The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

In her column, “Funny Man, Karl Rove,” Connie Schultz explains why Rove should think twice about picking a fight over Chrysler’s Super Bowl ad:

After I saw the new Chrysler ad — starring Clint Eastwood and titled “Halftime in America” — I walked from our kitchen to my home office and picked up the rusty wrench my father used during his 30 years at the power plant in Ashtabula, Ohio.

The wrench is nearly 2 feet long and weighs 12 pounds. Dad had been gone five years when one of his former bosses gave me a tour of the empty plant where he used to work. It was like visiting a tomb full of ghosts. As I was leaving, the supervisor handed me the wrench for a souvenir. “Yes, your father used this,” he said. “Probably every day.”

Sometimes I pick up the wrench and think of how my hulk of a father used to smile and wink at me whenever some guy bragged about lifting weights. Other times, I hold the wrench in both hands and try to imagine what it was like to lug that thing around for a living. I can only guess. Despite my many questions, Dad always refused to talk about his job. The only thing he wanted his kids to know about his work was that it was a family tradition that would die with him. And it did. He was 69.

By now, most of you have seen Eastwood’s Chrysler ad, if not during its Super Bowl debut then on any number of news and cable shows or on the Web. It’s getting a lot of free play because Republican strategist Karl Rove has complained that it was a partisan pitch for President Barack Obama.

Rove explained to Fox News, “I was, frankly, offended by it…”

Let’s stop right there. I’ve spent a little time with Rove. The man is an expert on what’s offensive, which I discovered way too up close and personal last fall during a private dinner for 30 or so people hosted by a liberal arts college in Ohio. During Rove’s short after-dinner talk, he ridiculed the intelligence of both Sarah Palin and Meghan McCain and repeatedly trashed Democrats. He did this knowing that half his fellow diners were women and that most of them were liberals who had set aside considerable political differences to welcome him to their campus. Classy guy.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

U.S. SUPREME COURT

YouTube Screenshot

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, some conservatives and mainstream media outlets have suggested that anti-abortionists may be willing to support more generous family welfare programs to offset the financial burden of forced birth. These suggestions, whether made in bad faith or ignorance, completely misunderstand the social function of prohibiting abortion, which is to exert control over women and all people who can get pregnant.

In adopting or replicating the right’s framing of anti-abortionists as “pro-life,” these outlets mystify the conservative movement’s history and current goals. Conservatives have sought to dismantle the United State’s limited safety net since the passage of the New Deal. Expecting the movement to reverse course now is absurd, and suggesting so serves primarily to obfuscate the economic hardship the end of Roe will inflict on people forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

Keep reading... Show less

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters

YouTube Screenshot

Donald Trump's hand-picked candidate Blake Masters is the latest to endorse the unpopular idea.

The front-runner in the GOP primary to run for Senate in Arizona in November against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly suggested on June 23 that Social Security should be privatized, an approach to the popular government program that experts say could jeopardize a vital financial lifeline for retired Americans.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}