Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 20, 2006 in At TMV | 6 comments

Is Rove about to go?

Think Progress is reporting (quoting Bulletin News) that Rove may soon leave the White House:

The rumors that chief White House political architect Karl Rove will leave sometime next year are being bolstered with new insider reports that his partisan style is a hurdle to President Bush’s new push for bipartisanship. “Karl represents the old style and he’s got to go if the Democrats are going to believe Bush’s talk of getting along,� said a key Bush advisor…

The advisor said that Rove is aware of the situation and that a departure might come in “weeks, not months.�

We’ll see. The Republicans lost badly last week, and Rove deserves some of the blame (if hardly all of it) for their poor performance. (See Dickerson at Slate.) If he goes, he goes.

But what’s this nonsense about Bush’s “bipartisanship�. Do you see it? I don’t. Sure, he met with the Democratic congressional leadership and, despite the evident awkwardness, said all the right things. But that’s self-interest, not conviction. The GOP losses didn’t reform Bush. If anything, I suspect they made him incredibly bitter. One thing we know about the Bushes, father and son (and brother), is that they’re highly competitive and hate losing. And when they do lose, they don’t take it well.

So despite some friendly rhetoric, what have we heard from Bush since the midterms? He reiterated his support for John Bolton even with Bolton’s confirmation as U.N. ambassador dead in the Senate. He signalled his intention to nominate (or re-nominate) extremist judges. He appointed an extremist to head the Office of Population Affairs. And although his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, claimed he’s open to new ideas on Iraq, and although he met with the Iraq Study Group (which will likely propose a new course in Iraq), he came out recently and compared Iraq to Vietnam, stating that “the task in Iraq is going to take awhileâ€?. Plus, according to the Post, he “launched a sweeping internal review of Iraq policyâ€? on Tuesday that “parallels the effortâ€? of the Iraq Study Group — or, in other words, that essentially negates its work. Plus, according to The Guardian, he “has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make ‘a last big push’ to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiersâ€?.

Does this sounds like bipartisanship? Does this sound like he intends to compromise? Does this sound like he intends to work with Democrats? If Rove goes, it’s because he’s done his job and there’s really nothing left to do. But don’t expect anything new from a president convinced of his own righteousness. The Democratic victory will only strengthen the bubble in which he presides over his own delusions and fantasies.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • like any of these “changes” are actually going to make a difference…the damage has already been done. *smh*

  • AustinRoth

    Michael – the reason ‘bi-partineship’ doesn’t really work, and won’t work, is that each side is partisan. The articles you linked reflect that.

    To Democrats, bi-partisan means ‘our way, our ideals, our point of view, but proposed by a Republican’. That is not going to happen.

  • dittohead

    We were as bipartisan as good be. But then as Mikey so eloquently boasted in this group the Iranians applauded the Democratic victory which proved the Democrats were supportd by Iran and were terrorist loving fomenters of hate.

    The only decent thing we could do is tell people that a vote for a Democrat was a vote for a nuclear powered Iran which would destroy Israel and invade Kansas through secret undergrund tunnels.

    This was true bipartisanship, trying to save Americans from themselves because we loved them.

    This is why people like Mikey felt it so important to point out their betrayal of all that was good and decent. How else do you explain Irans support.

    As Mikey exlained it was wrong for the United States to get into WWII because the USSR supported it. Which proves FDR was a commie. Mikey studies the United States so he knows everything and thinks just like a founding member of the American Independant Party. He should come over here and join a militia to fight those traitor Democrats who foment hate.

    He’s my hero!

  • Noone Really

    Let’s not forget that before Rove, Bush was considered a moderate Republican. He’s capable of bi-partisan compromise. Rove’s the one that’s made him what he is today. Maybe he’s ready to go back to doing what he did in Texas and govern more from the middle than the right. If Rove leaves, it’s certainly possible that Bush will get back to that style of governing.

    One can only hope, anyways.

  • 01 Boxer

    Bush is not an idealogue. He is focused on winning, and getting results. When his party had all the power, he didn’t have to compromise to get results. Now that the Dems are in power, if he wants to have any legislative successes, he’s going to HAVE to compromise.

    Also, there’s plenty of ideas he’s had that a Democratic congerss will be more receptive to. Immigration of course is a key example. But so is increasing money for poverty-focused foreign aid, something the Republicans have routinitely blocked him on.

  • grognard

    Rove is making the claim that they lost by only a few percentage points in close elections. He believes his partisan strategy will work next time now that the Dems are in power and they will have more to work with [as far as stands on legislation] for the next election. If he does go it is either a signal that Bush wants to make the necessary concessions needed to salvage his war, or removing him as a scapegoat for what happened in the election. Whatever the reason I won’t be sad to see him go. If indeed he does go at all. I am still not convinced that this is the case.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :