0

TODAY'S TIMES

BORROWED OPINIONS
August 14, 2007
Editorial

Mr. Rove Gets Out of Town

Karl Rove, the architect of so much that has gone so wrong with the Bush administration, announced yesterday that he is leaving the White House to spend more time with his family. What he didn’t say is that by getting out of town he is also hoping to avoid spending any time at all with Congressional investigators.

Congress should not oblige.

The American public needs to understand the full story of how this White House — with Mr. Rove pulling many of the strings — has spent the last six and a half years improperly and dangerously politicizing the federal government. Mr. Rove is already defying one Congressional subpoena to testify about the United States attorneys scandal. He should be made to respond to that one, and should also be subpoenaed to explain his role in several other cases of crass politicization.

President Bush took a risk when he put someone so focused on politics as blood sport at the center of his White House. Once he did, he had an obligation to ensure that Mr. Rove understood that his job was to promote the interests of the American people — not solely the Republican Party. Instead, Mr. Rove used his position and power to relentlessly pursue his declared goal of a permanent Republican majority.

Mr. Rove appears to have been deeply involved in the decision to fire nine top federal prosecutors, apparently for either bringing cases that hurt Republicans or refusing to bring cases to punish Democrats. There is also mounting evidence that he turned nonpartisan agencies into campaign boosters, quite possibly violating federal law. Earlier this month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admitted that Justice Department officials attended political briefings at the White House, some led by Mr. Rove. Officials at the General Services Administration and Peace Corps, and even six American ambassadors, among others, were also given briefings.

Mr. Rove has stonewalled Congress’s legitimate efforts to investigate. Some of his key e-mail messages on the United States attorneys matter appear to have mysteriously disappeared, while others are being withheld with baseless claims of executive privilege. As for defying that Senate subpoena, some subjects might have been protected by privilege, but Mr. Rove’s refusal to show up at all is outrageous — although totally in keeping with his and his boss’s disdain for the separation of powers.

Mr. Rove failed his own party, as well as the American people, when he counseled President Bush to turn every serious policy debate — Social Security, the war in Iraq, even terrorism — into one more political dogfight. Today, despite Mr. Rove’s claims of invincibility, both houses of Congress are back in Democratic hands, Mr. Bush’s approval ratings are around 30 percent and many Republican presidential candidates are running as fast as they can away from the Bush legacy.

Mr. Rove can now contemplate that legacy from his home in Texas. But he should not get too settled in. Congress needs to use all its power to bring Mr. Rove back to Washington to testify — in public and under oath — about how he used his office to put politics above the interests of the American people.

Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Nice thoughts. Two words: Executive Privilege. Notwithstanding the overuse of the claim, I find it difficult to imagine a court, in the absence of a criminal investigation, overturning the claim with reference to Mr. Rove, given the current state of the judicial teaching on the subject.

Should a claim of Executive Privilege be allowed in matters not clearly dealing with National Security? Ah, there's the real question, one which will not be answered during the remaining term of the current administration. Relying on U.S. v. Nixon, I suggest that while the question is not directly answered in the opinion, it suggests that Executive Privilege claims are strongest where matters of National Security are in issue, but it further suggests that the privilege exists in other areas, albeit not as strongly. The analysis is similar to the famous discussion of Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet and Tube concerning the powers of the Executive.

On the question of Executive Privilege itself, I find myself agreeing with John Dean, in that it should be limited to matters directly connected with National Security, and should not be found to exist in other communications between the President and his (at least to date) advisors. While U.S. v. Nixon might be read in that manner, as I suggest, the language of the opinion does not, in and of itself, so limit the privilege.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1652688,00.html?cnn=yes

Above link to an analysis of the White House post-Rove. It suggests that the Administration will be "playing defense" for the remaining 17 months, a suggestion with which I agree.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
http://tinyurl.com/ypz39u

Try the above instead to get to the Time article (I need to remember to use tinyurl.com when in doubt).
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
http://tinyurl.com/245w65

As immigration reform seems to be a failure of the Rovian policy, I post the above link to a thought piece on allowing illegal aliens a path to citizenship after serving in the military.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
"...to ensure that Mr. Rove understood that his job was to promote the interests of the American people — not solely the Republican Party."

