Are you suggesting that he, Rove, is the one opposed to reckless medical adventures overseas, increased Federal involvement in medicine at home, and the continued open borders? Just what on the Right is Rove striving for?
I do not consider Rove a serious intellect. If he was, as is generally supposed, the one who orchestrated the images at the Republican Convention in 2000--image manipulation which almost cost us the election--I frankly cannot understand why a man whose perception is so limited would have any influence at all. (See Politics 2001--Lessons 2000, for an assessment of what we should have been doing, etc..)
While I think that Rove was right to have the President out on the hustings, as much as possible in the recent Congressional campaign--because Bush is highly likable as a personality--he totally missed the boat by not haveing Bush on coast to coast TV, on the evening before the 2000 election. It was not only the proper course, under any conditions; but under the peculiar circumstances--the last minute smear over an ancient DUI--it was an absolutely compelling choice. It was Bush's chance to do what Nixon did with his "little dog" speech, and could have been worth millions of votes.
But to really understand how narrow and shallow is Rove's focus and understanding, you have to go back to the 2000 Conventions. I think that Gore gained something like 17% by having a Convention which featured Norman Rockwell type images, while the Republican Convention looked at times like a social workers convention in east L.A.. What was really pathetic about that, is that it was
1. Insulting to the targetted groups, to suggest that they should vote for a party, which instead of offering leadership, nor even a true welcome, was simply pandering to an alien culture--even to the point of appearing almost mocking.
2. Insulting to the American mainstream, whose heritage was downplayed in the Convention of those who were claiming to be representing the Conservative--i.e. traditional--path.
3. Completely confused in failing to recognize that not only were the American mainstream far more numerous than the tragetted groups, but also disproportionately represented in the potential audience who would even bother to watch a Republican Convention. (It was not likely to be the number one viewer's choice in East L.A. or Southside Chicago.)
I will grant you that "take away" visual images can be infinitely more powerful than words in a platform. But Rove created the wrong, least effective images. There is nothing wrong with "outreach," but his was not effective outreach. It meanwhile induced millions to stay on the side-lines. The man is unable to see the forest for the trees.
Of course, when we are talking about the Office to which George Washington gave such dignity, Rove's boasted cynacism is beyond merely unprincipled and stupid. It risks a lasting taint. The President needs to get rid of him, and the sooner the better.
William Flax
(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?