About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media repeated Rove's assessment of 2008 election without noting he was wrong in 2006

August 13, 2007 4:12 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: In reports about Karl Rove's announcement that he is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff, numerous news reports uncritically repeated Rove's assessments that President Bush "will move back up in the polls" and that Republicans have "a very good chance" of winning the White House in 2008. However, these outlets did not mention Rove's recent track record: Before the November 2006 midterm elections, he predicted that Republicans would "keep" their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.

53 Comments

In an August 13 commentary on his recent interview with Karl Rove, during which Rove announced he would resign his position as White House deputy chief of staff effective August 31, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot uncritically quoted Rove's predictions that President Bush "will move back up in the polls" and that "'Iraq will be in a better place' as the surge continues." Gigot also reported Rove's assertion that the Democrats will nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" -- as their 2008 presidential nominee and that Republicans have "a very good chance" of winning the White House in 2008. But Gigot and several others who subsequently reported these claims did not mention Rove's flawed assessment before the 2006 midterm election, when he told the media that "the math" indicated that Republicans would "keep" their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.

In his Wall Street Journal commentary, Gigot wrote:

"He will move back up in the polls," says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush's 30% approval rating by saying it's heading close to "40%," and "higher than Congress."

Looking ahead, he adds, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, "we'll see in the battle over FISA" -- the wiretapping of foreign terrorists -- "a fissure in the Democratic Party." Also in the fall, "the budget fight will have been fought to our advantage," helping the GOP restore, through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.

As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but "I think we've got a very good chance to do so."

In an August 13 online article on Rove's announcement, Journal staff writer John D. McKinnon also reported the political assessments that Rove made during the interview with Gigot:

Mr. Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate." He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.

[...]

Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle -- and a series of presidential vetoes -- should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.

But neither Gigot nor McKinnon noted that Rove wrongly predicted the results of the last election. In an October 18, 2006, article headlined, "Rove foresees GOP victory," The Washington Times quoted Rove as saying: "I'm confident we're going to keep the Senate; I'm confident we're going to keep the House." In an October 24, 2006, interview with Robert Siegel, senior host of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Rove similarly said the Republicans would maintain a majority in the House and Senate:

ROVE: I'm looking at 68 polls a week for candidates for the US House and US Senate, and Governor and you may be looking at 4-5 public polls a week that talk attitudes nationally.

SIEGEL: I don't want to have you to call races --

ROVE: I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to the math.

SIEGEL: I don't know if we're entitled to a different math but your --

ROVE: I said the math.

The Democrats ultimately won 30 House seats and six Senate seats, thus regaining control of both chambers of Congress.

During the 2000 presidential race, Rove also made electoral predictions that proved wrong, as Media Matters for America noted. Indeed, Rove predicted that Bush, then the governor of Texas, would win 320 electoral votes, according to The St. Petersburg Times. According to a November 6, 2000, Houston Chronicle article, Rove also predicted that "Bush will get about 50 percent of the popular vote, with [Vice President Al] Gore at about 45 percent." The article went on to report that "Rove discounted the much-discussed possibility that Gore could win the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote to Bush, a scenario that has not occurred since 1888." The Chronicle quoted Rove responding, "You had a weird set of political dynamics (in 1888) that are not repeatable in modern America." In fact, the election was split, and Bush did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote or garner 320 electoral votes; Gore won 48.38 percent of the popular vote and Bush 47.87 percent, while Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266.