---------------------

I think there could be an argument about whether the interests of any part of bushco are those of a majority of the Republican Party. Seems to be more limited to the haves and have mores. Also seems to me bushco have given the Republican Party a bad name.
Yesterday when Rove was saying goodbye and how privileged he had been to "serve the people," all I could think was, "WHICH PEOPLE?" But they were pretty words, said with a catch in the throat for emphasis and I'm sure many were fooled.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Putting on Devil's Advocate hat...

If Mr. Rove's "real job" was political director (and not deputy Chief of Staff, his title), then how can it be said that he failed at his job? I am given to understand that all Administrations during my lifetime have had a person appointed to some position whose job was to coordinate political activity on behalf of the President. Mr. Rove did his real job well on behalf of his boss, perhaps too well, thus earning the enmity of many within the GOP as well as those without said party. It appears lines were crossed, and he should be answerable for that, if it can be proved. Proof, however, is problematic, and right now, all that can be said is that he did his real job very, very well on balance, the 2006 congressional elections notwithstanding.

Removing Devil's Advocate hat...
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
I need you to say that in simple enough terms EVEN I can understand.

What political activity on behalf of the President did he perform real well?

Maybe you'll have to start with an explanation of what political activity is.

Sorry. I'm trying (I know, I know. VERY trying some days!)
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
The primary job of the political director during the first term of any President is to shape discussions on policy, etc., to ensure reelection. The secondary job is to shape these discussions with the Congress such that there is support for the proposals to further the interests of the President by assuring both passage of bills the President wants and the reelection of incumbents/election of new Congresspersons who will be supportive. During the second term, the primary job of the political director is to shape the future legacy of the administration by continuing to push for enactment of laws favored by the President, and secondarily to keep working the hustings to keep support in Congress such as in the first term. The overall goal is to leave at the end of the second term, turning the country over to someone who will continue the path set by the President, with a Congress that will be supportive. Until 2006, Rove performed these jobs very well. I suggest with the FISA showdown and the Iraq debates, he continued to perform at a high level, but not as well as he had previously.

The problem with this is that at some point, political success must give way to the good of the country when the two appear to be in conflict. Mr. Rove never saw a conflict between the two during this administration. When there is a conflict, and the political director cannot see it, the President at that point must overrule, which, it appears to me, didn't happen here. I also think that in this administration, there was a third party not too often present in others; the office of the Vice President appears to have been granted extraordinary powers, which conflicted, from time to time, with the Rovian approach. One place I speculate this occurred was the way the Rumsfeld matter was handled. I'm of the thought that Rove wanted him "eased out" early summer 2006, which was countered by the VP until the results of the congressional elections were in, at which point, Rove won. Too late for his purposes, but he was the ultimate winner.

I think the AG AG matter is evidence of Mr. Rove's loss of power following the said elections. From a purely political perspective, AG should have been eased out of his position this past Spring, following his "remarkable" testimony. Here, W's allegiance to AG outweighed his adherence to Mr. Rove's advice, which allegiance I fully believe was supported by the VP. The outcome, I believe, would have been different had the GOP held the Senate, but the loss of the majority in both houses of Congress was a body blow to Mr. Rove and his continued credibility with the President.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
Thank you! I understand, professor.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
An interesting observation from good old Texas:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outl...
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
Well, that Texan said it well!
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
http://tinyurl.com/2x4lfc

Link to the expected defense from Robert Novak. The tone is a bit more muted than I expected.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Well, the author is from Houston, which likely casts doubts on his/her authenticity in the eyes of "real Texans".
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
An interesting view on why impeachment of the President and Vice President, although deserved in the eyes of the author, is not a good idea. He presents an argument which had not occurred to me before, namely, how to get sufficient Republicans to vote for conviction when removal of the President and Vice President turns the Executive Branch over to the leader of the opposition party (Speaker of the House Pelosi).

