Who has been the greatest GOP strategist in the modern era?
he leaves something to be desired in his grasp of the big picture. The goal should not be "a permanent Republican majority," but the advancement of conservative principles. Rove's myopic focus on winning at all costs--meant that he didn't take account of the costs. Now we're all paying.
Rove did work very hard to try to get a reformation of Social Security through the Congress, and if that initiative had succeeded it would have been a pretty significant shift in Washington on a number of levels. It's not for lack of trying, or a lack of support for the President's cross-country trips lobbying for that change.
The reality was that the Democrats came out of the 2004 elections with an iron determination not to allow the President to get anything significant accomplished domestically. I was on the El train in Chicago on the morning after the 2004 elections and it was like being at a wake: the 1 or 2 guys talking on their cellphones were obviously Republicans, everybody else was silent, sullen and stonefaced. They woke up from that stupor with a fierce determination to stymie everything the Republicans tried to do.
And they succeeded.
Into a kind of Primal Fear, fight-or-flight response in the wake of 2004. It's hard for people who weren't living in Democrat strongholds to comprehend how much of a body blow to the Democrats that election was. Not only did GWB win, they lost both houses of Congress. I am *sure* that in the aftermath of that loss, the lions of liberalism had several pow-wows and decided that they were going to fight like wild dogs from that moment forward to defenestrate this President.
Let's face it, the morning after the 2004 elections it wasn't unreasonable to say that there was going to be a "permanent Republican majority" in this country. The Democrats on the train that morning sure looked like they thought it was a possibility.
Atwater by a mile. Rove looked good when his Democratic opponents were listening to people like Bob Shrum. Atwater helped designed strategies that fundamentally shifted the political orientation of our country.
I will always wonder what Rove could have accomplished if he had hitched his wagon to a different Presidential candidate. His unstinting loyalty to GWB throughout his political career notwithstanding, I will always wonder what Rove could have done helping a different Republican candidate.
He still has some time left, after all, so it might happen in the future. Unless, that is, the Democrats succeed in ruining his life for working for GWB.
I take it you're unhappy with the candidate Rove picked to hitch his wagon to. I don't buy it. Whether you like them or not, Rove and W made an extraordinary team, and I don't think either of them could have done nearly as well without the other.
And the team was what it was. I'm really just skylarking with that comment, and I'm actually thinking about Karl Rove's political future and whether we'll see him in a similar role with a different Republican in 4 or 8 years. Certainly any serious candidate would be lucky to have him on board their team. I'd like to see Karl make a political comeback and I'd be very excited in 2012 to learn that someone brought Karl Rove on as an advisor to their campaign. You don't let that kind of talent just disappear into the sunset if you can do anything about it. The time might be right for him to leave this Administration, but I'd love to have him around in the future. I'm grateful to Karl Rove and I think he's one of the best people the Republicans have.
Every strategy has its moment. Newt's Contract with America was exactly the thing for '94; wouldn't make much sense now. Atwater's racial polarization would look out of place today (asterisk for the Tennessee senatorial campaign). Rove's approach depended upon a solid base and unparalleled ability to turn out that base (although we really should acknowledge the brilliance and sweat equity that Ken Mehlman brought to the 2004 campaign). You have to have the base to win by polarizing. The next Republican majority will look a lot different from this one--which is probably why Giuliani is in first place in the polls. I'm afraid Karl's time has come and gone.
Because I'd love to have another "Contract with America" and if Newt manages to relight that fire, I'll be on board. Honestly I've never gotten the "you have to have the base by polarizing" argument myself, it's never made sense to me. I wasn't "polarized" into becoming a Republican, it just made sense to me.
Newt's lasting contribution to modern politics was to demonstrate the awesome power of ideas. He had them, the Democrats didn't. Result: Republican landslide. It would be actually very interesting if one of the candidates offered a genuine vision (I think Gingrich himself is off the table.) There are some powerful ideas out there--take a look at David Gelernter's Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, for example. But nobody in the running seems to want to touch an idea with a ten-foot pole (or poll!). Instead, we're being pandered to shamelessly, which is hard to do well when "we" hold a variety of different beliefs.
As Scripture says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
That I was a leftist/liberal Democrat as recently as early 2001. So I've never been a part of any identifiable "base" in the Republican party. I can see your point about tactics, but I'm sure that good Republican politicos can adjust and will adjust to underlying shifts in the body politic. I think what really matters and what should matter for Republicans going forward is to get back to the principles they have traditionally been strong with: shrinking the size of the government -- actual shrinking, not talk about shrinking, should be the keystone of what it means to be a Republican in this country.
I'm recapitulating a story that I've told on this blog in pieces a few times before, but in essence I was in the midst of a personal, political realignment. September 11 didn't have as much to do with my being a Republican as other events throughout that year in my personal life and my resulting decision to criticially appraise the things I believed in. It's a personal story, really, but the core of it was I simply couldn't countenance the things I believed in, the people I was with, and the people I was working for any longer. Rove sums it up:
Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.
