| The Incredible Sinking
Whitehouse
|
In a new blow to an increasingly isolated White House, Karl Rove has announced his retirement. Mr Rove, George Bush’s closest political adviser and the man credited with producing an emphatic string of Republican election victories, told the Wall Street Journal, in an interview [below] published on Monday August 13th, that he would step down from his job as deputy chief of staff at the end of this month. Mr Rove said that he first considered quitting a year ago and that he planned to spend more time with his family. Joshua Bolten, the chief of staff, had apparently told White House employees that anyone who planned to leave before the end of Mr Bush’s term in January 2009 should do so before Labour Day this year, on September 3rd.
Mr Rove may have outlived his usefulness to the White House. But his past has been remarkable. The tale of how Mr Rove made his mark as a political strategist in Texas during the 1980s, teaming up with Mr Bush for his campaign as governor in 1994 (Mr Rove had advised Mr Bush in his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat in 1978), is now a familiar one. Earning the sobriquet “turd blossom” Mr Rove, as the story goes, provided the strategic thinking behind the genial front of Mr Bush. Together the pair went about trying to construct a sustainable Republican majority from the energy provided by a base of conservative activists.
Mr Rove’s greatest triumph was probably in helping to get Mr Bush re-elected in 2004. The Republicans also increased their majority in Congress that year, going against the historic trend of losses for the party of a sitting president. But since then Mr Rove’s star has been on the wane. When it became clear that the Republicans were going to receive a drubbing in last year’s mid-term congressional elections, Mr Rove’s influence had declined.
The Valerie Plame affair badly damaged Mr Rove. He had to testify several times before a grand jury investigating the leaking of Ms Plame’s name, as a CIA officer, after her husband had criticised the White House’s handling of intelligence in the months before the Iraq war. Conservatives railed against the investigation, and Mr Rove was never charged in the case, but it wore away at his credibility. Among other administration officials he also refused to testify before Congress on the sacking, last year, of nine federal prosecutors.
His leaving fortifies the impression that Mr Bush and Dick Cheney, the vice-president, are the last men standing from a group of leaders that came to power in the 2000 election. In domestic affairs Mr Bush is unlikely to achieve much in his remaining months: there are no big initiatives on the table. It is telling that Mr Rove was, for a time, the man responsible in the White House for the immigration bill, which went down in flames in the Senate at the end of June. Mr Rove saw the bill as a way to attract Latino voters to the Republican electoral machine. Its failure made it that much harder to build a winning Republican majority for the election in 2008.
Mr Rove’s absence may be felt keenly in the coming month or so. As General David Petraeus reports on the effectiveness of the troop “surge” in Iraq, next month, a political fight is likely to emerge between Democrats (and quite a few Republicans) who want to withdraw American soldiers and the administration which insists on “staying the course.” As the debate gets going, Mr Bush and the Republicans will surely miss Mr Rove, who was quick to seek partisan advantage by tarnishing Democrats’ reputation on security. This injected even more acrimony into American politics, such as when in June 2005 Mr Rove accused the Democrats of being fainthearted in their response to September 11th 2001 attacks.
source: 13aug2007
Washington — These are the days of Republican doubt, with President Bush fighting an unpopular war, Congress in opposition hands, and a 2008 presidential field trailing Democrats in nearly every poll. But don't tell that to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's political alter ego, who even as he prepares to resign from the White House after six and a half years sees recovery ahead.
Sitting in the book-lined living room of his townhome on Saturday afternoon, a relaxed, cheerful and typically rambunctious Mr. Rove hands over two sheets of paper on which he has tapped out a pair of outlines. One says "Up to Now," and summarizes what he thinks are the achievements to date of the Bush presidency. The second, "Months Ahead," lays out an agenda for the next year and a half.
"He will move back up in the polls," says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush's 30% approval rating by saying it's heading close to "40%," and "higher than Congress."
Looking ahead, he adds, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, "we'll see in the battle over FISA" — the wiretapping of foreign terrorists — "a fissure in the Democratic Party." Also in the fall, "the budget fight will have been fought to our advantage," helping the GOP restore, through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.
As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but "I think we've got a very good chance to do so."
If that quinella pays off, however, Mr. Rove will have to savor it from somewhere other than his West Wing office. He's resigning effective Aug. 31 — 14 years after he began working with Mr. Bush on his campaign for Texas governor, 10 years after they began planning a White House run, and after 79 months in the political cockpit of a tumultuous presidency.
"I just think it's time," he says, adding that he first floated the idea of leaving to Mr. Bush a year ago. His friends confirm he had been talking about it with others even earlier. But Democrats took Congress, and he didn't want to depart on that sour note. He then thought he'd leave after the State of the Union, but the Iraq and immigration fights beckoned. Finally, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told senior White House aides that if they stayed past a certain point, they were obliged to remain to Jan. 20, 2009.
"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," Mr. Rove says. His son attends college in San Antonio, and he and his wife, Darby, plan to spend much of their time at their home in nearby Ingram, in the Texas Hill Country.
Mr. Rove doesn't say, though others do, that this timing also allows him to leave on his own terms. He has survived a probe by a remorseless special counsel, and lately a subpoena barrage from Democrats for whom he is the great white whale. He shows notable forbearance in declining to comment on prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who dragged him through five grand jury appearances. He won't even disclose his legal bills, except to quip that "every one has been paid" and that "it was worth every penny."
