I need to put on my extra strength suspenders (off my hip waders) to entertain the notion that Rove was able to make these economic assertions on his own --it being an undisclosed hobby of his, this Recreational Economics.
So he is informed by staff to construct a position that might persuade...the minority who are well off enough to nod in agreement?...who hardly need persuading.
...the dissenchanted who were promised a growing economy and now recognize that it was growing only for a few top dogs?...who are hardly going to be persuaded by this piece.
...the political pundits who know even less about economics than Rove and who might feel plonked by such nuanced economic propositions coming from the political strategist?
Do we get to mull over Paulson's political strategies to compare with Rove's performance or is Hank just too recent an acquisition to gauge for the title of Most Mendacious Man Alive?
Psst, let me let you into a little secret. Right Economic concern about Social Security 'Crisis' has nothing to do with retirement security.
Which is just another way of saying that Rove et al are always working two levels. They are perfectly aware that they can't sell their real program on the surface, they understand fully that they are hamstrung by a democratic system of one-man, one-vote.
Their aims are fully revealed by their policy prescriptions, in all cases they want to maximize the returns on capital. At the same time they realize that those returns flow to a restricted part of the electorate, which kind of makes the following kind of a "well duh!" observation:
"then he certainly is smart enough to know that most people do think that economic progress has to include some measure of the well-being of average people."
Because you don't win elections otherwise. People by and large won't vote knowingly against their own self-interest, "Vote for him and make me rich" by and large not being a winning campaign slogan. So the Economic Right always has to finesse it with "Rising Tide", "Trickle Down", and "Ownership Society". The fact that they don't believe these effects will happen and don't particularly care takes a backseat to the fact that if they don't sell the notions they don't get the power to push their agenda through.
So this I think is fundamentally wrong though fixable with a single word change:
"but I agree with Brad that Karl Rove does include in his conception of good economic performance some measure of how people other than corporate executives and owners are doing. "
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Try this:
"but I agree with Brad that Karl Rove does include in his DEPICTION of good economic performance some measure of how people other than corporate executives and owners are doing."
Karl Rove has demonstrated in word and act that he would be perfectly happy to revert back to the world of McKinley with him in the role of Mark Hanna. He just doesn't have the luxury of openly admitting what his real program is.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art...9150/Mark-
Hanna
Kash, do you really believe that Rove cares about how well the majority of Americans fare? As long as enough vote GOP to retain power, he's good to go. The entire thrust of the Bush economic policy is to help the rich and to screw everybody else - with exceptions *only* for political necessity.
Rove and his co-conspirators are obsessive, congential, liars of the slimeiest and scummiest type imaginable -- so who doesn't already know this? Rove would lie to his mother on her death bed for no other reason than to keep in practice.
casino internet play casino internet play casino internet play. buy carisoprodol diazepam online soma buy carisoprodol diazepam online soma buy carisoprodol diazepam online soma.
Commenting by HaloScan