On the other hand, if you're referring to my state of mind at that time, it's reminicent of Canto I of The Inferno
1 In the middle of our life's way *
I found myself in a wood so dark *
That I couldn't tell where the straight path lay.4 Oh how hard a thing it is to embark
Upon the story of that savage wood,
For the memory shudders me with fear so stark7 That death itself is hardly a more bitter food;
Yet whatever I observed there I'll convey,
In order to tell what I found that was good.10 So full of sleep was I when I left the true way
That exactly how I entered that wild place
It's impossible for me to say;13 But when I'd cleared that dark space
Which had turned my heart into a cavern
Of fear, I found myself at the base16 Of a hill upon whose shoulders I could discern
The rays of that brilliant planet *
Which guides men straight through every turn.19 With what relief a sense of quiet
Was welcomed by a heart tossed all night
So piteously, surely I can never forget.
And no, Karl Rove was not my "Virgil".
While Rove is a political genius, Atwater helped orchestrate the Reagan Revolution that allowed later GOP staffers like Rove to have the chance to work in the White House.
Rove is a close second by no one matches Atwater!
He gave us the "Revolution of '94." The "Contract with America" was his baby.
No, he couldn't have done it without Newt Gingrich, just as Atwater could not have done what he did without Reagan.
could have done just as well with any of a great number of candidates. (Look at what he did with GHWB.)
In the end, though, Lee came to rue what he had done. Should we think seriously about his deathbed conversion to civility, or chalk it up to the meds?
Not slighting Atwater but Reagan was a shoe in after 4 years of Carter. 21% inflation and Iran laughing at us wasn't very appealing. Rove had his work cut out for him in 2000 and 2004. As far as pulling a rabbit out of his hat, I have to vote Rove.
RedStaters know better than most that politics is not just about winning, it's about ideas and ideals--or should be.
There are many political operatives--some of the best--who view politics as nothing more than a game, the object of which is to win elections. These people can be useful to candidates who have profound ideals, but need the skills of a master manipulator to get to the White House. (Rove himself is fond of making the analogy to Mark Hannah and William McKinley.)
From everything I've read from disgruntled insiders, the problem with the current White House is that electoral-style politics continued to dominate the Administration after the elections, instead of governing. Of course, that's not Rove's fault.
Could anybody provide, in a nutshell, a summary of Rove's core ideals? Back up your argument with examples, as my teachers used to say.
Published in the Washington Post, speaking to the New York Conservative Party.
President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems - the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them - were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.
Small government, individual liberty (not the same thing as "more personal choice"), the importance of family, of morality, of God.
This language would be embarrassing on the "Greetings from the CEO" page of an in-flight magazine. What in the world does "preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society" mean? Gee, I thought we had that one pretty well down. Or maybe Karl is talking about some other society, or some new definition of "free."
I know you're new to the fold, kowalski, but it's liberals (and Walt Disney), not conservatives, who put down the "world of yesterday" and exalt "tomorrow."
Frankly, I think you've proved my point.
Did you read the rest of the speech, or did you stop at that blockquote? I didn't copy the rest of the speech in verbatim because it would probably run me afoul of the WaPo's copyright...and also clutter up the page.
And that's not the only speech Karl Rove made during the past seven years.
Isn't something that I'm going to hand to either party as a general principle: liberals talk about "tomorrow" in terms of certain progressive ideals, Conservatives talk about "tomorrow" and exalt it also. Newt Gingrich once turned a lot of people off because he seemed like too much of a pie-in-the-sky "third wave" futurist, in fact. I think perhaps we're missing each other in this thread. In any case, it's wandered on far enough and my rambling about my personal political beliefs is turning into a threadjack. You'll have to talk about those with me in private if you'd like.
This language would be embarrassing on the "Greetings from the CEO" page of an in-flight magazine.
Funny, I would *love* to read that in the "Greetings from the CEO" page of an in-flight magazine. I'd probably think seriously about investing in the company on the basis of that language appearing in an in-flight magazine.
Of the episode of Everybody Loves Raymond when Debra is trying to scold Raymond about pillow talk and she says (paraphrasing):
"What do you want me to say, 'C'mon, baby, do you want a piece of this...C'mon baby, let's do it!"
Raymond replies:
"I'd *LOVE IT* if you talked like that!!!!!"
And Debra is *shocked* -- just *shocked!*
Rove has been the Republican version of Bill Clinton. He kept Bush in the White House by loosing the base Atwater built.
I think Rove has a great understanding of campaign fundamentals. Bush is always on message, the turnout machine is well-oiled and well-orchestrated.
But.
