Karl Rove and Fear

Karl Rove observes that "the Web has given angry and vitriolic people more of a voice in public discourse," but--quite apart from anger and vitriol--I suspect his greater concern lies here: "People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog."
Ah. The voiceless (nutty or otherwise) have access to an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, do they? Rove goes on to say that liberal blogs are angry, swear far more than conservative blogs, and that they "often argue from anger rather than reason."
Of course, this is a typical Rovian tactic, to provide an emotion-framed "argument" against your opponent by using, well, emotion rather than argument.
And perhaps not surprisingly, Rove is silent on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his brethren who, shock of shocks!, use similar emotive persuasion in place of rational discourse.
It's simple enough to do what Rove has done, to categorize then generalize against a substantial segment of the population who, in their various ways, seek to highlight the issues of constitutionality, illegality, incompetence and arrogance plainly manifested by the Bush Administration.
Have a concern about the waste of American and Iraqi lives, of money, in that incompetently executed war? Have a complaint about illegal wiretapping, telecom immunity, officially sanctioned torture? If so, you might want to avoid the use of bad language, of anger and vitriol, and stick to reasoned argument. But that won't help either since people like Rove and Limbaugh aren't too interested in engaging on that level to begin with. Deception, not persuasive argument, seems to win the day
"The dark side of the Web can actually turn off voters," Rove said. That and a refusal to represent the people in a manner that is constitutional, ethical and moral.