Redstate

Rove should stay. He keeps the other side angry and focused on the wrong man.

Rove has been, in truth, the closest thing to a true conservative in the room at every point in Bush's presidency.  And not necessarily out of principle, but out of political savvy.  In fact, until Miers came along, it was a very real argument that Rove had always advocated a position closer to the conservative cause than the policies advocated by others in the Bush White House.

Just keep in mind: without Rove, this is Andy Card's WH.

This is not an either Karl or Andy proposition.  They both go, but Rove is currently the most visible and the biggest drag.

Couldn't agree more with this.

The GOP is on the mend, we have a solid canidate for the SCOTUS.

The Plame affair seems to have fizzled.  For now at least.

I think this is the perfect time, perfect message to send to the voters the POTUS is taking the last years of his tenure seriously.

Kudos to Rove, well deserved.

because one thing Bush has been most consistent on is his unwillingness to terminate anyone except in the cases of glaring un-ignorable incompentence (Paul "Global Warming" O'Neil, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet).

Unless he gets indicted, Rove is there as long as he wants to be.

Most voters have no idea who Karl Rove is. No idea at all. It is the political junkies on the Left who get so worked up about Rove.

There is no political benefit to removing Rove among the voters because (1) it is relatively unknown across the nation and (2) removing him would be forgotten in a week by those who are somewhat aware of who he is.

As some has mentioned, Rove sucks up a lot of negative energy. It's best to keep him there and drive the Left even more batty.

From the outside it's guesswork as to who should go, if anyone.  I do think the president could use a shot of new blood in the inner circle, one or more advisers who haven't been through the wringer of the past five years (9/11, Iraq, the 2002 & 2004 elections, Katrina, Enron, Plamegate, etc.) and aren't as weary.  Advisers who have been out there outside the White House and have a little more of the pulse of a world that has changed dramatically in five years since all these folks went to DC.  So, I'm open to the idea that Rove, Card or others, despite their great services to this White House, might justifiably be asked to leave.

But I don't sit at the table with these guys every day.  I just can't pick and choose who's burned out or who's lost their way.

There's plenty enough simplistic Rove-bashing at That Other Political Site.  We don't need it here.

In fact it can be classified as politically obscene in that it has no redeeming political value unless you are a democrat. Do you think Bush would get one MSM line of ink praising this as a smart/good move? Nope, it would be "Weakened Bush forced to remove top advisor. Rove expected to be indicted soon. Dems say he should have been gone long ago." Gee, did a Dkos demon possess your soul on halloween? Spew some split pea soup around the room and lose this idea.

...the Loyalists overboard.

First it was Delay. Now it's Rove.

Did it occur to anyone that doing that would play right into the Left's hands?! The bitter, extreme Left would then be the ones making all the personnel decisions for us.

No thanks!

The fact is, Rove has commited no crime. If the rabid Dems want to froth at the mouth about him, let 'em!

We don't throw people overboard over the silly state of "appearances".

This thread sounds like it was hijacked by a bunch of Democrats.

Karl Rove should not go anywhere. Especially so close to the Fitzgerald exoneration (yes I'm calling it that)---assuming it holds up. Opining that he should go now is the WISH of the other side.

Most Americans don't even know who Karl Rove is. After the 2006 mid-terms, I would agree that Rove should focus on someone other than Bush...perhaps the RNC itself.

Let's not forget that during all the giddy predictions of this GRAND soon-to-be Democrat majority for 2006, that Rove is working (in part) to solidify a Republican majority for years to come.

If Rove goes now, it's bowing to pressure.  If Rove doesn't come back after Christmas, it could be, "I spent some time with my family over the holidays and decided it's time to move on."  A quiet shakeup, first Rove, with an agreement that Andy Card help select his replacement by Valentines Day as well, with a "my wife would like to see a little more of me during the day."  It would warm the hearts of women.

Mehlman probably wouldn't say no to coming back inside the WH, but he likes the RNC gig.  Deaver is a non-starter because of his past.  Someone well-connected but not well-known (like Scooter Libby pre-leak).

And please, Mr. President, put a conservative in place as your primary policy advisor.

Most people do know Rove, the architect, the brain.  

Rove opens his own shop again and starts advising from the outside where he can take a broader view.

The Democrats can't take the majority back anyway.  They went along with incumbent protection maps and it will cost them in 2006.

Best case for Democrats +6 seats.  Worst case, they could actually lose 2 because of Georgia.

Its a showdown at the O.K.  You have your trusty Colt 45 in your lap, but wait, there is a scratch on her.  Damn, get out the old bow and arrow, through out the big gun.  Go get yerself poked full of holes.  Good advice.

I noticed this about RedState. It took them no time to say Delay should go. They want to appease the left to the point that maybe Chucky Schumer should appoint Bush's cabinet.

So, if a Republican fights hard for conservative causes, RedState thinks they should go because they make waves. They must love McCain.

If I would put Rove in that book. Bush's domestic policy has been nothing but lousy aside from the tax cuts. If Rove is a driving force behind that we would be better off without him.

Delay is a totally different guy in a totally different situation. I don't think you can compare the two.

Policy decisions come from many sources.  And the President is ultimately responsible for policy.  If you want a policy change you can't just pick one guy, fire him, and put in someone else to change domestic policy.  You have to apply political pressure.

Bring in Fred and assign him to get Bush's legislation thru. He gets things done.

