Should Bush Fire Rove?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Partisan HacksThat’s the question William Kristol is asking in his newest column.
The answer?
As if you had to really ask…
Between the 2000 election and the 2004 election, Rove became the master of polarization politics. And now, with this year’s ill-fated experiment in trying to govern from the middle surely over, polarization along ideological and party lines is a fact of life. Ethics classes won’t ameliorate Democratic hostility to Bush. Nor will firing Rove. In fact, throwing Rove overboard–dropping the political adviser who has been with Bush during his past comebacks and greatest triumphs–will increase the sense of a White House in disarray and retreat.Keeping Rove; being unapologetic about the war; explaining why Saddam had to be removed, that there were terror ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, and why the war needs to be seen through to victory; fighting for Alito, and other well-qualified conservative judges at the appellate level; advancing pro-growth, pro-family tax reforms–this agenda won’t enamor Bush to liberals. But it could lay the groundwork for a Bush comeback. The alternative is three long years of ducking, dodging–and defeat.
Yes, so Bush should keep Rove and continue the polarization because that’s what worked in the past.
William Kristol, you’re such a partisan hack it hurts!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Should Bush Fire Rove?
Not unless he is charged with a crime. If he is charged with a crime then he should have him resign.
I don’t think that Rove should be fired because Democrats don’t like him…. and I think that our Constitution applies to Rove just as much as it does to you…. Innocent until proven guilty. Why would you want something less for Rove?
November 8th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Rove as no constitutional right to his white house position. He should be fired with or without a crime being charged. He’s a PR liability now — his usefulness has been exhausted. “Innocent until proven guilty. Why would you want something less for Rove?” I would agree if we were talking about a criminal trial, but it’s a job and in the political job-world preception in reality. He should be asked to resign with written letter of apology. This White House, though, is arrogant and belligerent, so this will never happen. Liberals don’t like and conservatives don’t like him, either.
November 8th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Whether or not he has committed any crime the egregiously slimy tactics he has consistently used since the days of Bush’s governorship are an assault on the morality of this nation.
It never ceases to amaze me that the party of “traditional values” seems to think the list of values should include lies, slander, graft, and any other dirty trick that gets them their way.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
And here I thought it was Howard Dean and his ilk that were polarizing the country. I feel so enlightened now.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Oh, make no mistake. Dean has turned into a partisan hack too. But that fact doesn’t negate Kristol’s “super-hack” status.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Where is the Kristol who once made well-reasoned arguments for his positions? Hanging the blame for Bush’s current low approval numbers on the failed Social Security reform effort is plain nonsense. He makes a good point about Bush needing to explain his position on Iraq, but isn’t it Rove’s job to make sure Bush does just that? If Rove is unable to handle something as basic as PR, what makes Kristol think that he can still turn things around? Bush’s golden goose has become an albatross.