On August 13, other news outlets repeated Rove's forecasts on Bush's approval rating and the Iraq war, and his assessment of the 2008 presidential election, without noting his previous incorrect predictions:

  • The New York Times reported: "In his exit interview today, which was with the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot, Mr. Rove had a parting shot for his political nemeses, telling Mr. Gigot that he believed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the Democratic nominee but called her a 'tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate,' and predicted a Republican victory in the 2008 presidential race. It is the sort of political boasting that had become Mr. Rove's hallmark."
  • The Washington Post similarly reported: "Rove told Gigot that he remains confident Bush will recover politically despite his low approval ratings. 'He will move back up in the polls,' Rove said. And he said Republicans could still retain the White House next year. The Democrats are likely to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), 'a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate,' he said, but Republicans have 'a very good chance' of beating her."
  • On CBS' The Early Show, CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante stated: "Rove also tells The Wall Street Journal that he expects Hillary Clinton to be the candidate for the Democrats this coming year, but he says she's fatally flawed and thinks Republicans can still win."
  • On ABC's Good Morning America, anchor Diane Sawyer reported: "And he says this by the way, of the campaign -- the presidential campaign ahead. He said the Democrats, quote, '[T]hey are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton.' Though he says, 'I think the Republicans have a very good chance to hold onto the White House.' "
  • And in an interview with MSNBC host Chris Matthews on NBC's Today, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory said: "And [Rove] says Hillary Clinton's going to be the Democrats' nominee. He calls her fatally flawed."

From the August 13 edition of CBS' The Early Show:

PLANTE: Rove also tells The Wall Street Journal that he expects Hillary Clinton to be the candidate for the Democrats this coming year, but he says she's fatally flawed and thinks Republicans can still win -- Harry.

From the August 13 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

SAWYER: And he says this by the way, of the campaign -- the presidential campaign ahead. He said the Democrats, quote, "[T]hey are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Though he says, "I think the Republicans have a very good chance to hold onto the White House.

What about those words about Senator Clinton?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC News chief Washington correspondent): Fascinating. I think this is the consensus view in the White House, including President Bush. They all view Hillary Clinton as the strongest Democratic candidate, the most experienced. They also believe that she is such a polarizing figure that she could give Republicans a chance of winning the White House if she's nominated.

From the August 13 edition of NBC's Today:

MATTHEWS: Look at how many people he brought to the polls in 2004 that never voted in their lives before. Look at what he did in Ohio, and the way he held things together there and won that state. He's a smart guy -- a big loss for the White House.

GREGORY: And he says Hillary Clinton's going to be the Democrats' nominee. He calls her fatally flawed.

MATTHEWS: Well, we'll see. He may be right, he may be wrong. That's why we cover these elections.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Sueelldd (August 13, 2007 4:16 pm ET)
         

      Just looking at Karl Rove makes me sick. Matthews is right though the man is smart, Bush winning in 04 was something that never should have happened.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (August 13, 2007 5:00 pm ET)
           

        Shoulda, woulda, coulda... Time to move on my friend. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (August 13, 2007 5:52 pm ET)
             

          I guess when WE move on will be OUR decision.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by heru (August 14, 2007 5:22 am ET)
             

          No, 'AnotherAmerican,' its time for Karl Rove to move on. Neocons are going the way of dinosaurs thank God.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by dangrady (August 14, 2007 11:08 am ET)
             

          SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

          Admiration for tactics used by this man and his ilk is an overt endorsement for Fascism!If the rule of law is not the standard for both parties pursuit for power, if our standard is winning at all cost, the law included, then we have surrendered to the Fascists, and toss our beloved democracy to the heap of time. We become little better than the "go along to get along" citizens of Franco's Spain, Pinochle’s Chile, or Hitler's Germany!Not exaggeration, not a conspiracy theory, a daily reality the corporate media chooses not to report! This man has defiled the honor of our nation’s history, and tradition of standing for freedom, and protecting the world for freedom’s sake! He has been pivotal in distorting our democracy into fascism, and making us little more than Fascism with conquest on its mind!We have a last opportunity coming this ’08 to take our democracy back from Scoundrels like Rove, I will fight for the democracy as I swore to “protect, preserve, and defend,” thus the question becomes what will my fellow Americans do? Did you serve in the military? Then brother/sister you made the same oath, so are you an American first, or a Republican before you’re an American? Fortunately the question is simple, and the answer is simpler, 183 Democrats in the Congress voted against the FISA revision, 28 Democrats in the Senate, NO REPUBLICANS!!!Happy Thoughts;Dan Grady

