Karl Rove Resigning Aug 31

tetrahedrassface writes "According to CNN current Bush Administration political advisor Karl Rove will be resigning his post as senior political advisor at the end of August to spend more time with his family. Few if any prior senior political advisors to presidents have been the lightning rods for controversy that Mr. Rove has. Accused of running smear campaigns and celebrated for pioneering district level up campaigns that rely heavily on databases and fake grassroots origins, Mr Rove is one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution."

Comments

Ever notice?

[UncleWilly]

Ever notice the smart rats jump first from the burning ship?

Re:Ever notice?

[endianx]

Same here. I am certain nobody will complain about whoever the next president is. I can not wait for the peace and quiet.

Re:Ever notice?

[truthsearch]

He's far from the first to leave the administration.

And how's this ship burning? It doesn't appear anyone is going to be indicted for any more crimes. Impeachment proceedings haven't begun. And it's their second term so no worries over re-election. Bush doesn't care about his lack of popularity as he's already accomplished most of his goals.

Re:Ever notice?

[hedwards]

I wouldn't personally worry about Hillary. I don't think that she has a snowballs chance. What with the way that large parts of the country hating her and all.

I for one say good bye and good riddance to Rove. I mean seriously, he has done more to damage this country's political system than just about anybody since the British.

Pushing his radical agenda, which doesn't even reflect genuine conservative values, while making a complete mockery of the entire political process. It genuinely amazes me how so many minority view points have managed to permeate an administration, even after it has lost so much popularity.

The way of campaigning in recent years has been just appalling. The war in Iraq wasn't sufficiently important for congressional attention in '04, but trying to pass a anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment was worthy of time. I don't get it, why exactly are Republicans so quick to pretend to be conservative? I mean I thought that conservativism had something to do with states rights, keeping the government out of ones business and cutting spending. I haven't seen any progress on any one of those issues in the last 6+ years. Embarrassingly enough, there was more progress on those fronts during the Clinton administration than in GWB's.

And I should probably just mod this down, because this is slashdot, and I'm sure that somebody will do me that favor. I mean, thoughtful posts should never be in the positive, right?

Re:Ever notice?

[pravuil]

Hillary was the wife of a person that committed adultery. She handled it publicly and was very conservative with how she handled the public. In terms of popularity, she held on to her position as Senator of New York, so that has to account for something. About what her platform is based on, it's been pretty consistent even though I disagree with some of it. How it develops overtime is anyones guess.

I do know that I am ultimately responsible as a citizen of the US to educate myself about whom I would chose to represent us to the world. So instead of writing someone off because you have a superstitious feeling about them, try to make an educated unbiased guess before you concede to a nihilistic haphazard attitude. Stand up for once and stop saying that it doesn't matter. Apathy is the most ridiculous aspect of humanity sometimes. If you don't like someone, there has to be a reason why other than just superstitious intuition.

Re:Ever notice?

[poot_rootbeer]

The Dems were also trying to distance themselves from the Clintons at the end of Bill's terms in office.

Which was, in retrospect, an incredibly dumb thing to do. The Clinton Administration was marked by a general trend of peace and prosperity, and while Bill Clinton's personal exploits were shameful, his job approval rating remained quite high. If Gore had campaigned on a platform of "keep doing what my predecessor did, except I'm faithful to my wife", he very well could have had an undisputable win in 2000.

I just hope that some people finally put their vote where their mouth is a vote third parties.

I hope that some third-party candidates appear on the scene that actually have the qualifications needed to serve in office. I don't care how long you've been publishing your pamphlet or running your oil fields, if you haven't already been elected to city, county, state or federal government, I don't trust you to lead my nation.

The political machine will chew you up if you don't have experience operating it.

Re:Ever notice?

[poot_rootbeer]

Bush doesn't care about his lack of popularity as he's already accomplished most of his goals.

Like reforming immigration, privatizing Social Security, and establishing an independent, democratic, and peaceful Iraqi state?

