The other shoe
Apr. 20th, 2006 09:02 pmWith all the talk of reorganization, there's something that keeps niggling at me about the White House. It can be summed up like this:
Why does Karl Rove still have a job?
I don't just mean this in the practical sense, that is, that Rove is the guy who turned what should have been 60/40 landslides into 50/50 squeakers that needed theft in order to be pulled off.
No, what I mean is... Bush is now a lame duck president. Nominally, he's never going to run for anything ever again in his life. Unless he brings back to life the John Quincy Adams approach and runs for the House, or the Senate, or something... which I wouldn't mind, myself, I think it's a better use of ex-presidents than leaving them out to pasture as we currently do.
So, for a guy who's never going to run for anything ever again -- why does he have a guy on staff who pretty much only does campaigns?
I've said before, and I'll bet I have cause to say it again: I look to January, 2009, with a combination of anticipation and dread. Anticipation because I can't wait for the most destructive president to the Union since Buchanan to leave office.
Dread because I don't trust him to leave.
Which brings us back to the question, which I'll elaborate:
If George W. Bush is leaving office in 33 months, and will never run for election again... Why does Karl Rove still have a job?
It's a puzzler.
Why does Karl Rove still have a job?
I don't just mean this in the practical sense, that is, that Rove is the guy who turned what should have been 60/40 landslides into 50/50 squeakers that needed theft in order to be pulled off.
No, what I mean is... Bush is now a lame duck president. Nominally, he's never going to run for anything ever again in his life. Unless he brings back to life the John Quincy Adams approach and runs for the House, or the Senate, or something... which I wouldn't mind, myself, I think it's a better use of ex-presidents than leaving them out to pasture as we currently do.
So, for a guy who's never going to run for anything ever again -- why does he have a guy on staff who pretty much only does campaigns?
I've said before, and I'll bet I have cause to say it again: I look to January, 2009, with a combination of anticipation and dread. Anticipation because I can't wait for the most destructive president to the Union since Buchanan to leave office.
Dread because I don't trust him to leave.
Which brings us back to the question, which I'll elaborate:
If George W. Bush is leaving office in 33 months, and will never run for election again... Why does Karl Rove still have a job?
It's a puzzler.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-21 04:39 am (UTC)High standard
Date: 2006-04-21 04:57 am (UTC)"Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder?"
We haven't had an actual Civil War break out in the country because of Bush's policies. (So far.) Absent that, I think it's really tough to say he's worse than Buchanan.
Of course, if he declares himself Caesar, and anoints himself George I, all bets are off.
Re: High standard
Date: 2006-04-21 01:37 pm (UTC)In keeping with the role of the "CEO President" (of Enron), he's outsourced that to Iraq.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-21 12:30 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2006-04-21 03:25 pm (UTC)hello
Date: 2006-06-26 02:35 am (UTC)Re: hello
Date: 2006-06-26 05:57 am (UTC)