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (August 13, 2007 4:19 pm ET)
         

      Anyone that is remotely interested in politics knows how wrong Karl Rove was, it's common knowledge.   This is hardly misinformation of any kind.  Get real.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 13, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
           

        Tommy,

        It's time for your nap.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (August 13, 2007 4:32 pm ET)
           

        Tommy, this was clearly just a "Karl Rove" name drop to stir things up.  It's all good.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (August 13, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
             

          Ya, I knew that.  Can't let his resignation go without a few choice insults and "Rovism" disguist as he's shown the door.

          Fire away!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (August 13, 2007 5:04 pm ET)
               

            MMFA delights in telling us how often right wingers swing and miss. It has nothing to do with misinformation, but we all know MMFA's real agenda is not it's stated one.

            If Babe Ruth were a conservative, no doubt MMFA would exclaim every time a sportscast or news article left out his strikeout record.

            ;-)  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (August 13, 2007 5:06 pm ET)
                 

              ps. We all know The Babe was a lefty.  ;-)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by heru (August 14, 2007 5:27 am ET)
                   

                Babe Ruth was a stinking drunk who should have an asterisk by his records since he didn't play against the best competition due to segregation

                Report Abuse
                • Author by john henry (August 14, 2007 12:56 pm ET)
                     

                  there is a book out about Babe Ruth and makes a good argument that the competition was as good then and that Ruth did in fact play against the Negro leagues in barnstorming games to an extent most white players didnt.  He excelled against all competition.  He played against legal  spitballers and in some parks where the fences were much more distant than at other periods. He was robbed of numerous home runs by rules which are now abandoned.  I started out skeptical but I thought it was very well argued. We often forget that in 1920 there were no other professional sports which paid anything so every good athlete went into baseball. there were only 16 major league teams. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by BLR (August 14, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
                       

                    "He played against legal  spitballers and in some parks where the fences were much more distant than at other periods."

                    ...and, to be fair, far more short, including his home stadium, yes?  Wasn't the right field post - where he, as a lefty, typically hit his homers - far shorter than you'd find today?  Being a home run king is much easier when you are physiologically inclined to hit long balls straight to the shortest distance possible to qualify for a homer in your own park.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (August 14, 2007 2:16 pm ET)
                       

                    He played against them in the sense that he did face the great black pitchers as you say. However he DIDNT face the competition in home run races with the great black hitters. While the stats in the Negro leagues are sketchy since they played both official and unofficial games he is often credited with more than 900 home runs and died at 35. In one season official games only he hit 69 home runs now he wasnt facing the best pitching but a case can be made for Josh as the greatest power hitter of his era. I mean he WAS facing Satchel Paige.

                    Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (August 13, 2007 5:48 pm ET)
                 

              The WITH Patrol's boat is again full of holes, still refusing to acknowledge MMFA's own definition of 'conservative misinformation'.

              The media is giving credence to a prominent conservative that is obviously off his game,  tapping Rove's outmoded foresight without pointing out his loss of credibility.  Intentional or not, this forwards the conservative agenda.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (August 13, 2007 6:03 pm ET)
                 

              Sure that is why they have so many stories about Barry Bonds, wait, they DON'T. We all know how desperate you are to keep the truth quiet and how much you dont want it talked about. WE. DON'T. CARE. Talking about Rove without mentioning Valerie Plame is like talking about the Titanic without mentioning it sank.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (August 13, 2007 6:23 pm ET)
                   

                The baseball analogy is great, isn't it?  Especially since a professional athlete's statistics have everything to do with political agendas.  Perhaps MMFA is indeed neglecting an entire dynamic to politics that no one except AA has ever thought of.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (August 13, 2007 8:27 pm ET)
                     

                  Perhaps but I think we would have to poll various mental institutions to be sure. maybe its not so original.

