Karl Rove to Resign

The pudgy little Machiavelli who took the mantle of Lee Atwater and ran with it is leaving the White House. I suppose there's not much more damage for him to do, so it's time to go.

Various coverage:

The Economist

WaPo

WSJ

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...mania/Rove.jpg

One more source.

Quote:

---

...Rove’s son attends college in San Antonio and is said to be having trouble deciphering the advanced features of the iPhone, in particular, its e-mail deletion capabilities.

Rove is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on e-mail deletion,...

---

Hardy-har-har. :laugh4:

See ya around, Turd Blossom! ~D

Best summation I've read today:

"The man's legacy is a conservative movement largely discredited and disunited, a president with lower consistent approval ratings than any in modern history, a generational shift to the Democrats, a resurgent al Qaeda, an endless catastrophe in Iraq, a long hard struggle in Afghanistan, a fiscal legacy that means bankrupting America within a decade, and the poisoning of American religion with politics and vice-versa. For this, he got two terms of power - which the GOP used mainly to enrich themselves, their clients and to expand government's reach and and drain on the productive sector. In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains despicable.

"Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war - and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president's eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul."

Good guy, I hope he has a great life in the private sector.

"Good guy"? You're being silly again, Dave. In Rove we have one of those rare people whom left, right and middle can all equally despise.

From a conservative economist's perspective:

Medicare Part D was a betrayal of conservatism. Conservatives are supposed to see fiscal responsibility as their friend, precisely because the need to pay for what the government does should constrain the overall size of that government. This Administration let go of fiscal responsibility early in its first term and has been undermined by its absence ever since. (With the current budget target, weak as it is, we are essentially in a pay-as-you-go situation, so it's not quite so bad.)

The President's attempt at Social Security reform was the first casualty. The reason to reform Social Security is its long-term fiscal imbalance. The President understood that, even if his rhetoric was at times hyperbolic or misleading. The President lost all credibility on using that as a motivation for reform when he decided that the short-term non-entitlement budget imbalances "don't matter" and when he passed a Medicare expansion whose unfunded obligations were larger than those in Social Security. That was contradiction number one. (Read more here.)

Contradiction number two came from the President's statements that he wanted to "strengthen" the system. It is reasonable to believe that strengthening an entitlement program means putting more resources into it. There was no plan put forward by the Administration, even in the form of a trial balloon, that tried to strengthen the system with new resources. That doesn't mean the proposals were bad ideas, but it does mean that the honest description of what his plans due is to pare back projected future spending so that it is balanced by projected future revenues. The President's intentions here were both conservative and (to use Rove's word) ambitious. They just weren't presented coherently, and so they got nowhere.

This notion that the President's legacy on matters of fiscal policy--which will be written by historians (and bloggers!) that Rove can't spin--will be anything but a severe and harsh critique is what I consider the Myth of Rove.

A historian's perspective:

Rove's favourite comparisons were between Bush and McKinley and between himself and Mark Hanna, which seemed plausible enough if you simply sought to find the last time a Republican was running in a turn of the century election. For someone who has sought to hold up his "command of history" as superior, Rove must not have looked too closely at the previous decades before McKinley, which were also overwhelmingly dominated by the GOP. Rove's first mistake was to believe that Mark Hanna had accomplished something truly significant. That the party of industry and corporations prevailed in the era of industrialisation is not the product of cunning strategy or conscious realignment--it is the result of the social and political changes that had taken place in the country that undermined the base of support for an agrarian populist candidate such as Bryan. Rove's errors were not merely political, but stemmed from a misreading of the very McKinley years he claims to admire and that he wishes to imitate.

A more compelling comparison between the GOP under Bush and an early twentieth century center-right party's fate might be the Conservative-Unionist government during the same period in Britain, which was thrown out in 1905 in a massive repudiation of the government. Like Rove's strategy, the Conservatives and Unionists had ridden the wave of jingo nationalism of the South African War in the Khaki Election, which preceded their political collapse by a mere five years. The parallels between the two parties, and between the elections of 1900 and 2002 and 1905 and 2006 are intriguing.

Even that sexy Phillipina cheerleading sensation, Michelle Malkin, says "good riddance":

Gigot’s interview is titled “The Mark of Rove.” Gigot lets Rove defend himself and his legacy, and what I see, alas, is the mark of self-delusion and blindness that has damaged the White House and the Beltway GOP. Rove pats President Bush (and himself) on the back for the disastrous Medicare entitlement expansion and the aborted Social Security reform effort. We get this admission: “His biggest error, Mr. Rove says, was in not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal.” And then this:

As for what his own White House mistakes have been, Mr. Rove winces and says, “I’ll put my feet up in September and think about that.”

