Rich – I don’t think we’re going to settle this here. But a couple points.

First, I think again you miss my point on the Social Security and Medicare thing. The reason it seems I’m hitting him coming and going is that we’re being told two things simultaneously: that Rove is a master technician of the political craft and that he’s a philosophically grounded conservative. If we were told that he was just one or the other, he’d only be vulnerable coming or going. But since he’s supposedly both things, he’s vulnerable on both fronts. This tension between Rove as the master strategist and reliable conservative remains problematic for me. It wouldn’t bother me if the praise for Rove weren’t so over the top. You may be right I’m being too harsh, but the encomiums are way too lavish as well.

Second, the case made by Barnes, for example, is that Rove was responsible for getting Bush elected and re-elected and…that’s about it. For this he’s seen as a titan among tacticians? A giant standing on the shoulders of midgets? What about his role as the dominating political force within the White House? What did he accomplish on that score? Some good things, to be sure. But nothing that lives up to the hosannas. I mean you’d think the Bush years counted as a unique, staggering, conservative success. That’s not the case I’ve heard around here and among friends on the right of late.

Third, What does this analysis say about America or Bush? Is it really the case that the political undertow in this country pulled so profoundly in a liberal direction that it took a world-historical genius to come up with a “different kind of Republican”? Or does Rove’s genius derive merely from being able to get Bush elected? Was Bush such a weak candidate that only the Galileo of political consulting could get him over the top?

Oh, and this “different kind of Republican” formulation should count not a bit against Rove as a conservative? Compassionate conservatism and “different kind of Republican” always struck me as a slam against traditional conservatives. But the Rovians tell me that it was not only genius, but absolutely necessary. You’re right, I don’t buy it.

Lastly, I also think you’re right that there’s a lot that’s been missing from the anti-Rove case. But also from the pro-Rove case. The Bush communications operation, at least prior to Tony Snow’s arrival, was at best mediocre and often plain terrible (leaving out some masterful speeches). This differed starkly from the campaign model where Rove & Co. had some real message discipline. This was unforgivable because the chief problem with Bush as a politician is that he’s not a very good salesman. His heart’s in the right place, his instincts are often laudable, but he simply isn’t a great political salesman. How responsible Rove is for the administration’s message mess, is a mystery to me (forgive the alliteration). I suspect that Bush’s penchant for loyalty over talent played an important role. I think you’re right that the Iraq war and Katrina were stakes through the heart of the Bush administration and blame for them can rest only lightly, if at all, at Rove’s feet.