Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

Post-Rovian Thinking

What Went Wrong?

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.

I wrote in yesterday's column about what I called Rove's dismal legacy.

Anne E. Kornblut and Michael D. Shear write in The Washington Post: "What, exactly, did the architect build?

"His advocates credit him with devising a winning strategy twice in a row for a presidential candidate who seemed to start out with myriad weaknesses. His detractors blame Rove for a style of politics that deepened divisions in the country, even after the unifying attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Both sides attributed outsize qualities to him, and he enjoyed mythic status for much of the Bush presidency.

"But few people -- including his Republican allies -- believe Rove succeeded in what he set as his ultimate goal: creating a long-lasting GOP majority in the country that could reverse the course set 70 years ago by President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten write in the Los Angeles Times: "Rove's relentlessly polarizing tactics and his over-the-top use of government power for political purposes, critics say, were bound to wear out their welcome with a fundamentally pragmatic and moderate electorate.

"'Karl will always be known as a brilliant political operative who has a great tactical sense,' said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, 'but tactics only get you so far. Did they change politics forever? No.'

"Fabrizio asked: 'At the end of the day, is the party better off today than it was when it was taken over six or seven years ago?' He believes Rove's strategy has alienated middle-of-the-road voters and left the party in worse shape. . . .

"Rove's defenders argue that Republicans' current troubles -- sagging presidential approval ratings, loss of the House and Senate, a clamorous fight over who the party will nominate to run for president in 2008 -- all stem from a single cause: the deeply unpopular war in Iraq; not from Rove or his methods."

Bush's Reinforcer

Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers, writing in the New York Times, call attention to Rove's insistence in his Wall Street Journal interview that Republicans will hold the White House in 2008.

"It is that sort of buoyant talk -- at a time of bipartisan consensus that Republicans face an extraordinarily tough presidential election year -- for which Mr. Rove has become known, especially within the confines of the buffeted White House. It was reminiscent of Mr. Rove's predictions, repeated by Mr. Bush, that Republicans would hold Congress last fall, leading to a question posed to him by a reporter aboard Air Force One, 'How did you get the math wrong in '06?' (Mr. Rove replied, 'They were very close elections.')

"Current and former officials say Mr. Rove speaks just as optimistically inside the White House, reinforcing the president's similarly positive view, which outsiders have found hard to fathom."

Michael Isikoff writes for Newsweek about the "brook-no-dissent ethos that Rove brought to the Bush White House" that "puts in some context Rove's cheery comments. . . .


<       2              >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive