Rove - Decider or divider?

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/14/7 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

GEORGE W. Bush ran for president promising to be a "uniter, not a divider."

That didn't happen. I asked top Bush adviser Karl Rove - the man who didn't deliver national unity and has announced he is leaving the White House - over the phone Monday: Why?

"I think a number of Democrats never accepted (Bush) as legitimate and instead adopted a strategy of blind obstructionism," he answered.

Moreover, some Democrats "hated" Bush, and they were joined by a group of Democrats who "for tactical reasons, said that we can never give (Bush) a political victory, and anything that passes any part of his agenda is a political victory for him and we can't tolerate that."

This attitude cost Democrats mightily in 2004 when, for the first time since 1936, voters re-elected a president while his party also made gains in the Senate and House.

In 2006, the GOP took the dive.

Did the Bush administration try hard enough to reach across the aisle?

"You know, you'd be shocked and surprised to learn how much the president reached out to Democrats," Rove said.

Rove faults the Democrats for their using a "deeply personal" tone. His remarks bolstered my long-held suspicion that the Bushies had made an unrequited bargain with the opposition - hoping that if they didn't use certain words (liar, for example), their opponents wouldn't use those words. In hardball politics, that's a bad play.

"I challenge you - take a look at any one of the president's remarks," Rove noted. "Take a look at what was routinely said by the Clinton White House and the Clinton press secretary and what was routinely said by Republicans on the Hill." Their tone was "deeply personal."

[JackRyanCIA]

Carville and Ickes were nice guys. Rove, oh so mean. To hell with all Democrats and their hate filled BS.

[golfisnr1]

“Did the Bush administration try hard enough to reach across the aisle?”

That is the most absurd statement. Whenever Bush reached across the aisle his hand was cut off.

[L98Fiero]

More liberal hypocrisy and projection. The same people that insist on dividing segments of the population into groups and pitting them against each other call Rove a divider. Pathetically typical.

[NordP]

Hey, SF Chronicle... Divider.... Divide and Conquer that is ;-)

[Jim Noble]

Rove did his job, which was to get GWB elected twice.

His idea about building a majority coalition around social conservatives has yet to show it can do anything except get GWB elected.

[lilylangtree]

Karl Rove performed admirably in getting the prez the job for 8 years. Hail to Karl Rove! Let the RATS and MSM sink in their own primordial ooze.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

[rabscuttle385]

"I think a number of Democrats never accepted (Bush) as legitimate and instead adopted a strategy of blind obstructionism," he answered.

The Rats have only two things: their leftist element is consumed with and blinded by an obsessive hatred for W., and their only "solutions" are Marxist in nature.

[padre35]

Or worse, Bush got not only his hand cut off, but Conservative Principles were sold out for things like No Child Left Behind’s bolstering of the Dept of Education.

Either way:

Adios Magnificent Bastard, the MSM hated you and the Dhimmis tried to indict you, but you are leaving the WH, and not frog walking either...

[SueRae]

Rove has it exactly right - The last 8 years has been hell because of an angry Left that couldn’t/wouldn’t concede a legitimate Presidential victory and come together like adults to implement solutions.

[Right Cal Gal]

So now the manta is “It’s all ROVE’s Fault??!!

But of course, the S.F. Comical will not go after it’s homegrown petunia, Pelousy, and talk about how she and the Democratic Congress are completely pissing off the country.

[Jeff Chandler]

"You know, you'd be shocked and surprised to learn how much the president reached out to Democrats,"

We ARE continuously shocked and surprised at how much the president reaches out to Democrats (while kicking conservatives.) It's been a frustrating relationship.

[Jeff Chandler]

my long-held suspicion that the Bushies had made an unrequited bargain with the opposition - hoping that if they didn't use certain words (liar, for example), their opponents wouldn't use those words. In hardball politics, that's a bad play.

Suspicion? Suspicion?! That is the essence of the explicitly enacted "New Tone": "We''ll treat you with honor and respect, and you'll destroy us and the nation."

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

As a habitual pessimist, I’m kind of surprised that few here see any kind of upside for Rove’s departure. I do.

IMO there’s every possibility that Rove’s departure is not only well timed but a savvy piece of strategery.

Bush isn’t eligible for re-election. Rove’s work for GW is done. If Bush is a total lame duck from here on out, then what’s there to do for Rove?

The Dems have achieved their majority in Congress, but are also revealed to even a lower intellectual tier as utterly functionless tax-crazed radicals.

Rove is free to work to undermine ‘08 Dem campaign strategy without being tied to Bush as a saboteur. I don’t know if he will do this or not, but as a consultant he is free to earn 20x what he earned as a staff member.

So I don’t see what doesn’t make sense to him leaving. It may make Bush & co look bad, but that, IMO, is a secondary concern on the macro scale, and will blow over like everything else does in a sound-bite based reality.

Tell me where I’m wrong? (donning flame suit)

[roses of sharon]

Rove had better not be going home to retire.

He has payback to perform.

