![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaIn 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 12:51 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 01:09 pm (UTC)Also, the Democrats are suffering from the Clinton/Obama split. Neither one will emerge unscathed from the presidential primaries.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 01:22 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 02:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 04:42 pm (UTC)