If I were a Democrat, I would not be happy with Karl Rove’s resignation

[greybeta]

In an interview with the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove announced that he will be resigning from his White House duties effective August 31, 2007. I suppose there will be much rejoicing in liberal circles over this. The blogosphere will be rife with “Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead!” or “There is a God” posts.

Actually, if I were a Democrat, I would not be happy with Karl Rove’s resignation. Yes, the resignation of the Bush’s top advisor is a sign that the Democrats have the advantage. Clearly, if the presidential election were held today, the Democrats would not only win the presidency but also pick up seats in both houses of Congress. But the election is next November, which is plenty of time for the Republicans to turn things around.

This is pure speculation, but I believe that Karl Rove’s resignation is a calculated move that will help the Republicans down the road. I don’t have any proof, but I agree with Rove when he says in the article that Bush’s numbers are bound to go up. Bush isn’t going to be in the 30% approval rating forever. Besides, Congress’s approval rating is still quite low and that’s even with the Democrats in control.

I may give Rove too much credit, but his resignation creates an opportunity for the GOP to secure the presidency for a third term. Indeed, in 16 months from now, we may just look back and see Rove’s resignation as a critical point in helping the Republicans maintain control of the White House.

Let’s take a quick gander at the current top two leading candidates for each party. For the Donkey Party, we have Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. For the Elephant Party, we have Governor Mitt Romney and Governor Mike Huckabee (hey, he’s a player now according to the Iowa straw poll). Who do you think has the advantage, the senators or the governors?

Historically, governors possess a distinct advantage over senators. That’s because unlike their legislative counterparts, governors don’t have a voting record to haunt them. Campaign mudslinging always revolves around political actions, and the voting record is the one most often used against senators.

In this particular case, however, one might give the advantage to the Democrats due to their star power. And yet I would argue that it is precisely the star power of the leading Democratic candidates that will hurt their party. Think of it like this: the Democrats are liberals who are pulling the party in a thousand different directions. It takes someone with an unusual amount of charisma to unify them, but that kind of person is usually more interested in himself or herself more than the party (*cough* the Clintons *cough*).

It’s been said over and over, but the Republicans have been not only the better party builders, but the better party maintainers. How else do you explain the fact that despite a concerted effort by the Democrats to bring out the vote in 2004, that there was an even greater turnout by the Republicans? Curious, that is.

Then there’s the simple fact that Hillary is a woman and Barack is a black guy. It’s sheer naïveté to believe that people won’t vote for a presidential candidate on prejudice alone. On the other hand, Romney and Huckabee are conservative white males. They’ll simply draw less fire. Heck, if I were the chairman of the Republican Party, I’d start putting out the feelers for a Romney/Huckabee ticket right now, as that covers the coveted North/South demographics.

But, if the Republicans are to fully capitalize on this situation, they must first shed the negativity of the current administration. While it’s impossible to erase people’s memories, they can draw fire away from their own candidates. In fact, the only way they can win is to allow their own candidates to attack Bush.

Hmmm, but the Republicans have to do it in a way that doesn’t undermine the administration. Well, the king never falls on his own sword, so one of the advisors must take the fall. Karl Rove has already served his purpose. Winning the 2004 election has put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court and they will undoubtedly affect the course of American history.

Rove will make millions writing books and as a political commentator. He’ll have to lie low until Bush leaves the White House, but once that happens expect to hear from Rove again. Rest assured, if the Republicans win, Rove will be pumping his fist like Tiger Woods celebrating a major championship.

So, I guess I should ask, are you happy with Karl Rove’s resignation?

Comments

I think you have good insight on this.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

His resignation also frees Rove up to quietly consult on the Republican presidential campaign.

As for how I personally feel about it? Pretty neutral. Either a Republican or a Democrat will get elected, and we will still be stuck with only two parties to choose from.

Last night we were out with some friends having dinner to celebrate my wife's return from Guatemala. She was talking about some of the political candidates for the presidential elections down there that are taking place in a few months. Someone asked how many candidates there are, and she responded there are about nine. Note that these are actual candidates, not people seeking nomination. The general feeling around the table was that having such choice would seem like heaven compared to our de facto two-party system.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Coalition politics have a different set of problems from our two party system. The grass is always greener on the other side.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

I realize that all government systems have their problems, but I am particularly displeased that having two overwhelmingly dominant parties results in numerous false dichotomies and an atmosphere where both major parties think "compromise" means "you give us what we want, and stop making such a fuss."

