Open thread: The obligatory “Rove resigns” post; Update: Rove gets emotional

posted at 8:32 am on August 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

Just waking up to this. MM is not sorry to see him go and thinks he could have done us a favor by quitting last year. Probably true. The die on Plame had already been cast by then and Jorge Arbusto surely wouldn’t have needed Rove around to get him excited about shamnesty, but who knows what it might have meant to the U.S. Attorney scandal and to the strategic masterstroke of pulling the ripcord on Rumsfeld the day after the election instead of weeks before.

I’m wondering now what this does to his executive privilege claim vis-a-vis Congress. Nothing, probably — the attorney-client privilege applies to lawyer-client communications made during the course of the representation even after the lawyer’s been fired, so presumably this works the same way. The timing does seem awfully coincidental, though.

Feel free to sound off. I doubt he’ll be replaced, but suggestions are welcome. If Harold Ford is right about the left having been handed a “Hoover moment,” Rove more so than anyone except possibly Dick Cheney is responsible for it. He set out to build a permanent Republican majority and may have ended up with a permanent Democratic one. There’s his epitaph.

Update: The Diggbats rejoice. The left naturally suspects some new scandal is about to drop such that the White House wants to ease the culprit, or at least its biggest lightning rod, out the door before the lightning strikes. I think it might be more a case of unloading some dead weight before the Iraq showdown next month. Bush needs whatever public support he can scrounge up in the interim. This won’t hurt on that count.

Update: The White House has called a presser. We’ll probably have video.

Update: E.M. thinks it’s timed to let him hook on with one of the campaigns, likely Fred’s. If so, they’d better guard the work he does for them like a state secret. The last thing the Republican nominee wants is to make the Dems’ job of painting him as the next Bush any easier.

For the record, Rove says he’s sitting out the race.

Update: Here’s the presser. MC Rove turns out to be a big ol’ softie.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If either party died or became permanently unelectable a new party would with better ideas would come into being and replace them as the opposition.

aengus on August 13, 2007 at 7:00 PM

I think Karl Rove timed this deliberately to dampen the publicity behind Robert Spencer’s new book ;-)

infidelpride on August 13, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Put me in the ‘good riddance’ category.

I used to love the guy, but have come to the realization that he was vastly overrated; that the good things we credited him with probably would have happened with any competent strategist .

About the only thing I have liked about him lately is that merely the mention of his name will drive most liberals insane more insane.

LegendHasIt on August 13, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Permanent majority, my dying ass.

Allah, what the Hell are you smoking?

As for Karl Rove being responsible, or even President Bush for that matter, being responsible for the loss of Congress in ’06, you are all as batty as Kos and MyDD and DemUnderground.

Karl Rove left because he intended to leave to do saomething else. To get away from the poisonous atmosphere that called for his head every day for the last 6 years. He couldn’t leave immediately after the 2006 election because Bush still needed him for a few more swings at the plate, and it would be stupid to lose such a loyal and intelligent advisor just because the Dhimmis won Congress. Fight back, for Christ’s sake.

He is leaving now because the White House Chief of Staff put out an arbitrary date that warned all staff to leave before Sept 07 or expect to remain until the bitter end. Rove had been trying to leave for months. Why can’t anyone accept what the clip shows at face value?

As for the shamnesty initiatives, at least someone (Rove and Bush) attempted to do something to manage a problem which had been ignored forever. Who can disagree that poor foreigners deserve a chance to come to this country LEGALLY, and then make themselves useful as part of the system here. Who wants their corn, wheat, peaches, lettuce to be four times as expensive, their houses cleaned for 4 times the cost, and their lawns manicured for thrice the price? Not a damn one of you here. So you want cheap labor, you just ain’t willing to find a legal way to get it? And yes, they should have fenced the border first. At least they tried that before any other so called politician had the balls to try that too. Medicare drug benefit? Again, no one had even tried to address this need forever. Social Security? Like a Dhimmi or Rethuglican has the balls to try to mess with it at all. But Rove and Bush did. They tried to improve something which needed improving before our kids go bankrupt because no one will do anything. Men of Action, not men of talk and obfuscation and lies.

