I'm tired of hearing that Karl Rove was unsuccessful. Argue that he is a terrible person, bad man, etc. etc. But don't argue he was unsuccessful. He never worked for the GOP. He worked for GW Bush. As such, he probably did more with less to get a man elected than anyone in the modern age.
Was he a disaster for Republicans? Maybe, but maybe it was more Bush than anyone else, but even so, he was never chartered with getting the Republicans in a better position over the next 50 years. He was chief strategist for GW Bush, and he was improbably successful.
By the way, in looking at his bio for this post, I noted that he twice worked for GHW Bush and twice was fired for leaking to the press and planting negative stories about an opponent. GHW Bush was wise and good.
3 comments:
Well, not so wise that he didn't hire Rove the second time. But wiser and gooder than his son, yes.
Wow! Who is saying that Rove was "unsuccessful"?!? I know most in left blogistan still think of him as the evil genius.
There may be a fine distinction to be drawn -- After 2004, when Bush gave Rove a policy-making position, the White House over-reached trying to dismantle social security and that was widely viewed as a failure, and Rove was to some degree blamed for that. And many viewed 2006 as a repudiation of the Bush administration's conflation of politics and policy. So Rove may be sort of emblematic of that.
I suppose that some night with justification describe Rove as an unsuccessful policymaker, but nobody with their head on straight could describe him as anything less than a brilliant master of electoral politics.
I could only find one credible source, but this wasn't the article I read that made me make the comment, so there are at least two recent examples. I found a bunch of blog/editorial commentors saying it here and there, though.
From the Nation:
"Karl Rove's never-particularly brilliant career as a manipulator of the political processes of the nation will end as it began: mired in scandal and failure."
Post a Comment