Novak: Karl Rove Supreme

WASHINGTON -- Everybody in Washington's Republican political community was well aware that any changes George W. Bush made in his White House staff would not constitute a shake-up. What nobody expected was that Josh Bolten, in essence a professional bureaucrat, would be promoted to chief of staff. Yet, this selection becomes understandable as a confirmation of Karl Rove's supremacy in the White House.

Rove holds the mundane titles of senior adviser to the president and deputy chief of staff, but scarcely anything happens in the Bush administration without his approval. Now he is more influential than ever. Andrew Card, the departing chief of staff, served (as a Cabinet member) under the senior President Bush (as Rove did not). In contrast, Bolten can thank his rise in the second Bush regime to Rove, his nominal subordinate.

I talked to former White House staffers who served Republican presidents over the last quarter of a century. To a man, they were appalled that President Bush had squandered the opportunity handed him when a burned-out Card told him he must resign. It was the time, they agreed, to emulate what President Ronald Reagan did in 1987 when his national approval rating dropped below 40 percent and he brought a new team to the White House: Howard Baker, Kenneth Duberstein, Frank Carlucci and Colin Powell. By not emulating Reagan's boldness, Bush failed to address the unhappy state of his administration and his party.

Throughout his governmental career in Washington and Sacramento, Reagan never was hesitant to drop overboard aides who had become part of the problem. The belief in Republican circles is that Bush is unable to change the guard at the White House because that would tacitly admit something is wrong with the way he governs, and the president cannot do that.

Into his sixth year as president, Bush has preferred to promote from within -- a tendency that has brought third-level aides to the top of White House sections. Although this practice has produced staff mediocrity, nobody questions Bolten's intelligence and competency.

While Card forced himself to work 16- or 17-hour days, Bolten is a natural workaholic who as a bachelor seemed on the job continuously as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He is more attuned to issues than Card and gets along better with Congress, especially Speaker Dennis Hastert. Bolten stayed overtime at this year's House Republican retreat in Cambridge, Md., to chat with members of Congress.

But Bolten replacing Card also advances Rove's project, which was obvious as early as the mid-'90s, of removing the influence of people close to the elder Bush. Rove named Bolten, who then was working for Goldman Sachs in London, as the Austin-based policy director of the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. There is no question that Bolten is a Rove man.

Bolten's promotion does improve the professional quality of the president's chief of staff, but Republicans fear the worst about his successor at OMB. If Bush follows his usual pattern and promotes from within according to the present pecking order, the new OMB director will be the agency's current deputy, Clay Johnson. A Dallas businessman who was Gov. Bush's aide in Austin and was the administration's personnel director in Washington, Johnson has won few admirers. I found widespread hope but little optimism that he would be overlooked for the OMB post.

A dysfunctional OMB director is the last result the president needs in a White House filled with problems. The absence of a Cabinet secretary coordinating the departments with the president is an inexplicable and unnecessary shortcoming. Lesser staff positions remain unfilled, which may explain the ruinous hours that senior aides are forced to keep.

Prior to Tuesday's surprise announcement of Bolten-for-Card, a Republican parlor game was trying to guess the 21st-century counterparts of Howard Baker & Co. named by Reagan in 1987 to save his presidency. It is not an easy task to come up with good names, but it is highly unlikely that Bush and Rove made such a search. Their implicit message is that no shake-up is needed because they had nothing to do with the parlous condition of the administration and the Republican Party.

Bush failed to address the unhappy state of his administration and his party.

I don't see it.

The media is playing the GOP fracture over immigration and spending much bigger than it is. Even conservative columnists like Novak need to sell themselves, and the elections, to keep interest high and stroke their own egos. The fact is things look very good for the GOP in 2006, regardless of the media sponsored polls designed to sell papers. The fact that the polls aren't helping sell papers should be an indication of their effectiveness.

The polls are the only real indicator of voter dissatisfaction because the actual election show strong support for the GOP. Polls are only as good as the questions asked. They are even less informative when the results are predesigned. Dubya's job approval says nothing about who people will vote for in a midterm election and generic polls about parties mean little when people love their own Congressman but hate everyone else's Congressman. Media polls don't reflect the American opinion of the junk media or the rat party in general. I think Americans have a much lower opinion of the old media today, and I'm not sure media polls have ever been successful in shaping voter opinion. The polls in 72 convinced Nixon, or his minions, to bug the DNC, yet Nixon won by a landslide. I already mentioned the Republican take over of the Senate in 86 even though Reagan's job approval dropped to 46% just before the election. Jumpin' Jehoshaphat the exit polls in 2000 and 2004 were wrong on election day.

Here are the facts. We can't lose the House because of Gerrymandering until 2012. The rats have more seats up for re-election in the Senate. The economy is great. Unemployment is low.

Republicans can point toward a record of tax cuts, judges, and the WOT for their base. Moderates will be shown education and medicare reform, and the WOT, but the rats have no issue to run on except "let's impeach the President."

Not only that, but the rats are fighting a losing battle. The country is getting more conservative with every liberal mom's abortion. They are the fracturing party. The union voters, and black voters want protection of marriage, protection of guns, or school choice. Teachers want homo adoption and protection from their students. The rats are a coalition of anti-Bushs. They can't hold that coalition in midterm election when Bush ain't on the ticket.

The GOP base will stay with the GOP because there is no place else to go and because it is the only sane thing to do. It makes absolutely no sense to punish Dubya by electing rats.

I doubt the 06 elections will be a referendum on Dubya...
but if it is,
the White House has refused to pass the buck to Congress for sending him bloated budgets, even though Congressmen, like Mike Pence, point their finger at Dubya for signing the budgets sent to him by Congress. And if Dubya is the issue in 06, gigantic federal spending, at a rate faster than Dubya's, didn't hurt Reagan's 2nd midterm in 86...in fact we took back the Senate that year.

I think of voting in terms of a father with 2 brothers to babysit my child. The rat brother smokes dope and jerks off in the sink, and the Republican brother spends irresponsibly, but he lowered the allowance I have to pay him. I will be entrusting one of these brothers with my child's future and I've seen the Republican brother in a fight with the Taliban and Saddam. The rat brother only fights with the Republican.

I might admit that Dubya and the GOP have been ineffective on some issues, but the rats are complete f*** ups! How could any conservative let that happen after 8 years of Clinton? AWB, don't ask don't tell, Ellian Gonzales, Waco, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, First Lady Hillary, Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers for cash, Chinese tech transfers for cash, Vince Foster, and Ron Brown. The GOP base may be grumbling now but they will be shown the effectiveness of a conservative SCOTUS in reversing liberalism in the coming months, Saddam will soon be executed, and the base will hold their nose and pull the GOP lever again. in 2006.

I just want to disclose that I have been called a FROBL (Free Republic Open Border Lobby), a traitor, and a paid consultant for Vicente Fox

I think it is likely that immigration reform will get passed because Dubya has pushed for and gotten every substantive piece of legislation he promised voters and asked from Congress with the exception of SS reform. Dubya has been all about doing something to solve a problem, even if it is not effective, rather than fighting with and blaming the rats.

He will push for a bill because the problem needs to be addressed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.