Regarding Rumsfeld leaving after the 06 election, Bush is known as a loyal boss. Rummy offered his resignation many times before he left. Bush said no. With good reason. Not a single one of the folks here on this website or in Congress is fit to wear Rummy’s spectacles. None has shown more determination or drive to do what he thought was correct for the defense of this country and for the good of Iraq. His personal consequences be damned. Rumsfeld tried. He may have been wrong on some things, but he did a damned sight more to win the Long War than any Dhimmicrat or Republican in Congress did.

You all say, “cough up the bodies to man the Armed Forces”, just like that. No one who simply says, “well send more troops” has a fricking clue of the ability of the nation to man their Armed Forces at the drop of a hat. We need triple the budget and double the manpower we have to do it correctly. Why aren’t you all arguing for that right now? The need is still there? Congress hasn’t acted! The money still hasn’t been asked for to do this correctly. The manpower still hasn’t been asked for to do Iraq correctly.

You guys are just as bad as the MSM. Blaming good Men for doing their best with all the American people are willing to give them. Just because not enough Iraqis can escape their own version of “I hate infidelism” long enough to act civilized towards each other and play nice unless an America soldier is standing there holding their hand and showing them how Real Men and Real Women are supposed to act when civilized, you have to berate and belittle everyone and everything who can’t immediately achieve Victory for your side and Defeat for your opponents.

Why did these Men attempt what they did to improve their country? Because someone had to. And not a damn one of you or me was doing anything about it. Teddy Roosevelt had it right. If you aren’t in the arena, you pretty much don’t have a right to criticize someone who is trying with all their being to DO THE RIGHT THING.

And what does doing the right thing get you in America? Belittled, “frog marched”, harassed, lied about, laughed at, and despised by the very people you have served…. and saved from Death by Islamic fascists.

Pathetic. You’d all complain if they were going to hang you with a new rope. If you treated the US military like you treat your political leaders, you’d be hard pressed to find a Young Man in this country who would want to give his life to save your pathetic ones.

You guys (and especially Congressmen and Dhimmis and the MSM) ain’t worth Rove’s, Bush’s, Cheney’s, Powell’s, Rice’s, Rumsfeld’s spit.

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM

subsunk-

No single person on this website… is fit to wear Rummy’s spectacles…

Don’t need ‘em. Too rosy.

He’s good at battling the media with flip quips, but not so much at fighting the war against historically-cunning Islamofascism.

(Or even doing simple things, such as understanding that a prison like Abu Ghraib could be a potential propaganda coup for the enemy if something unsavory occured during interrogation and leaked out to a willing, anti-American press, so it might make sense to put a few security cameras in there to prevent abuses, and also to forbid unauthorized personal cameras in a military prison).

His lack of imagination continues to appall.

Rove and Bush squandered so much goodwill and righteous outrage generated by 9/11 that their more recent follies with the border, and their ongoing failure to commit to homegrown energy sources in order to deny the Jihad our jizyah (cash for oil) were not just pathetic but are longterm setbacks for their party.

All credit to them, though, for no terror attacks since 9/11, tax cuts, and crushing the Taliban (at first), but the ledger has too much counterbalancing it toward the debit (massive and expensive expansion of elderly drug benefits, failure to connect with the populace in order to make the case for a serious war against the global Jihad, whitewashing the Koran as a “religion of peace”, and not answering partisan attacks, like the absurdity of the ongoing Gonzales fiasco- where Clinton legally fired ALL 93 of his U.S. Attorneys to no comment from the MSM, while Bush fires 8 and this generates a political firestorm that remains inadequately addressed by him, etc., etc.).

Good intentions are not enough. Tough talk is not enough.

Plus, Osama was never crushed.

What they hell are they waiting for?

profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM

This is what Al Qaeda meant when they said they had something “big” in the works.

