ROVE TO RESIGN! [updated 8-14]

posted by Damozel | Huh----?  Whuh---?  Buh---?

Right here at BBC News, I found this headline: Top White House aide Rove resigns, by way of which I found the Wall Street Journal article here.  Look, it says it right here: Karl Rove to Resign at the End of August.  And now it's in The Washington Post!  Don't pinch me; I'm already sure I'm not dreaming!

I just think it's time," Mr Rove said in an interview for the Wall Street Journal, adding that he was quitting for the sake of his family (BBC News)

He thought it was time for him to go?  He thought?  And what is it with these Bush Administration people suddenly, that all their families have become simultaneously so demanding? 

Rove is the latest of a string of high-profile presidential aides to head for the door as the Bush administration enters its final stages. In recent months, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, deputy national security advisers J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan, political director Sara M. Taylor, strategic initiatives director Peter H. Wehner and a string of other longtime aides have resigned one after the other (Washington Post).

How do all the families afford it?    How----oh, never mind.  Never mind.  No doubt my more worldly and savvy colleagues will tell me in blase fashion that it's just what everyone---all the true politicos---were expecting.  I didn't; I thought he'd hang on to the bitter end, till he was pushed.

This is going to take some time for me to process. It's a bit like the fall of Voldemort in the final Harry Potter:  more anticlimatic than you'd have dreamed and not nearly as satisfying.  And of course, even if he goes, Bush and Cheney are still there. 

But the loose ends!  What about the loose ends? "Citing executive privilege, he defied a subpoena and refused to show up for a congressional hearing just two weeks ago on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee email accounts. Fellow Bush advisers have said they believe the congressional probes have been aimed in part at driving Rove out." (Washington Post)  Yes, that must have been it.  It wouldn't have anything to do with Congress rightly exerting its constitutional obligation to check the executive branch from exceeding its powers.

In his valedictory Wall Street Journal editorial, Paul Gigot noted that this way, Rove can leave "on his own terms."(WSJ ed)

Says Gigot:

He has survived a probe by a remorseless special counsel, and lately a subpoena barrage from Democrats for whom he is the great white whale. He shows notable forbearance in declining to comment on prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who dragged him through five grand jury appearances. He won't even disclose his legal bills, except to quip that "every one has been paid" and that "it was worth every penny."(WSJ ed; emphasis added)

Also:  Rove doesn't care if you think he left because of all those subpoenas and things.  With respect to the nattering nabobs of negativity who'll say he just left to avoid Congressional scrutiny, he says witheringly. "I know they'll say that...But I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob."(WSJ ed)  [Note:  "Mob" = Democrats and possibly, by now, quite a few Republicans.  "He gives me the creeps," said my Republican-voting mom, The Southern Lady, of Rove.  "I wish he'd go."]

Don't feel too sorry for him.  Gigot editorial shows that Rove is still very much on his feet.

These are the days of Republican doubt, with President Bush fighting an unpopular war, Congress in opposition hands, and a 2008 presidential field trailing Democrats in nearly every poll. But don't tell that to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's political alter ego, who even as he prepares to resign from the White House after six and a half years sees recovery ahead....

"He will move back up in the polls," says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush's 30% approval rating by saying it's heading close to "40%," and "higher than Congress." (WSJ ed.; but see  Hoping  for More Careful Analysis of Polling Data) 

Yes, if Rove says he will, I am sure it's going to happen.  After all, who predicted Republican victory in 2006?  He's also positive that the surge will put Iraq in "a better place"; that we'll see "a fissure" among the Dems re: the wiretapping issue (as if we hadn't already); and that the budget fight will help the GOP restore, "through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraints and taxes."
(WSJ ed)   

Rove also believes that there will continue to be a great big target on his back, "since," says Gigot, not at all snidely, "belief in his influence over every Administration decision has become, well, faith-based." (WSJ ed)

"I'm a myth. There's the Mark of Rove," he says, with a bemused air. "I read about some of the things I'm supposed to have done, and I have to try not to laugh." He says the real target is Mr. Bush, whom many Democrats have never accepted as a legitimate president and "never will."(WSJ ed; emphasis added)

Yes, yes, us nasty, cavilling, nit-picky, stolen-election-insisting, grudge-holding, never-satisfied, Bush-hating Demoncrats:  it's because of us that Bush's plans didn't go exactly as...um, planned. You know, knowing from the start that your governments hates you---disregards your wishes and governs only for its "base"--- has a way of creating negative feelings in return.   

And of course, it's particularly the fault of that [unexpectedly for Rove] Democratic Congress which insisted on performing its constitutional role of checking the unitary executive's unilateral expansion of that branch's power.  Which Republicans might have cause to be thankful for if Rove  turns out to be wrong about Democrats selecting "a fatally flawed" Hillary Clinton (or about her being fatally flawed).

