Posted on 08/22/2007 6:16:56 PM PDT by Kaslin
The resignation of Karl Rove ends the tenure of a man who has occupied a unique place in American history. No other presidential appointee has ever had such a strong influence on politics and policy, and none is likely to do so again anytime soon. Only Robert Kennedy exerted similar influence, and he had little to do with electoral politics during his brother's presidency.
Rove brought to his work a wide and deep knowledge of U.S. history, political statistics, demography and public policy. He worked hard and, for most of three years, under an unjustified threat of indictment. He does not seem to have weighed in much on foreign or military policy, and there is no reason to believe that George W. Bush sought his advice on whether to take military action in Iraq.
But otherwise, he seems to have had his hand in everything from the details of the Medicare prescription drug bill to who should be the Republican nominee for the Senate in Minnesota. His effectiveness was grounded in the belief — accurate, it seems, to the end — that he had the full confidence of the president.
What is the verdict on his legacy? Rove is, as Bush put it, the "architect" of his political and policy strategy, and to many, that intertwined strategy seems to be in ruins. I take a longer view.
For most of his career, Rove was a political consultant. In my own briefer career as a political consultant, I advised candidates running for executive office that they needed to come up with a small number of issue positions that would enable them to: a) get their party's nomination, b) win the general election and c) govern effectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
“No other presidential appointee has ever had such a strong influence on politics and policy, and none is likely to do so again anytime soon. Only Robert Kennedy exerted similar influence, and he had little to do with electoral politics during his brother’s presidency.”
This commentator overlooks an important example: Edward M House in the Wilson administration.
http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3935
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2006/06-190.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mandell_House
http://www.library.yale.edu/un/house/hist_sig.htm
KarLaRazaRove.
...some things should have been left undone.
“...some things should have been left undone.”
Yes, like the US intervention in WWI.
You may be assuming that the overlooking of the example is inadvertant... I, on the other hand, make *no* such assumption. His ilk would prefer that Col. House, and the power he wielded, and the purposes for which he wielded it, be forever unknown to "the common rabble"...
the infowarrior
If Rove is truly Bush’s king maker, he sure dropped the ball on illegal immigration. As far as I’m concerned, Bush and Rove have driven the GOP off a cliff in that regard. Some major “fence mending” needs to be done and a pardon issued to the two wrongly convicted border agents should have already happened. It would be nice if our commander in chief would take defending our borders seriously.
Rove did real good. Thanks, Mr. Rove, for your great efforts and sacrifice.
Try learning just one thing. That is that it takes a lot to get issues on the table, discussed and resolved. Usually, it takes a presidential election fight or two or three. Your expectation that Bush could reverse and change the immigration policy of 40 years quicker or more effectively than he has is completely unrealistic, and you blame the wrong people. Other than that, you may be a genius, for all I know.
Well put!
There are more net votes to grab from legal immigrants and native-born hispanics than from illegals and Agriculture/Construction/Service industry special interests.
But appearing to be supporting the illegals via the Bush/Kennedy bill ingrains in those illegals who might wind up voting anyway is that Bush cares about them. The hispanic vote is crucial to both parties.
It's a hedge. Worked in '04. We only needed 40% of Latino votes, got 44%, which was instrumental in the win.
I'll address all of your points as a Texan living on a border state,Claire.
1. I completely agree that it takes a lot to get issues on the table, discussed and resloved. That point is just one of the reasons I'm most disappointed in Bush. After 9/11 Bush led the campaign against terrorism, pledging to protect us while he left our borders completely open to illegals crossing over by the hundreds of thousands, most from our Southern border with Mexico (of course).
2. And hell yes, after 9/11 I expected Bush to reverse and change the immigration policy of 440 years. He had the golden opportunity, especially with the cameras showing people crossing over in droves, to close our borders. As commander in chief, he FAILDED and there is no other way to dress it up. He's been a complete and utter failure in protecting our borders!
I've never been a Bush hater and think he's been brilliant in the way he's handled the economy after 9/11 and despite the war we are in. He has failed, however, and turned a deaf ear when it comes to our soverinty. He is most definitely a one-world pleaser at the expense of our soverinty and to me, that will be his ultimate legacy.
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.