BDavis on August 14, 2007 at 1:10 AM

As for the shamnesty initiatives, at least someone (Rove and Bush) attempted to do something to manage a problem which had been ignored forever. Who can disagree that poor foreigners deserve a chance to come to this country LEGALLY, and then make themselves useful as part of the system here. Who wants their corn, wheat, peaches, lettuce to be four times as expensive, their houses cleaned for 4 times the cost, and their lawns manicured for thrice the price? Not a damn one of you here. So you want cheap labor, you just ain’t willing to find a legal way to get it? And yes, they should have fenced the border first

With all due respect to you as a Blackfive blogger, this is a canard. Thomas Sowell and other reliable economists have debunked this time and time again. Having this cheap illegal labor comes with an enormous cost, just not one we’d realize at the grocery store. We pay for it in higher crime, crowded schools, reconquista, reverse descrimination, affirmative action programs, closed ERs, downwardly mobile lower classes, burgeoning prison populations (why don’t you look at the incarceration rate of our ‘newcomers’ from Latin America; Steve Sailer’s got a good article).

As near as I can tell, there’s plenty of out of work Americans willing to do the ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ When I visited Colorado recently, I was able to witness it firsthand. White gardeners and construction workers! Something I hadn’t seen since the early 90s here in California. I simply can’t abide a president who’s facilitated America’s headlong rush toward third-world status, nor the ethnic cleansing of Americans out of areas that used to be livable.

You are quite right to say Bush was trying to do something about the problem: he was trying to expand it by about 3-5 times. My Ethiopian cab driver told me what an idiotic idea shamnesty was the other day. He told me his entire counntry of 80 million people would be over here in a heartbeat if they passed it. I appreciate you trying to stick up for Bush, but he’s really indefensible.

PRCalDude on August 14, 2007 at 1:17 AM

He’s good at battling the media with flip quips, but not so much at fighting the war against historically-cunning Islamofascism.

(Or even doing simple things, such as understanding that a prison like Abu Ghraib could be a potential propaganda coup for the enemy if something unsavory occured during interrogation and leaked out to a willing, anti-American press, so it might make sense to put a few security cameras in there to prevent abuses, and also to forbid unauthorized personal cameras in a military prison).

His lack of imagination continues to appall.

profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM

I guess that “historically cunning” Islamofascism is why terrorists are so good at blowing up airports and planes since 9-11, eh? (think Glasgow where they can’t even make things go boom and they burn themselves up in the process; think trying to light your shoes on fire; think choosing to attack Men armed with M-16s and heavy machine guns and not winning a single battle to take an American strongpoint.)

Historically cunning? Methinks you need a dictionary if you think anything our enemies in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world has done is historically cunning on the order of Trojan Horses, Stonewall Jackson’s forced marches in the Civil War, Sherman’s march to the sea, or the use of submarines to bring Britain to its knees in WWI and WWII. Cunning Islamofascists? Oxymoron.

I guess Rummy’s clairvoyance was just so much less perceptive than yours and the NY Times regarding prosecution of nefarious deeds of poorly led soldiers by the Army, which rise to the level of college pranks no worse than those perpetrated upon me when I was in college by my peers. (Hauled off 350 miles away, eyebrows and nuts shaved, nothing but a pair of underwear and a quarter taped to my nuts after they beat me up and shoved ice cubes where the sun don’t shine. I think I survived it well enough, I even beat them back to home base.)

And how lame of the Army to actually, you know, investigate and prosecute those crimes without Mr. Donald Rumsfeld having a damn thing to do with investigating it or making the prosecutorial arguments personally. By all means lets assume the American press is with us on this situation and would never deliberately try to make something appear worse than it actually was. Let’s ban the use of personal cameras by soldiers all over the globe lest they somehow take photos of something which can be used against us someday by Evil people with Evil intentions (and I mean the insurgents AND the world media both).

Lack of imagination? Said of the Man who insisted the Army drag itself kicking and screaming into the information age from the Fulda Gap students of warfighting, and has definitely improved the ability of the Armed Forces to respond to any eventuality forced upon it by Communist masses or cult thugs with chemical weapons. So, no good works to be accounted for there. He’s just an idiot, of course, and anything good that was done in his name must have been a mistake.

Your shortsightedness and ingratitude for the meager accomplishments Rumsfeld achieved is noted with disdain.

