Rove's Risky Embrace
|
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.
|
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 12:12 PM
Karl Rove is a master of high-stakes brinksmanship, as he has proven time and time again.
But his latest venture may be his riskiest yet.
Rove is betting that he can reframe the war in Iraq as a battle between courageous Republicans and pusillanimous Democrats.
The stakes: Congress. (And subpoena power.)
Rove believes that this strength vs. weakness rhetorical construct, combined with continued attacks on the media, will be enough to counterbalance whatever negative news about the actual war continues to emerge between now and the mid-term elections.
The actual war remains one in which people die every day, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, for reasons that aren't entirely clear. It's a war that according to the polls the public now thinks was a mistake, feels it was misled into supporting, and would like to see ending on some sort of timetable. It's a war that has raised questions about American devotion to human rights. It's a war we may not be able to win.
But Rove thinks he can win the war over the war.
And although his plan appears highly susceptible to events on the ground in Iraq and/or assertive media coverage, betting against Rove -- thus far, at least -- has been a sucker's move.
The latest evidence of Rove's plan comes in a New York Times story this morning by Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney , in which they write about what's behind the congressional Republicans' vigorous embrace of Bush's war strategy.
"That emerging Republican approach reflects, at least for now, the success of a White House effort to bring a skittish party behind Mr. Bush on the war after months of political ambivalence in some vocal quarters," Rutenberg and Nagourney write.
"[P]eople who attended a series of high-level meetings this month between White House and Congressional officials say President Bush's aides argued that it could be a politically fatal mistake for Republicans to walk away from the war in an election year.
"White House officials including the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, outlined ways in which Republican lawmakers could speak more forcefully about the war. Participants also included Mr. Bush's top political and communications advisers: his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove; his political director, Sara Taylor; and the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett. Mr. Rove is newly freed from the threat of indictment in the C.I.A. leak case, and leaders of both parties see his reinvigorated hand in the strategy. . . .



