He pretty much ranks up there with Carville (who was a master strategist), as a strategist . . . if you don’t think so, then you’re not looking at it rationally.
When you consider how weak Gore and Kerry were as candidates, those elections shouldn’t have been even close to close. Lee Atwater was a master strategist. Rove is not in his league.
He pretty much ranks up there with Carville (who was a master strategist), as a strategist . . . if you don’t think so, then you’re not looking at it rationally.
I see it that way too. When Karl Rove stands before the nation via whatever pulpit he has wedged himself into, and says:
"I am for the drastic reduction of a corrupted federal government's control over the responsible taxpaying individuals of this nation and their associated communities. One profound way to do this is simply cut the money and regulatory power flowing into that central government's coffers and its arbitrary political parties; another way is to systematically replace corrupted establishment politicians; and thirdly and most important, is to stand up for our responsible self reliant citizens and protect them from the irresponsible."
Then, I'll believe Karl Rove is worth a HS graduate. As you say, at the Institute we never recognized him as anything other than a party marionette.
On the other hand this article by the NYT is simply an opportunistic dig at the Republican Party.
Johnny Suntrade
Look who Obie's been hanging with...the Chicago thugs and Bubba.
Rove's problem is thinking too much short term and not enough long term, with the 2004 election the perfect example. He did a great job defining Kerry, but when the election was won -- what then? Nothing. No platform, no mandate, no direction = two disastrous backlash elections.