Re:Ever notice?

[Alzheimers]

Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State in 2004, and was the first high ranking Republican official to go on to testify on record about all the many mistakes were made leading up to the war, including the lies that were included in his speeches leading up to the invasion.

I'm not aligned either way, but in my opinion he's the *only* Republican that has an ounce of credibility left.

Re:Ever notice?

[Opportunist]

Huh? What are you talking about? I think he meant lining his and his buddies pockets and...

Ohhh. The official goals. I see, you didn't get the memo. Wait. Are you on the memo list anyhow? How did you get in here? Guys? Find that person's IP address and bring him to my office! He hacked me and gained confidential information!

Re:Ever notice?

[E 99]

Same here. I am certain nobody will complain about whoever the next president is. I can not wait for the peace and quiet.

Hey, it could happen. It's just hard to remember, as for the last 16 years we've had no one but Clinton and Bush. I remember the first time I really paid attention to Bush on TV, after he won his first nomination. I remember thinking, "holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton." And I was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter. The key is whether the person will polarize or unite the center. Someone like Fred Thompson, I think would likely win them over, the way Reagan did. If Newt runs, it's hard to say. He eventually lost the center to Clinton as house speaker, but first he masterminded the Contract with America and won Congress for the Republicans by winning them over. But if he had the machinery of a presidential campaign with which to respond and react to the MSM, who knows?

Re:Ever notice?

[catbutt]

What's going to happen when we beat the terrorists in Iraq? What are the cowering, wimpering, cut and run democrats going to do then? Probably strap on their jet packs, and fly home to spend time with their families and pet dragons.

Re:Ever notice?

[Ucklak]

It's Otters vs. Scientists all over again.

Re:Ever notice?

[eln]

That's a good point, but I think his performance in the run-up to the war proved to me that he made the right decision when he said he wouldn't get into politics.

At the time, everyone pretty much knew that Powell didn't agree with the way the war was going to be executed. After all, the "Powell Doctrine" of always going in with overwhelming force was named after him, and the Bush administration (thanks mainly to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) were convinced they could get it done with a much smaller force. Not to mention that he was perfectly willing to go up in front of the UN and present intelligence that he (allegedly) knew to be faulty when he made the speech. The fact that he said he regretted it later doesn't change the fact that he was willing to tow the party line in the face of his own (alleged) doubts.

The thing that makes him ill suited for high office, though, is not that he was right about these things, it's that he was totally ineffective at convincing the people that mattered to do things his way. What good is someone who has all the right answers if he is incapable of exercising any influence over anyone? Powell was Secretary of State, one of the most powerful cabinet positions in terms of foreign policy, and he was unable to convince anyone in the administration that his viewpoint was the correct one.

Yes, the President and his advisors are notoriously hard headed, but if you can't at least reach some sort of compromise with hard headed people, how can you manage foreign affairs, a game that involves talking to heads of state that are pretty much all egotistical and hard headed by nature? We don't need, and we frankly can't afford, another President whose only influence over foreign heads of state derives from his willingness to conduct preemptive strikes.

Re:Ever notice?

[pla]

Bush's low popularity numbers reflect on how much conviction he has.

...Whereas most of us just want one conviction.



He operates under beliefs, not by raising his finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing

The direction of the wind at least has some basis in fact, in that it means doing what the populace wants them to do. Granted, most people couldn't find their way out of a paper sack with a map and a flashlight, but I'll take playing to the polls over playing god any day.



What's going to happen when we beat the terrorists in Iraq?

I dunno... We'll all have to duck the flying pigs? Bush can look forward to building snowmen in the afterlife? Goatse-man will experience the least pain of all of us when monkeys start flying out?

Or, if we actually can claim such a victory, we can polish the crater and use the newly-vitreous ex-middle-east as the largest objective lens on the planet for a new telescope? Hrmph, and to think some people have the audacity to claim Bush doesn't support science!

Re:Ever notice?

