Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Robert Novak :: Townhall.com Columnist
Karl Rove's Legacy
by Robert Novak
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


WASHINGTON -- The most useless speculation today in Washington is whom Chief of Staff Josh Bolten might choose to replace Karl Rove at the White House. 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 was a principal target of congressional Democrats even before February 2005, when he became deputy chief of staff in addition to senior adviser to President Bush. But the combination of the duties intensified the assault on him. Prominent Republicans of late have privately expressed the desire that he leave the government in hopes that might diminish the intensity of the Democratic assault.

While Rove decamping back to Texas is unlikely to defang the opposition, the mere fact that it is mentioned as a possibility reveals the ambiguity of his legacy. 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, Texas, 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.

But that victory in the 2000 election was so narrow -- a margin of less than 1,000 votes in Florida and one Supreme Court justice -- that it brought with it Democratic rage at Bush as an "illegitimate" president. In reaction, Rove went to work to build a stronger Republican base, reaching out to Bush administration officials for party building. That is nothing new in American politics, but has seemed more blatant the last six and one-half years.

The combination of party and policy was epitomized by the distribution in the White House of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts, with presidential aides given party BlackBerrys. This lethal melding was confirmed after the 2004 election victory, when Rove as deputy chief of staff took on policy as well as political duties.

He was at that point heralded in GOP ranks as a master politician, designing a ringing Republican victory in the 2002 midterm elections sandwiched by his guiding a flawed candidate to two presidential victories. But gratitude in politics is not forever. Republican congressional cheers turned to jeers after the 2006 losses.

Rove has not helped his popularity on Capitol Hill in his talks to new congressional candidates for 2008 that blame the 2006 elections on profligate spending and numerous scandals by the Republican-controlled Congress. To many Republicans in Congress, the Democratic victory can be traced to the Iraq war and a decision by Bush and Rove to "nationalize" the midterm elections.

Rove always had been a happy warrior, self-confident in building a broad-based Republican majority. But his joy of politics was diminished by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of him in the CIA leak case. Although Fitzgerald knew from the start that not Rove but the politically nondescript Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was my primary source in identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, the prosecutor came close to indicting Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice. Rove rivaled Bush as a hate-figure for left-wing politics.

Joseph Wilson did not know the identity of my actual source when he talked about "frog-marching" Rove into jail, setting a mindless pattern soon followed by bloggers and politicians alike. A talkative juror, after convicting Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, expressed sorrow that it was not Karl Rove.

The desire to get Rove has outlived the Valerie Plame case, with Democratic lawmakers trying to make him the target in the fired U.S. attorneys case. Since there will be no impeachment proceedings against the president, Rove has been the best available surrogate.

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, most powerful of all presidential aides.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert Novak (1931-2009) was a syndicated columnist and editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Reading About Rove
The August "Atlantic" has a special feature on Rove.

tanabear
You make the same mistake as many on the Left do about Rove. Karl Rove did not make policy -- he just structured the President's message to win as much support for Bush policy decisions as possible.

I highly doubt Rove selected Harriet Miers or his immigration policy; those decisions originated with Bush.

would agree with the lack of preparation on the Dubai ports deal, Rove may not be the man to blame for that as much as it was Andy Card and the White House press team.

Bush makes the policy and the appointments, and men like Rove sell them. You can't blame the salesman for the product.

tanabear
The left hates Rove for beating them twice with the anointed men who were to be President and were beaten by Bush.

What you mentioned were Bush programs he thought up and Rove had to sell them.

Moral disaster? You must have been asleep during the Clinton years.

Karl Rove leaving
Karl Rove, a Neocon, a conservative pretender (like most in the Republican Party), leaves. We should be celebrating! Good riddance! We can only hope that Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons will soon follow. There is nothing conservative about the Neocons!

Rove Rage
It is remarkable that nothing will set off the partisan boo-birds like success. Karl Rove engineered three successful elections in a row for his party, something that no other political manager has done in over 60 years. No wonder the left wing loonies hate him. He has consistently kicked their booty.

I have a feeling Karl will be back, and give the Dems indigestion, and a swift keyster kick, once again.

Views on Rove
may depend on whether your Democrat, Republican or conservative.

From A ‘Great Society’ Conservative: [1]

"THERE is a paradox at the heart of Karl Rove’s tenure in the White House, and it is a key to understanding why he failed to remake American politics, despite ambitious plans to do so. In seeking to establish a lasting conservative majority, Mr. Rove violated one of the central tenets of modern conservative ideology: the idea that government cannot effectively refashion American society.

"For decades, conservatives have inveighed against what they consider to be the hubris of liberals — the belief that regulations, laws and bureaucrats can contend with deep cultural forces....

"Whether or not one accepts Rossi’s Law, there can be little dispute that Mr. Rove pursued his vision of a new political order with the activist zeal of a 1960s Great Society liberal....

"Mr. Rove married a liberal’s faith in the potential of government to a conservative’s contempt for its actual functioning.....

"If nothing else, Mr. Rove has strengthened the conservative critique of what happens when you try to engineer great societal changes through government policy...."

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/opinion/14green.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[2] Rossi'sLaw: “the expected value for any measured effect of a social program is zero.”

Never Pass Up An Opportunity
Its hard to add anything significant to the comments already made but when the opportunity is there to help kick the genius' rear, do it. Since I am almost as ignorant as the common American as to what really happens in the White House, I am willing to blame Rove for most things that Bush has screwed up. Rove is not a genius. I believe that he steered Bush in most matters even if it were just to nod his head yes or no. My sense is that Jorge Bush cannot connect more than two dots. Rove is one complete disaster. Many of the currents faults of the Republicans (White House and Congress) are directly linked to Bush who is connected at the hip to Rove. Democrats couldn't have possibly asked for anyone more stupid than Rove. Bush and Rove badly screwed up one huge opportunity to cure some of the problems created by past political geniuses.

The Left's Boogeyman
The left looks for the boogeyman in every closet to explain away everything they don't understand or can't control. I hope Fox News is pursuing Rove for a job with the elections approaching, if the RNC doesn't give him one.

Rove vs. Bush
Rove was clearly a genius when it came to winning campaigns. However, the most telling statement by Novak is that Rove took Bush, who had failed at both business and government, and crafted a plan that turned him into a political winner. There was a reason that Bush had no history before he became governor in Texas, and there is a reason his Presidency has been so divisive to his own party. He was, after all, remade by Rove into an image that could be sold. Beneath the image, however, was a man who had few apparent principals that guided him as President. Reagan, on the other hand, was driven by principals which he convinced the American people to support.

Ultimately, it caught up with Bush. You either believe in smaller government - or you don't. You either believe that you control spending in order to keep more of the money in the hands of the private sector - which will use it more efficiently to grow the economy - or you don't. You either believe that you should tread carefully when the matter of nation building arises, or you don't. You either believe that your base matters, or you believe only that your image matters and ignore your base.

And once your base begins to realize that you have little or nothing in common with them, you then find yourself as Bush does today, isolated and disliked.

Too much hub-bub
Over a deputy chief of staff.

They must have been dreaming
Novak writes: "Prominent Republicans of late have privately expressed the desire that he leave the government in hopes that might diminish the intensity of the Democratic assault."

They're clearly dreaming. The intensity of the assault has more to do with whom the Democrats are than with who Rove is. He'll leave, and they'll take their angry venom and direct it at another Republican.

I completely understand the wishful thinking that makes the soldier under bombardment think "Maybe they'll stop shelling me in a minute," but it has no place in warfare. What these "prominent Republicans" are demonstrating is why the Republican party so frequently capitulates to screeching Democrats -- they vainly hope that this time, they'll finally stop being so vicious. But just like the last time, they won't stop, they'll just shift.

And thus, the Democrats will continue to steamroll our liberties and our culture, until men rise up who recognize the vicious enemies for what they truly are, and simply vanquish them without apology.

Karl Rove...
...was targeted by the Dems because he wins elections,and for no other reason.In fact,he wins them better than anyone else in Washington,and this was also why Fitzgerald went after him.It was the Republicans in the Congress that lost the 2006 election,not Karl Rove.

The Dems can only wish they had a Karl Rove in their camp,and if he is a neocon,then we need more neocons in Washington.A LOT more!

What social changes?
re lonestarblues, 7:50 AM...

I understand that you're quoting somebody else's article, not voicing your own opinion. But you left out the analysis. What government-funded social change is the author saying Rove pursued?

What government expansion has occurred during the Bush years has been the result of attempts at bipartisanship, not any particular social agenda.

Common Decency
Rove with his failed realignment of American Politics proves there is still Common Decency in this country.

Rove VS Liberalism
Karl Rove well knew that America has four enemies.
One is Al Quada ,One is the leftist media , One is the UN and of course the worse enemy of all to America is their outright JOB OF MAKING A PACIFIST WELFARE/SOCIALIST LOVING America ..that is always wrong Liberalism BASED ON MARXISM.
kiss butt to our enemies is their only marching order .Your enemy hates cowards and beheads you first just for the
record .
Al Quada would tell you that as well .After all you want to turn Iraq over to them and Iran ..plus not listen too or profile Moslem men between the ages of 17 and 44 who do 98.7 % of the suicide bombing world wide .Who have clearly stated they want to destroy our freedoms and democracies world wide .
Taken from the Art of War .Quote .HE who stabs you in your back is always a friend from within , NEVER THE ENEMY TO YOUR FACE .
Al Quada knows that as well as do Liberals who seek our defeat to win in 08 no matter what the cost to our nation .
It is the only way for Liberals to win in 08 ....Never based on truths, facts , reasons or Principles .Spin masters and liars all .
America is not broke it is only the minds of the left than need some reality #101 repair .

K. Rove gets the credit again...
...for the 2000/04 success and the GOP base gets none. Shows how upside-down and backwards smart people can get. The Bush/Rove team has rip'ed the GOP apart. They have zero respect for the base. Actually it goes beyond that. They have true contempt for the GOP base. Because of the stubborn, rigid/inflexible and arrogant attitude of the Bush/Rove team, they have damaged the GOP and greatly diminished the GOP's chances in '08. And they could care less! Winning in '08 is simply not a high priority for them! DD

Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Re: Darvin Dowdy, 9:44 AM

DD wrote: "Because of the stubborn, rigid/inflexible and arrogant attitude of the Bush/Rove team, they have damaged the GOP and greatly diminished the GOP's chances in '08. And they could care less!"

I'm not saying you're wrong. I just think it's curious that your complaint is "They're not governing according to what sound partisan politics dictates."

More often, the complaint about politicians is precisely the opposite: "They're governing according to partisan political considerations, not their principles or the good of the nation."

DD, I think you're just one of those foolish people who complains when you get what you want, because "what you want" was a foolish request to begin with.

Take a lesson: governing according to principle or perceived good may not give the average man-in-the-street what he wants.

Rove: The Biggest Rat Jumps Ship
Things must really be bad for the increasingly maligned/unpopular Prez Bush when his chief advisor and "mastermind" jumps ship on his sinking "Titanic" like presidency.

Good riddance to one of the most divisive political figures of recent times.

Newsflash: Pot Calls Kettle Black
Re: Left Angle, 10:22 AM

I simply can't imagine what goes on in the heads of people who screech like 3-year-olds robbed of their favorite toy for 6 1/2 years nonstop ("STOLE THE ELECTION!" "WHERE'S SADDAM?" "OUTED PLAME!" "FROG-MARCH!") and then blame their VICTIM for being divisive.

Left Angle, did it occur to you even once that what makes Rove "divisive" is YOUR REACTION to him?

The source of division in America is in the mirror, mon ami. I suggest a long, hard look there.

inkling_revival
From earlier link: "As Mr. Rove sought a political realignment that would create a durable Republican majority, he seized on government as his chief mechanism. He tried to realign American politics principally through the pursuit of major initiatives that he believed would reorient a majority of Americans to the Republican Party: establishing education standards; rewriting immigration laws; partially privatizing Social Security and Medicare; and allowing religious organizations to receive government financing."

Social security reform is about the only conservative effort in the lot, regretfully it failed. We should add tax cuts, but what value if not accompanies by spending cuts? So let's add the biggest growth in spending since LBJ if not FDR. And growth in spending translates to growth in government. Why wouldn't that gain bipartisan support from liberals, worried, especially, Bush was stealing their thunder.

It's not all Rove's doing, Bush and Congress took their cake and ate it too.




Nobody can be
as bad or as wicked as those who don't really know him, paint him. That also goes for the demonization of Cheney and Rumsfield. These are dedicated public servants who gave a lot of their adult life to public service (just ask their families). Just because there is a real difference in theory of governance does not make the person with whom you disagree a demon. But then, the strategy of the democrat party has been to call names, declare defeat, label Bush as the worst president in history, call Cheney "darth vader", constantly label Bush as dumb and stupid,suggest that Rove is Bush's brain, label attempts to fix social security as a horrendous grab to take away social security.....I could go on and on but that has been the history of tactics for the past 6 years.

Here Come The Monnbats!
I figured this column would bring out Liberal Crybabies, Filthy Hippies and other Democrat Losers.

Karl Rove is a terminal politician. He is just taking a little break before he goes to work for Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. For the next 1 and ½ years, Liberals will have to find someone else to direct their Pre-School Level Hissy Fits at.

BTW, did anybody see the snide comments from Mr. Elizabeth Edwards and Schmuck Schumer regarding Rove’s departure? Two more Liberal, Girly Men heard from.

Karl Rove.
Bush lost big here, and so did the Democrats; their lightning rod is gone!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/political-bombshell-karl-rove-has.html#links

inkling revial: Rove IS devisive...
apparently you havent followed or heard his very derogatory/hateful rhetoric about democrats/liberals over the years he "masterminded" Prez Bush elections etc.

Rove literally spits out the words "democrat/liberal as if they are profane,
useless, and to be scorned in his mind. And
that is exactly what makes him divisive.

good riddance to him and his followers.

Poor Ole Karl
Hey Left Angle,

I'm just a private citizen living my life as unobtrusively as I can but I spit out the words "democrat/liberal" as if they were WORSE than profane - and I do it pretty consistently.

I myself don't think divisiveness is a bad thing at all. In fact I love a good factional fight because it tends to keep "activists" occupied amongst themselves and out of my personal life for a while. Also at some point take the time to explain to me why I shouldn't view collectivists with scorn. They view me as a provincial neanderthal who "just doesn't understand..." because I want to be left the hell alone.

Does that make you feel any better?

Don't forget
You can't blame the democrats for the republican agenda that drove the drug bill, no child left behind, or the rest of that agenda. That was pure Bush. Rove and Bush drove the drug bill through in the fall of 04 because they were sure that it would swing the elderly in the vote. The fact that it will cost almost as much as medicare - was of no interest. And never forget that many who have criticized the adminstration's execution of the war were right. Stay the course was a total failure as a policy - as the surge is demonstrating. The failure to address security with an aggressive military has shredded Iraq. The political landscape that existed in 04 is now gone. Millions have been displaced, hundreds of thousands killed or injured, and the country divided increasingly into sects. All you have to do is listen to the Sunni's these days to know how far from a government of national unity we have now come. Bush's lap dogs, of course, defended every step -blamed the media, blamed the Democrats, and blamed anyone who dare suggested we needed the boots on the ground to provide security. Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush used the wrong strategy - and for that they bear the responsibility.




Rove and Bush are both brilliant
History will ultimately judge Bush's Presidency and will probably rate him somewhere in the middle of the pack. He's no Ronaldus Magnus... no Lincoln... no Washington. But he's WAY above Carter and Clinton on the list.

Bush's accomplishments may never be appreciated because so much of his two terms was spent cleaning up messes left by his predecessor. Rove's part in the Bush-43-era will probably be a mere footnote in the history books. He was obviously more integral than a "footnote".

Richard: Actually i agree with you..
I think it would be dull if everyone in politics
agreed all the time.

I never said Rove wasnt very good at what he did.
Actually he was quite effective. And what he was good at was divisive partisan politics. lol

After Newt Gingrich left office dems needed new
repub/con boogeymen to demonize. Bush, Rumsfield, and Rove served that purpose with excellence. Dems pointed to them as everything
WRONG with Repubs/Cons.

repubs do the same thing with the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha..

politics is a vicious game..NO softies or pubshovers allowed. lol

Eben
And the terrorists had no part in any of the killings? This whole blame Rove/Bush thing is getting so old it has mold on it. When are the libs going to blame the terrorists for deaths in Iraq, Israel, or the Gaza Strip? If all this is going on 6 mo into a Clinton presidency, who will you blame then? Hillary? Didn't think so. And where is the Dem strategy for winning Iraq that we heard so much about 10 months ago? Oh, didn't really have one, sorry. Thought so.
Left Angle, no one is more devisive as someone that just stands on the sideline being a cynic. And God knows, the Democratic party is full of those. They've preached nothing but defeat, failure and hopelessness for 6+ years now.

It's your imagination, Left Angle
Re: Left Angle, 11:11 AM.

LA wrote: "Rove literally spits out the words "democrat/liberal as if they are profane,
useless, and to be scorned in his mind. And
that is exactly what makes him divisive."

Actually, LA, you're proving my point. I've heard Rove talk, and he does no such thing as you describe. It's how YOU HEAR HIM that makes it sound derogatory to you.

In general, I find liberals often get upset when others describe their behavior precisely. Sometimes when they hear what they sound like outside their own heads, their moral emptiness and selfishness becomes obvious, and they think they're being maligned. What guys like you don't realize, Left Angle, is that your own behavior maligns you. All we have to do is hold up a mirror.

Principles
Rove did packaqge and sell Bush for lo, these many years. Who packaged Reagan? Who sold him to us? Reagan, that's who. He had a principled approach to public service. It's time we nominate a principled person again. There is only one. Duncan Hunter Is A Straight Shooter. Duncan Hunter Walks the Walk.

Big Black dog
You just made my point. Cynicism at it's best. Thanks!

Rove really is conservative, actually
Re: lonestarblues, 10:40 AM

I think the analysis of the article you're quoting is incorrect. All of what he cites is mainstream conservatism.

"Establishing education standards" -- given the unfortunate fact that liberals control educational theory by virtue of their grip on teachers' colleges (look up John Dewey and Columbia University for further explanation), and the further fact that liberal educational theory emphasizes intangibles over measurable performance, establishing performance standards was a conservative beachhead on a liberal continent. Granted, we would prefer that the government not be involved in education at all, but given that involvement, standards are better than no standards.

"Allowing religious organizations to receive government financing" -- We hard-core conservatives prefer the pre-civil-war conviction that the Constitution forbids government charities. However, again given the fact of government aid, allowing church-related charities access to the trough was a conservative corrective. Once again, this is a conservative beachhead on a liberal continent.

"We should add tax cuts, but what value if not accompanies by spending cuts?" -- greater revenue overall, that's what value.

"So let's add the biggest growth in spending since LBJ if not FDR. And growth in spending translates to growth in government." -- Not always. War spending is an exception conservatives recognize, and that doesn't increase government power on the whole.

The Medicaid and Education spending increases were cooperative items offered the liberals in Congress as conciliation. Yeah, we don't like those. But I don't think they had much to do with Rove "buying" the conservative base.

Big Black Dog
When are you going to stop reciting long-discredited conspiracy lunacy and actually engage your brain?

inkling revival, ret msg et al
inling revival:

I have heard Mr. Rove speak many times before at
it's no illusion. The man detest demcrats/liberals and the derision and contempt he holds for them is in his voice when speaks of them is easily detectable. You dont detect it because it's probably like symphonic music to your partisan predjudiced ears....lol
your "precise" decriptions of liberal behavior is nothing more than rightwing propaganda used to prop up your false perceptions of your opponents in the first place, but its all good.

Retmsg:

you said:

"Left Angle, no one is more devisive as someone that just stands on the sideline being a cynic. And God knows, the Democratic party is full of those. They've preached nothing but defeat, failure and hopelessness for 6+ years now."

with all due respect what democrats have been doing for the last 6 years is accurately describing the abject failure of President Bush's tenure in office, particularly with regard to Iraq. what you dont understand is that dems dont view Iraq as a win or lose situation.
We see it for what it is: a rather large foriegn policy blunder of historic proportions by prez
Bush that needs to be corrected. "Winning" in Iraq is nothing more that empty rnc rhetoric and
propaganda.



inkling_revival
You say "Rove really is conservative, actually...I think the analysis of the article you're quoting is incorrect. All of what he cites is mainstream conservatism."

Big government social conservatism, sure, just not limited government fiscal conservatism. I guess we just define conservatism differently.

The big spending does not include funding WOT, just domestic spending.

You might buy into the argument since the libs did it we are justified in doing it, I don't, and, frankly, find it just as liberal in its good and virtuous intentions and blind to unintended consequences.

What Rove did politically for the Republican Party has to be admired, he had his finger on the pulse of the American people and knew exactly what they wanted and thereby gain power.

But, as that great urban legend, Alexander Tytler, once purportedly said: "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

Chris to Big Black Dog
Do we disagree? Your response "appeared" to lay the responsibility for the deaths on 9/11 and the dead in the ensuing war on terror at the feet of Bill Clinton (which is accurate, in my estimation).

Do you really believe this or was that some lame attempt at sarcasm in the midst of your poor syntax and even poorer spelling?

Left Angle
You have just proved my point as Black Dog did. Nothing but cynicism and criticism. Nothing of substance. Anything short of complete surrender is not good enough for you or anyone like you. So many times on this site, I and many others have called on people like you to come with some substantive plan, anything that ensures that we can leave the Iraqi people with a secure nation and prevent wholesale slaughter. All I get is that "it's a disaster" and "we need to just leave" and "it's Bush's fault". Are liberals prepared to accept responsibility for the numbers of dead that will, in all probability, outnumber the killing fields of Laos and Cambodia? Or will you continue to point fingers and play a blame game?

lostGOP, n-i-i-c-e...
I'm sure the GOP is saddened at the "loss" of such salient and poignant prose... LOSER!!!

Big Black Dog, I apologize.
Every time you respond, you further demonstrate your lack of maturity and understanding. It really is NOT my desire to make anyone look foolish. It's obvious that "in a battle of wits, you are, sadly, unarmed".

BTW, the 8 years of failure you should be focused on are the Clinton years (Bush has not yet been in office 8 years).

On the plus side, you're on a website that carries Novak's columns. If you keep reading, you may be able to elevate your IQ into the HIGH double digits.

Msgt
I do not support nation building. Historical precedence is overwhelmingly against it in 3rd world countries. If that makes me cynical, then so be it.

The Baathists, Al Queida, and the militia's have created the conditions we see. But as the surge demonstrates, much of this could have been prevented. The legacy of the Shia's is Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. The legacy of Iraq will be that these will be the allies of the Shia's in Iraq - significant numbers of which are already allied with these groups.

My solution is simple. The country is divided. Therefore, divide it. The Shia's in the south are already outside of the control of Baghdad or our forces, the Kurds in the north are effectively independent, and we are now arming the Sunni's in Anwar and Diyala. Finish the job in Baghdad - then get out.

As far as staying around for a decade. Forget it. Those like yourself need to toss those rose colored glasses out the door.

And if you want to convert people - join a mission. Leave our forces out of it. Their job is to break things - that they do well.

Chris
"BTW, the 8 years of failure you should be focused on are the Clinton years (Bush has not yet been in office 8 years)."

You're right, he's been in office for six years now. So, in two more years can we finally lay Bush's failures and Bush's feet?

Sorry...
I meant to say "at Bush's feet"

Who's really been divisive? Part 1
After winning control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for the first time in decades the Republicans did the following.

1. Bush announced that he wanted to change the tone in DC. He said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider.

The left responded by saying Bush was dumb, and that he was "selected, not elected." Many also insisted that "he's not MY president." Others called him Hitler before he even took the oath of office.

2. Bush extended the hand of bipartisanship across the aisle. He did not veto McCain-Feingold. He pushed for a prescription Medicare benefit. He let Ted Kennedy write "No Child Left Behind". Despite contentions by prominent conservative such as Rush Limbaugh that the Sept. 12 resolution authorized Bush to go to Iraq without asking the consent of Congress (again), he agreed to be bound by a Congressional vote on a separate resolution for invading Iraq. He said he wanted to change the tone in DC and walked that walk by not responding in kind to the very public and very vicious criticisms that have been hurled at him by Democrats.

The left has responded to this by spitting on Bush's extended hand. They have taken McCain-Feingold for granted and thoroughly exploited the 527 loophole contained in it. Ted Kennedy described the Medicare drug benefit, on which Bush spent a great deal of his political capital within his own party, as "a good start". Liberals continually gripe about NCLB and blame what they don't like about this massive increase in spending on Bush, not Kennedy.



Media
Well, the unbiased media seems happy about it...

Chris Matthews used Monday's Hardball to take shots at departing presidential adviser Karl Rove, as he called Rove a "bum," and sarcastically commented on Rove's genius as he greeted viewers of his August 13 show: "Can President Bush think without the man they call his brain? What about all those great ideas like dividing the country over Iraq and leaving New Orleans to drop into the sea? A country without Karl Rove calling the shots? Let's fear for the Republic. Let's play Hardball."

A little later Matthews snapped that the only way the American people would hear Rove spill the truth is to pay for it on the lecture circuit: "Tonight's debate on Hardball: Should Congress be able to force Karl Rove to talk? Now that he's leaving the White House, that's the Hardball debate, he's gonna go out and make a fortune on the lecture circuit. Do you have to pay to get the truth from Karl Rove?"

[This item is adapted from a Monday night posting, by Geoffrey Dickens, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

Then Matthews resorted to flat out name-calling when he derided Rove as a "bum" when recalling the Valerie Plame case: "Yeah but Bush, the President said, that 'anyone of my people involved with leaking this will be taken care of.' Did he, is that what he meant by today's ceremony, the bear hug and everything? Was that being taken care of? And, I mean, I've never seen a staff aide be signed-off on at the presidential helicopter with such majesty. It was almost regal today, like he was knighting the guy. And, and he said he was going to take care of this bum, anybody that leaked in the CIA case. Well this is how he took care of him. He knighted the guy."


Who's really been divisive? Part 2

After voting to go to war in Iraq they have done everything they can think of to bring defeat upon us, and claimed that "Bush lied" about WMD when in fact they all saw the same intel Bush did. And instead of dealing with him from an attitude of mutual respect and courtesy, instead of following his example of civility, they have hurled insults and unsubsantiable acrimony at him at every opportunity. They have filibustered the nomination of judges and our UN ambassador without citing a single legitimate reason for withholding 'consent'.

Mrs. Bill Clinton, a freshman Senator in the minority party, smugly declared the Bush Energy Plan "dead on arrival" in the Senate before the public even had a chance to see what was in it. And the Bush tax cuts, which resurrected an economy that was worn out by the Clinton tax increase and government lawsuits and fines against businesses such as the tobacco companies, drug companies, and the auto companies, had to be passed with automatic sunset clauses for no reason other than that the Democrats can't stand to cut taxes even if it will do everybody good. Even when there is no down side. Even today, after the tax cuts have revived the economy and enabled steady, sustainable growth, increased revenue to the treasury, and increased the proportion of the revenue to the treasury that is paid by 'the rich', Democrats can still talk of little else except the big new taxes their going to enact (When they're not talking about investigating the administration for corruption, that is. This is a big laugh. The most recent troop funding bill has 1,300 earmarks in it but the DEms who put them there want us to think the administration is corrupt and we should trust them to investigate it.)



Who's really been divisive? Part 3
3. Because the Senate was split 50-50 in January of 2000 Republican Majority Leader sat down with Tom Daschle and, in the spirit of bipartisanship and in the spirit of honoring the votes of the people. Offered Daschle and the Democrats half of the Senate Committee Chairmanships.

Daschle repaid this genuine and substantive offer to begin the healing and promote bipartisanship by sticking it in Lott's back. Daschle used one of the chairmanships generously granted him by Lott to bribe Jim Jeffords into leaving the Republican party, giving the Democrats a 50-49-1 'majority'. It took Daschle about ten seconds after Jeffords switched to inform all of the Republican committee chairmen that they were no longer committee chairmen because all of the chairmen would now be Democrats.

In addition the left has continuously insisted that virtually everything this administration does is 'illegal' without bothering to even cite the statute that is allegedly being violated, let alone furnishing any evidence.

And the final proof that Rove is NOT the divisive figure in this sorry scenario will be all too willingly furnished by the left in the months to come. There will be no let up in the temper tantrums, the hate, the vicious characterizations and the unsubstantiable accusations. To the contrary, like sharks that smell blood in the water, the left will go into feeding frenzy mode.

Nam65-66 writes:
Tuesday, August, 14, 2007 8:53 AM
"Karl Rove...
...was targeted by the Dems because he wins elections,and for no other reason.In fact,he wins them better than anyone else in Washington,and this was also why Fitzgerald went after him.It was the Republicans in the Congress that lost the 2006 election,not Karl Rove.

The Dems can only wish they had a Karl Rove in their camp,and if he is a neocon,then we need more neocons in Washington.A LOT more!"
=================
I echo your sentiments! There is no way the Republicans in Congress will ever convince me the reason we lost the majority was over the war. It was - and is - simply that many voters are fed up with dirty politicians...in both parties!!! And the Democrats will soon find that out!

God speed, Karl...and thanks for being such a loyal friend and advisor to the president!

wiseone
I agree...the name-calling and finger-pointing will not end just because Karl is no longer in town.

Is Mathews completely insane?
Did no one tell him that it was Richard Armitage, someone who's ideology is not so unlike his own, who "leaked" the identity of a person who does not fit the definition of a "covert agent" as defined by the only statute under which such a leaker might be prosecuted? This man is not just a lefty buffoon. He's a self-incriminating liar of the first degree! Does MSNBC have no standards whatsoever?

Even though, acutely aware of his obvious bias, I would never tune into his circus of a show, I am nonetheless subjected to his stupidity in quotes, through no fault of my own. Why am I being punished?! ;-) Couldn't we just ignore him? Maybe he'll go away.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.