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in a system like Guatemala's is terribly inefficient. When you're struggling to reach a consensus on anything, it's no wonder there are military coups to increase efficiency.

In Magic terms, I prefer the drawbacks of a two-party system than the drawbacks of a coalition system.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

I must say you're judging a multi party system on a very selective basis. The Netherlands always has had, at least in modern history, a multi party, proportional representational, consensus system. We haven't had any coups. I wouldn't want to trade this system for a district/two party system. In my opinion the two party system, or at least in the USA, lacks balance.

In magic terms: proportional representation is netdecking, district system is going rogue. It might work occasionally, but it doesn't really cut the mustard.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Each country must be considered separately. I could choose Italy as a counterexample of the mess that is coalition politics. I'm haven't studied Dutch politics or history, but it's very likely the case that the coalition system works best for The Netherlands.

The imbalance of the two party system is precisely its power. My reasoning why would take a separate post, but basically it divides less of your talent (whereas, in a coalition government, your top talent may be spread out among four or five parties).

In Magic terms: Two-party system is Odyssey Block Constructed, coalition party system is Invasion Block Constructed. One's preferences will determine which one likes better.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

It's not just looking at single instances of something that determines whether a system is better or worse, averages do have to play a part in it. Generally speaking proportional representation as a political system works better as a democratic system than a district system does. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's better capable to represent the will of the people and keep proper checks and balances in place.

As far as talent goes: having top talent spread over a couple of parties isn't actually a bad thing in a coalition, because coalitions have to work together. Generally speaking you have, career wise so to speak, more to fear from your own party members than from those from other parties.

Having them bunched up in the same party can have it's drawbacks too. If the party isn't in power, that talent is going nowhere. Besides, there's only so much seats to fill and talent might go to waste.

In magic terms: district system is 10th edition, proportional representation is Time Spiral (or whatever the latest set is actually called): There both usable but there's a big distinction.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

That's true, but we're not looking at the averages. In the specific case of America, I'm willing to say that the two party system works best.

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

Logical fallacy.

In some countries, nationalized health care is a nightmare. In others, it works very well.
In some countries, high taxes yield a high standard of living. In others, high taxes yield a very low standard of living. (Or, replace "high" with "low" and the statements remain true.)

Many countries peacefully and effectively rule themselves under coalition and multi-party systems, and to use Guatemala's political problems as an argument that the US would experience the same is disingenuous.

You are too smart to make such an argument, and I am too smart to let it stand. You call people on it when they are using sloppy reasoning, now it's your turn to be on the receiving end. :)

(Also - this is really a technicality - you are misusing the term "coalition government" and falsely claiming we have a two party system when we really have a multi-party system in which two parties dominate. I understand what you mean in both cases, and don't want to get into a pedantic definition of terms discussion, but the terms you use aren't strictly accurate.)

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

No, it's not a logical fallacy. There's a reason why the U.S. functions best under a two-party system, but it would take another lengthy post to explain why.

I'm not saying that the coalition or multi-party systems don't work. I'm saying that the optimal system for the U.S. is the two party system. You can disagree with me, but I'm definitely not using a logical fallacy.

I'm too smart to use sloppy reasoning! ^_^

Re: I think you have good insight on this.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Not from this side of the fence.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Yes I''m pleased to see the bastard gone, but that's just because he's exactly that. Politically speaking you'd have to ask my brother as he's knee deep in American politics and I'm not.

Having said that I do feel I have to disagree with you at least somewhat: Bush is going to be in the 30 % forever if he doesn't get a grip on Iraq. No matter how much people hate congress, they're hating the war even more. Even the all but the most fervent Bush supporting Republicans are tiring of it. Given the fact that there's no substantial progress being made it doesn't look good in that department. As long as Bush is in power the Republicans are going to suffer. Sacrificing Rove, if that's what has happened, isn't going to change that.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, you may be right that Bush may stay at 30% forever. But even if he does, it's inconsequential as he is leaving the White House anyways. Also, the Republicans suffer from a schism in that there's a faction supporting the President and there's a faction that does not. This schism was less pronounced when the Republicans in control, as being in control smoothes over.

