Rove admits to error on Iraq as Bush strategist

YahooNews ^ | 3/2/10 | BETH FOUHY/AP

[ohioWfan]

Yeah. It's a moot point. ;)

But if you remember, public opinon of Reagan wasn't very good at the end of his 2nd term. It's taken time to correct that.

And the left has gotten much more rabid and open about their hatred for all things conservative.

Not really a fair parallel, methinks.

[Lakeshark]

As I recall his approval rating was close to 60% when he left, not too shabby. I do think it was partly due to his willingness to stand up for his policies the way he did.

The left may be a bit more rabid, but I remember the criticism of Reagan was non stop from the democrats and the media starting about 1982. It was pretty screechy, from "amiable dunce" to "he falls asleep in all the meetings", etc. ad nauseum.

[ohioWfan]

No active war, Lakeshark. No young Americans being killed.

"Amiable dunce" is a heck of a lot different than "Hitler," "Baby killer," "Liar," "Village idiot."

I remember those days well, Lakeshark. It was not the same. The leftist media at least attempted to hide its ideology. There were no Keith Olbermanns and Chris Matthews. The NYTimes wasn't 100% anti-American.

It wasn't the same. The viciousness against President Bush was unprecendented and vile.

(The only thing perhaps worse was the treatment of Sarah Palin).

Bottom line - even if President Bush had done more to "defend himself" he couldn't have swayed public opinion against a media that lied about Iraq, that used our military deaths as a bludgeon against the President. Even if he had done what we wanted him to do, I don't think those poll numbers would have budged.

[AuntB]

The biggest ‘mistake’, if you wish to call it that, by Rove was pushing Grover Norquist to head up policy making in the Bush Administration, with amnesty and out reach to muslims as the ROP. Rove bringing Abramoff into the white house, especially as a transition leader in the Interior Dept. was not a good move.

[Lakeshark]

We had as real a war as you can have, a very difficult one against the Soviet empire. I remember the huge anti-nuke protests, the signs, and the ongoing propaganda of the media. All this stuff we see today was pretty much the same.

The rhetoric was the same as it is now, it's just that Reagan engaged the public and went over the heads of media rather than leaving the public square to the rhetoric. I'm not a Bush hater at all, but his idea not to engage because of "the new tone" should have been thrown out some time in 2002 when it was obvious it didn't work. No matter what he did, they were going to go to the garbage dump, not responding just left the public undefended from their lies.

As to the media, there was Walter Cronkite, about to be replaced by Dan Rather, and the other anchors were all libs, and there was no Fox yet. It wasn't a lack of bias, there was no Rush Limbaugh to point out the bias, no talk radio. It was hardly civil.

Bush never pushed back, and it was a mistake. McCain followed in his footsteps in 2008, and now that Sarah Palin is no longer in his shadow, she is pushing back, and it's working.

Bottom line - We'll never know cause Bush didn't try, but looking at what Reagan accomplished agsinst the same monsters of the left might show us a better way.

[ohioWfan]

Of course the Cold War was real, but there were no deaths that the leftist media could splash on the front pages, and bombed vehicles to proudly display. The left was far more vicious against Bush than it was against Reagan.

The rhetoric was not the same. There were books and movies about assassinating President Bush.

I maintain that even without the "new tone" President Bush wouldn't have been effective.

I don't think McCain followed in Bush's footsteps at all. He campaigned very hard......against Bush. And that's why he lost.

I like Sarah's pushing, btw. I just don't think you can or should insist that someone do something he doesn't believe is the appropriate behavior. I would have been screaming in self-defense if I were President Bush, but that's not what he thought was the right thing to do.

[Lakeshark]

Okay, we'll disagree on the rhetoric level, I just don't see it being all that different. The difference was that W decided not to respond, not to defend himself, and that left a void in public discourse. I found that disconcerting some time around 2005, and still do.

I think you are admitting he didn't: I would have been screaming in self-defense if I were President Bush, but that's not what he thought was the right thing to do.

[Lakeshark]

Btw, I thought McCain lost it for a whole host of reasons, mostly because he was a poor candidate.

[ohioWfan]

Of course I'm saying he didn't respond hard enough to his critics. What I disagree on is what good it would have done.

I mean, how is one to respond to a play or book calling for your assassination? The rhetoric was far worse.

Oh.......and campaigning against Bush was only one reason McCain lost. Certainly not the only reason.

He was a horrible candidate. NO disagreement there.

[Lakeshark]

Well, you might want to re-think your conclusion on this one. His new tone policy was a mistake, it poisoned the waters because there was little response, making it seem there couldn't be a response because what they were saying about him was true. It doesn't mean he was a bad person, it just means it was a mistake, in my opinion, a pretty bad one.

I think Karl Rove is admitting it in the article.

Truce for now? I think we beat this very dead horse even more dead than it was.

:-)

[ohioWfan]

That horse is more than dead, Lakeshark. It’s mutilated! ;*)