I don't like to jump on bandwagons. I like to save my commentary on the issue du jour for the comment threads of other well-thought out, or poorly thought out, diaries, because goodness knows all y'all are going to post ten to twenty diaries on the same topic as soon as the prior ones vanish off the recent diaries page.
But this one I just couldn't let go. When in hell did we conceed that Karl Rove is a genius? Seriously. Yes, we lost in 2004, and yes, it was based partially on Rove's strategy to get out the base in rural counties. Democrats didn't even show up in rural counties, so who knows what would've happened if we had. Granted.
But George W. Bush was president in the middle of a war and, most importantly, during 9/11. That someone who was president during 9/11 could only garner 51% of the vote is outrageous.
More ranting below the fold
And what of Rove's storied get out the base plan? Wasn't that plan a bit short-sighted? I could've told you then that raising emotions in the base is the best way to make sure the opposition will not do you any favors your next term. And the Swift Boats? Won the election, but lost the war, in my book.
This administration has always clearly almost relished the idea of narrow victories and slim margins. They have no problem with going it alone without a single cross-over vote. But to me, this is a flat contradiction of their other aim which is to solidify a Republican majority for decades to come. If Karl Rove is so stupid that he can't understand that Americans never like their partisans sounding too partisan and really rather enjoy being ruled from the center, then why has everyone taking to calling this man a genius??
Ahh, you may say, but he is a "political" genius, a qualifier which indicates that while he might not know hide nor hair about legislating, he's brilliant at getting people elected. But I don't really even believe that. I was not so terribly impressed by Bush's re-election campaign other than by the fact that they won. I think they blundered a hell of a lot. I think the only reason they didn't lose was due to the shoe-leather efforts of dedicated state and local parties built largely during the '80s by Lee Atwater.
Furthermore, the targeting of Daschle in my mind was a huge misstep. Daschle wasn't being all that effective at keeping his caucus in line. Daschle made Democrats moderate because he had to be moderate to win re-election. The one really great thing he did was get Jeffords to cross-over, but read the fine print and you'll see that Reid is highly credited with that. So they gained a seat. They gained Thune. Rove also created this huge problem for Republicans by forcing Democrats to ditch the guy everyone liked as a person but wasn't really getting the whole opposition party thing. Seriously, if there's someone out there who thinks Daschle was a better minority leader than Reid, raise your hand....Anyone?
They also set the precedent where their leaders are fair game. And if DeLay goes, not only is it sweet revenge, but frankly, we're better off without Daschle. Not so for Republicans and DeLay.
Ahh, but he's so good at message discipline. Alright, you have me there. Except that if you're going to give credit to someone, give credit to Ari Fleischer. He was unparalleled, and I'm sure sorely missed by the administration. Or give credit to Ken Mehlman's talking points and rapid response team which Kerry could only salivate over.
Rove is good at some things. Rove did win the election (barely) for Bush. He did keep the Iraq War popular and create a false connection between 9/11. But the thing is, there's only so far image can take you before the glass house shatters when everyone realizes the emperor has no clothes. A genius builds his house of stone.
A genius does not just think about winning the battle, they think about the war. They think post-war, and while this is apt as a description for Iraq, I'm really referring to an election. To win an election is to be in the trenches in a hard-fought battle so long it can seem like the war itself. But the war is longer. The war goes on the next day when we move back to DC and work on the Hill preparing for the next cycle. The war goes on when we recruit new troops and frame the message. The war goes on when you legislate.
And despite kowtows to his genius stating that he's seen this coming the entire time and thinks 22 steps ahead, I don't buy it. I think he thought the nuclear option would be pulled and his legislation, including social security, would be enacted just because mister genius said so. I think he thought Democrats would capitulate under the weight of losing. I think he thought he cut off our balls and handed them to us in a bag, when in reality, he just made us grow some. I think the past few months have taken him by surprise and that he's trying to counter it in a crass and ineffective manner by focusing on 9/11. I don't think the public buys it. I mean, flag-burning? The way to prove that Congress is not out of touch and uninterested in the meat and potato issues facing voters is to concentrate on flag burning?
This is political genius? I'm sorry. I guess I just have a higher opinion of genius than some people.