In the context of a general shake-up, with McClellan resigning and Rumsfeld being pressured to resign, what does this signify? Is the Admin finally starting to feel Rove as an embarrassment? Or are they just putting him where they think he can be most useful, with a Congressional election coming up?
For the most part, I’d say they’re just putting him where he’ll be useful. If they were going to fire or demote him because he’d become a burden or an embarrassment, I think it would’ve happened months ago, perhaps at the height of the Plame scandal. I don’t see the timing for that. I know Rove’s move and McClellan’s resignation are being billed as a shakeup and I suppose they are, but it seems to be a very minor shake-up. Perhaps they’re conceeding to public and party pressures to make some changes, and just doing it in the most piecemeal way they think they can get away with.
CNN says
Hardly sounds like he’s being kicked to the curb, you know?
He is leaving the boring policy matters to somebody else, so he can concentrate on the things he truly loves. Rove is the modern master of the vicious political smear. The midterm congressional elections are coming up, so there is plenty of smearing to do.
His replacement,Joel Kaplan, was one of the so-called “Brooks Brothers Rioters”. (i.e. one of a group of Washington-based government and/or political campaign employees who were flown to Florida on the public dime in 2000 to pose as concerned Floridians and shut down the recoun by harassing and intimidating employees of the State of Florida.)
I think that Rove’s demotion is in name only and that he will continue to serve as The Brain. (Hey, somebody’s gotta do it.) If he gets sucked into the Plame Investigation and fingers are pointing toward him, he would then be in a position not quite so officially close to the President. Until then – and maybe even afterward – he still has the power.
I agree. The Republicans are in desperate, desperate need of a winning strategy for November. This move gives Rove more time to root around in the hogsty for ammunition.
I agree with this too, though I believe it is merely coincidence. I was disgusted to see them hauling out the Chairman of the JCS to support Rumsfeld, as if that meant something. The man has no choice. He must publicly support his boss. He’s subject to the rules of the military just as much as the rawest recruit.
One question that’s popped up is whether or not Rove still has his security clearance. Considering how he’s still a key suspect in the Plame investigation, you’d think his access would get yanked as a security precaution until the matter is resolved.
I think it’s an admission that the GOP is going to need Rove’s skills to retain control of Congress. If there’s one person that can maximize the Republican performance in November, it’s him. He may be lower than the belly of a snake, but he has perfected the art of manipulating the electorate like no other has.
(my emphasis) If true, this explains a lot about the posting pattern of military dopers. Not obstinate Republicans, but obedient and not free to speak their minds.
I hate to disrupt the acoustics of the echo chamber, but if Rove was on the other side of the fence, you guys would be praising him for being effective.
And this is the bottom line. Just as Bush was as vulnerable as he was going to get in 2004, the Republican majority is vulnerable now. But just as in 2004, I don’t see either house changing hands.
Why?
Because the partisan lines are as starkly drawn as I’ve ever seen them. The election could be held tomorrow instead of November with much the same results. I’m sure someone will doth protest their ideological independence too much, but anyone who has even a basic understanding of politics knows which side their bread is buttered on and will vote accordingly.
Therefore, based on the power of incumbency, the number of people who self-identify as conservatives vs. liberals, the fact that this is going to be 466 local elections instead of a national one and the fact that security is still a main concern of the american public…look for the status quo to be maintained.
I can’t imagine that military posters would not speak their true feelings here or anywhere else privately. The only problem they would have would be to go to a “Bush is Satan” rally in full uniform, grab a mic and say “I speak for all my brothers in arms…yada yada yada.”
I, for one, would not. I would prefer to win without the dirty tricks like those he pulled against McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
I beg to differ. According to the state by state polls, voters in only four states have more that approve of Bush than disapprove. That’s quite remarkable, in my opinion. The 2006 election will to a large degree be a referendum on Bush, and right now that’s bad news for the GOP.
A lot of democrats badly want this to be the case, but I don’t think it will be based on the points that I made in my previous post. Presidential approval ratings are driven by events as much as perception, and can change from week to week. The last direct referendum on Bush was in 2004.
Is it possible to backtrace IP addresses or capture scfreen images or keystrokes? Sure. Do you actually think that IT thugs dressed in black are passing information to hard men in sunglasses?
I’ve been in the military. All we are told is to watch what we say and do publically while in uniform. Our thoughts were our own.
