Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Re: Roving On...   [Rich Lowry]

Jonah, the praise is being too lavish in certain quarters, but that doesn't justify being too harsh. I think you're basically responding to what others have said instead of to me, but taking your paragraphs in order: 

1) I don't see the contradiction between Rove as a master strategist and a reliable conservative, so long as neither designation is blown out of proportion. He was an extremely talented guy who won two hard-fought presidential elections and, generally, was pretty conservative although he obviously wasn't Russell Kirk, James Burnham, and Frank Meyer all rolled into one. 

2) No, the Bush years weren't "a unique, staggering conservative success." But there were the substantial conservative successes that I outlined in the prior post. Why not give Karl some credit for them beyond a "to be sure" line here or there? 

3) As for America and Bush, I do think it's hard to sell limited government in contemporary America, unfortunately. Look, even you are apparently fine with expanding (Medicare) and leaving unchecked (Social Security) entitlement spending on practical political grounds. And I also think Bush has pretty obvious weaknesses. Don't you agree?   

4) Compassionate conservatives should count against Rove, but on the other hand, only a different kind of Republican was going to win. Again, the Bushies went too far and its possible to imagine other iterations of a different kind of Republican, but let's not ignore the reality of what the political landscape was in 1999/2000 (Newt, impeachment, "peace and prosperity," etc.).

 

5) Yes, the message shop was a mess and that's probably something that can more justly be laid at Rove's feet than, say, the Iraq war.

08/15 02:50 PMShare