Monday Open Thread: Karl Rove Edition

So this will be the big thing in the news, and all the talking heads will be offering their analysis. I’ll open the floor on this one.

What will this mean for the future of the Bush presidency? Will this turn him into a complete lame duck, or offer the chance to bring in someone else and give him a bit of a fresh face to continue his search for a legacy that won’t include the phrase “worst president of the 21st century”?

What will this mean for the Republican party?

And what’s in the future for Rove? I know the talking heads are discussing his plans to write a book, but is he really just leaving now to find a new horse to back in ’08?

  • UCrawford

    I believe that the people who think Rove’s departure will change George W. Bush much underestimate just how many of Dubya’s policies actually were Dubya’s policies. When Rumsfeld left office, people said that Bush’s approach to Iraq would change…it hasn’t. When John Ashcroft left office, people said that the DOJ wouldn’t be as harsh on civil liberties…now we find out that Ashcroft was the moderate one. Bush is the guy making the decisions here, he always has been, and that’s not going to change because one of his political election advisors (who he no longer needs) is moving on. Rove leaving may change Bush’s ability to sell his policies to the Republican party faithful somewhat (though I doubt it), but I think he’ll come up with the same shallow, incompetent policies he came up with before. Bush is the guy making the bad calls, not Rove, not Cheney, not the oil companies, and not the Tri-Lateral Commission or the Illuminati. Just Bush, and he’s not going to change for anyone since he’s not going to get impeached and isn’t running for re-election.

  • trumpetbob15

    I agree with UCrawford that nothing will change. I will add this bit. For those who believe Dubya can’t make a decision, does it really matter that Rove isn’t down the hall? There are things called telephones.

    I don’t think any Republican candidate would hire Rove, unless they were almost entirely out of the game. (Hmmm…I guess I would have to consider McCain then.) Rove is a lightning rod and I just don’t see how he can help a campaign. The guy behind the scenes is only effective when he stays behind the scenes.

    As for the Bush Presidency, pretty much the best thing he can do right now is just pull out the veto pen. Now that he no longer has to worry about hurting the Republicans in Congress, since they are no longer in power and associated with bills, he can do the best good and stay true to his stubborn ways by blocking all the idiotic proposals the Democrats push through Congress.

  • UCrawford

    That’s assuming he actually disagrees with the proposals or that he doesn’t think those proposals will help him look better in the judgment of history. Bush is just as much of a history whore as Bill Clinton ever was. Fortunately, so far he’s been wielding the veto pen a lot with the Democratic Congress.

  • tkc

    I don’t think anything will change. I think Rove was built up into a myth by the people dislike Bush (often to the point of derangement).