That he he stays and things get turned around.  What next?  What is the "wish list" that makes Term II go down historically as an undisputable success, despite this slow start?

a lot of Democratic criticism of the White House.  And, truth be told, White House staff usually experiences a lot more turnover than this one.

Seems to me that Rove doesn't serve much purpose in this White House any more. He would be better suited, at this point, serving in the RNC or building up a campaign.

it is easy to see who is a drag on the Administration.  One need not lunch with the President's A-Team to see that there is a lot of baggage attached to people like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Andy Card... the determination would ultimately be the President's, of course, but he has things he wants to accomplish.  He has things which we (Republicans and all Americans) need for him to accomplish.

I should add that we cannot say for certain that a new team would change the situation, but then we have a new set of problems and a new set of solutions.  And we go from there.

notions you might have read concerning this matter.

Let me explain.  If your primary concern is the media focusing on the "weakened President" line of though, that is happening now.  Karl Rove is perceived as a part of that imagined weakness.

Now, cutting Karl Rove will have some spouting about capitulating to Harry Reid or the angry in his own party, but he had something similar when Harriet left the SCOTUS game.  The media fed on it for a while, then the President hit a home run (Sam Alito).

The calculus is different with a political advisor, of course, and the way in which he could evince a great choice more complicated.  But we can look at it this way, tbone: an Administration which does not seem to often touch on cluelessness would be an improvement.

We need some calculated offense, not the same mumbling and shrugging.

Conservatives want to be excited.

My post was not an official RedState position.

As for DeLay, I personally thought it would be a bad mistake to turn on him.  The Hammer will be fine.

As for Karl Rove, I think he did a splendid job electing the Presdient and beating off the hordes in '04.  I'm looking only at the situation here and now.

Mark, if flyerhawk likes the idea, you have been Kursed.  Rove stays.

(no offense fh :] )

into play: we're on the outside, so we do not know what exact role he plays at the White House.  We don't know if has a purpose or is being kept around for some other reason.

My contention was that it doesn't matter.

And my concern was not with deflating Dem criticism, because that will be there no matter what this President does.  Their enmity is focused more him, methinks, than on anything he does or does not do.

But I agree that he could put his talents to use elsewhere, though that is not a per se part of this calculus.

The DeLay thing I threw out as a wild example.

I think that Rove is largely irrelevant.  

The Partisan Left hates him.  The Partisan Right loves him.  But I don't know that he actually serves much purpose in the White House at this point.

If his job is to make sure the White House stays on message then he is doing a poor job.

If his job is to get legislation passed then he is doing a poor job.

The Bush Administration needs someone who can get the White House back on message.

I nominate Thomas.

if only in passing. In the real world, where 6 out of 10 Americans can not tell you exactly who Karl Rove is and 2 out of the other 4 hate him, the only thing that will stick in the minds of the 6 is the vague concept of Bush Administration = crooks and weakness. You are way to far inside the political center ring to see the crowd in the bleachers.

but most Americans are completely indifferent to WH staffers resigning, regardless of cause.

If Rove resigns the story is around for one, maybe two, news cycles.

If you think the President is weakened, and I do, then making moves to address the weakness would be a good idea.

If you think the weakness is only in the imagination of adminstration critics then doing something to address it would be loopy. You can't have it both ways.

That said, the President should continue to make decisions that advance the agenda. Until he decides Rove cannot contribute to the or his presence is an impediment to positive results, Rove should stay.

...maybe Bush should "buy an Uzi".  That would really fire up the Cindy Sheehan Show.    

Maybe he should step down, but now is not the time.  If he does step down, he should do it like Dan Rather.  He could announce his resignation during a slow news cycle (Christmas?)and make his resignation effective at a future date which would also fall within a traditionally slow news cycle.  I also think Flyerhawk's "it'll only hurt for a second" approach is a good one.  We shouldn't be too concerned with the MSM and the Dem feeding frenzy.  It won't last long, and they won't get as much out of it as they think they will.  Rove is hitched to a setting sun right now, and he needs to get back out there with the rising stars.

Well it would certainly deflate a lot of Democratic criticism of the White House.

What in the world are you smoking?  (I'd like to buy some)  If Rove departs, that's only going to encourage the moonbats that have been calling for his head, and they'll shout even louder for Cheney and Bush to resign.  They'll see it as justification for all the $#!+ they've been throwing all along, and it'll just make the screeching from these rabid howler-monkeys that much more piercing.

Bush shouldn't take any action against Rove now, while Fitzgerald is still investigating. It would look like tampering with justice by appearing to say to Fitzgerald "It's ok to let Rove off the hook, because we fired him". And it is definitely possible that Rove will be indicted this week or next. Also firing Rove now would be judging him before all the facts are known.

With that said, once Fizgerald closes the investigation, and if Rove is not indicted, Bush should fire him. It doesn't matter that he's one of our guys, what he has done stinks to heaven. If one of Clinton's aides had done what Rove did, republicans would be screaming for Clinton's aide to fired.

Rove's attorney has admitted publicly that he spoke to reporters about Plame, which is the same thing Fitgerald's indictment shows. That violates an executive order, and the non-disclosure agreement Rove signed. It is also clear that Rove lied to people within the White House, up to and possibly including President Bush, by saying that he didn't do it. Rove needs to go.

Rove doesn't need to leave the party. He's a political guy anyway. Just take his security clearance away, and move him over the RNC. Bush could still call him every day.