The Left will harp on Plameout. John Little rounds-up reaction and fresh conspiracy theories from the far Left.

But here’s what I find striking about Rove’s exit interview:

Not a word here about the Harriet Miers debacle, the botching of the Dubai ports battle, or the undeniable stumbles in post-Iraq invasion policies.

And not a word about the spectacular disaster of the illegal alien shamnesty, which will be the everlasting stain Rove leaves behind.

I repeat from the WSJ news article:

“Mr. Rove, who has held a senior post in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago.”

Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago.

Yes, there’s the legacy Rove should ponder as he puts his feet up.

Another one slips away from the Lame Duck's ever shrinking circle of proselytes......before the final bloodletting begins.

Good riddance....thanks be to the Lord of Hosts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I suppose there's not much more damage for him to do, so it's time to go.

---

For now yes, but I suspect he will be advising republicans on strategy for some time to come and successfully at that. Clearly he is unpopular but when one puts the rhetoric aside and the easy verdicts of popular culture as to the evilness of bush and his cronies, one can see that Rove is far from finished in politics.

He dosent own Iraq, and a great deal of his loss of prestige is due to the war and how it unfolded. Dependent on whom you choose to believe, that was Rumsfeld/Cheney. Of course I dont want to detract from the point, you know goodbye good ridence rove....

Wait (**points to the sky**) its blue !

Human nature, particularly politics are often made over simplistic by those who have an easy argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

For now yes, but I suspect he will be advising republicans on strategy for some time to come and successfully at that. Clearly he is unpopular but when one puts the rhetoric aside and the easy verdicts of popular culture as to the evilness of bush and his cronies, one can see that Rove is far from finished in politics.

---

The man squandered a unified post-9/11 United States for a 51% second-term victory. If he isn't finished in politics, he should be.

"Easy verdicts of popular culture"? Why, you sound like one of them "elites" I keep hearing about.

His greatest contribution to this country: MC Rove :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

"Easy verdicts of popular culture"? Why, you sound like one of them "elites" I keep hearing about.

---

Can you eloborate and clarify what you mean please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Can you eloborate and clarify what you mean please?

---

Sure, although expanding on a concise statement always feels like vivisecting a perfectly good cat.

What I was commenting on was: "Clearly he is unpopular but when one puts the rhetoric aside and the easy verdicts of popular culture as to the evilness of bush and his cronies, one can see that Rove is far from finished in politics."

Putting aside "the rhetoric" and "the easy verdicts of popular culture" is what you suggest is needed to see clearly. You are implying that people who think Rove is finished are, therefore, subject to "the rhetoric" and/or "the easy verdicts of" etc. I'm not at all clear on what "the rhetoric" is, but "easy verdicts of popular culture" has a distinctly elitist tone. It smacks of, "The howling mob may believe one thing, but we people of good sense know better."

So I riffed off the implied elitism of your phrase, and slung it back atcha by pointing out that "elite" has become a dirty word in American politics (a bit of linguistic judo performed mostly by the far Right). If one spends any time reading rightwing publications, one will stumble across "liberal elite," "media elite," "academic elite," etc., always used as a pejorative.

Since you were using a phrase that smacked of elitism in defense of a rightwing icon, I used rightwing rhetoric in my little act of reversal. Whether it was fair or not, I leave for you to decide.

Note: I worked with a Limbaugh dittohead for over a year. He actually declared the our local politics were endangered by the "liberal elite." I was so dumbfounded, I asked him who he meant, since we are in southestern Wisconsin. Are the dairy farmers the liberal elite? How about the small manufacturing businesses? The local librarians? Who and where, I wanted to know, were these liberal elites of Wisconsin? He never did give me an answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

What I was commenting on was: "Clearly he is unpopular but when one puts the rhetoric aside and the easy verdicts of popular culture as to the evilness of bush and his cronies, one can see that Rove is far from finished in politics."

Putting aside "the rhetoric" and "the easy verdicts of popular culture" is what you suggest is needed to see clearly. You are implying that people who think Rove is finished are, therefore, subject to "the rhetoric" and/or "the easy verdicts of" etc. I'm not at all clear on what "the rhetoric" is, but "easy verdicts of popular culture" has a distinctly elitist tone. It smacks of, "The howling mob may believe one thing, but we people of good sense know better."

---

How negative.

However if one considers the overall sentiment of the conversation thus far, one might see the point of the commentary that includes "Rhetoric" or "verdicts of popular culture" in contrast to Rove as a political element.

Did I miss the gist of the thread thus far lemur or did you ?