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_tr...
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Link to a very interesting opinion piece authored by a former (short time) Bush speechwriter and a fellow of AEI.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/opinion/14frum.h...
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
Did you call it "very interesting" because much of it was what you said earlier? lol

Or was it because he summed up with saying the Democrats are emulating and will go down too?
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Linda, the latter. I found his analysis on the overall situation quite brilliant, as he basically agrees with me >g<, but in light of the way Mrs. Clinton's campaign seems to be organized and is being run, I felt his final summation was quite appropriate. A danger signal.

Now, there is much that Rove and Mehlman did which does bear adoption in a campaign (the marketing, etc.), but whether the author meant to or not, he made to me the critical point that for all the political brilliance displayed in running the campaigns and winning the elections, there was a failure of governance. I don't care which party is involved, but this point needs to be remembered, kind of "It's governing, stupid" type of reminder to be posted all over the West Wing come January, 2009.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
I'm with you on that one -- no matter who and no matter which party!

I'm still having trouble with Hillary as the Democratic candidate. Mostly because there seem to be a large number of people with extremely strong negative feelings about her. Since I understand extremely strong negative feelings -- I have them for ALL things bushco, I don't see how we can begin coming together for that governing if we start out unable to get past those feelings.

I'm not sure there is anything bush could do that I would accept without questioning and suspicion. I think those who feel as I do about Hillary would also always feel that suspicion, doubt and distrust.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Linda, there are going to be strong negative feelings about both parties' candidates, regardless of who is nominated and elected I fear (assuming the front runners at present are the presumptive nominees). The country is so divided, I cannot see how it would be otherwise.

Yes, there needs to be a return to "bipartisanship" to effectively govern. Given the "bare knuckles" approach to politics which has resurfaced in the past ten to fifteen years (I'm sure any American historian can provide a few examples of past flirtations with this approach), encouraged and exploited yes by Mr. Rove to be sure, I don't see it happening. There seems to be no common bond any longer, such as the WWII vets (Senators Dole and McGovern come to mind) that allowed them to get past the personalities and work together to achieve compromise. It is an unfortunate commentary on things extant at this time.
 
posted 830 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
gster said:
 
Pssssst!!!!((Whispers: "Rove's leaving! You get the tires, and you get the chickens, and I'll handle the rest".)

"Hey Karl, buddy, before you leave town, we have a going away gift just for you ! It'll give you a whole new image!!!".
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Carville on Rove; worth the read, IMO.

http://tinyurl.com/38fgby

gster, what time's the party?
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
gster said:
 
VT- Give me a little time, I'm working up a new recipe for preparing the steel belted long underware for this project and then the fun'll begin.

Ever considered TPing the White House? Just askin', you know.
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Nope, gster, afraid of being classified an "enemy combatant". Just hypothesizing, of course.
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Just something that isn't quite related to Mr. Rove directly, but bears on his political planning and the fallout therefrom:

http://tinyurl.com/2bh38d
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
TPing was fun when I was doing it; it wasn't fun when teenage daughters lived in my house. One middle of the night I was up to the bathroom and noticed strange lights -- seemed to be blinking and flashing coming from our front yard. The orange barrels and flashers atop that had been marking some construction on a nearby bridge were in our front yard! There were flashers in the trees, three were barrels outlining the yard... And the requisite TP strung between all. I went ballistic -- it was my style as Mother of teenagers, not effective but loud. Everyone was up now and I was cracking the whip! Wayne pretty-much ignored me and dialed 911 to tell them he thought a construction site was unmarked. I had both girls (couldn't tell whose friends were responsible!) out clearing TP before the morning dew made it wet, etc.

Two things were learned later. First, the boys responsible were laying under a car two driveways down enjoying the girls out in their shorty jamas and all the bending and stretching made more visible by the lights they had placed-- at least until the police arrived at which time they left lickety split... And, after the police had called in a truck to move the orange barrels and flashing lights and the TP was all in the trash can and our household went back to bed those boys had enough time to TP the house ALL OVER AGAIN! So we woke to more TP to clean up!
 
posted 829 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search