|
by Paul R. Hollrah, Lincoln Heritage Institute Fellow
The New York Times editorial (“Mr. Rove Gets Out of Town,” Tuesday, August 14) is exactly what one might expect from the Democrats’ most reliable propaganda tool.
The Times tells us, “Karl Rove, the architect of so much of what 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.”
Oh, yeah? So exactly what is it that has “gone so wrong” on George Bush’s watch? Could it be the economy? The economy pumps along at a solid rate of growth while unemployment and inflation remain at historically low levels. Would the Times like to compare the Bush economic record to any Democrat administration of the past sixty years?
The only negative economic indicator is an indefinable something called “consumer confidence.” True, consumer confidence is not stratospheric, but the low level of consumer confidence is a direct result of constant haranguing by Democrats and the “drive-by” media, complaining about how bad the economy is so as to do political damage to a Republican administration.
Could it be the war that Karl has totally screwed up? From the day that the first American troops set foot on Iraqi soil it has been the generals on the ground who’ve called the shots. It’s not likely that the president, Don Rumsfeld, or any of the generals ever asked Rove, “Karl, the insurgents have changed tactics to meet our latest strategic plan. What do we do now?”
Illegal immigration? Yes, it’s possible that Rove’s advice has caused the president to fail in that critical area of responsibility. Being from Texas and having what may be an inflated view of the importance of the Hispanic vote, Karl may well have put a major blot on George Bush’s legacy by misplaying the illegal immigration issue.
The Times tells us that, “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…”
It is unlikely that the U.S. Attorneys were fired for pursuing cases against Republicans. That’s the kind of thing that Democrats do; Republicans tend to bend over backward to clean their own house before Democrats do it for them. However, it is entirely possible that Rove had a hand in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys for failure to enforce the law against Democrats. The only question is, did the administration fire enough of them?
If the Department of Justice sent less than a hundred Democrats to prison for fraud and violence in the past three election cycles, then clearly they haven’t been doing their job. A hundred fraud convictions would barely scratch the surface.
The Times editorial charges, “Mr. Rove failed his own party, as well as the American people, when he counseled President Bush to turn every serious policy debate…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…”
First, it was Democrats, not Republicans, who turned every policy debate into a “political dogfight.” When George Bush came to Washington in January 2001 he came with the sincere desire to reach out to Democrats – as he had in Texas. What he failed to consider is that Texas Democrats are a far different “breed of cat” from those he would encounter in Washington. The Democrats he would encounter in Washington are a much lower life form, a subspecies among whom Diogenes could have wandered a lifetime searching for a single honorable man…or woman.
And yes, both houses of Congress are now back in Democrat hands and Mr. Bush’s approval rating is around 30 percent. But, as the Times failed to mention, the approval rating of the Democrat Congress stands at an all-time low: around 14 percent.
The Times’ editorial concludes by saying, “Mr. Rove can now contemplate (the Bush) legacy from his house 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.”
Fine. And now that Rove no longer speaks officially for the president he can forget about political niceties. He can take the oath, seat himself at the witness table, and read a devastating opening statement filled with details of dozens of cases of fraud, violence, and intimidation committed by Democrats on behalf of Judiciary Committee Democrats – none of which have been prosecuted.
And if Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee would like to have a taste of the same, I’m sure that Mr. Rove would be happy to accommodate them.
|