Quote:

---

So I riffed off the implied elitism of your phrase, and slung it back atcha by pointing out that "elite" has become a dirty word in American politics (a bit of linguistic judo performed mostly by the far Right).If one spends any time reading rightwing publications, one will stumble across "liberal elite," "media elite," "academic elite," etc., always used as a pejorative.

---

Excellent, that means my initial instinct was correct (and well tested here in the backroom) that it was an attempted slight. Perhaps in the future when you infer something about someones charecter on a message board you might ask what they mean (you know like I asked you) it lends you more credability, and offers more clarity as to what your actually discussing.


Thankfully I am more Libertarian then anything else and dont fall into the "verdicts of popular culture" as referenced in your quote. Of course if you had asked you might have gathered that? No matter, my point in posting in this thread was to look at Rove as the political animal and what happens next.

It would have been simple to have said "yep dont let the door hit you in the ass" of course since it had already been said.

By the way congrats on becoming a moderator (I think this is a new thing). I often find your posts to be most informative and fairly clean (however you do lean left slightly). No offence was meant by this reply or any taken from you, however now that your one of the keepers you might consider how pointed a stick you use when poking at the animals in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

No offence was meant by this reply or any taken from you, however now that your one of the keepers you might consider how pointed a stick you use when poking at the animals in the future.

---

Point taken (and pun intended), but my understanding is that being a mod in the Hardware/Software forum doesn't mean I can't post in the Backroom with my usual gusto. Beyond that, I'm bound by the same codes of honor and civility that all Orgahs are subject to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Thankfully I am more Libertarian then anything else and dont fall into the "verdicts of popular culture" as referenced in your quote. Of course if you had asked you might have gathered that? No matter, my point in posting in this thread was to look at Rove as the political animal and what happens next.

---

Um, "verdicts of popular culture" was your phrase, and it was the one I reacted to, however mistakenly. Care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Point taken (and pun intended), but my understanding is that being a mod in the Hardware/Software forum doesn't mean I can't post in the Backroom with my usual gusto. Beyond that, I'm bound by the same codes of honor and civility that all Orgahs are subject to.

---

I dont know where your a mod, but albeit for me to be easy, I'd rather be a pain in your ass now. We are all here for entertainment purposes anyway...

Quote:

---

Um, "verdicts of popular culture" was your phrase, and it was the one I reacted to, however mistakenly. Care to clarify?

---

Sure.

Right now its easy to slam Bush and his admin and anyone associated with it. Its popular, and its part of our culture now to dismiss him, and it out of hand due to the iraq foolishness.

that however overlooks the political animal that is carl rove. This thread, up until this point has been rather simplistic in its tone (IMHO). You came back with a point, that he

Quote:

---

The man squandered a unified post-9/11 United States for a 51% second-term victory

---

.

This insinuates that Rove was the only factor in the squandering, the media, nor the opposition had any hand in it? Thier portrayl (rightfully so perhaps) in how things played out didnt factor in?

No cheney? No Bush? Rumsfeld?

You left out many factors in this one example, and as I read this objectively it reads to me as pandering to verdict of popular culture. It dosent matter who the soup of the day is (rice, rummy, patreas) we seem to leep on list at nauseum everything they did wrong and point the finger.

Meantime the world passes by, and not a solution is offerred. Again, anyone can point to the sky and proclaim its blue, but few can tell you why it actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Right now its easy to slam Bush and his admin and anyone associated with it. Its popular, and its part of our culture now to dismiss him, and it out of hand due to the iraq foolishness.

---

I've disagreed with this administration for a long, long time, including those times when it was quite popular. Am I to change my position now, just because a majority of the nation has shifted its views?

The relative popularity of unpopularity of a perspective has little bearing on its truthfulness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This thread, up until this point has been rather simplistic in its tone (IMHO).

---

That sounds kinda, I don't know, elitist ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This insinuates that Rove was the only factor in the squandering, the media, nor the opposition had any hand in it? Thier portrayl (rightfully so perhaps) in how things played out didnt factor in?

---

Rove was one of the top advisors of this administration since before it was an administration. All major political decisions were vetted by him. I certainly don't blame the man for every evil on earth, and I don't think he was the driving force behind the rush to Iraq. However, I do blame him for a mentality of putting party before nation, an attitude inculcated on every level of this administration.

Party before nation? Politics of pure attack? Blatant partisanship in every forum on every issue? That's Rove in a nutshell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

You left out many factors in this one example, and as I read this objectively it reads to me as pandering to verdict of popular culture.

---

What you need, good sir, is a whole 'nother thread. You complain that I attack Rove without factoring in every other member of the administration, and that therefore I am guilty of pandering. You complain that no "solutions" are offered. Um, this is a thread about the departure of a single person from the current administration. A remarkably negative and partisan person, as well. Sorry there aren't more solutions to world problems offered herein.

