David Corn writes, "In a June 2006 speech, Rove blasted Democrats for advocating 'cutting and running' in Iraq. He said of the Democrats, 'They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going ... to be with you for the tough battles.' But isn't Rove now doing the same on a personal scale? He is departing the White House when the going in Iraq is as tough as it ever was."
Yup, it's what these chicken-hawk Republicans do, create fiascoes where others sacrifice, but they slink off unharmed (physically), hoping to escape blame, moving on to serve only themselves.
Conservative Andrew Sullivan writes:
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.Did I mention that Sullivan is a conservative? Count him among the many former Reagan officials that I've cited on this blog who have expressed great disdain and alarm for what this administration has done to the country, of course led from start to almost-finish by this pudgy, crazed, monocled lunatic.
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.
Long-time follower of Rove, James Moore, writes:
When I first started reporting on Karl Rove in the late 1970s, I was impressed by his singularity of purpose and his willingness to say or do whatever was necessary to succeed. This amorality, a complete lack of concern for right or wrong or harm done, will be his legacy in the American political process. Lives and careers might be destroyed, great institutions compromised, the truth sullied until it is unrecognizable, but all of that will be acceptable collateral damage to Karl as long as he and his party and candidates have won the day.Just more irony from these clowns, Rove relied so much on the religious right, and yet here he is a non-believer. He had to be considering his many heinous acts committed.
All of the institutions of our government, like our judicial system, which used to be considered politically sacrosanct, have now been polluted by his political ambitions. Changes in environmental regulations allowing the clear-cutting of forests have been renamed The Healthy Forests Initiative while deregulation of factories discharging dangerous particulates into the air has taken on the Roverian brand of The Blue Skies Initiative. He hides our own complicity in his disgusting work through the manipulation of language and we are comforted and less resistant. We all ought to be ashamed; not just Karl.
[I] am confident history will condemn Rove and view him as a man who divided his own country to win and cared not a scintilla about the consequences of his actions beyond political victory. I have been accused for more than 25 years of overstating Karl's importance and his influence but I am certain history will judge him the most profoundly disturbing political force our country has seen in almost 100 years.
Grover Norquist penned a predictable valentine to Rove, basing it on a twisted version of history. He claims Rove "reenergized the entire Reagan coalition in South Carolina" to move Bush ahead of McCain, but Grover neglects to mention how Rove went to the gutter to achieve this win (recall push-polls, illegitimate black baby, etc.). Norquist crows about the Gore defeat, but neglects to mention Gore actually received 600,000+ more votes than Bush, needing the help of Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court to snatch the win away from the former VP. The win over Kerry is likewise hailed as a big win, but no mention of the Swift Boat smear campaign or coordinated intimidation tactics at the polls. To put it mildly, Norquist is quite delusional.
So why is Rove leaving? Many speculate it's so he can get ready to play a big role in the 2008 election, but he could've stayed in the White House to do that. After all, he conducted all things political while working under Bush, what would have changed?
Another guess is it could mean an indictment is coming (finally) and given all the scandals in the hopper it was deemed best for him to be already gone. Maybe.
I'll throw another potential reason out there: it could make way for Gonzo's resignation. Imagine Alberto having to quit with Rove, the boy "genius," still in power -- it would make Rove look bad. But more so, with Rove creating an exit wake he makes it more palpable for another high-up official to follow (of course, for family reasons). With Rove leaving, it creates a symbolic notion that it's over, this administration is winding down. Again, just another theory.
We may begin to see less fight and more immediate spinning of GW's legacy. They may feel the need to start now since it's almost conventional wisdom that Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. To change that accepted belief will require massive amounts of propaganda, distortion, and lies -- and we know Karl is up to the task.