Gigot discusses Rove "historic" political influence.  I'll say.  Of course, he frames it all a little differently from the way I do, but it's nice to hear someone say nice things about Rove for a change, particularly as he's on his way out, don't you agree?

Mr. Rove's political influence has been historic, notwithstanding the rout of 2006. His crucial insight in 2000 was recognizing that Mr. Bush had to be both an alternative to Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior and "a different kind of Republican." In 2002, the president's party gained seats in both the House and Senate in a first midterm election for the first time since 1934.

And in 2004, for only the second time in history, a president won re-election while helping his party gain seats in both houses of Congress; the other time was 1936. Much has been made of John Kerry's ineptitude, but the senator won some eight million more votes than Al Gore did in 2000, and Mr. Rove claims Democrats outspent Republicans by $148 million thanks to billionaire donations to "527" committees. Yet amid a difficult war, Mr. Bush won by increasing his own vote by nearly 25% over 2000, winning 81% of U.S. counties. The Rove-Ken Mehlman turnout effort was a spectacular achievement. If it did nothing else, that 2004 victory put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.  (WSJ ed; emphasis added)

While there's plenty I could say about all of the above, the problem would be knowing where to start...or stop.  So---for the nonce---I'm leaving it there.

In case you were wondering, he will be writing a book in which he will---undoubtedly----single-handedly, completely erase the last six and a half years so they are as if they'd never been.  He's got the power!

Over to my colleague, The Crux, on this.   I'm sure she'll have plenty to say.

UPDATE:  CENTRIST/MODERATE CONSERVATIVE BLOG REACTIONS:

Crux discusses some blogger reactions here:Karl Rove Resigns, Even the Gleeful Wonder Why. I've added some more of my own picks.   Know this:  though I lean liberal, I regularly read blogs that don't.  I already know what liberals/Democrats think of Rove.  It's interesting to explore the responses of the center-to-right part of the spectrum.

My favorite was already quoted by Crux:  Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish , who articulated my major complaint about Rove----so much so that I just can't help repeating that part.

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. 

Yes.  You know, before he started actively paying attention Sullivan was one of Bush's admirers.  This statement shows the extent of his disillusionment.

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice also states very well the disgust of this moderate Democrat with Rove in  Karl Rove has Left the Building---or has  he?

Instead of trying to mobilize like-minded partisans to tune into a program for red meat (something left and right wing talk radio both do these days), coalition building and consensus were eschewed in favor of mobilizing the passionate faithful to get them to the polls to save America (its physical security and its values) from The (Dreaded) Other Side.

The result: a polarization of America that continues, even with his departure (note by the way how some on the right and left now talk about the “mushy middle” since now people who don’t belong to either party or who aren’t totally left or right are labeled as enablers just as Rove & Co have labeled Democrats as enablers of terrorism…showing that there is a Take No Prisoners Era underway where even independent voters are painted as evil or dumb).

A more sympathetic---Jesus, Captain!---Ed Morissey at The Captain's Quarters: doesn't think the Thompson campaign will be recruiting Rovenk

Rove has proven himself invaluable to the Bush administration, and if anyone would consider asking Rove to join, it would be Fred [Thompson]. He's already defended Scooter Libby and helped him raise funds for his defense. Fred doesn't appear to fear connections to the Bush administration as much as the other Republican campaigns, and given his late entry in the race and its juxtaposition with Rove's official termination date, it might make some sense.

However, it won't happen. It's one thing to say that Scooter Libby should get a pardon, but it's another thing entirely to hire him as an aide. The same is even more true for Karl Rove. Like it or not, fair or not, Rove has served as a lightning rod for the Bush administration for too long to risk adding him to a specific candidate now. The GOP had four election cycles in which to learn from his lessons, and one hopes that they paid attention.

It's sort of ambiguous praise in a way, though it's clear that the Captain and I have different definitions of "invaluable."  Mine doesn't include "catastrophic," "fatal," "damaging," or "deadly," for example.  Okay, I know what he means, but there are times when I truly believe that if Bush had listened to the old man and had different advisers, I'd feel very different about him now.  It's the first time since Nixon we've had a president whose Administration really seemed not to give a damn about what the other side thought...I mean at all and actually to hate, despise, and feel nothing but contempt for all Democrats.  And I didn't exactly see Bush v.1 or Reagan through rose-colored spectacles.

And---via Gandelman's piece---I see that Robert Novak unsurprisingly agrees that Rove was more than value for money, though again there is a certain ambivalence about his praise for Rove:

The most useless speculation today in Washington is whom White House chief of staff Josh Bolten might choose to replace Karl Rove. He is genuinely irreplaceable. Nobody will attempt to combine the political and policy functions as Rove has done. Indeed, fellow Republicans question whether he should have attempted the feat himself....

