Carl Cannon has an insightful article about Karl Rove's departure. Cannon wrote a book about Rove, Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Architect Of George W. Bush's Remarkable Political Triumphs . And today he makes the point that Rove won't be disappearing from the public scene. First of all, he will be making public statements as he's done recently in interviews. And secondly, the Democrats won't be able to let go of Rove as their favorite whipping boy for all that they dislike about President Bush.
Even if Rove wanted to leave the stage, the Democrats wouldn't let him. They can't help themselves. Rove, quite simply, makes Democrats cuckoo. For liberals, Rove's personality is a pestilential stew of arrogance, smugness and, most troubling of all, ruthless efficiency. Their hostility dates to his days in Texas, when Rove systematically and successfully went about the business of denuding the place of white Democratic elected officials. It continued in South Carolina, during the Republican primary of 2000 with the anonymous immolation of John McCain, through the Florida recount, and on into 2002 when Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was leveled by a hard-edged GOP campaign. Democrats tell themselves that they need to be -- and could be -- as cutthroat as Rove, but this is self-serving to the point of self-delusion. (For pure demagoguery, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were pikers compared to the Democrats' 2000 anti-Bush radio spots financed by the NAACP.)
A more visceral reason Democrats loathe Karl Rove is his knack for taking something they are proud of (Al Gore's experience, for instance, or John Kerry's war record, tolerance on gay rights), and somehow making it a liability. They fear he will do that with Hillary Clinton -- that he's already doing it to Hillary Clinton. And so the congressional investigations aimed at Rove will continue long after the point they are helpful to the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. This is not a new obsession. In 2004, Howard Dean, Kerry and rest of the band of Democratic contenders often sounded as though they were running against Rove instead of Bush. Principals shouldn't run against staffers. Democrats have trouble with this concept, if Rove is that staffer.
Cannon also has some thoughts on why Rove wasn't as successful as a policy advisor in the White House as he was as a political director on the campaign.
Carl Cannon has an insightful article about Karl Rove's departure. Cannon wrote a book about Rove, Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Architect Of George W. Bush's Remarkable Political Triumphs . And today he makes the point that Rove won't be disappearing from the public scene. First of all, he will be making public statements as he's done recently in interviews. And secondly, the Democrats won't be able to let go of Rove as their favorite whipping boy for all that they dislike about President Bush.
Even if Rove wanted to leave the stage, the Democrats wouldn't let him. They can't help themselves. Rove, quite simply, makes Democrats cuckoo. For liberals, Rove's personality is a pestilential stew of arrogance, smugness and, most troubling of all, ruthless efficiency. Their hostility dates to his days in Texas, when Rove systematically and successfully went about the business of denuding the place of white Democratic elected officials. It continued in South Carolina, during the Republican primary of 2000 with the anonymous immolation of John McCain, through the Florida recount, and on into 2002 when Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was leveled by a hard-edged GOP campaign. Democrats tell themselves that they need to be -- and could be -- as cutthroat as Rove, but this is self-serving to the point of self-delusion. (For pure demagoguery, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were pikers compared to the Democrats' 2000 anti-Bush radio spots financed by the NAACP.)
A more visceral reason Democrats loathe Karl Rove is his knack for taking something they are proud of (Al Gore's experience, for instance, or John Kerry's war record, tolerance on gay rights), and somehow making it a liability. They fear he will do that with Hillary Clinton -- that he's already doing it to Hillary Clinton. And so the congressional investigations aimed at Rove will continue long after the point they are helpful to the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. This is not a new obsession. In 2004, Howard Dean, Kerry and rest of the band of Democratic contenders often sounded as though they were running against Rove instead of Bush. Principals shouldn't run against staffers. Democrats have trouble with this concept, if Rove is that staffer.
Cannon also has some thoughts on why Rove wasn't as successful as a policy advisor in the White House as he was as a political director on the campaign.