He seems to have no common sense. This is the guy who blew a small lead in 2000 because he dropped millions of dollars in CA and had Bush effectively take the weekend before off, while Gore worked his tooshie off. He failed to get out ahead of the Bush DWI story. He had Bush promise a mission to Mars while Iraq was beginning to circle the drain. He's responsible for the prescription drug benefit, and Bush failing to veto a single pork-laden spending bill until today.
Sorry, but two narrow victories over weak Democratic candidates don't blow me away.
How about his comments just before 2006? "I'm right, and all the polls and everybody else is wrong."
Was Rove really responsible for the Mission to Mars?
While technically Atwater is "modern," a great many of us (including many who have been politically active for quite a while), have no memory of him whatsoever except what we've been told by our elders. So this is a little like being asked to compare a modern general to Sherman on the basis of their modern generalship.
Lee Atwater is handicapped in the voting by a younger generation who have no idea who he was. His passing was a great loss to the nation as well as the party.
I still remember Lee Atwater jamming at some black tie function. I do not remember what it was. I only have the recollection of seeing a few pictures of him in a tux with a guitar in hand.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
you will see where I said,
His passing was a great loss...
Please do not take offense, fr none is intended, but in my world, "passing" is a very polite word for "dead". People with manners would know that.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Call me crazy but I think Rove is way overrated. Her had some great moments but overall I give him a C.
Atwater kept the Dems on defense and was quick to sieze on dem missteps. He took the Willie Horton issue to a higher level and did Dukakis in with it.
Rove is milk toast in comparison. Bush never went on the offensive. He always was and is still playing defense. Rove destroyed the republican base for not getting Bush to be a party leader by setting the example for fellow rep's in congress and base voters to rally around. Especially when cutting deals with Ted Kennedy and his ilk while exploding fed spending, resulting in lossing both houses in congress.
Rove let an 85% approval rating drop to 30%.
During the 2004 debates and campaign Bush had some golden opportunities to put Kerry away and instead of blasting it out of the park, he bunted and squeeked out a single. If it wasn't for alternative media, there would have been a good chance Bush would not be in the white house. Atwater didn't have talk radio, the internet and blogs and Reagan's approval rating was always solid.
The 1980's, politically speaking, were nothing like the years 2000 to present.
I don't ever recall a time when the mainstream media so openly and deliberately designed and created news just to suit the prejudices and whims of one political party. Sure, the journalists of the 80's hated Reagan but they at least had older, wiser editors and producers who still required some appearance of balance. Not so in modern times as younger, more liberal people have replaced the old guard of media management.
Now networks such as NBC are so openly biases that even the most politically uninterested person can pick it out.
Throw into this poisonous media brew the constant yammering by unhinged people who have microphones shoved into their faces and are given the opportunity to spout utter nonsense, the left-wing blogs that mass market hate and the boobs in the Democrat party who think it is their birthright to rule, it seems to me that any conservative candidate who succeeds in those circumstances is truly a masterful politician.
That is why I give Rove the edge over Atwater. I thought Lee was an incredible guy and he did help engineer three landslide presidential victories. The fact of the matter is that neither Reagan nor Bush 41 ever pulled off what GW Bush and Rove did in 2002 and 2004. It is unprecedented for the party in power to gain seats in off year elections, yet they did just that and recaptured a Senate that had been basically stolen through legalistic means. Add to that the tremendous turnout machine Rove designed that gave W a little over 62,000 votes in 2004 (the largest margin even given to a candidate), then you can surely appreciate why I give Rove the laurels.
Even Atwater would have agreed.
2000's: Bush lied about Iraq
1990's: Gingrich divorced his wife when she was in the hospital
1980's: Reagan is going to start World War III
1970's: The Tet offensive was a great Communist victory
We've been living with the press strongly slanted in one partisan direction, as well as one ideological direction, making up stories as necessary, for a lot longer than that.
I was typing fast and my mind was moving faster than my hands. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 by a little over 62,000,000. This is the largest popular vote margin a candidate has ever received in the history of presidential elections.
Having been politically involved since I was ten ( a runner for the Bronx Democratic machine), I must pick Rove over Atwater.
Atwater had, with Reagan, a great candidate. With Reagan, he was able to win three presidential elections. GHWB got into office because the public wanted another term for Reagan.
Rove took a poor candidate with no desire to confront his opponents and won. Not because of the candidate but because, as this old Bronx machine politician learned in the 1940's, three words guarantee victory : turn-out, turn-out and turn-out.
I had to vote for Atwater because he helped lead the great Ronald Reagan to a 44-state win in 1980, a 49-state win in 1984, and then George H.W. Bush to a 40-state win in 1988. I doubt that, in our lifetimes, we will ever see a presidential candidate win so many electoral votes.
Rove deserves a great deal of credit, however, in building the Republican party at the state and local level. He did what Atwater could not -- build lasting congressional majorities for the GOP. However, Rove's task in this regard was much easier, with the aging of so many "Blue Dog" Democrats that loosened their historical grip on Red states and congressional districts.
---
The truth is, the more you tax profits, the more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great.