Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight

Comment: Like many, I'd heard so much, mostly bad, about this man that I did not know for sure what to expect. Then I read it, and I am impressed. He is an honest man with honorable intentions. What is distrubing is his portrayal of the media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post and the even newscast by the big three, CBS, ABC and NBC, all of which seem to have agendas of their own--and not merely to report the news. After reading this book, I no longer trust the evening news casts, not any of them. So, after years and years of always watching some national an evening news cast, I do not watch any of them because I do not trust them.
The most curious part of this book to me, however, is how he characterizes himself as going a long way even though being from a broken home. Broken home? There are so many people from broken homes today I'm amazed he'd even bring that up.
All that aside, if you like to read, read the book. I believe he is honest, and if he is honest and what he says about the media and the mainstream Democratic leaders is true, well, then you understand why the Tea Party is so active and people like Glenn Beck are so popular.

Comment: I enjoyed this book. It really shed some light on some of the stories that were not covered very well by the liberal media. It was very interesting to read about how Karl Rove got where he is today. It also provides some insight into President Bush's mindset before and after the 9/11 tragedy. It is very informative.

Comment: This is the first book I've read where the 1st sentence is an actual, provable lie. Here's sentence #1 from Chapter #1: "On Sept 11, 2001, I was the first person to tell President Bush that a plane had slammed into an office tower in New York."
That statement is easily proven a lie.
Bush was at the school, reading to elementary kids, when Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, informed President Bush. (Source: msnbc DOT msn DOT com/id/32782623. You can also go to YouTube and type in 'Bush 911 school').

The rest of the book is similar to this. Rove telling a version of the past that is different than the record.

Rove knows how to lie. Rove's usual approach is to interpret past situations in a way benefiting Rove. When Rove describes a situation, he cherry picks facts, and leaves out other facts. Then, he spins theories on motivations of himself and others, which makes the retelling sound logical. An example of this is Rove's description of the 2000 election that involved the Florida and US Supreme Courts. Just read that, and ask yourself if it's a non-biased description, or one heavily biased in his favor.
Rove's a master Machiavellian, knowing how to use language effectively to create suspicion, infer ideas that are specifically spoken, and always have a way to claim that he's a victim.

I listened to Rove read his autobiography. It's interesting to hear the tone of voice, how he describes someone disagreeing with him (amazement) and how he describes someone he agrees with (non-chalant tone, as if both people agree on the most obvious fact, like 2+2=4).

Rove's basic approach in retelling the past is to assume he's right, always. Either you agree with him, or you're wrong. He's quite confident that his every action is the right action, that his past actions were the right actions. From this perch, he proceeds to judge the political world. When someone agrees with Rove, he speaks highly of their educational background and accomplishments, and observes the respect they get from others. But for a political opponent, someone with a fundamental disagreement with Rove's opinions on the way governments should act, then Rove denigrates their academic accomplishments, finds fault with their history and relates stories of how he and colleagues would mock the opponent behind their back. Rove has two opinions on people: Either they are on his side, or they are an idiot. Rove is never in doubt. If confidence is something you're attracted to, then Karl's someone you'll find attractive.

Rove isn't just confident, though. He also sees himself as misunderstood by many other people. During his description of the 2000 primary, Rove portrays himself as a victim 3+ times, especially a victim of John McCain. Rove states that McCain blamed him (and Bush) for push-polling (automated telephone calls asking questions like "If you knew John McCain had a baby out of wedlock, would it change your opinion of him as a leader?"), for spreading a rumor that McCain's wife was a drug addict, and that McCain had sex with a black prostitute, which is why McCain has a black baby. Ron Suskind stated that Rove was the source of these dirty tricks, and Rove is appalled at the "liberal elite journalist with the Nobel Prize in his closet." Somehow, the many political campaign tactics of George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004 were unknown to Rove. In fact, Rove was appalled (!) when he learned of these tricks, and disheartened when he (the campaign manager) was blamed for them. Rove declares he would never stoop to such means. Yet he doesn't say who did the push-polling, and why they would do it.
Rove says "Bush didn't want a fight on stem cell research. The fight came to him." He then says that "70 Nobel Laureates and many members of congress requested the federal government to take the lead in stem cell research." Rove then says "What they failed to understand is that stem cells are destroyed." Notice how Rove states the 70 PhDs in science "failed to understand that". Do you think the 70 scientists "failed to understand" how stem cell research is performed? Yet Rove states he was able to understand a core medical issue that 70 PhDs and 50+ members of congress missed.
And Rove says "The fight came to Bush." Why is it a fight? Bush is the head of a representative democracy. The process is for citizens to request services from the government they pay for. Bush works for the people. So why is a request for government services termed a "fight"? Rove doesn't frame a citizen's group interaction as a normal flow of process. Instead, he describes it as a hostile event.