[Xonstantine]

If Gore had campaigned on a platform of "keep doing what my predecessor did, except I'm faithful to my wife", he very well could have had an undisputable win in 2000.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Going by Clinton's approval ratings is misleading. Even against a lackluster candidate like Dole, Clinton was only able to muster 49.2% of the vote during his relection campaign in 1996, despite having around 60% approval ratings at the time. In other words, that high approval rating didn't translate very well into votes at election time. Also...Gore manifestly had a lot of problems:
1) He wasn't Clinton.
2) He didn't have ANY of Clinton's charm or charisma. Where Clinton came across as your buddy, Gore came across as the condescending guy no one likes.
3) From 1992-2000, Gore veered to the left. Politically, he went from being a fairly conservative blue dog Democrat as a Tennessee Senator to being a left-wing idealogue VP. This happened at the same time that the country, as a whole, was trending more conservative. To give you an idea of the impact, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee to Bush in 2000. Forget about Florida, if Gore had simply won Tennessee, he would be President today.

The fact that Gore lost after a successful illustrates his overall weakness as a candidate. Good candidates win elections, bad candidates do not. A fairly simple formula that people, especially party operatives, seem to forget. The Democrats electoral success in 2006 hinged in no small part to them putting forth better candidates than the Republicans (who, in many cases, actually ran to the right of Republicans on certain issues like immigration).

As an aside, the problem with Hillary is...she's not a good candidate. Not because she isn't effective at politics...she is. She is immensely talented, ruthless, and goal oriented. She has a great fund raising machine, and a lot of people owe her favors. The problem is a little over half the voting population won't vote for her under any circumstance. She's extremely polarizing. As popular as Bill was across demographics and party lines, Hillary has never had cross over appeal. Feminists love her, west coast and east cost liberals love her. And that's it. And you can't win an election on that alone.

Re:Ever notice?

[FauxPasIII]

> The loss of intelligence in the Islamic world happened under Clinton's watch.

And yet, even with all that lost intelligence, even with all the horrible, horrible things Clinton supposedly did to our intelligence and national security apparatus... it was still able to provide written warning of pretty much exactly what was going to happen and put it in Bush's hands on August 6th.

Re:Ever notice?

[Captain Splendid]

If Newt runs, it's hard to say. He eventually lost the center to Clinton as house speaker, but first he masterminded the Contract with America

You owe me a new monitor.

Re:Ever notice?

[ultranova]

And yet, even with all that lost intelligence, even with all the horrible, horrible things Clinton supposedly did to our intelligence and national security apparatus... it was still able to provide written warning of pretty much exactly what was going to happen and put it in Bush's hands on August 6th.

Written warning ? The fools ! They should had read it aloud !

Seriously speaking, maybe the intelligence organizations need to take heed of schoolteachers; the person the report is delivered to must submit in return, in a given timeframe, a summary of the reports contents (to prove he has read it) and a summary of actions he has taken concerning it, as well as the reasons he considers said actions adequate. Failure to do so satisfactorily will result in being placed in detention in a secret CIA torture facility.

Re:Ever notice?

[Sunburnt]

The Democrats came up with literally hundreds of accusations

Wrong again. The House Ethics Committee, both Repubs and Demos with a Repub majority, filed eighty-four ethics charges. Perhaps that may figuratively equal "hundreds," but not literally.

And every one was bogus, but ONE where he accidentally used a certain type of donation for the wrong purpose.

Wrong again, as you would know if you actually read the article I linked which discussed the findings of the ethics committee, instead of disgorging some half-remembered Republican talking point (that I also remember from the relevant period of history.)

Gingrich admitted that he brought discredit to the House and broke its rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information.

Far be it from me to hold up the rest of Congress as an ideal of purity, but Gingrich is still a lying hypocrite. And especially so, given his stance as a "reformer."

Re:Ever notice?

[cyber-dragon.net]

No, a man stands up for what he believes in and keeps his word. I seem to recall the President swears to uphold and defend this little document called the Constitution when he is sworn into office. Bush has taken a paper shredder to it.

To be a man is not to be afraid, to defend the weak and your ideals. Bush is the school bully who uses fear to get what he wants. American's should not be afraid, we should not cower and we should not give up the liberty that MEN like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin risked everything to win for us. Those were men, Bush is a coward and a bully who sells the beliefs and principles we fought so hard to gain for a bit of power.

Have you ever been to a High School that has one of those nosy people that wants to be in every bit of your business and can't stand it when you tell them to go away you want some privacy? Yeah... that is Bush if that same person was also the school bully who made you do what he wanted out of fear and intimidation and then runs to the principle to cry foul if he doesn't get what he wants. The guy who was so macho but under knew he was really weak and pathetic so he would not stand up to anyone unless 20 people where there to back him up against the one. A man stands up for himself no matter what.

Soldiers risk everything to defend what they believe in. The founding fathers of the US of A risked hanging and their homes to create this country and the rights people today so easily let go. Tell me one thing Bush has done that shows he is willing to risk ANYTHING so much as someone disagreeing with him?

A man as you say... would not use fear to control. He would not use fear to get his people to let him spy on them. He would not use fear and threats to intimidate people into doing what he wanted. A man does not do these things. Bush is a coward, a bully and an idiot that has violated his oath to the American people. Colin Powell was a man, and he would not sacrifice his own personal honor to give Bush credibility.

Kudos in advance

[daveschroeder]

I just wanted to take a moment to thank the slashdot community, in advance, for what I am certain will be yet another discussion that will be the picture of decorum and civility. If there is anything I have learned about slashdot over the years, it is its ability to conduct a mature discussion about any topic, devoid of paranoia, rage, or ignorance.

In fact, I believe it would be fair to say that it was slashdot that single-handedly relegated the old connotation of "tinfoil hat" to the dustbin, leaving instead something that could only be termed fashionable, if unique, headwear in its wake. I know of no other web site that could have accomplished this return to such a balance and due consideration of all sides of an issue in its discourse.

Only on slashdot can such a discussion be guaranteed to be free of cynicism that dominates other venues of debate. Here, opposing viewpoints will be examined and considered, and not snuffed out. Nor will the community elevate viewpoints which only serve to reinforce their preconceived notions; indeed, slashdot, especially its comments, is the place to come for an evenly weighted consideration of any issue, especially issues of a political nature.

Neither will commenters fall to the common fallacy of "recentism", believing that a recent event must necessarily be the worst such case of an event in the history of mankind; instead recognizing that the internet can simply deluge us with an increasingly unprecedented level of information about any person or group which may pique our interest, allowing a wide range of ever more specific issues and minutia to be amplified to levels never witnessed in the past.

Moreover, I can tell by the (current) article title - "Politics: Carl Rove Resigning Aug 31" - that this discussion will have the highest regard for accuracy not only in content, but in spelling and grammar, as regular slashdot visitors will no doubt recognize to be the status quo. This level of accuracy can only be achieved by the tireless work of slashdot's editors, who carefully review each submission to the site.

So, bravo, slashdot - not only for what you have accomplished for political discussion in the past, but for the discussion you are about to have. It is exactly this kind of level-headed discussion that keeps people coming back for evenly balanced news and careful interpretation on nearly any topic.

Bravo, indeed!

Re:Kudos in advance

[roystgnr]

...a balance and due consideration of all sides...

Ironically, in the middle of your effort to point out what's wrong with political discussion in the USA, you're encouraging one of the more insidious flaws in mainstream media coverage: the idea that "due consideration" will always be "evenly balanced". Sometimes the right way to "Teach the Controversy" is just to point out the objective facts which make the fringe side of the controversy look stupid, not to fill 50% of your story with flat-earther quotes and title the whole thing "Shape of Earth: Views Differ".

