…is bad news for the party that has been managing the increasingly obvious Iraq mess.
Not hardly. I realize that people always defend their profiting from the actions of scumbags by accusing their opponents of being just as evil as they are. Call me corny, but I still have faith in old-fashioned civics. I can’t stand Rove. I’m an honest man.
Yeah, probably. But I see definite gains for the Democrats in both. The only states where the Republicans have even a hope of a pickup in the Senate are Washington and Minnesota, and even with those there are no guarantees. The Democrats look better for picking up House seats, but I certainly don’t expect a 1994-style flip. After this election, we’re going to see a narrow majority in the House, and it’ll probably be a Republican majority.
Oh, I’d say these are more partisan times than we’ve seen in a long time, certainly more partisan than I can remember in my 36 years. Democrats and Republicans will probably stay loyal to their parties, for the most part. The question is: how will the independents vote? Independents tend to break toward challengers, and vote against the incumbent party. The Republicans are going to have a tough time painting themselves as outsiders in 2006… but they could still do it. The Republicans’ best hope is to paint themselves as outsiders, which they did in 2004, when they already had the White House and both houses. Karl Rove is the man who can fool all of the people all of the time, selling the establishment as rebels.
Ha! Talk about your talking points! One of the Republicans’ main talking points is the one about how this is going to come down to a bunch of local elections—no doubt due to fears of the likely Democratic strategy to nationalize them, effectively tying all Republican candidates to an unpopular president. Every conservative talking head constantly says, “These elections will all be local! These elections will all be local!” But then, you probably already knew that…
How?
What makes you think this
-
is true?
-
if true, will redound to the Pubs’ benefit?
Well, that’s what’s at the base of this whole we’re-victims-of-the-liberal-media argument they make.
They also complain about how we’re all threatened by gays getting married, as if this lifestyle directly threatens their own.
Then there’s the complaint that the minority party’s disagreements with the Republicans amounts to “obstructionism,” as if there were nothing a majority party could do to control the direction of Congress and the White House as long as the uppity minority party is speaking up. I don’t expect Congress to stop fighting, but the whinging about having no power because Tom Daschle (or, now, Harry Reid) won’t roll over all the time? It’s bull, but it’s effective; the Republicans are playing the outsiders, and it’s working.
And let’s not forget the “War on Christmas,” which puts the majority religion in the minority role. And, similarly, the complaint that not getting to see the Ten Commandments plastered all over every public building from Maine to California amounts to infringement on the freedom to practice the Christian faith. Sure, that’s not technically a Republican issue, one could argue, but it’s an effective use of the underdog strategy.
I’m sure there’s more, but those are the big ones.
The whole Plame thing may be an issue, but it’s just a smart used of human resources to have Rove stumping and scheming for the Republicans. As I said elsewhere, keeping a healthy majority in Congress is the best thing Rove can do for the President right now.
I think you’re right: this is what the Rove reässignment comes down to. As much as I’d like to think that his thuggery against Valerie Plame is at the root of it, it’s obvious that Rove is probably the best person in America at what he does, and the Republicans would be foolish to have Rove do anything else while there are elections going on.
I think it’s appalling that Rove has had so much of a voice in policy, which seems to have driven Bush administration policy to be in line with how elections would be affected. Every president does that at least to some degree, sure, but the very fact that Bush gave Rove a policy position underscores the fact that Bush is far more egregiously mixing policy and polls.
Why’s Rove being cut back? He’s on the way to being cut out, like Libby was. Fitzpatrick keeps referring to him as “Official A” in his paperwork. MSNBC report.
Joe Wilson has had to wait a few years too long, but he may be about to see Turd Blossom get “frog-marched out of the White House.”
Not really, IMHO, but the pretend demotion makes it look like they were already phasing Rove out, should the indictment come down.
Nitpick: that’s Patrick Fitzgerald.
I think it’s important for the Dems to nationalize this election, to make this one about GOP incompetence, corruption, and lies, before Rove has the chance to change the subject and make the election about anything from Iran to gay adoptions.
The good news about Rove still being in the White House is that whatever he does to try to help the GOP in the midterms, he’s not exactly going to be helping the GOP run from Bush. Not like they have much room to do that, if the Dems have a clue: it’ll be easy enough to include a line in every ad about how GOP Congresscritter X supported Bush’s initiatives 9x.x% of the time, voted against investigations into A, B, C, and D, and so forth.
That’s what I meant.
Yep, sorry. I know too many Fitzpatricks and Fitzgeralds and sometimes I forget.
Yes, in large part they do have to make the case that they can keep this reckless, bungling administration under control. But that’s not enough, as we’ve discussed many times before and will again.
Right, the only game he knows is fear and division, and this time that can only backfire.
A Rove indictment does appear to be imminent. A better gift for the Democrats could hardly be imagined. Instead of masterminding yet another campaign of smears and deception, he’s going to be busy tying to stay out of the slammer. That, plus enhancement of the perception of lawlessness in this administration, should be good news. Bush’s decidership is crumbling.
Rove gets a target letter.
Nah, keeping the GOP on top will take care of anything else. After all, what are the odds for/against Libby and anyone else indicted getting a pardon before the end of Bush’s term?
-Joe
Pardons will solve the personal difficulty of those pardoned but I don’t see how it could be a political winner.
Just as an aside, I’m happy to say I probably wasn’t being cynical enough in my interpretation of Rove’s reassignment. I’m very enthusiastic about the prospect of being wrong, in fact.
In what way does it need to be a political winner?
My whole line of thought was that whever happen to Rove, as long as the GOP stays on top he’ll have his Get Out Of Jail Free card.
So, as long as he uses his political genius to keep the GOP on top his future is quite, quite secure. So, focus on that and defending himself becomes fairly irrelevent.
-Joe
Maybe someone could 'splain this distinction to me.
*Karl Rove’s appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a “target letter” sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment. . . A federal grand jury target letter is sent to a person in a criminal investigation who is likely to be indicted. In a prepared statement Wednesday, Luskin said Fitzgerald indicated that Rove is *not ** a “target” of the investigation. A “target” of a grand jury investigation is a person who a prosecutor has substantial evidence to link to a crime.
Soo, he received a target letter.
But he ain’t a target.
wHet?
We might recall fondly how much good pardoning Nixon did for Gerald Ford. Then again, those were different times.
Yeah, because Rove is as important and noticeable as a President.
Remember the hundreds of guys Clinton pardoned on his way out? How many can you name? Has his career suffered? Was THAT what’s hurt the Democrats so badly ately?
-Joe