Rove fancies himself the latest in a long line of political bosses such as Mark Hanna, who ran William McKinley's re-election campaign so efficiently that McKinley didn't even have to leave his front porch. In reality, Rove is a man of such limited vision and horizons he can see nothing beyond gaining power. Hell, even Hanna managed to get elected to the Senate. Rove couldn't get himself elected dog catcher if he ever decided to be a candidate.

If Rove regards Bush as Lincoln, let's play that fantasy out a little. Lincoln in no small part owed his election to the efforts of a New York political boss named Thurlow Weed. Weed had hitched his star in 1860 to William Seward, a man whose career he'd nurtured, but when Seward's presidential aspirations began to falter, Weed cut a deal for his man and threw his weight behind Abraham Lincoln.

Let's pretend that in 2000, the Republicans came to a brokered convention with no clear front runner. Does anyone think that Karl Rove would have had the foresight--the courage--of Thurlow Weed and would have cut a deal for the good of the country?

Anyone?

Thought not.

or they think we are.

Sir -- I admire the breadth of firepower you bring to the Gerson/Scully debacle -- oops! discussion -- and you are right to bring into play the rich fantasy life that has clearly figured in the White House speechwriting office since August 2001, when His Excellency decided that there were good stem cells -- those that were to all intent and purpose worthless -- and bad stem cells -- those pregnant with possibility.

And, yes, there is a strange "yarr-boo!" quality to Scully's petulance. It's not merely that Gerson hadn't been in the room when many of those twisted utterances were penned, but that this clown would collapse in a tortured pretzel of whining for not being recognized for his contributions to Bush's black-and-blue prose (it only looks purple from a distance).

As for Karl Rove's identification with Moby Dick -- sorry, Mrs. Rove, but only in his dreams...

The teaser and picture for this article indicate it's about Karl Rove, which would fit the recent news. But Blumenthal talks as much about Michael Gerson as Rove, which surprised me. The title may match the article, but the picture and teaser don't.

Hwæt!

Isn't it intriguing that in his attempt to cast ridicule on Democrats and cast himself as a victim, he summons up Moby-Dick and Grendel? Both are destructive, vicious, murderous beasts who can barely be controlled. Either this is his megalomania speaking, or perhaps his much-suppressed conscience is leaking a bit and he understands the damage he's done to the country and our political system.

I agree with the previous poster... This article was interesting on its own merits, but just because Rove is in the news now doesn't mean he has to be the teaser.

Hmm,

How singularly appropriate that Mr. Rove should see himself as Moby Dick. The White Whale brought death to all save one who followed after it. Is that what Mr. Rove is telling us he's accomplished?

'No plan survives first contact with the enemy' is a paraphrase of Moltke's, not Napoleon's. You'd think the current powers in the White House would be better read on 19th century Prussian militarism...

Well, Rove got it partially right. He may not be the Moby part of Moby Dick.

But the dick part ... that would be correct.

Karl Rove: "His most passionate, obsessive love -- after his wife -- is American history."

I'm still trying to come to grips with Mr. Rove having a wife. What's wrong with women, anyway?

There is an odd class dimension to the relationship between Karl Rove and G.W. Bush. Bush, born to wealth and entitlement with a distinct lack of curiosity and no apparent interest in history or its policy implications, is president. Rove, with a keen (though selective) interest in history and a passion for policy, is second fiddle. Like Rove's interpretation or not, the true meaning of the current administration is that the rich still rule. And smart people--regardless of their political ideals (or lack thereof) or their personal hopes and aspirations--are court jesters. Bummer.

Pax,

Dave Throgmorton

I recently read that the GWB administration is really just "Reagan II". Yet, there is a major difference the 2 men. President Reagan built his oratory around sweeping archetypes like "A shining city on a hill", or "Welfare Queens". However, President Reagan's speechwriters were always careful to make sure his rhetorical images were at least dim reflections of reality. After all, it couldn’t be denied that some people around the world admired the U.S., and we all knew people who abused the welfare system.

GWB's rhetoric operates on a whole new level, as demonstrated by his statements on the Iraq War. Some examples are (paraphrased)

"There is no insurgency"

"The insurgency is primarily composed of foreign fighters"

"'Al Qaida in Iraq' is the principal enemy in Iraq"

"We are fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them at home"

"If we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us home"

Many of President Bush's key statements are so far divorced from both reality and logic they approach being outright lies. It's hard to imagine what reality statements like "If we leave Iraq the terrorists will follow us home" could even partially reflect. The one area you could say GWB displayed signs of brilliance was his ability to attract a talented retinue of policy makers, speechwriters, spokespeople, etc., who were willing to twist the truth into a pretzel.

I could see from watching Alexandra Pelosi's documentary 'journeys with George' following Bush around his 2000 campaign trail, that he wasn't without a certain charm at times. There is a memorable scene when it's his birthday and he comes across as at least capable of being affable.

but greatness? It was said that Fuhrer was very charming with his secretaries and took pains to discuss their more mundane concerns, It's perfectly possible to accept that however 'beastly' he'd been to others, the secretaries viewed him as likeable, and rightly so, as he had showed a softer side to them.

This is the nub, is it not? you can say what you like about a human being, most of us being people pleasers, are mightily impressed when the powerful deign to give us any time or show us kindness.

I rememember thinking that the world would never be the same again after seeing that the presidential candidate for '92 was playing the Sax on Jay Leno's show.

And here for me is the most interesting facet of what comes across so powerfully in Bush and his entourage. They were going to be different to Clinton, and they were. They reeked of a macho pre-watergate 1970s vibe, the GOP as anti-therapeutic, anti touchy-feely, lock-em-up, shoot-em-first , ask'em questions later.

That's what was so shocking, I thought that world had moved on, and this sort of stuff couldn't return, it was after all the new millenium but the public had 'sort-of' voted for a bunch of buttoned-up, hard-assed emotional neanderthals, emotional assholes even.

To paraphrase Hitchens, Bush is not great, no, not in any sense. The only thing they misundersestimated about him is what a colossal disaster would befall the republic from this word-mangling buffoon and his malevolent entourage and shady backers.