Karl Rove is the working definition of a scumbag. He never met a moral he liked or a lie that was too sleazy for him to speak. I don't know that I have ever met a person that makes you feel that dirty just by his presence in the room.
Originally Posted by Old-T
Hard for me to compare those folks to Rove since I have not dealt with them. Yes, there are a lot of very slimy "advisors" and "election consultants" in all parties at the national level. But dealing with many of them (including many of the no-names behind the scenes), you get a general sense of the "sleaze norm". You expect a level of sleaze in almost every elected senior official's entourage.
But seeing Rove work was a whole different level--a completely different regard for truth or who was hurt. Many of the DC crowd do have some rules of engagement. An opponent is fair game, as are their staffs. But as will the rules of war, and the mafia guidelines growing up in the 60s, "civilians" were generally not fair game. Families could be OK targets or civilians depending upon the person.
Rove had no code of conduct at all. People on the "same side" wouldn't turn their back on him, and were often revolted at things he did/suggested--and these were people of already very low morals.
As I said, of people I saw up close, the worst by far.
Originally Posted by Old-T
Ok, old twerp. You can't stand Karl Rove. We get that. But you still haven't given us a single concrete example of uber-sleazy conduct to back up your disdain. Why should we distrust Karl Rove any more than, say, James Carville or Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod or Stephanie Cutter (who called Mitt Romney a felon)?
What so-called DC "rules of engagement" did Karl Rove violate and when? Who were some of the people on his side who were revolted by his conduct? Inquiring minds want to know. Since you are such a DC insider, it shouldn't be hard for you to substantiate your claims that he is more amoral than all those other partisan advisors and hacks.
.