Most online discussion is even worse, since people have ten thousand popular blogs to choose from and so naturally gravitate to the ones that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs - so instead of reading stories that don't challenge our objectively questionable views, we get to read stories that don't challenge any of our views. By this standard, Slashdot's political discussions are actually pretty good - the tech crowd skews more libertarian than average, but because Slashdot is not inherently a political site there's still enough liberals and conservatives and socialists and such in the crowd to make things interesting, most of whom aren't just trolls. The nested comments are lightyears ahead of most sites for encouraging constructive debate, and if you set your threshold to 4 or lower you'll even get to read the most well-written anti-groupthink side of that debate.

Re:Kudos in advance

[mosch]

This is a man who had a well-known dream of creating a permanent Republican electoral majority and who really perfected the use of wedge issues to obtain and hold power.

The contention that we should be respectful towards him is absurd. He spent decades working as hard as he could to ensure that everyone's interests were not represented equally or fairly, and helping to destroy the middle ground, to make the "us versus them" vision of politics more deeply entrenched.

Sure, there have been power plays for a long time; Machiavelli wasn't born yesterday, nor was he the originator of all his described tactics. But that said, the fact that something is old does not make it desirable or excusable.

As such, I say "FUCK YOU" to Mr. Rove, and I sincerely hope that one of those dove's that he's planning on killing drops a turd right in his eye.

And a "FUCK YOU" to you too, you righteous asshole. This is a man who perfected the modern use of hate as a political lever. He shall reap what he was sown.

Re:Kudos in advance

[daveschroeder]

I'm not talking about information that is provably incorrect, like whether the Earth is flat. I'm talking about philosophical and ideological differences on whether, e.g., promoting the development of democracies in the Mideast - for myriad reasons - is or isn't a good idea, and what the arguments are for each.

Some editorial discussion is also an issue of severely misplaced priorities. A greater disservice is done to the population being served by a particular media outlet when they disproportionately represent threats from, e.g., our own government, versus radical Panislamic terrorists or longer term from China.

There are many supposedly intelligent and well-educated individuals who literally and fervently believe that the Bush administration is the single greatest threat to the American people that has existed in the history of the nation, and any other current or historical external threat is either manufactured or pales in comparison to the present "internal" threat. Further, any media outlet that does not represent the situation in this fashion is therefore not reporting the "truth".

Then again, a disappointingly - and increasingly - large number of these people also genuinely believe that 9/11 was executed (or at the very least "allowed to happen") by the United States government as an excuse to warmonger in the Mideast, so I suppose I should not find this surprising. I do, however, find it extremely disheartening.

It's almost not so much what the media is reporting; it seems a great deal of people have already chosen their ideological "side", as it were, in many of these debates, and will simply seek out "news" that supports their point of view, and discount any other source that doesn't.

Re:Kudos in advance

[mosch]

One more note: I really wish that politicians of all sorts would stop using moral equivalence to justify their actions.

It's sickening how often I see somebody justifying bad actions by saying that the other side has done the same thing, or as is the case in your post, that the other side might want to do the same thing.

This moral equivalence argument has become so common that you even followed it up by calling me a hypocrite for not granting the argument against a pure hypothetical.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They never will.

Again, this is not a party-specific complaint, but the fact that you would make these comments, seemingly sincerely, goes a long way to showing how many people view democracy as nothing more than an "us versus them" game in which one side wins and the other must lose.

Rove Responds

[Himring]

According to CNN current Bush Administration political advisor Karl Rove will be resigning his post as senior political advisor at the end of August [CC] to spend more time with his family.

"When asked for comment Mr. Rove stated, 'I believe we will be settling down in this place called The Shire. I understand great opportunity exists there to squash more insurgency....'"

Naturally, you'd have to have read the actual LoTR to get that and not just seen the movies....

Trade off

[DarkAudit]

Yes, he's leaving the White House, but that in no way means he's done working *with* the White House and the Republican Party. All it really means is that he'll be free of the restrictions on doing political work out of a government office.

Then again, if or when it hits the fan, any work he may have done after that date would not have the protection of his White house job or "Executive Privilege".

In any event, expect the dirty tricks to continue as usual.

I am sure many others have noticed this...

[Noryungi]

But what is it with Republicans (and also Democrats) quitting "to spend more time with their families"?

I mean, this simple sentence has practically become equivalent with "I need to resign in a hurry, to organize my legal defense", for Pete's sake!

So, let's start the rumor mill: why is Karl Rove really resigning?

• Because he wants to go work for one of the Republican candidates, like Giuliani.
• Because he has been offered a nice cushy position at a Republican think-tank, like the American Enterprise Institute.
• Because he has heard some MSM journalist has finally done his/her job and was about to blow the whistle on (insert nefarious activity here).
• Because it's time to cash in his Halliburton/Carlyle Group options and retire.
• Because Congress is, slowly but surely, getting closer and closer to him in a gazillion different scandals.
• Because he has found his true calling: ministering to the lost souls at Slashdot and other "liberal" blogs to bring them back to Jesus.

Any ideas?

Re:I am sure many others have noticed this...

[rbanffy]

Obviously he regards his lawyers as family.

That's not surprising at all.

Have you ever seen Karl Rove?

[sheldon]

He's most definately a nerd. He's so much of a nerd, even the geeks beat up on him in high school.

implications for boths sides

[jaldot]

One of the best political campaign advisers in the history of politics, has been released into the wild to prepare for next year's elections. In other words, this story has implications for both sides of the political aisle and it's not simply a 'ding dong witch is dead' deal.

Respectfully, I disagree.

[HerculesMO]

It is news for nerds, when the top advisor of an administration who has supported topics like changing the fight on global warming, letting the FCC let lobbyists write its daily agendas, encouraging telcos to say that the internet is "theirs" and that they can charge a premium to different internet sites around the globe if they want 'increased' bandwith.

It is news for nerds, when an administration is guilty of supporting failing industries like airlines, stopping the path for new airlines to make headway into the arena. It is news for nerds when we remove the advisor who played the "Wizard of Oz" with what should be the most powerful man in the world.

In reality though, it won't change a thing. Rove's departure is too little, too late. My hope is that charges are brought upon him for the firing of the US Attorneys and making it politically motivated, for helping cherry pick intelligence to make a case for a war of choice, for re-writing documents written by climatologists to show that global warming is a hoax, and on and on. The intelligent folks would start the indictment towards the end of Bush's term, and have it run through after he is out of office. No sentence should be passed while George Bush is in office. This way, when faced with SOLID jail time, Karl Rove will show how his underhanded life will play against George Bush and Co when he starts blathering about every bad thing he and his buddies in the White House did during his tenure. And you can bet that it would happen if he did face jail time.

For an administration so bent on war, almost all of them deferred multiple times to stay out of Vietnam, or flew aircraft that were obsolete and had no chance of being used in battle. When they are faced with the violent fact of jail -- you can bet they will try to "defer" yet again.

Re:i don't get it

[PJ1216]

If this slashdot post results in that many responses, then obviously this something we'd deem "stuff that matters."

Uh, elections ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Ever notice the smart rats jump first from the burning ship?

Uh, no, once Bush won reelection the ship "Bush II" was home free. Perhaps you heard about an upcoming election season? Rove is a political consultant specializing in getting Republicans elected and advancing conservative initiatives. It is simply time from Karl to get involved in the elections and he can't do that from the White House anymore.

Lets vote rationally.

[cliffski]

you vote for someone based on their eyes and expressions?
Here in the UK, we had a blind home secretary for a while. his eyes went crazy all the time. I guess he would have lost your vote?
I'd be happy never to see a politician, or hear them, so I'm not influenced by such trivialities. What matters is what they propose, what they have done, and what they will do. Looks, Age, voice, style, I couldn't give a damn. the main job of a president or PM is to make the right decisions. You can be a 400 pound ugly son of a bitch who dribbles constantly and sounds like fozzy bear, but if you make the right decisions, I'll vote for you, and I won't care about your race, your gender or your looks.