Also, the Democrats are suffering from the Clinton/Obama split. Neither one will emerge unscathed from the presidential primaries.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

Nobody leaves primaries unscathed. Doesn't matter if you're
Republican or Democrat. The Democrats have the advantage of a second term president which means the Republicans will have a primary as well. Means you not the only one who's candidates are systematically getting bad press. It also means have to do less digging for dirt.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

The difference is this: the Republican party is strong enough that the possibility of a Romney/Huckabee ticket exists. While politics makes strange bedfellows, Clinton and Obama will never share a bed together.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

If they have a proper go at it, and why run in the primaries if you won't, it'll get a lot less likely they will. Campagning has a tendency to cause a rift between people.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying that it will happen, but I'm saying that the probability of the leading candidates patching things up and working together exists much higher on the Republican side than the Democratic side, at least in this particular election.

[usmu.livejournal.com]

True as that might be it's doesn't really matter. If all is well, and there's no indication it isn't, the losing candidate will endorse the winne. The democrats will rally behind their primary winner, as will the Republicans. As such it's more about finding a good running mate regardless of whether that person run in the primaries or not. Besides picking someone you ran against in an election opens up a "why did you pick someone you didn't think was competent (enough) as your running mate" line of attack. I don't this "issue" will have much of an impact either way.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

We have to remember that things don't happen in a vacuum. Even something small like this can add up with other factors to make the difference between losing and winning a presidential election.

[khiron1416.livejournal.com]

I think Rove doesn't want to go through the congressional hearings. With 6000 "lost" emails, they would have been looking for him, bigtime. Now he's a low-point target because he's not part of the administration anymore. The Dems could have worked his hearings in the press well past the primaries, this way the only target they have is Gonzo who has proven impervious and Harriet Miers which would make the dems look like they beat up old ladies.

Rove could also coach the next election too why not?

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Indeed, avoiding the congressional hearings is part of the strategy.

I don't think Rove will coach this election simply because the next Republican candidate will want to cut off as many ties to Bush as possible.

[thanoslug.livejournal.com]

Besides, Congress’s approval rating is still quite low and that’s even with the Democrats in control.

I would say, instead that Congress' low approval ratings, lower than Bush, are because Democrats are in control. They are turning Congress into quite a circus what with the slumber parties and ignoring floor vote results.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Heh, only a diehard Republican would say that! ;-P

[badspock.livejournal.com]

I have to admit to being woefully behind on my politics, due to a huge case of "don't care, don't wanna think about it now" syndrome, so I have to ask:
Is Romney the older fella who got interviewed on The Colbert report and said that while he WAS a Christian, he felt that the push for Christian-happy legislation was not what this whole thing should be about, then went on to espouse his beliefs that the govt. needs to go back to good old fashioned CONSTITUTIONAL values? Because damn, Republican though he may be, I liked what he had to say.

I used to be a die-hard republican. Now I don't know what the hell I am besides a GD Independant. I didn't vote for Bush this time around, but refused to vote for Kerry because I just didn't like him either. I will literally shoot myself with my own .45 before I will EVER vote for Hillary, but I kinda like Obama even though I fear that the happy rednecks that abound in this country would remove him from office violently-which would be one more nail in the coffin of law-abiding gun owners nationwide. Yeah, I believe in the right to bear arms, and am unashamed of said belief.

I believe in the Constitution in it's original spirit (hey, Amendments are good-as long as they don't contradict the document and take away our rights), and thus the thought of a candidate who thinks the same is very appealing, even if he IS a member of the party that is currently screwing everything up....I mean, aside from being politicians in the first place, they can't ALL be bad, right?

Yeah, I couldn't type that with a straight face.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Um, I don't know about the Colbert Report thing, as I haven't watched that show in awhile. All I know is that Romney is the Republican frontrunner in both the polls and campaign money.

I'm a moderate Republican, but I voted for Bush over Kerry last time around. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I may personally campaign for the Republicans this time around.

The fact that Huckabee finished second in the straw poll really surprised me, as he was the previous governor of my state. Most of us didn't think he had a chance.

Also, the Constitution in its original spirit favorited white male property owners over the age of 21. The Founders wanted a country governed by thwat it perceived to be the elite.

[badspock.livejournal.com]

We're losing the great M.C. ROVE?!?

Oh, well, at least he has a budding gangsta rap career to look forward to!

Seriously, don't think it affects me much either way. Just a rat leaving the sinking ship.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

LOL, I'm trying to picture Rove doing the Hammertime dance to "Can't Stop This".

Oh, and these kinds of things always seem to have a bigger effect than you might think.