is rather surprising. That sort of thing just isn’t done much these days.
It should be a difficult time for Markos, but worthwhile; and he writes linearly, with a rapid perception of the prevailing political issues. Maybe they can help expand Ykos in 2008. Synergies of scale. I thought the Time rejection notice reflected poorly on the courts. The undercurrents that saw only Libby as the flotsam, and Newsweeks obligatory subscription to the whispers near the palace were part of the turmoil; and so far we do not know what Cooper’s office correspondence released to Fitzgerald comprised. There are other notable figures working at that organization, as well.