Rove and Bush squandered so much goodwill and righteous outrage generated by 9/11 that their more recent follies with the border, and their ongoing failure to commit to homegrown energy sources in order to deny the Jihad our jizyah (cash for oil) were not just pathetic but are longterm setbacks for their party.

All credit to them, though, for no terror attacks since 9/11, tax cuts, and crushing the Taliban (at first), but the ledger has too much counterbalancing it toward the debit (massive and expensive expansion of elderly drug benefits, failure to connect with the populace in order to make the case for a serious war against the global Jihad, whitewashing the Koran as a “religion of peace”, and not answering partisan attacks, like the absurdity of the ongoing Gonzales fiasco- where Clinton legally fired ALL 93 of his U.S. Attorneys to no comment from the MSM, while Bush fires 8 and this generates a political firestorm that remains inadequately addressed by him, etc., etc.).

Good intentions are not enough. Tough talk is not enough.

Plus, Osama was never crushed.

What they hell are they waiting for?

profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Good intentions and tough talk not being enough, I guess the Boss really should have declared martial law and just ruled by diktat. After all, that’s just what the Constitution says should be done. That’s just what the Rethuglican party stands for. That’s certainly showing those Dhimmicrats that Bush really isn’t the imperial ruler and smasher of civil liberties we so often hear them claim. They just should have ignored those congressional votes and signed Executive Orders opening ANWAR and Florida and California for drilling and ordering hydrogen technology to be perfected out of thin air.

It is all about winning big and defeating your enemies utterly for you, isn’t it? We should probably just kill all Dhimmicrats because they are so obviously anti-American and beyond rehabilitation it isn’t worth spending the words, time, effort to actually work within the system, and try to change public opinion the only ways you can.

Because we all know that no matter what the White House puts out, it will be twisted by an illiberal and propagandistic press to spin headlines, facts, and stories so they all come out making Rethuglicans and Bush look like idiots. There is no parallel there to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia where the press can’t report the Truth because the government rules what they print. Here the press automatically prints the opposite of what the military PAOs promulgate, and the White House Press Office distributes. Here the press itself is the propaganda operation par excellence. They just act like they live in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. They’ve even got you thinking there is a better alternative to the Bush administration and the folks who served in it because, “Hey they aren’t perfect. Impeach them, why don’t we?” Like that’s a winning argument. Let’s go with a Dhimmicrat instead. That will make us safe!

With all due respect to you as a Blackfive blogger, this is a canard. Thomas Sowell and other reliable economists have debunked this time and time again. Having this cheap illegal labor comes with an enormous cost, just not one we’d realize at the grocery store. We pay for it in higher crime, crowded schools, reconquista, reverse descrimination, affirmative action programs, closed ERs, downwardly mobile lower classes, burgeoning prison populations (why don’t you look at the incarceration rate of our ‘newcomers’ from Latin America; Steve Sailer’s got a good article).

As near as I can tell, there’s plenty of out of work Americans willing to do the ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ When I visited Colorado recently, I was able to witness it firsthand. White gardeners and construction workers! Something I hadn’t seen since the early 90s here in California. I simply can’t abide a president who’s facilitated America’s headlong rush toward third-world status, nor the ethnic cleansing of Americans out of areas that used to be livable.

You are quite right to say Bush was trying to do something about the problem: he was trying to expand it by about 3-5 times. My Ethiopian cab driver told me what an idiotic idea shamnesty was the other day. He told me his entire counntry of 80 million people would be over here in a heartbeat if they passed it. I appreciate you trying to stick up for Bush, but he’s really indefensible.

PRCalDude on August 14, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Right. Indefensible. Because according to Allah and Michelle, allowing Mexicans and South and Central Americans into the country lowers the living standards around here so much it isn’t worth living here any more or fighting to keep it free and restore the way we used to live.

If solving problems like this was easy, Teddy Kennedy would have done it between cocktails and cock in tails. The Girl Scouts would be pacifying Iraq if things were easy. Your wishful thinking blinds you to just how hard American government is. Because we, the American people, make it that way. We make it so difficult for anyone to solve problems because anyone who tries gets so much grief, that they have quit trying. Just because they know they will be pilloried for attempting the impossible. So why try?

