Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in The White House — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I had frankly thought that Karl Rove would be one of the last people to leave the White House. Seriously. I thought that he would stay behind and help turn out the lights right before the inauguration of the next President. But that is not to be:

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, marking a turning point for the Bush presidency.

Mr. Rove's departure removes one of the White House's most polarizing figures, and perhaps signals the effective end of the lame duck administration's role in shaping major domestic policy decisions. Mr. Rove revealed his plans in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. (See related commentary.)

Mr. Rove, who has held a senior post in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.

In the interview, Mr. Rove said he expects Democrats to give the 2008 presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he described as "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate." He also said Republicans have "a very good chance" to hold onto the White House in next year's elections.

Mr. Rove also said he expects the president's approval rating to rise again, and that conditions in Iraq will improve as the U.S. military surge continues. He said he expects Democrats to be divided this fall in the battle over warrantless wiretapping, while the budget battle -- and a series of presidential vetoes -- should help Republicans gain an edge on spending restraint and taxes.

Read on . . .

The related commentary referenced in the story is interesting as well:

What about those who say [Rove is] leaving to avoid Congressional scrutiny? "I know they'll say that," he says, "But I'm not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob." He also knows he'll continue to be a target, even from afar, since belief in his influence over every Administration decision has become, well, faith-based.

"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."

I agree with the "Mark of Rove" comment. I also believe that while Rove always was a brilliant strategist, he wasn't neither the Moriarty his opponents made him out to be nor was he the Mycroft Holmes that his supporters said he was. Rove's "72 Hour Project" was a terrific innovation that should remain part and parcel of Republican campaigns but one ought to remember that it was a reaction to the ability of unions to organize in the days before an election and turn out their supporters in droves. And yes, the loss of Congress happened on Rove's watch. While the President is ultimately responsible for that and while Rove couldn't concentrate on the elections as much as he would have wanted to because of the ongoing Valerie Plame investigations, the fact of the matter remains that he didn't perform any miracles. Nor did he work on improving one of the weakest portions of the White House's political operation; its communications department. White House communications have been abysmal for years now, which is a large part of the reason why President Bush is suffering in the polls. Say what you want about the Clinton White House (either the previous one or the one that is perhaps upcoming), but they were absolute masters at protecting the boss's reputation. Yes, President Clinton suffered in the polls for his first two years. But he learned quickly and so did his aides. The Bush White House initially started out brilliantly in terms of its political operations. Now, those operations are sputtering at best. I might add that I don't want to hear another thing about "compassionate conservatism" ever again, since "compassionate conservatism" is just politicalese for "big-government conservatism." I am a small-government type myself and a small-government esprit would be more than welcome in the Republican Party right about now.

Other coverage can be found in the Times, the Politico and the Washington Post. I will say that Rove shouldn't get the kind of criticism he gets for having instituted supposedly "divisive" policies. Each side has been quite divisive over the past decade or so. Divisiveness is attributable neither only to one party, nor is it attributable to one person.