Re:Lets vote rationally.

[lymond01]

What matters is what they propose, what they have done, and what they will do. Looks, Age, voice, style, I couldn't give a damn. the main job of a president or PM is to make the right decisions.

True enough, though any president or PM is relying heavily on research and advice from hundreds of other people. A leader needs to sound confident more than feel confident. His decisions are in the background and people feel the tremors of them, but when he or she stands at the podium and tells the people how things are going or why he's doing something, looks, timbre, and eyes do count. (See the Nixon vs Kennedy debate: TV-goers decided Kennedy won. Radio-listeners were for Nixon.)

Now there are lots of people with great ideas, but if you're too short, too heavy, don't look good in a suit...then you're already a step behind. People want heroic stature in their leaders. It's not mandatory and can be gleaned over by intelligence, humor, wise words. But it helps as it has always helped. Barak Obama is a good looking, well spoken guy, and it's not hurting him.

Oh Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is really stretching to say that this is news for nerds. Plenty of political news happens every day from both sides, yet the only ones that seem to matter to slashdot is when it only concerns Republicans?

This politics section is a joke. This is not news for nerds. This is raw meat for the digg/kos crowd. Remember when CmdrTaco said they would be fair? It's not even close. Trolls like kdawon and Zonk use this section as their personal soapbox. It's ridiculous when anyone says it's anything but.

My take

[Orange Crush]

1.) K, it's not exactly tech news, but I still think it's very relevant to us news-reading nerds. Love or hate, discussions about this administration fueled a great deal of the web 2.0/blog explosion. Granted, that would've happened regardless of who was in the white house, but U.S. politics has had its nose in lots of issues directly related to technology. It's also correctly filed under "politics" so I don't have a problem with it.

2.) Love him or hate him, Rove is a brilliant and cunning political strategist. His president cannot be re-elected and is effectively a lame duck. Bush will wane in the public mind, take lots of vacations, and shoo away congressional investigations like irritating flies for his remaining term--he really doesn't need Rove anymore and would prefer he go off and do what he's proven himself so good at--campaigning for the Republican party in what will doubtlessly be a very difficult upcoming election. I doubt Rove will jump in head first as an official political advisor to anyone anytime soon, but I also doubt he'll be able to resist helping out in an unofficial capacity--it's what he does best.

3.) The "Miss Piggy / Gay bar" bit is just silly. Even if he was gay (which I doubt) he's far too clever to fall into a trap remotely like that. Let me know when there's a vaguely credible source for that goofy rumor and maybe I'll bother to give it more thought.

Re:Gunslinger Karl

[Sesticulus]

Obviously you've never tasted dove. It's delicious, tastes almost like kitten.

Re:Actually...

[Fex303]

I see what you did there. Hidden out in the open like one of the three...

On a side note, I couldn't believe that the OP had to mention that you needed to have read the books to get the Scouring of the Shire refernce. I mean, this is /.! But of course someone came along and not only hadn't read the books, but then went on to argue with them... Which I guess means that this really is /.

Umm...

[ZoneGray]

"Mr Rove is one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution"

Don't you mean he's one of the people responsible for ending it? As far as I can see, the Republicans have been winning less and less over the last 8 years, to the point where most pundits believe the Dems will win the presidency and both houses of Congress in '08. The only people happy about Rove's departure should be Republicans.

On the other hand, since so many Democrats think he's some sort of genius... what does that say?

Ugly SOB who sounds like Fozzy Bear...

[MsGeek]

A second, wait you! A good president of the US Yoda would make! No shit does Yoda take from any man! Size matters not! Osama bin-Laden's ass, he will kick!

Re:Yeah, no one EVER complains about the President

[Evilest Doer]

Those older than me might be able to trace this trend back further.

Yeah, I'm still pissed off about that fucker Millard Fillmore! "God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil ... and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution," he said. Pansy-assed little bastard!