Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 3 of 5   <       >

Rove's Loss

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Tom Hamburger, Richard Simon, and Ronald Brownstein write in the Los Angeles Times: "A former White House official who had talked recently with Bolten said Wednesday's moves resulted from Bolten's view that he needed to address three serious problems facing Bush: deteriorating press coverage, souring relations with Congress, and increasing tensions between the White House and GOP candidates. . . .

"Officially, Wednesday's announcement reduces the influence of the man many historians believe to be one of the most powerful White House aides in history. . . .

"But a Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said the shift in Rove's job did not represent a diminution in his standing. . . .

"People familiar with White House operations said Rove still would be the key voice on determining the president's travel schedule and message, and they predicted that Rove personally would help raise funds for congressional candidates."

Much Ado About Little

Matt Cooper writes for Time: "Presidents have long turned to the staff shakeup or cabinet shuffle as a way of digging out of trouble. . . .

"But the changes by themselves are not a panacea. The sources of Bush's woes -- mostly fueled by Iraq but also including high oil prices and stymied policies like the partial privatization of Social Security -- aren't likely to change until the policies themselves either change or yield better results. The staff turnovers that lead to new policies tend to work best. Those that just change names don't."

Marc Sandalow writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "There is a new chief of staff and a new budget director, and soon a new press secretary at the White House. Yet so far there is no sign of a new direction. . . .

"Most observers agree that it is not the expression or even the execution of policy that has given Bush trouble. It is the policies themselves.

"Bush's fortunes seem intrinsically tied to the war in Iraq, which he acknowledges is the central focus of his presidency. And for all the personnel changes over the past several weeks, Bush has made it plain that when it comes to Iraq, or other matters of national or economic security, he has no inclination to change course."

Ron Hutcheson and William Douglas write for Knight Ridder Newspapers: "Like the previous personnel shifts, the latest moves are largely cosmetic and aren't likely to result in any dramatic policy changes. . . .

"The reshuffling is part of an effort by newly installed White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to re-energize the Bush administration and boost confidence in the president's leadership. But the changes to date have been incremental, typically replacing one insider with another."

Howard Fineman writes for Newsweek: "Bolten can rearrange the deck chairs all he wants to on domestic and economic policy. But the Axis of Believers -- Cheney-Rummy-Rove-Condi -- remains. The more the media and its band of Republican allies complain, the more dug in Bush will become. He's as stubborn as Slim Pickens in 'Dr. Strangelove:' He'd rather ride Rummy to Armageddon than seem to concede that Iraq was a botched project."


<          3           >


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive