by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov. 12, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

ifting through the rubble of Tuesday's election, White House chief strategist Karl Rove found more excuses for what President George W. Bush called a “thump'n,” handing both houses of congress back to Democrats. Rove, credited with both of Bush's presidential wins, helped the GOP climb to supremacy, controlling the White House, Senate, House and Supreme Court. Bush ran a hobbled campaign in 2000, barely eking out a controversial victory cinching Florida, beginning Washington's most divisive mood since the Civil War. When the Supreme Court opted to stop manual recounts, it was the High Court, not Rove, that helped secure Bush's first win over Vice President Al Gore. Most of the country was up-to-their-necks with the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, looking for a change. Instead of handing Bush a decisive victory, Rove squeaked out a controversial win.

      By the time 2004 rolled around, the nation was still recovering from Sept 11, fighting a controversial war in Iraq, sold to Americans as “the central front in the war on terror.” Showing patience and unwilling to change horses midstream, voters gave Bush, an incumbent president, another nail-biter, barely pulling off Ohio. While some blame Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to respond effectively to “Swift-boat” ads, the country wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Kerry got close but no cigar. By 2006, with Bush's approval rating sinking, the Iraq war going badly and GOP embarrassments mounting, independents, moderates and crossover Democrats jumped ship, handing the midyear election back to Democrats. Caught flatfooted, Rove blames the GOP mishap on historical trends in which the incumbent's party typically gets slammed in midyear elections.

      More careful analysis of Rove's genius reveals essentially dumb luck for Bush's two prior victories. Clinton-fatigue, possible voter shenanigans and a right-leaning Supreme Court torpedoed Gore's hopes of becoming president. Four years later, Sept. 11 carried Bush over the growing doubts about the advisability and, yes, feasibility of the Iraq war. Rove's claim-to-fame involved capturing evangelicals, Bush' so-called base carrying “red states,” divided presumably by family values. Political scientists, as they normally do, had a field day making much-ado about SUV-driving “soccer moms,” in suburban and exurban areas. Those trustworthy demographics evaporated for the GOP in ‘06. Since Sept. 11, Rove painted Democrats as weak on national security, leaving, according to his master plan, only Republicans to protect the country against the next terror attack.

      Rove's great intellectual honesty left him blaming his miscalculation on the GOP's corruption scandals. “The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I'd expected,” said Rove, pointing fingers at unwelcome embarrassments. “Abramoff, lobbying, Foley and Haggard [the disgraced evangelical leader] added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached a critical mass,” Rove told Time Magazine, totally ignoring Bush's abysmal approval ratings tied to the Iraq war. When you really look at how Bush won two terms, circumstances played more a role than his close friend and advisor. Rove's over-reliance on the Christian right ignored the vast majority of centrists, more worried about Medicare, healthcare, Social Security and prescription drugs than limiting stem cells or banning gay marriage.

      Ignoring Bush's low approval ratings, and the reasons why, cost the GOP the recent election. You'd think Bush's chief strategist would pay attention to his approval ratings, a clear benchmark of how he intends to help his Party. When gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist avoided Bush on a campaign swing in Florida, it should have clued the Party that Bush had become radioactive. Approval ratings under 40% don't bode well for positive coattails. Yet Rove sees GOP losses as tied to corruption scandals and historical trends. He touted Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-Conn.) win in Connecticut as proof that there's still support for Iraq. Lieberman's win spoke volumes about his popularity and competence than the insanity of electing an inexperienced neophyte. Rove's reluctance to fess up stems not from his naiveté but his calculated attempt to blow more smoke.

      Rove's genius as a political strategist is mysteriously overrated. Bush's two wins had more to do with dumb luck and Democratic ineptitude than political skill. Had he really cared about holding the congress, Karl would have given Bush some new talking points and found a coherent exit strategy in Iraq. Rove knew that Bush's abysmal approval ratings were dragging down the GOP, causing problems for congressional and gubernatorial candidates. “My job is not to go out there and wring my hands and say, ‘We're going to lose.' I'm looking at the data and seeing if I can figure out, where can we be? I told the President, ‘I don't know where this is going to end up. But I see our way clear to Republican control,'” confessing that he knew the outcome but fit Bush with rose-colored glasses. Rove likes to talk about political dynasties and blame his failures on historical trends.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.