NR’s editorial is well-taken, but I’m a bit confused by some of the wagon-circling (circle-wagoning?) in conservative quarters. I think pretty much everything the left said about Rove was stupid or exaggerated and many of my friends who know him personally admire both his intellect and generosity and I see no reason to doubt their judgment. But I don’t see why he should be as much of a hero as some of my friends and colleagues on the right seem to believe (see the reaction to my column at Lucianne.com, for example. Normally a friendly audience).

NR’s editorial begins: “No presidential aide in the modern era has had as wide-ranging a portfolio as Karl Rove. He was the president’s top political adviser, as well as his top domestic policymaker. Some of the opprobrium he has received from the Left is the result of just this combination: Imagine what conservatives would have said if James Carville had moved into the Clinton White House in 1993 and run a lot of the show.”

Later, after mentioning some disagreements with Rove, the editors say, “But it is hard to imagine anyone else who could have done better by conservatives in his post.” Well, wait a second. Rove is an all-powerful, freewheeling policy maker and political tactician and he’s a reliable conservative. So, why, exactly hasn’t Bush been more conservative? For months now conservatives have been grumbling about how Bush’s compassionate conservatism is a bust; how there’s ample reason for buyer’s remorse; his immigration policy is a betrayal (it wasn’t: we were warned), etc. So how is it that Karl Rove, the “architect” of all this (the “president’s top political adviser, as well as his top domestic policymaker”), is the best conservatives could have hoped for? What am I missing?