Judging Rove: Genius or fraud?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Note: This was originally posted at The Carpetbagger Report -- click here. It provoked an interesting discussion in the comments section, and I invite you to check it out.)
This one's from a few days ago, but I just got around to reading Jacob Weisberg's latest piece at Slate. Here's his opening paragraph:
Weisberg calls himself "possibly the last Rove skeptic," although he certainly isn't, and he makes the case here that "the largest part of [Rove's] success is arguably due to luck and circumstances beyond his control". Just go back to 2000. Bush should have lost. Or, rather, he did lose. Rove was only vindicated by a crappy Florida ballot, with Jewish seniors voting for Pat Buchanan, and self-contradictory kingmakers on the Supreme Court. And then there was 9/11, which provided President Bush with one of the mot luxurious honeymoons in presidential history.
Of course, it is conventional wisdom that Rove's "base strategy" won Bush a second term, but, even there, it could be argued that Rove was simply in the right place at the right time with the right issues: terrorism and same-sex marriage. And on the policy side, such as social security privatization, Rove has been a failure, not unlike pretty much everyone else in the White House.
So here's my question: Is it true, as the implication has gone, that Democrats have nothing to fear but Karl Rove himself? Do you fear Rove? Even now, with all those promising poll numbers suggesting impending Democratic victory, is there not a nagging doubt? Is there not that little voice saying, "Just wait, Rove's up to something, he'll pull something out of his hat at the last minute, let's not get too excited, he's a genius and he'll find a way to take us down"?
It may be too late for Republicans regardless. What with Iraq and a sagging economy and Foleygate and… well, you know the list. But what if North Korea conducts a larger nuclear test? What if those warnings of a dirty bomb at an NFL game continue? What if the GOP's culture of fear magnetizes voters again? What if… ?
I'm with Weisberg in my assessment of Rove's talent: He's really good at what he does, but not the mastermind some make him out to be. And yet there's that little voice whispering irrational nothings in my ear: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Karl Rove, "Boy Genius," is still in control.
Has it reached a point where we just expect to lose?
(Note: This was originally posted at The Carpetbagger Report -- click here. It provoked an interesting discussion in the comments section, and I invite you to check it out.)
This one's from a few days ago, but I just got around to reading Jacob Weisberg's latest piece at Slate. Here's his opening paragraph:
Is Karl Rove the great mastermind of American politics? Everyone seems to think so. George W. Bush's nicknames for him include "The Architect" and "Boy Genius." Other Republicans see Rove as a shaman who can conjure victory out of the air—and Democrats agree. (They would rather think they've been losing to a nefarious wizard than to a lazy moron.) The political press, always more comfortable with personality than ideology, cottons readily to the myth that the country is run by an elusive puppeteer.
Weisberg calls himself "possibly the last Rove skeptic," although he certainly isn't, and he makes the case here that "the largest part of [Rove's] success is arguably due to luck and circumstances beyond his control". Just go back to 2000. Bush should have lost. Or, rather, he did lose. Rove was only vindicated by a crappy Florida ballot, with Jewish seniors voting for Pat Buchanan, and self-contradictory kingmakers on the Supreme Court. And then there was 9/11, which provided President Bush with one of the mot luxurious honeymoons in presidential history.
Of course, it is conventional wisdom that Rove's "base strategy" won Bush a second term, but, even there, it could be argued that Rove was simply in the right place at the right time with the right issues: terrorism and same-sex marriage. And on the policy side, such as social security privatization, Rove has been a failure, not unlike pretty much everyone else in the White House.
So here's my question: Is it true, as the implication has gone, that Democrats have nothing to fear but Karl Rove himself? Do you fear Rove? Even now, with all those promising poll numbers suggesting impending Democratic victory, is there not a nagging doubt? Is there not that little voice saying, "Just wait, Rove's up to something, he'll pull something out of his hat at the last minute, let's not get too excited, he's a genius and he'll find a way to take us down"?
It may be too late for Republicans regardless. What with Iraq and a sagging economy and Foleygate and… well, you know the list. But what if North Korea conducts a larger nuclear test? What if those warnings of a dirty bomb at an NFL game continue? What if the GOP's culture of fear magnetizes voters again? What if… ?
I'm with Weisberg in my assessment of Rove's talent: He's really good at what he does, but not the mastermind some make him out to be. And yet there's that little voice whispering irrational nothings in my ear: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Karl Rove, "Boy Genius," is still in control.
Has it reached a point where we just expect to lose?
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
5:33 PM
2 Comments:
Another reason Rove may not be a genuis: John Kerry. I hate to just reflexively blame the Democrats for everything (hell, who am I kidding? I love it), but I voted for him, and I don't remember what his campaign was about. Oh, yeah, he was reporting for duty, and never did come up with a coherent position on the Iraq War. I think the post-Clinton disorientation of the Democratic Party has a lot to do with it as well. He can play dirty, but W had already been chosen by the GOP power-brokers before the 2000 primary even began. So, no, I don't think he's a genuis, but then I have trouble acknowledging anything good about people I despise as much as I despise Rove.
By
., at 8:20 PM
I've never been a gambler and I've never actually understood the mentality. Years ago, I told a friend that we live in a country driven by "chain letter economics" and I'm convinced my perception is truer today than it was at the time it first crossed my mind. The basic gist of my theory is that we Americans are always focused upon being first and winning and we often make choices consistent with that premise...which of course means we are employing the kind of thinking that underlies the premise of a chain letter...and therefore makes it a fully flawed equation.
In other words, if everyone believes they can sit atop the pyramid as the victor, who are the individuals that make up the rest of the pyramid? The bottom line is that for every winner (by that I am defining a winner in terms of a sports champion like Tiger Woods or a business success like Bill Gates or being elected president) there has to be countless losers.
The same equation applies to politics. That brings me to Karl Rove...and that has to include George Bush, if simply by association...though I'm inclined to believe that their alignment is fully deliberate and that it is predicated upon the notion that anything short of absolute victory is insufficient. A good friend of mine has an alternate description for the same mindset I've described. He called it "Bet 'em high and sleep in the streets". In the end, both theories suggest that people often take risks that have a low likelihood of succeeding or being sustained…even if one has been lucky enough to occasionally beat the odds.
We see pundits debating whether this election will be a referendum on the President or if it will be about local issues. Historically, midterm elections are indeed decided upon local issues but I contend that this one will be different. The reason I believe as much is because the high stakes Rove/Bush strategy has required lockstep loyalty and that means it will be increasingly difficult for GOP candidates to distance themselves from the President and succeed in not being viewed as an appendage that is fully connected to the Bush agenda. That makes it virtually impossible to separate local issues from any voter mandated referendum on the Bush administration. Essentially, I believe that voters, for the most part, see the Republican congress and George Bush as one and the same and intend to vote accordingly.
Look, if Lincoln Chaffee cannot separate himself from the President in order to win on local issues in Rhode Island, then countless Republican incumbents are in deep trouble. Chaffee didn't even vote for this President in 2004 and voters may still hold him accountable. I can't imagine an example that better supports my contention that the Rove/Bush strategy is a high stakes gamble. While Karl Rove and George Bush bet 'em high, it may be a number of Republican candidates who find themselves in the unenviable position of sleeping in the streets on November 8th.
Read more here:
www.thoughttheater.com
By
Daniel DiRito, at 10:06 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home