Today while listening to NPR I heard a Carl Rove in an interview state that the President wasn’t worried about his legacy. White House staffers were told to not worry about the legacy and they should focus on working on good policies. He said that the President told me he would be, “Old and stuck away in a nursing home when the historians figure out [his] legacy.”

That is an excellent sound byte (and why Mr. Rove has a job), but is it true?

I would argue it’s not, and that the President’s goal for a legacy is actually pretty clear; he wants to be the President who brought peace and democracy to the Middle East.

I think prior to 9/11 he might have been on a course to just spend his time in office and let the historians sort things out, but after he saw an opportunity to do what many Presidents have attempted and failed. It was political gold and gave him a strong platform for his bid in 2004.

Nothing stealthy about it really, and certianly nothing that historians would be needed for to figure out.

There is nothing wrong with President Bush wanting this to be his legacy either. Democracy is a good thing, and bringing it to a region that is traditionally oligarchic is a nobel goal; the stuff of which legacies are made.

But the President and Mr. Rove shouldn’t pander to a sound bite, they should just state their goal. It’s not really a secret, anyone who opens a newspaper can figure out the real-deal. I think the fact that the White House feels it necessary to dumb down this message so it sounds nice in a 10 second pacakge is an interesting comment on their confidence in Americans.

Mr. Bush, just tell us what you’re plans are for your legacy without all the spin. Get your plan defined, layed out and then get it done and bring the troops home. Democracy in the Middle East is one thing, but no one wants to sacrifice their loved ones so you can feel good about yourself and build your legacy.