 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I’ve seen Rove in action. I’ve seen him address audiences, and perform in Q&A. Most political hands are unfit for prime time — better off in a back room — but Rove is different. He’s personable, engaging, and smooth. He’s articulate without being glib. He’s well-versed without being overbearing. He’s humorous, self-deprecating, and fun. He’s folksy but not condescending. He is plenty principled — but, in the tradition of politicos, he’s flexible.
I don’t know. Once he’s through pulling off his William McKinley-Mark Hanna act with W., I think he should run for something. Senator from Texas, governor of Texas. He would, of course, serve as his own campaign strategist — might even save some money that way. Just a thought.
Look, the president might say, Saddam Hussein is driving for weapons of mass destruction. Chances are, he’s not going to let them sit around and look pretty. He’s going to use them. And he’s going to use them on us and our allies. There are all sorts of good reasons for going into Iraq — hard reasons and softer reasons. It would be good for Iraqis. It would be good for the region. It would be good for anti-terrorism. It would be good for the world. But you know what it would be best for? Not getting our behinds torched by that SOB. W.’s the kind of president that can use exactly this language. And he should. He should embarrass his opponents: I’m the president of the United States, and this is a matter of self-defense. I have an obligation to the American people. I have sworn to protect them. That’s my job. I’m commander-in-chief, for heaven’s sake. This is what the federal government is for, above all: the physical security of the nation. Not midnight basketball, not prescription drugs, not school uniforms — nice as those things might be. The physical protection of Americans. No one else is so specifically charged with that responsibility — not city councils, not mayors, not governors, not Congress, not the courts. It falls on me. And I will do my duty, whether people like it or not. That’s what I, at least, would like to hear (more of).
Let me explain. In the ’80s, there was maybe no government official, anywhere, I found so inspiring as Netanyahu. He was deputy ambassador to the U.N. — and a regular on Nightline. He articulated the principles of freedom, openness, and self-defense beautifully. He was a dream come true. One of my fondest wishes was that he would become prime minister. And he became prime minister. Which is where the fun stopped. He proved spectacularly undisciplined, and slightly self-destructive. Also heedless of anyone around him. He rather blew it. Granted, Israeli prime minister is possibly the most difficult job in the world. But he didn’t handle it well. And now he is back to knock off Arik, who, to the contrary, has handled the job magnificently — as well as could be done in the present circumstances, I think. In fact, I think that, to the surprise of many, he has been an even better PM than he was a general. Quite judicious. Firm yet open. I can’t think of a wiser head to have in the job. And Bibi, because of his boundless ego, is set to knock him off. Lemme put it this way: I worry that Bibi’s ego serves Bibi, mainly. I think Sharon’s ego serves that country. At least, that’s my impression.
Virtually the entire country opposes partial-birth. They know it’s a barbaric practice. It makes Democrats uncomfortable. It’s nearly impossible to defend. Even Moynihan called it “infanticide.” I mean, it’s a no-brainer. We, the Republicans, oppose partial-birth, and we’re supposed to be the extremists? So Ted Koppel and the others won’t like it — big deal. The country will. Fear not partial-birth legislation. Let Lott rip on it. You won’t be sorry. And, if you’ve got power and can’t outlaw partial-birth abortion, what’s power good for?
Consider: Clinton’s two greatest achievements were welfare reform and NAFTA. Both of these were Republican initiatives, which Clinton acceded to. He was triangulating, in full (and wise) Morris mode. A majority of Democrats in Congress opposed both welfare reform and free trade. And Nancy Pelosi is with that majority. Republicans probably shouldn’t miss opportunities to say that Pelosi and her crowd weren’t even with Clinton on the most important issues that arose. Above, I said “and Hillary, I suppose.” But I bet that’s wrong. About NAFTA, I’m not sure. But I feel certain that, on welfare reform, she was with her friends and guides the Edelmans, who considered this reform — which has proved a boon to the poor all across the country — a dastardly assault.
A couple of points, however. First, it really doesn’t matter where a convention is held. You know where it’s held, mostly? On television. That’s all that matters. And second, please recall that Massachusetts has just elected a Mormon Republican governor. And it went for Reagan twice. And so on. Besides which, it’s perhaps the most appealing state in the Union, on a variety of fronts: physical, historical . . . I love the Bay State. It’s not its fault the Kennedys live there.
The man is a bully. And sometimes his tactics are what in other circumstances one would call McCarthyite. He gets to be both the brave veteran and the anti-war hero. He plays a slick and ultimately dishonest double-game. And he gets away with it, shamelessly.
Everything is cool about Chocola. First, there’s Hillsdale (rah). Then there’s the fact that he campaigned on Social Security reform, and not only survived, but triumphed. Last, there’s his name — which must be the coolest in Congress. “Chris Chocola.” But then, is Zack Wamp still there?
And never forget this about McDougal: Despite what she and the Clintonites say, no one was ever pressuring her to “rat” on the president. She had an obligation to testify — even to give Clinton a perfectly clean bill of health. It was the fact of the testimony, not the content of the testimony, that was at issue. But no one — in the media and without — on the Clinton side wants you to know that.
And those stories are increasingly common.
Good point: but the “anti-war movement” will be seen in our invading troops (fingers crossed).
Quaint, huh?
“It came to mind today when I heard Andy Card refer to Condoleezza Rice as ‘Dr. Rice’ on Meet the Press. Also, I just looked at the White House website, and Condi’s official bio is indeed headed ‘Dr. Condoleezza Rice.’ “What gives here? If Condi, as you say, prefers to do without the honorific, wouldn’t the White House chief of staff and website be the first to know? Or has there been a change in policy since your article? “I’m currently studying for a Ph.D. myself, and have become more aware of this little etiquette issue for obvious reasons. I have made a little vow to myself: Once I complete my course, in five years’ time, I will call myself Dr. or not depending on what Ms. Rice decides to call herself at that time.” Interesting. The national security adviser has requested of the New York Times that it not refer to her as “Dr. Rice.” Henry Kissinger has made the same request. But everyone at the White House refers to her as “Dr. Rice” — it’s routine. You don’t hear the same for Larry Lindsey (a Harvard Ph.D. in economics). He’s good ol’ Larry. Curious.
Peace out (or something). |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
quick word on Karl Rove: Everyone knows he’s a master strategist.
But I think he’d make a heck of a politician, too — I mean,
a running, in-front-of-the-scenes politician.
When he talks about Iraq, I wish the president would stress, a bit more,
the aspect of self-defense. Don Rumsfeld is especially good at this: This
is not a war of retribution. It’s certainly not a war of imperialism.
It’s a war of self-defense.