What about those who say he's leaving to avoid Congressional scrutiny? "I know they'll say that," he says, "But I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob." He also knows he'll continue to be a target, even from afar, since belief in his influence over every Administration decision has become, well, faith-based.
"I'm a myth. There's the Mark of Rove," he says, with a bemused air. "I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done, and I have to try not to laugh." He says the real target is Mr. Bush, whom many Democrats have never accepted as a legitimate president and "never will."
It is his long and personal relationship with Mr. Bush that has made Mr. Rove arguably the most influential White House aide of modern times. The president calls him to chat about politics on Sunday mornings, and they have a contest to see who can read the most books. (Mr. Rove is winning.) I've known Mr. Rove for 19 years and spoken to him hundreds of times. Yet I can't recall a single instance where he disclosed how his views differed from Mr. Bush's. Mr. Bolten hasn't decided on a replacement, and Mr. Rove's duties may yet be divided up.
Mr. Rove's political influence has been historic, notwithstanding the rout of 2006. His crucial insight in 2000 was recognizing that Mr. Bush had to be both an alternative to Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior and "a different kind of Republican." In 2002, the president's party gained seats in both the House and Senate in a first midterm election for the first time since 1934.
And in 2004, for only the second time in history, a president won re-election while helping his party gain seats in both houses of Congress; the other time was 1936. Much has been made of John Kerry's ineptitude, but the senator won some eight million more votes than Al Gore did in 2000, and Mr. Rove claims Democrats outspent Republicans by $148 million thanks to billionaire donations to "527" committees. Yet amid a difficult war, Mr. Bush won by increasing his own vote by nearly 25% over 2000, winning 81% of U.S. counties. The Rove-Ken Mehlman turnout effort was a spectacular achievement. If it did nothing else, that 2004 victory put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for 2006 — Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress. Mr. Rove has no doubt. "The sense of entitlement was there" among Republicans, he says, "and people smelled it." Yet even with a unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was "a really close election." The GOP lost the Senate by its 3,562 vote margin of defeat in Montana, and in the House the combined margin in the 15 seats that cost control was 85,000 votes.
A prominent non-Beltway Republican recently gave me a different analysis, arguing that the White House made a disastrous decision to "nationalize" the election last autumn; this played into Democratic hands and cost numerous seats.
"I disagree," Mr. Rove replies. "The election was nationalized. It was always going to be about Iraq and the conduct of Republicans." He says Republican Chris Shays and Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman survived in Connecticut despite supporting the war, while Republicans who were linked to corruption or were complacent lost. His biggest error, Mr. Rove says, was in not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal.
What about that new GOP William McKinley-style majority he hoped to build — isn't that now in tatters, as the country tilts leftward on security, economics and the culture? Again, Mr. Rove disagrees. He says young people are if anything more pro-life and free-market than older Americans, and that, despite the difficulties in Iraq, the country doesn't want to be defeated there or in the fight against Islamic terror. He recalls how Democrats thought driving the U.S. out of Vietnam would also help them politically. "Instead, Democrats have suffered ever since on national security," he says.
Mr. Rove also makes a spirited defense of this president's policy legacy, sometimes more convincingly than others. On foreign affairs, he predicts that at least two parts of the Bush Doctrine will live on: The policy that if you harbor a terrorist, you are as culpable as the terrorist; and pre-emption. "There may be a debate about degree," he says, "but it's going to be hard for any president to reverse that."
He's less persuasive on Medicare, where he insists that market reforms and health savings accounts are building a "critical mass" of popular support that will make them unrepealable. Yet Democrats are even now trying to kill Medicare Advantage, blocked only by the promise of a veto. If Mrs. Clinton wins in 2008, the Medicare drug expansion may prove to have been all spending and no reform.
He also insists that Social Security reform was worth the failed effort, and that Mr. Bush's ideas will be adopted inevitably by some future president. I ask if, given Mr. Bush's falling approval ratings in 2005 due to Iraq, he shouldn't have pushed for something less ambitious. Not a chance. "You cannot advance on the fronts you want to advance if you're playing mini-ball," he says, once again sounding like Mr. Bush.
As for 2008, he says, Americans "do want change," but "every election is a change election"; even in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was popular, the Gipper famously said at the nominating convention for George H. W. Bush that, "We are the change." Adds Mr. Rove, "I don't want to be Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big things, we'll win." He won't cite a favorite, if he has one, among the GOP candidates, though he has friends in the various campaigns. He'll offer advice, if asked, but at 56 years old says he is done with political consulting.
He'd like to teach eventually, but he has no specific job plans, save to write a book on the Bush years, which "the boss," as in Mr. Bush, "has encouraged me to do." As for what his own White House mistakes have been, Mr. Rove winces and says, "I'll put my feet up in September and think about that."
And what about Jeb Bush in 2012? Mr. Rove first says with a tone of skepticism, "Ask Jeb." Then he adds, "You better get a younger man. My wife would kill me."
Mr. Gigot is editorial page editor of the Journal.
source: p.A15 13aug2007
|
To
send Mindfully.org your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |