tecoyah

Seriously, does anyone think his influence will be lowered in the eyes of the administration. Likely its just a way to dodge testimony...heh.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1186..._us_whats_news

samcol

He'll still run the show but he just won't have the title. I agree that he's basically trying to get out of trouble.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

The_Jazz

Actually, I don't agree, Tec. I think that he's trying to go out on his own terms. If he gets forced to testify or caught up in a fight over testifying, the President might be forced to ask for his resignation. This gives him the ability to leave the field under his own power. At this stage in the game, he's finished anyway, at least until the 2012 cycle on the national level. It's entirely possible that he'll go back to local Texas politics, though.

I'm not a fan of the man, but you can't deny that he was very good at what he did, even if a lot of us would disagree with his goals.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

tecoyah

Oh absolutely, the man is a political genius. My main point was the change is likely to be in name only, as he will likely still be in regular consultation with Bush. Thus the conclusion that this in some way works to his advantage in the ongoing investigations of the Administration.

The_Jazz

I doubt that the consultation CAN be a regular as it is now, when Rove sits right down the hall from the Oval Office. If Rove goes back to Texas like he says, the consultation will have to tail off somewhat. Then there's the issue of whoever takes his place not being marginalized. You don't want a marginal player in that spot.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Rekna

This makes me wonder if the white house knows something is going to go public soon and they are trying to dodge a bullet right now.

ubertuber

I wonder how his resignation would help him avoid testifying - or would help minimize something currently in the pipes. If anything, he's more vulnerable without access to White House lawyers.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

RenaissanceII

/does a happy dance

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
Anais Nin


I Wish You Well.

Kadath

The_Jazz, I don't agree that he's done until 2012. The Republican nominee could easily bring him on to help with the general election. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he started working for Romney soon.

__________________
it's quiet in here

aceventura3

The Bush presidency essentially ended in November '06 when the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate. The Administration has one issue on the table, the Iraq war. I doubt we will see anything major come out of Washington unitl the next President is elected.

Military people will drive the Iraq agenda, not Rove. Rove had a nice run, and I don't think his resignation is complicated. He is either going to relax and re-energize, or retire.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

The_Jazz

Rove is damaged goods now. If he does jump onto a campaign, it will have to be covertly since even some of the Republican faithful don't have high opinions of the guy. Why would a candidate attach themselves to this administration when the numbers are so low? There's no real positive to having Rove involved overtly for the candidate since anything that could actually accomplish would be tainted by the votes his presence would drive away.

I will be very surprised if Romney picks him up. He's the front runner without Rove, so why would he (Romney) make that gamble? Maybe Fred Thompson would pick him up, but I don't see Fred making that kind of gamble either. And there's no way in hell McCain or Gulianni are coming anywhere close to Rove, ever.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

flstf

The skill set required to win an election is different than that required to govern. Rove has shown he knows (or at least knew) how to win.

Walking Shadow

Couple of things.

Rove will still be in daily contact with Shrub, he just will lose his various security clearences, which is a bigger thing then one might expect.

Rove is going to be a huge factor in the 2008 election. Huge. He will be part of the behind the scenes crew churning out the smears and attacks on the Democrats.

ratbastid

He'll be pulling the strings from even further behind the scenes now.

And just like that... *poof* He's gone.

ubertuber

This was my immediate thought, but then I stopped and considered how many presidential campaigns Bob Shrum has worked for - without winning a single one. Hell, people were writing articles about the "Shrum Curse". Yet, up until his retirement he was one of the hottest properties in the democratic field. I think that says a lot about branding and the perception of "mojo" in the campaign consulting field. I wouldn't count Rove out of campaigning yet, though I doubt he'll accept another White House position.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dc_dux

Rove won the battle of getting Bush elected twice, but lost the war of building a permanent Republican majority which was his ultimate goal.

His ego and ignorance of national politics got in the way. He failed to realize that campaigning is not the same as governing.

The dirty, borderline legal tactics he used in campaigning backfired on him once he tried to bring those same tactics into the White House. Starting with his connections to Jack Abramoff, which took out more Republican members of Congress than any recent scandal.

And followed by his fingerprints all over the Plame affair, violations of the Hatch act (with his political Powerpoint presentation at various agencies), violations of the Presidential Records Act and the use of RNC e-mail accounts to hide his political acitons, to the firings of the US attorneys.

He aslo failed to help Bush achieve two of his topic domestic priorities - privatization of Social Security and immigration reform - because he completely misread the sentiments of the country.

He's a great campaign consultant if you dont mind getting in the gutter...beyond that he was a failure by every measure.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Necrosis

The firing of attorneys continues to be brought up by Democrats. Would it have been worse had Bush fired ALL of the US attorneys? What if he had removed one of them right in the middle of an investigation of a high-ranking member of the House?

Would that be grounds for impeachment?

dc_dux

Nearly every Democrat on the investigating committees have said that Bush had the right to fire any US attorney at any time, other than to impede an investigation (of a member of the House or any citizen), which would in fact, be an impeachable offense.

The Judiciary Committees investigations were to determine if such actions were to interfere with a criminal investigation and/or to review the manner in which this unprecedented politicization of the DoJ by Bush was undertaken, including the conflicting reasons given for the firings, the lies about the performance of the attorneys (nearly all had "outstanding evaluations), the role the WH political office (ie Rove) played in the firings (were the firings requested by members of Congress in communications with Rove and/or Gonzales - a violation of Congressional ethics rules), and to determine if the firings were to further a political agenda (ie bogus voter fraud charges against Democratic organizations) rather than pursue the rule of law.

There are plenty of other reasons that merit an impeachment inquiry of Bush/Cheney, although not of Rove, who as a political appointee, is not subject to impeachment.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Necrosis

That is a great answer, but unfortunately, it is not an answer to the question I asked. Sadly, such diversions are de rigeur among all politicians who don't want to answer the question that was presented to them. It also avoided the point that Clinton removed the experienced US attorney who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski.

It is extremely likely that Hillary will present some variation of your answer at some point when someone asks her about the fabled exploits of her husband.

dc_dux

I thought I answered your question....I guess you didnt like the answer.

As to Clinton, he asked for the resignation of all the US attorneys at the start of his term....something every president has done. That included the US attorney whose office was conducting a preliminary investigation of Rostenkowski and the investigation continued with no political interference from the White House. That argument has been played out repeatedly.

Firing 8 or 9 US attorneys in mid-term is unprecedented, though not grounds for impeachment in and of itself. But I further explained why the Judiciary Committees were investigating the firings, including the role of Karl Rove...the subject of this thread.

It seems to me the references to the Clintons are the real diversion that is de rigeur among those who don't want to acknowledge the facts that are presented to them.

Feel free to find another thread where you can toss in the Clintons if you think it adds to your argument.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire