Karl Rove: George Bush's Napoleon

Orlando Sentinel ^ | 7.23.07 | Jonah Goldberg

[meandog]

There's an old maxim that if Napoleon had been struck by a cannonball on his way to Moscow, he would be remembered as an unrivaled military genius and liberator. But Napoleon overstayed history's welcome and was treated harshly for it, first by the Russians and Mother Nature, then by his own people and, ultimately, by historians.

In this and other respects, Karl Rove strikes me as a Napoleonic figure. He won an impressive string of campaigns. He dreamed of erecting a new political order on the ashes of the old. He'd look awfully dashing in one of those bicorn hats. Most of all, Rove -- who announced he will retire Aug. 31 -- stubbornly refused to depart the scene on a historic high note.

[meandog]

Jonah got it right?

[MNJohnnie]

Another whiny bitch in the Conservative Establishment whining because not everything in politics is can be ordered 100% to his personal liking.

Yo Jonah, you think you can do so much better? Then get off the bench, quit Monday morning quarterbacking and get in the game.

[nathanbedford]

He did when he said this:

But the central point remains: Rove's strategic vision involved securing a Republican victory at the expense of conservative principles.

[Wallace T.]

Karl Rove's political genius is overstated. Winning the Presidency by 2.4 percentage points against a candidate as flawed as John Kerry in spite of the advantages of incumbency, a strong economy, and a then favorable view of the Iraqi War among the public was no great feat. I am aware that the MSM is wildly biased towards liberals, but that was also the case in 1988, and their influence was even more powerful, as the Internet was not widely available and talk radio was in its infancy. Yet the elder Bush beat Michael Dukakis by almost eight percentage points and won 426 electoral votes, vs. the younger Bush winning 286 in 2004.

The late Lee Atwater was truly a political genius. So is Newt Gingrich, but his moral lapses and his misjudgments after becoming Speaker of the House have made him a virtual leper politically (though Clinton and other Democrats are guilty of worse offenses).

[Non-Sequitur]

Partly. His reputation was dinged a bit by 2006. He was firmly convinced in the accuracy of his private polls and was predicting sunny days while ignored the trouble that was growing as a result of Foley and the war and everything else. So had he left in 2005 he’d still be a genius. But he didn’t.

[1Old Pro]

Bottom line is Rove won but he was not perfect. Newt won in 1994 in historic fashion but he was not perfect. Dan Quayle had a boatload of conservtive minded reforms in mind but he was not perfect.

Lesson, 80% is better than 20%.

[x]

In this and other respects, Karl Rove strikes me as a Napoleonic figure. He won an impressive string of campaigns. He dreamed of erecting a new political order on the ashes of the old. He'd look awfully dashing in one of those bicorn hats.

Jonah, you magnificent b______!

I thought "bicorn" was a stupid word you invented by misusing "tricorn." But it's a real word! Or "bicorne".

Did Jonah get Rove right? And did Rove get it right?

There's a lesson for conservatives: Rove engineered Bush's 2000 victory by having Bush promise to be a "compassionate conservative." That meant generally staying mute on racial issues, luring Latinos into the GOP fold by any means necessary and advocating federal activism on everything from single motherhood to education. The story is complex, of course. Bush won tax cuts and was stronger on defense than Gore or Kerry would have been. But the central point remains: Rove's strategic vision involved securing a Republican victory at the expense of conservative principles.

"Staying mute on racial issues"? "Luring Latinos into the GOP fold by any means necessary?" That doesn't sound like any great strategy. And it doesn't sound like any special property of the Bush campaigns.

I don't think Jonah really knows what he's talking about there. When you run for President you play up the issues you can win on, the issues where you have something to offer. So sure, tax cuts, defense, and the odd program here or there. And you easy up on other issues. Sounds more like electoral sense rather than any great strategy.

This month's Atlantic article on Rove may be worth a look. You don't get a major political realignment with policies. You get the realignment because of some catastrophe. You may be able to secure it with policies, but you can't create it with policies. So the big picture realignment wasn't ever really in the cards.