November 6, 2005
SWING FOR THE FENCES
A White House Without Rove? He's not gone yet, but his Texas-size ambitions are giving way to smaller goals (Mike Alle, Time Magazine, 11/06/05)
He's weary. his wife and only child, who is approaching college, miss him. He has monstrous legal bills. His unique bond with the President is under stress. His most important work is done.A second term requires a new team, but we can't afford to turn the administration over to the second team. Time thinks that the President will be satisfied with an agenda they characterize as "small ball," a pulling in of ambition and a turning away from his desire to remake the government and the world. Seems like a good indication that the Syrian invasion planning is proceeding apace. Posted by David Cohen at November 6, 2005 1:55 PMKarl Rove's colleagues don't know exactly when it will happen, but they are already laying out the reasons they will give for the departure of the man President George W. Bush dubbed the architect. A Roveless Bush seemed unthinkable just a few months ago. But that has changed as the President's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff remains embroiled in the CIA leak scandal. . . .
If he leaves, he will not be alone. Several well-wired Administration officials predict that within a year, the President will have a new chief of staff and press secretary, probably a new Treasury Secretary and maybe a new Defense Secretary.
Rumsfeld out? Doesn't seem terribly likely.
Everytime I see the man I get the sense that he's having the time of his life, that there's no place he'd rather be.
Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 6, 2005 2:46 PMIf the war winds down, perhaps Rummy can do press briefings. Talk about Must See TV.
Remember, the same people who are telling you now what the administration's future personnel moves will be are also the ones who were saying 10 days ago it was a dead solid lock that Karl Rove was going to be indicted and would have to resign. But it fills up space in the magazine and helps perpetuate the D.C. rumor mill, which in turn creates future speculative stories to chase down (the problem being that in the old days, you couldn't just go on line and do a Google search to learn how inaccurate the stories two weeks ago were. Bad info in a print or TV report was just flushed down the memory hole, to be replaced by more bad info).
Posted by: John at November 6, 2005 3:25 PMSeems like wishful thinking on Time's part. The MSM seems to continue to believe the CIA leak story is going to continue for 3 more years until it topples Bush and Cheney but it appears Fitzgerald is finishing up.
Some new blood in the administration would be good but as OJ notes not if they are B talent.
Finally, what does Bush have on the back burner? tax reform, social security reform, more judges to appoint, and perhaps Syria. That would be a pretty big agenda if they are brought to the front burner.
Posted by: AWW at November 6, 2005 3:40 PMSomething obliquely-related, FYI:
http://tinyurl.com/9xuyy
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7606.shtml
Got this one from the Leftist blogger Danny Yee:
http://danny.oz.au/blog/
Under the title/comment,
"Bush increasingly prone to mental lapses and tantrums - CHill [via ProRev]"
And I should believe anything Time magazine tells me...why? I stopped reading that and Newsweek in 1982,in my sophmore year of high school, because I couldn't stand how much they got wrong.
Posted by: Mikey at November 6, 2005 7:52 PM