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 13, 2007 7:29 pm ET)
                 

              "...but we all know MMFA's real agenda is not it's stated one."- anotheramerican

              Deputy Fife, you're falling back on that "We all know" stuff again.Please don't assign your misguided ideas to anybody but yourself, it's just insulting.

              If you need to convince yourself that your opinion is popular or unanimous to state it, maybe it's not so hot.

              "We all know...", as effective as it is on the dittoheads, it isn't fooling anybody here. ;0)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (August 14, 2007 1:50 pm ET)
                   

                Gomer,

                I assume you think you're speaking for everyone when you write, "... isn't fooling anybody here."

                I very much appreciate the unintended hypocricy of your statement.

                Thanks for the laugh!

                Report Abuse
        • Author by heru (August 14, 2007 5:24 am ET)
             

          "Its all good?" Isn't it enough that Fatty Rove tried to rap, now you cons have to steal our language too?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (August 13, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
           

        Then let's give kudos to MMFA for attempting to inform those who are not remotely interested.

        As to those who are remotely interested, I think it's safe to assume that a portion are still living in denial that Rove can no longer 'bring it'.  It certainly doesn't hurt to call the media out for capacitating their affliction.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (August 13, 2007 4:33 pm ET)
         

      Corporate Media getting warmed up

      No need for the right-wing corporate media to focus on any negatives.  They need to build up a positive momentum for the Con candidate. 

      They'll save an examination of negatives for later:  when discussing the Democratic candidate.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 13, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
         

      Well, no surprise here...Karl Rove's failed predictions are yesterday's news...sort of like all the lies told leading up to the Iraq War. Let's not dwell in the past; move along.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Taz (August 13, 2007 5:04 pm ET)
         

      Stop the presses! Rove made a prediction and the media didn't mention he got 2006 wrong.

      So if a democrat makes a prediction for 2008 and they were wrong about a prediction they made about Kerry winning in 2004 or a prediction about Gore winning in 2000 and the press doesn't make a huge deal about it, or even mentions it, you'll all be equally outraged about the omission? Somehow I don't think so.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (August 13, 2007 5:09 pm ET)
           

        Are you trying to say that Gore lost in 2000?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by skeptical (August 13, 2007 5:19 pm ET)
           

        Yes Taz,

        If someone has been wrong in their predictions in the past, why would we believe them in the future?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (August 13, 2007 5:29 pm ET)
           

        Here's a Republican prediction from the past.

        This country needs to get two jail cells ready for 1/20/09.

        [link to www.youtube.com]

        Thanks to Military_husband for the link.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (August 13, 2007 6:51 pm ET)
             

          Worrierking, I watched this on CNN.

          Former House member and Republican strategist JC Watts said in Dick's defense that  there had been some mistakes in the execution of the war (talk about the understatement of the year) but on a whole Dick's statements could be explained away cause "we didn't have 9/11 in 1994".

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (August 13, 2007 6:57 pm ET)
               

            Do you think there's anything that these people can't explain away?

            Every-time I think they can't stoop any lower, they do.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (August 13, 2007 7:45 pm ET)
                 

              The saddest thing is the way they use 9/11. It's the basis for all that they do (stupid, corrupt and illegal). When it is explained to them that 9/11 happen on their watch with them in control of all branches of government they revert back to it's all Clinton's fault. IMO that takes brass ba**s.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by john henry (August 14, 2007 1:02 pm ET)
           

        Sometimes I read thesse posts and think what nit picking.  if the media always reminded us the times a conservative pundit was wrong in the past, the media would be liberal. there also would be no time for anything else.  

