(1) Judicial nominations--Saxby Chambliss' staff told me that they got Pat Leahy's name recognition higher than Daschle's in Georgia, and it was highly unfavorable recognition. You can thank Rove here for pushing what seems like an obscure issue, and for the big upset in that Senate election.
(2) Cloning--for years the GOP has run away from life issues. This one was a definite winner in Georgia, Missouri, Minnesota and the Carolinas. Bush had Daschle cornered when he came out against cloning in April. The Dems found themselves on the wrong side of a 90-10 issue, and all the Senate candidates had to do was mop up the mess. Rove has given interviews in which he shows his understanding of "heartland" politics, that social conservatism wins in the midwest and south (and, conversely, that social liberals like Ganske will lose there). And now he's sending subtle signals that he doesn't want Al Gonzalez as Bush's first SCOTUS pick. We can only hope.
(3) Social Security reform--Candidates who took this on boldly (Dole, Coleman, Graham, Toomey, etc.) won their elections, whereas John Thune, George Gekas and other close losers were the ones who ran away from it. Rove had Bush touching this so-called "third rail" as early as 2000. It was a huge risk, but this moved the idea into the debate, allowing what should be a common-sense winning issue to become a reality in the 2002 elections.
There are other issues to add as well. All I'm saying is, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Rove has not pushed Bush to cut the budget, but no Republican--including Reagan himself--ever succeeded in that. It's the depressing truth of the matter. The important thing is, Rove is not taking any of the liberal media's Bullsh!t advice and moving toward the political center.
If you're wondering why Bush got Affirmative Action almost right instead of dead wrong, or why Bush's admin officially opined that the 2d amendment is an individual right, or why Bush proposed a big tax cut last month instead of a small one, or why the worst porkbarreling Republicans in the Senate nonetheless prevented extra 2003 spending in the supplemental last month, or why a pro-lifer vigorously opposed by NOW and NARAL was just appointed to the FDA advisory panel that could affect RU-486 approval, or why Pickering, Owen and Estrada were re-nominated, you can look to Rove.
If you're wondering why Bush is looking more conservative now than he did before, it's because Rove has more say now that Karen Hughes is gone. I'm convinced that Rove understands who he has to please. He has his ear to the conservative movement, and he's following our advice any time he thinks he can pull it off politically. It's better than having anyone else running the show, as far as I can see--do you want Andy Card or some other Bush I retread calling the shots?