Bush is more like Hercules cleaning out the Augaean stables than Don Quixote tilting at windmills. At least we know the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. He took those steps.

And the first step is to admit things ain’t as bad as you claim they are. We ain’t had it all that bad under Bush/Rove/Rummy. Just because they ain’t perfect don’t mean they ain’t trying.

And all of us should recognize the difference.

One more thing. For such an inflexible, “take no prisoners” kind of guy, Rove and Bush sure did a lot of negotiating with Dhimmicrats. Not all of it was bad. Leave No Child Behind made things better, even if you disagree with its premise. The Medicare drug benefit made things better (your pocketbook isn’t hurting too bad right now is it?), and my peers use of illegal aliens to actually raise cattle and crops isn’t truly leading my peers to treat them brutally or their illegal, illicit, and “thuggish” families to commit crimes at a much higher rate than drunk white kids or black drug gangs do around here on their own.

Let me make one thing clear. I agree with most of what gets said around here. But lately I see a take no prisoners attitude and a resurgence of just the kind of intolerance and attitudes which the Republican party has fought so hard to eliminate. Our party is full of wimps now, that’s for certain. But blaming Bush, Rove, and Rummy for mistakes made as the cause of the weakness of the Republican party instead of the cowardice of the Hagels, Spectors, Snowe’s, Collins, Ron Pauls of the party and their inability to stand up for what is right in the world instead of standing up for Republican values is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Re evaluate your attitudes people. You’ve lost sight of the possible ramifications of failing to attempt to do the right thing, even against long odds.

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 14, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Re evaluate your attitudes people. You’ve lost sight of the possible ramifications of failing to attempt to do the right thing, even against long odds.

Subsunk

Subsunk on August 14, 2007 at 8:22 AM

I’m not quite sure who made you the moral authority around here but I’ll respond anyway.

Who does the Republican party represent? Your average Republican voter is a lower to mid-lower class white male voter. You know, the kind that competes with illegal labor. The kind that loses his job when an illegal working under the table will take it for 30% less. The Republicans don’t represent him. They tried to flood his job market with ‘guest’ workers (we know they’re not guests) who will drive down his wages. They represent the business interests. That’s what they’re 2006 loss of congress indicates, and nobody will be able to say otherwise. Men like Jon Kyl, who ran on an anti-amnesty platform, lied through their teeth just to get re-elected. And Bush was behind the whole thing.

Right. Indefensible. Because according to Allah and Michelle, allowing Mexicans and South and Central Americans into the country lowers the living standards around here so much it isn’t worth living here any more or fighting to keep it free and restore the way we used to live.

It’s quickly becoming that way, and everybody knows it. There are plenty of areas that used to be safe that are now ‘no go zones.’ When you take the American population and replace it with Mexicans and Central Americans, guess what it becomes? Mexico.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering with this conversation. I ought to have my head examined.

PRCalDude on August 14, 2007 at 11:47 AM

This quote from an old LA Times article (no longer available) says it all:

“We’re in a state where there’s nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It’s clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico — everyone thinks like in Mexico. California’s broken.”

An illegal alien said that, to explain why she was moving to Kentucky.

Laura on August 14, 2007 at 12:10 PM

to explain why she was moving had moved to Kentucky.

Not that it has much to do with Rove, and I don’t want to get into an immigration debate because what’s the point? People are going to believe what they want, facts be d@mned. In the immortal words of Emily Litella… never mind.

Laura on August 14, 2007 at 12:18 PM

No love lost now that Rove is gone. Rove had Bush campaigning in California. How dumb is that? That is like trying to make San Francisco conservative or converting the Pope to protestatism. There wasn’t a chance California would have gone to Bush, he should have been in Florida campaigning instead, and maybe we wouldn’t have had the hanging chad debacle.

Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/

“Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

David Geffen – Former Clinton supporter and Hollywood mogul

mark24609 on August 14, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2