At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing, besides the clear "Lemur is a panderer," and "this thread was so simplistic before I got involved" messages.

You're a part of the thread as much as I am, Odin. You want to elevate the discussion? Go for it, and don't let any lemurs hold you back.

P.S.: Mods are quite territorial, just so's you know. I have Mod powers in my designated forum, and nowhere else. I can't warn, edit, delete, move, or do anything in the glorious Backroom.

When he becomes a private citizen will that mean that he also lose "presidential privilege"? Or, does it still allow him to refuse turning over his emails?


Still, he was (is) loved:

http://www.ilovekarlrove.com/

For support:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/071205.asp

Of course he was a Machiavelian propagandist, but that just made him all the more loveable:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/...lling_2006.asp

No doubt he will remain an advisor for the RNC - dirty tricks are always in fashionthere, and nobody does it better or as blatantly. Even when the lie is proven false, it was repeated so often that some remained entrenched in them.:wall:
What a guy.

I never quite got the "Rove as brilliant strategist" thing.


He helped GW Bush win the governorship of Texas.

....in a pretty staunchly conservative state, with the man's father in the oval office, and with a GOP candidate who could butcher Spanish less readily than English.

So far I am not impressed.

He helped GW Bush de-rail the Straight Talk Express and take the GOP nom.

...by letting McCain shoot himself in the foot and attack the 700 club on its own territory within 3 weeks of the primary and then using the huge money chest that Bush had to go push-polling the heck out of it to get the CC crowd hopping mad. Effective I grant, but not exactly an essay in brilliance.

He helped GW Bush win a close race against a seated Vice President with a successful ecopomy.

...But who had all of the verbal appeal of a cigar-store wooden indian and an albatross of Bubba backlash hanging around his neck. Bush only Beat Gore by the narrowest of margins, and ONLY because enough of the left-wing crowd was so underwhelmed with Gore that they voted for Nader instead. Had just 900 of the 90 THOUSAND Floridians who voted for Nader decided to hold their noses and vote for Gore, then Rove's "brilliance" would have been negated.

He helped GW Bush win a second term.

....during a war against terror, following two rapid victories during combat (though problems with the aftermath of both), facing a candidate whose liberal track record was at a complete dis-connect with most of America and whom most Americans, when asked, thought couldn't get the job done under wartime conditions. Under these conditions, Rove helped create an "epic" 51.4% victory that would have been a loss if 50k Ohio votes had shifted direction. Rove only did better than the guy who helped run Bush 41's re-election effort.


Rove's advice to his president?

Upon reaching office, Rove spearheaded the efforts at "compassionate conservatism" that saw Bush 43 outspending any Democrat he could find while steadfastly ignoring 90% of the conservative issues that most GOPers thought they were voting to improve.

Hell, the ONLY thing I think he helped Bush try to do right was the War on Terror, and after 9-11-01 it was hardly as though Bush could have said "Oh well, these things happen." I could also argue that the WoT itself hasn't been a flawlessly executed program either.



I heard Limbaugh extolling Rove's virtues today. I agree he may well be a wonderful person (don't know, never met him). I hear Rush and others saying that Rove, and his boss George Bush, are passionate, dedicated to serving this country the best they can, working hard for the long-term interests of the USA -- but that these qualities really only come across privately and interpersonally. Maybe so (I've never been anti-Bush so I'm inclined to accept that point of view).

However, assuming this is so, wasn't letting us all know about this Karl Rove's number one job? Is his aim no better than Cheney's?


Well, I have never done that kind of job. I may be way off base here. Best wishes for him and his family in private life.

Good stuff Seamus. I've always thought that Rove was overrated- with all the fantastical things that have been attributed to him, it'd be hard not to be overrated.

I don't really expect his leaving to change much anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The man squandered a unified post-9/11 United States for a 51% second-term victory. If he isn't finished in politics, he should be.

---

Oh, I think opportunistic Democrats deserve their share of the credit as well. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I've disagreed with this administration for a long, long time, including those times when it was quite popular. Am I to change my position now, just because a majority of the nation has shifted its views?

---

So have I, and I havent shifted my view either, I just dont jump on the heap as easily as some I guess.

Maybe I'm an elitist :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

That sounds kinda, I don't know, elitist ...

---

That sounds kinda, I dont know, arrogant.

Quote:

---

Rove was one of the top advisors of this administration since before it was an administration. All major political decisions were vetted by him. I certainly don't blame the man for every evil on earth, and I don't think he was the driving force behind the rush to Iraq.

