Should Karl Rove Resign?
Only if our policy is to appease the enemy.
It’s a question Mark Tapscott explores. In doing so, he examines some important issues pertaining to the current effectiveness of the Administration.
Tapscott expresses concern:
“It seems clear now that Karl Rove is indeed preoccupied with defending himself in the Plamegate scandal and avoiding indictment by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. That means Rove can’t do what he has always done - keep Bush and the administration focused and moving forward on the basis of a coherent, aggressive political strategy.
In other words, the administration is rudderless. That means it’s time for Rove to step aside and the President, for better or worse, to find a new chief political strategist. Before it’s too late.”
Karl Rove has indeed been too distracted by personal damage control to focus effectively on the job at hand. And that’s part of the Dems strategy.
There’s no disagreement that the Administration has lost its “mojo” and is failing to capitalize, politically, on current events. It’s a shame. The tactical errors Tapscott highlights are missed opportunities for Bush to bolster his agenda. But it appears that some of the fight is gone. The cowboy swagger softened.
We expect the MSM to ignore the greater implications of the events transpiring in Paris. But for the President and the leaders of the war on terror to avoid the discussion, that makes no sense. Are we going to wait until something erupts in one of our cities? Can’t happen? Maybe not today. But given time and continued neglect of domestic policy, and we may arrive at what the French are dealing with.
Paris offers us a double entendre: showcasing both problems of unmanaged immigation policy and the subsequent dangers of Muslim extremism growing unchecked within a western nation.
As for Karl Rove, whether or not his days are over remains to be seen. But we believe that his resignation would not improve the Administration or renew Bush’s credibility, but would only serve to embolden our opponents by giving them something to point to and sensationalize as evidence of wrong doing. It’s a classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Better to hold the line, and get more aggressive. What would Clinton do? Exactly.
Any sign of weakness will only make the President more vulnerable to attack.
November 6th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
How can The White House fight back?
John Hinderaker and William Kristol are concerned at the Bush Administrations seeming unwillingness to fight back against the latest dishonest political shenanigans from the Left. Mark Tapscott thinks the problem is that Karl Rove has too much on his mind