Rove paints himself as a moral, upright, highly principled election campaigner, and highly ethical human being. Rove admits to dirty tricks when he was in college, but claims his days of dirty tricks stopped when he was about 26 years old. Rove spends lots of pages deflecting blame, cloaking himself in moral indignation at the accusations of election dirty tricks. But Rove doesn't offer any ideas on who was the source of the many campaign dirty tricks from his decades as a campaign manager. Somehow, someway, the unethical campaign tactics that benefitted Rove's clients in different election campaigns were done without his knowledge. And Rove makes sure to let us know how appalled he was of these dirty campaign tricks, even though they resulted in victory for his clients.

Is Rove that cynical to think that readers will believe that all these beneficial tactics that resulted in victory came from some unknown source? Rove sounds like Sammy Gravano, the convicted mafia boss Underboss: Sammy the Bull Gravano's Story of Life in the Mafia. Gravano spends the book refuting, one by one, all the terrible accusations about him. Yet few take him seriously, and Gravano wastes away in prison, because everyone knows his true character is one of lies and deceptions. Rove isn't 100% unethical, but there is a lot of suspicious activity in his past, and his colleagues past (Lee Atwater) to make people believe he's basically conniving.

Rove describes how he got little respect around the White House after the 2000 and 2004 elections. I imagine Bush's team had the same general distaste for him that G.W. Bush did. They liked his results, but they hated knowing the trickery and deception he used to achieve his results. So, they had to allow him in the group, but they didn't give him the respect Rove felt he deserved. Bush nicknamed Rove 'turd-blossom', and when the turd-blossom spoke outside of campaign issues, few cared to listen.

For Rove's next book, he should try something other than a self-justifying autobiography. He should analyze a major historical political campaigner. I'd like to see Rove write a book on Joseph Goebbels, the master propagandist for Germany in the 1930s. Rove can describe Goebbels techniques, why they worked in persuading the Germans to Goebbels point of view, and how the average German could have seen through the propaganda. A book analyzing the techniques and defenses of political propaganda will give Rove some intellectual credentials to justify his self-opinion, and help us understand his belief that he's not just a dirty tricks artist. Rather, he can describe why his actions are just, and he can use historical precedence to persuade us.

The title is "Courage and Consequence". Rove didn't describe much courage in the book, so I don't know where that came from. But the consequence was highly beneficial for Rove. This full-time campaign manager who dropped out of college is now a multi-millionaire, and his skills are in high demand . The road to wealth in the political realm is not paved with ethical actions.
Rove's autobiography is a long, self-rationalizing diatribe. Rove states multiple times that he's confused why the other Bush cabinet members and political appointees didn't like him, and gave him little respect. For a guy who claims high intelligence, it should be obvious to him. When Bush took office in 2000, Bush said he wanted his staff to be "above suspicion". Rove's actions never made that standard. At best, his actions are barely legal. Throughout the book, Rove spins theories and creates bizarre interpretations of his actions, trying to make him look like a sincere, honest Thomas Jefferson. But his statements don't square with the historical record.

Comment: I am half way through this remarkable book. Karl Rove, thank-you and God Bless you, you are a true American and Patriot. I just finsihed the chapters on 9/11 and ground zero. If tis book doesn't make you laugh and cry, you are not an American or a Patriot. These hesrt-gripping scenes from NY in the aftermath of the attacks will pull at your heart and make you realize that President Bush was soooo much more than the current admin wants you to believe. Do you want to go back to the last 8 years under Bush/Cheney. Read this book and you will yes, HELL YES!!

Comment: Excellent and historical book. I was not looking forward to reading it before I started, but found myself wanting more every time I put it down. I have been an Independent for years, but Karl, has meade me want to go out and register as a Reblican and proudly claim this country back from the liberals.