Rove is one of the canniest and most successful managers in American political history. Yet he is viewed within his own party's ranks, especially on Capitol Hill, as part of the problem afflicting the Grand Old Party.

Rove is unique, a rare political mechanic with a comprehensive knowledge of American political history. As an obscure young campaign consultant in Austin 20 years ago, he embraced George W. Bush -- who had failed in both politics and business -- and gave him a plan to guide him into the White House....

Rove worked to build a stronger Republican base, reaching out to Bush administration officials for party building. That is nothing new in American politics, but it has seemed more blatant in the past 6 1/2 years  (Novak; links in original).

Yes, it has, hasn't it? It was nice of him to embrace Bush when he was failing "in both politics and business."  I guess if you must fail, failing upward is better than the reverse?  Though wait; I forgot.  Rove assures us that Bush will be successful   Novak concludes:

No wonder that a leading Republican has been asking around whether ferocious Democratic partisans in Congress might ease up if Rove were no longer there to kick around. That provides melancholy exit music for one of the most effective and most powerful of all presidential aides.  (Novak)

Once again, it's all about the "ferocious Democratic partisans in Congress."  It's as if people like Novak genuinely doesn't understand, even though I am absolutely positive he totally does, the source of that ferocity or the argument that the unitary executive's branch has often acted ultra vires to serve the interests of the Republican party rather than the people of this country (included hated Democrats).

Gandelman's piece contains an excellent round-up of some of the reactions of the good and the great (who are not, of course, always the same).  I recommend it.

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS:

• Bush on Spending.    
• Petraeus' Explanation re: the 190,000 Missing Weapons (w/Updated Blogger Comments)
• Media Coverage Lacking re: Expanded Wiretapping Power
• Warrantless-Wiretapping Debate Inspires Tedious Accusations 
• Senate Passes Bush's Wiretapping Bill.  ::Sigh::
• Hoping for More Careful Analysis of Polling Data   
• Still More Evidence of Vote "Caging" and Suppression
• Approval Ratings: What Do the Numbers Mean? (Updated)
• Senate Panel Subpoenas Karl Rove & Other White House Staffer
• Congress Steps Closer to Constitutional Shoot Out with Bush   
• "Executive Privilege" vs. "Contempt of Congress" Cage Match!
• Polls: More Disapproval of Bush, Less Trust in His Ability to Fix Iraq, Fear is Key to Higher Numbers?
• Bush Exercises Executive Privilege & Middle Finger, Likely Scarring Republican Party   
• The Ordeal of Sarah Taylor.
• Another Justice Department Lawyer Speaks Out
• Fourth Senior (Loyal) Republican Opposes Bush's Iraq-War Strategy
• Whistleblower Talks about Wiretapping and...
• Bush Losing Republican Support for Iraq War
• Senate Committee Issues Subpoenas
• White House Defends Cheney's Skirting of Law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300180.html?hpid=topnews

LINKED, CITED, OR QUOTED

• BBC News, Top White House aide Rove resigns
• Karl Rove to Resign at the End of August (WSJ)
• Paul A. Gigot, "The Mark of Rove" (WSJ ed.)
• Washington Post:  Peter Baker & Debbie Wilgoren, Karl Rove, Adviser to President, to Quit (Washington Post)
• Washington Post:  Robert Novak, Rove's Legacy (Novak)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300905.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300180.html?hpid=topnews

Comments

[Wild Bill]

It's not that complicated if Karl sees Romney's Iowa win as a derailment of the Christian right's political influence. No amount of sacrifice by pulling the tops off small animals could exorcize the influence of this competent Mormon.

And what irony that a snooty $35.00 fee to vote in the Iowa primary could go so far to chasten the chased.

[Toni]

If you'll forgive me picking nits here, it's more like Bellatrix dying in that final Potter book. She was a nasty bitch, but the real bad guy was still out there trying to rule the world his evil way and take down any good guys in his way. Rove as Voldemort? Hardly. We all know who the real-world Voldemort is, and you have to move a bit further up the foodchain (to mix metaphors) to find him.

[Dan Burf]

To see some of the extensive evidence that George Bush and Karl Rove stole the election of 2004 take a look at THE ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER at The Solar Bus web site. They have articles,analysis,updates, and original reporting on what really happened. Or read Mark Crispin Miller's feature NONE DARE CALL IT STOLEN on the HARPERS web. Or just read the Wikipedia entry. IT'S A SLAM DUNK BUSHIE!

[Dan Burf]

To see some of the extensive evidence that George Bush and Karl Rove stole the election of 2004 take a look at THE ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER at The Solar Bus web site. They have articles,analysis,updates, and original reporting on what really happened. Or read Mark Crispin Miller's feature NONE DARE CALL IT STOLEN on the HARPERS web. Or just read the Wikipedia entry. IT'S A SLAM DUNK BUSHIE!