---

Yet by your own hand you state he was

Quote:

---

The man squandered a unified post-9/11 United States for a 51% second-term victory.

---

So are you picking and choosing which events you assign him status as "the man"? Its a nice popular, easy argument but hardly accurate. Within 2 sentences you claim all major political decisions were vetted by him, yet you dont think he was the driving force behind the rush to iraq.

Either you have some flaws in your argument, your wrong, or your confused on what point your making. I like to have my cake and eat it to. So which is it exactly lemur, did all decisions go through him or not?

Quote:

---

However, I do blame him for a mentality of putting party before nation, an attitude inculcated on every level of this administration.

---

I'll make a concession on this one with the cavaet that its hardly eclusive to Rove or republicans.

Quote:

---

Party before nation? Politics of pure attack? Blatant partisanship in every forum on every issue? That's Rove in a nutshell.

---

Thats a lot of politicians in a nutshell, whos that clever fello from NY, schumer I think? But mentioning an opposition senator with power would hardly make the argument that Rove is the end all be all of the evil Bush admin would it? (sarcasm, rhetorical)

Quote:

---

What you need, good sir, is a whole 'nother thread. You complain that I attack Rove without factoring in every other member of the administration, and that therefore I am guilty of pandering.

---

No, Im going to post to this thread, as a I please until asked not to by a mod. I havent complained that you have done anything, or that your guilty of anything.

Quote:

---

You complain that no "solutions" are offered. Um, this is a thread about the departure of a single person from the current administration. A remarkably negative and partisan person, as well. Sorry there aren't more solutions to world problems offered herein.

---

huh

Quote:

---

At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing, besides the clear "Lemur is a panderer," and "this thread was so simplistic before I got involved" messages.

---

Im not arguing anything, I thought it might be a good opportunity for a conversation based on an opposing view. Sadly your still not to the point of being able to do that. I mean, this isnt the 1st thread of yours I have read, I am well aware of your frame of mind (that you state here) but thats okay, my expectations might have been to lofty.

I must be an elitist after all. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

You're a part of the thread as much as I am, Odin. You want to elevate the discussion? Go for it, and don't let any lemurs hold you back.

---

Your not holding me back, I find this very entertaining, thats the reason I come here for entertainment and a few back and forths. To be honest Lemur, I think I did elevate the discussion, but Im almost done so you'll be able to get back to the highly enlightening teehees, and tahhaa's of "he's gone"

Quote:

---

P.S.: Mods are quite territorial, just so's you know. I have Mod powers in my designated forum, and nowhere else. I can't warn, edit, delete, move, or do anything in the glorious Backroom.

---

I wouldnt know and honestly dont really care what your power is, or where you weild it. You can warn, edit, delete any of my posts anytime you like for any reason.

I am very comfortable with my posting ettiquette, form, and tone. If I ever make an infraction, if I even so much as laugh at anothers post, I assure you I will be dealt with swiftly.

I don't know about the rest of the readership, but the warm and furry love bombs 'round here just have me tickled pink-o.

If you're not making any sort of point, Odin,then I'll leave you to your business, with one parting thought: apostrophes are not the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If you're not making any sort of point, Odin,then I'll leave you to your business, with one parting thought: apostrophes are not the enemy.

---

Yet you didnt answer my question (which I understand your not required too), which is it Lemur, did all decisions go through him or not?

Quote:

---

So are you picking and choosing which events you assign him status as "the man"? Its a nice popular, easy argument but hardly accurate. Within 2sentences you claim all major political decisions were vetted by him, yet you dont think he was the driving force behind the rush to iraq.

---

Is my point more clear now?

Did I spell it right? (spelling and puncutation, thats the best you can come up with Lemur?) :no:

God forbid you might have to admit your wrong.

The Washington Post has a looong piece on Rove today.

The political guru who made President Bush what he is today had hoped to leave behind a permanent Republican ruling majority. Instead, his tenure will stand as an example of how divisiveness and partisanship are not conducive to successful governance.

After years of being lauded as a political genius, Rove nevertheless leaves his party in worse shape than he found it, with his boss profoundly discredited in the eyes of the American people.

When historians look back at Bush's squandered opportunity to unite the country and even the world behind a shared agenda after 9/11, part of the blame will go to Vice President Cheney and the decision to invade Iraq. But part will accrue to Rove for choosing to use national security as a wedge issue.

Politico also has an article up.

The White House hubris after Bush's 2004 reelection now seems a faded memory. "You have to say that if (Rove) can claim credit for what happened in 2004, it is reasonable that he is somewhat responsible for where we are in 2007," said conservative leader Paul Weyrich.