And he had better unleash hell on the Dems and their MSM, (without being restrained by WH employment).

[Jeff Chandler]

I don’t see what all the fuss is about, except that the Democrats are insane and are reacting accordingly. Presidents change their staff—it’s normal. W will get along fine without Rove, and as you stated, he’s not running for reelection.

On balance, Rove has been excellent. About the only areas where his strategery has been flawed is in the White House’s refusal to engage the enemy (the Democrats) and their refusal to stay in campaign mode on public relations. Of course, those are areas in which W himself sets the tone.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Rove had better not be going home to retire.
He has payback to perform.

And he had better unleash hell on the Dems and their MSM, (without being restrained by WH employment).”

*********

What you say is exactly my point. Let them Dems act as warring factions, Fatah and Hamas, rejoicing to NPG (no possible/practical gain, which, btw, is my FR mnemonic contribution) at the apparent demise of their arch enemy.

Meanwhile, arch-enemy is free to pillage from a second front; that front being away from the WH. Hillary, the apparent Dem candidate, has tons of negaives but nobody should underestimate the effort it will take to defeat her. In their hubris and feckless self-celebration, the Dems have every opportunity to self-destruct. I don’t see what’s complex about this strategy. IF it’s a strategy; maybe it’s a hallucination.

[roses of sharon]

Republicans have NEVER defeated the Clintons.

Rove can help, if he is ruthless enough. And he should be mad enough. And after Libby, he should be bloodthirsty enough for revenge, by now.

Hopefully I’m not just projecting, lol.

[Non-Sequitur]

Did the Bush administration try hard enough to reach across the aisle?

One can ask the same of the Democrats. I don't remember any more interest on their part in working with the Republicans as there was the other way around.

[SmithL]

I don't think you're wrong.

From the article:

Rove's revenge is that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are tanking in the polls. "They've taken numbers that were a lot higher than the president's and in a very short period driven them below the president's."

[Weeedley]

While Rove may have stood out in the lackluster cast of old friends form Texas, he was no political genius of any standing. A look at the all-time-low-poll numbers and the 2006 trouncing tells the tail.

And if he is the one who goaded dubya to take a stand on shamenesty that got shot down twice and melted the senate’s switchboard with angry callers, I say good riddance to him.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I’m in agreement w/you on the rotten taste of the amnesty effort and I understand (and share) plenty of resentment for GW on this (and other) counts.

However, I’d point out that Rove’s function is/was to win the WAR, even if it’s at the cost of some individual battles. Maybe this disqualifies Rove as a “genius” but he is galaxies ahead of anyone the Dems have and AFAIK, anyone else anywhere. Until 2006, he was a god.

Forget not that the departure of Rove allows the Dems to go utterly berserk with glee, and this may well serve as their undoing.

[Weeedley]

Here is the rest of the list you need to see:

Dubai Ports
Harriet Myers
Social Security reforms that didn’t happen
The Browie Katrina debacle
A field of FEMA trailer's rotting in an Arkansas field.
Ice trucked aimlessly around the nation for years at a cost of $28M and then mercifully alowed to melt.
A record of wasteful spending and fedral incompetence
The prosecution of two Border Agents for doing the job
The disgrace Johnny Sutton is still on the job
Doubling the size of the National Endowment of the Arts
The BATF gone wild under anti-gun AG Gonzo
Iraq ongoing and no end in sight
The most lackluster republican cabinet since Warren G. Harding

and on and on...

Now contrast this with Ronald Reagan’s term; where he wins reelection by a 49 state landslide crushing the demonrat opponent. Reagan won his war, the Cold War.

hats what i call a political genius.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

With all due respect, are you attributing all those things to Rove?

I wasn’t as much a political observer during RR’s term as I am now (and am not now claiming to be any kind of expert) but there was plenty of pain and angst going on during RR’s term. Also, the US electorate was so utterly disgusted at Jimmah that RR looked like an avenging angel and getting away from Carter was a complete no-brainer. I am not sure too many would have predicted what looks, in hindsight, like a pretty much “golden era” 1980-1988.

Coming off of Clinton, IMO folks felt pretty good but were just exhausted by the histrionics and shenanigans of Bubba.

I think what I’m saying is that predicting the future is nigh-impossible, railing about the present is easy (and I think you’d have to admit we’re in some very challenging times)

[Weeedley]

Are you saying there is plenty of blame to go around in the present situation? We really don’t know if dubya did all his major initiatives that crashed and burned on his own. Why keep a political adviser on staff if you don’t use the advice? I do believe a president has to be more politically astute than anybody he can possibly hire or the wrong man is in office.

Next I have never seen the outpouring of grief for the funeral of Ronald Reagan. That is a measure of what a mark he left on history.

[Weeedley]

Check out another opinion:

How Karl Rove lost a generation of Republicans

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fbe0b986-4a8d-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html

[Jaysun]

The magnificent bastard shall ride again. He’ll ride in your thoughts, your dreams, your prayers. And in the end you’ll have to admit that he is, in fact, magnificent.