The Man Behind the President: An Interview with Documentarian Michael Paradies Shoob

Judge Brett Cullum

October 18th, 2004

To coincide with his review of Bush's Brain, a documentary by Michael Paradies Shoob and Joseph Mealey revealing the mastermind behind George W. Bush's presidential campaigning, Karl Rove, Brett Cullum had the opportunity to interview Paradies Shoob via email.

1. Why did you chose the book Bush's Brain to make into a documentary?

My co-director Joseph Mealey read an op-ed piece in the LA Times by Bush's Brain co-author, Jim Moore. He subsequently read the book and approached the authors about making it into a movie. Joe will also say that he was very disturbed about the invasion of Iraq, which spurred his interest in making the film. He was the catalyst, and we got together to make the film.

2. Were there any interviews you wish you could have gotten, but couldn't?

Though we talked to a number of Republicans who we included in the film—and, by the way, we still appreciate their willingness to go on camera when it is arguable that they had nothing to gain by participating in our film—there were a number of others who had agreed to be interviewed and then abruptly cancelled. We learned later that the White House had pressured them not to talk to us. I personally also wish John McCain had been willing to talk. But his chief campaign adviser John Weaver showed a great deal of courage and candor and gave us a great interview.

3. Why are there so many documentaries criticizing the Bush administration?

Fifty years from now, I believe one of the great legacies of the Bush administration will be that they got people passionate about politics again and made them determined to re-engage with the American political process. I think folks are angry about a White House that has been more secretive than perhaps any administration in history, that has alienated most of the rest of the world, and has deliberately deceived and misled the American people.

These documentaries—Michael Moore's, Robert Greenwald, ours—all evolved organically and autonomously. None of us knew each other or knew what the other was doing. What we have shared is a determination to get Americans re-engaged in their democracy and to find out the truth about what's going in America. A truth which is often hard to dig up, and often overlooked or shortchanged by the traditional media.

4. What's up next for you? Planning on any more documentaries?

My co-director Joseph Mealey and I have a number of projects we are discussing, but at the moment, all of our time is being devoted to get Bush's Brain out to as many people as possible. In the course of one week, I've personally spoken and/or shown the film six times to separate audiences and been to a festival in Belgium and back. We've been organizing house parties, special screenings, anything we can do to get people of all political persuasions to see our film.

5. Was Bush's Brain rushed because of the timing of events? What were the obstacles to getting it made?

We began the film in June 2003 and knew we wanted to get the film out in time for the election—so that gave us a deadline. We felt certain we didn't have enough time to get the film to Sundance, so we decided to premiere at the South by Southwest Film Festival in March—which is a great festival and has a tradition of interest in political docs with Matt Dentler at the helm. At SXSW, Bush's Brain became a national news story and 2,000 people stood waiting 2 1/2 hours in the rain to see the film.

The obstacles, I would say conceptually, were that we had to make a film about a very powerful man who had made a deliberate attempt over a 30-year career to stay out of the limelight and rarely did interviews. His power has always been tied, in large measure, to his invisibility.

6. The film is very different from Fahrenheit 9/11, and I've tried to tell people why. Could you in your own words tell us what you were trying to accomplish, and why it's a very different film from Moore's work?

I think the film works in an interesting tandem with Fahrenheit. Michael Moore's film is a fiercely entertaining piece of work, which has set the bar at a new level for the documentary film. He has made it, in my partner Joseph Mealey's words, "no longer homework" to go and see documentary films. Which may have permanently changed the landscape for moviegoers all over the country.

Ours is an attempt to "connect the dots," explain "how it all happened." Where did George Bush come from? Who got him there? What kind of campaigns were run by Karl Rove that "set the table" for a George Bush presidency? Our is kind of a history lesson—a history which sadly most Americans don't know.

Also, our film is a primer in understanding how this White House operates, especially during political campaigns: narrow messaging, attacking your opponent's strengths, making any allegation (no matter its accuracy) and dare the press to spend weeks and months getting at the truth. After you see our film, you understand very clearly every move this White House makes. Perhaps better than most journalists.

Also, Bush's Brain is, ultimately, I think, a cautionary tale about what has become an insatiable appetite in America for winning. Karl Rove is dedicated to "winning elections at any cost," and our film really lays out the tragic human toll that kind of attitude has taken in America. If we, as a country, continue to be obsessed with winning, the inevitable violation of rules of fair play and decency threaten to undermine our democracy forever.

7. Did you know about Karl Rove before working on this project?

I knew, like most Americans, very little about Karl Rove. I think that's by design. Until this year's Republican convention, when publicity about our film forced him to go public and do interviews and argue that he couldn't possibly be "Bush's brain," Karl Rove enjoyed virtual anonymity in American politics—except among Beltway insiders.

8. Given all you know about Mr. Rove now—are there any events in the current election that you think are classic Rove moves?

There is no doubt, as we told Page 6 of the New York Post this fall, that the Swift Boat ads were hatched by Karl Rove. They are right out of the Rove playbook—attack your opponent's strengths—in this case, Kerry's war record—plan the attacks using third parties so that your fingerprints aren't on anything. And use these attacks to distract the public and press, and keep them away from probing your own candidate's vulnerabilities—in this case, President Bush's Vietnam era service record. It's laughable that John Kerry should be the one forced to defend his Vietnam service when President Bush's service is full of gaps and serious questions about his honesty, sobriety, and sense of responsibility during that era.

9. Is Rove his own creation or is he a product of the system? Historically, politics have always been a nasty business of slights and secret conspiracies. Why is Rove so fascinating on his own?

I think Karl Rove is a little of both—his own creation and the product of a system that believes "winning is the only thing."

Karl Rove is a new calibration in the idea of a "political consultant." We've seen "hardball" players before—Lee Atwater for Bush 1 and James Carville for Bill Clinton. But there are two basic differences: Atwater and Carville went on to work in other political campaigns after helping to put their candidate in the White House.

Rove moved into the White House into Hillary Clinton's old office. He is paid by the taxpayers to handle political strategy for this President. His title is "Senior Adviser for Policy and Politics," which leads one to believe that the two are virtually the same thing in this administration. This is something we've never seen before in America.

The second difference is that hardball consultants normally dig up dirt. Karl Rove doesn't just dig up dirt, he "makes stuff up"—for example, newspapers all over the country have spent a lot of newsprint parsing the Kerry war record and found virtually nothing wrong with Mr. Kerry's service to this country. But still, as Karl Rove understands, the allegation often is more powerful than the truth. Many Americans still believe Kerry received some of his medals under fraudulent circumstances. That's vintage Rove—say anything and the American people will buy at least some of it.

10. 2004 seemed like the year of the documentary with Moore, Spurlock, and you guys. Why do you think documentaries are becoming so prominent?

I think folks are angry and documentarians like Moore, Spurlock, Greenwald, and us are doing the job formerly performed by investigative reporters. Too many TV reporters want badly to be Tom Brokaw and make a million dollars. As a result, they tend to be timid about alienating those people, like Karl Rove, who are in power and can help their careers. It's a sad commentary on the integrity of the American press, but, in many cases, it happens to be true.