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 13, 2007 5:17 pm ET)
         

      The most important fact about Karl Rove is that he saddled us with the worst President in modern history...maybe the worst ever. For that, we owe him our eternal and utter contempt.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (August 13, 2007 5:24 pm ET)
           

        Rove may have been the architect behind the strategy that landed Bush in the WH - but the voters and the electoral college ultimately put him there.  For Rove, he was only doing his job - and you can argue how well or poorly he did, or how much integrity he had while doing it, but to blame him for "giving" us Bush is misplaced.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (August 13, 2007 5:35 pm ET)
             

          I agree with you up to a point, and I also blame the laziness of the American Press Corps. However, the man has (allegedly) used deceitful tactics that may in fact be illegal. Since we cannot seem to get any kind of investigation off the ground, we may never know just how sinister this man is.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (August 13, 2007 5:46 pm ET)
             

          "Rove may have been the architect behind the strategy that landed Bush in the WH - but the voters and the electoral college ultimately put him there."

          The Supreme Court ultimately put him there.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by heru (August 14, 2007 5:33 am ET)
               

            I blame all the con posters here like Tommy who voted for Bush twice. How will they vote next time if nobody finds another total moron to run?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by BLR (August 14, 2007 12:51 pm ET)
             

          "he was only doing his job"

          That is poor excuse, and not a valid one, and this was proven in the aftermath of WWII, when it was found that committing atrocities as part of one's career assignment is no defense of the atrocities committed.  Rove is a primary mover and shaker behind an administration that stole one US Presidential Election (possibly two, but not likely), led the US into a military action that is as unjustifiable as it is destructive to our national security, and has raped and pillaged our national resources and global good will.

          I have every confidence that he will continue his treasonous actions in the future through freely assisting the RNC directly or indirectly in the 2008 elections, and it is for Rove and his ilk that my agnostic self hopes that the Christian version of the afterlife has some semblance of truth, because his lack of justice on Earth can only be balanced by an eternity of suffering in Hell.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by spintronic (August 13, 2007 5:20 pm ET)
         

      Wow, seems like the cons around here are getting more and more pissy about everything getting posted on MMFA these days.. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 13, 2007 5:23 pm ET)
           

        What else have they got? They can't defend the indefensible...so they attack the messenger.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (August 13, 2007 5:39 pm ET)
         

      What is so telling about this field of Republican presidential candidates is that after eight years of having the White House, 12 years of having the House, and the Senate much of that time, the "bench" of the Republican Party is so thin, so poor in terms of seriousness, intellectual heft and ability to articulate a vision.

      What, exactly, was being built in all these years of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and Trent Lott and Bill Frist and, since 2000, Karl Rove, the fabled Architect???

      The legacy of Bush abroad is the Iraq war that has the U.S. military firmly planted in the middle of Arabia, and a world that hates us. The legacy of Bush at home is the bizarre Terri Schiavo affair, Katrina, a worsening health care crisis, etc. The people observed all of this, in real time.

      I copied this from Jackson Williams on Huffingtonpost.com cause this is the best assessment of the Junior/Rove/Republican legacy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 13, 2007 5:45 pm ET)
           

        That pretty much sums it up. It's not all bad, though...I think they created Billionaires at a record pace during the Bush administration, and gave them tax cuts to ease their suffering. That's quite a legacy.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (August 13, 2007 6:00 pm ET)
         

      I get it...Rove's qualifications are thoroughly debunked.

      That makes Hillary...according to mmfa...a weak, cowardly, perfect democrat candidate...who will get elected in 2008...because Rove cannot possibly be right in his assessment.

      Nice work mmfa...you sure took care of old Karl.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (August 14, 2007 2:19 pm ET)
           

        There is no such thing as a Democrat candidate there are DemocratIC candidates and there are RePUNKlican candidates

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (August 13, 2007 8:33 pm ET)
         

      Interesting variation Oscar. Emphisize the rat, but add the "ic". It was you hiding in the Rat's Eye wasn't it!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by heru (August 14, 2007 5:40 am ET)
         

      Bush's Brain cut and ran hahahahahaha

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace