Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government Politics

Karl Rove Resigning Aug 31 739

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the start-the-clock-ticking dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Karl Rove Resigning Aug 31

Comments Filter:
  • by UncleWilly (1128141) * <UncleWilly07@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:28AM (#20211775)
    Ever notice the smart rats jump first from the burning ship?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Stonent1 (594886)
      I'm just looking forward to the next election simply because once Bush is out, I no longer have to hear about people constantly complaining about him. I'm starting not to care who wins, I just don't trust Hillary one bit. I can see it in her eyes and her expressions. I didn't get a good feeling about her even during the 1992 elections.
      • by endianx (1006895) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:41AM (#20211975)
        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? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by E++99 (880734) on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:06PM (#20213033) Homepage

          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?
          • by Captain Splendid (673276) <{capsplendid} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 13, 2007 @01:22PM (#20213983) Homepage Journal
            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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by careysub (976506)

            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.

            So far, so good.

            Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incomp

      • by cliffski (65094) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:50AM (#20212095) Homepage
        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.
        • by lymond01 (314120) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:59AM (#20212951)
          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.
        • by MsGeek (162936) on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:17PM (#20213177) Homepage Journal
          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:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:56AM (#20212175)
        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?
      • by scumdamn (82357) on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:05PM (#20213019)
        Thanks so much for your data driven election analysis! I've never seen such an intereseting cogent explanation of why a candidate is the wrong choice for our great country!

        Also, the best reason to wish the end of this Presidency is surely that people will stop complaining about him. It's definitely not that he's actually a bad President or that his administration is incompetent or anything. Have you ever thought of getting a job at CNN or maybe replacing Tim Russert on Meet the Press?

      • Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by michrech (468134) on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:44PM (#20213483)
        Yeah... Ummm.. Good luck with that..

        Bush (and some in his administration) has created such a mess that we will be cleaning it up for some time. You will be hearing complaints for a good while after he is gone, I'm sure of it.

        Hell, people are still complaining about Clinton's BJ. How long has he been out of office now?

        Yeah...

        I'm just looking forward to the next election simply because once Bush is out, I no longer have to hear about people constantly complaining about him. I'm starting not to care who wins, I just don't trust Hillary one bit. I can see it in her eyes and her expressions. I didn't get a good feeling about her even during the 1992 elections.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        I can see it in her eyes and her expressions.

        Her "eyes and expressions"? I suppose Mitt Romney's strong chin makes you trust him and Fred Thompson's masculine smell makes you feel all secure inside.

        If you really can tell so by watching a person's eyes and expressions (over the television no less), I bet you can play some kick-ass Texas Hold 'em.

        If Hillary's eyes and expression give you cause to worry, what in the name of baldheaded Jesus did you think of Dick Cheney's sneer or George Bush's dopey stare?

        Ju

    • Turd Blossom! (Score:2, Interesting)

      Google it. Revealing.

      This man says he's leaving "for his family".

      Thant's because they have the evidence of his cruising activities with D.C.'s gay hustlers.

      Karl Rove: Known in Gay Circles as 'Miss Piggy'
      by jo swift at 12:10PM (CET) on November 2, 2006 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

      In Washington's more 'discreet' gay bars Karl Rove is well-known as a frequent visitor. Witty gays have given him the nickname 'Miss Piggy, after the character on 'The Muppets'. Whether this refers to his appearance ['the doughbo

    • Uh, elections ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AHumbleOpinion (546848) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:44AM (#20212013) Homepage
      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.
    • Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Informative)

      by truthsearch (249536) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:48AM (#20212075) Homepage Journal
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:29AM (#20212595)
        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?
        • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:59AM (#20212957)
          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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alzheimers (467217) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:34AM (#20212665)
        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? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by eln (21727) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:14PM (#20213135) Homepage
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Alzheimers (467217)
            Despite his charisma and intelligence, which should make him a natural leader, he's also a soldier. As such, he's been trained to obey his superiors even when he personally disagreed with the decisions. This made him ineffective "incapable of exercising any influence" as Secretary of State, because his role was as foot soldier for an administration that had no use for tact or strategy.

            This administration has shown from the beginning that they're not willing to compromise or negotiate with anyone. As you
      • Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 13, 2007 @12:06PM (#20213025) Journal
        Which goals are those? If he was thinking of making vast amounts of money for his cronies from the invasion of Iraq, the Insurgency has taken care of that. His education program is a disaster. Congress wouldn't co-operate on his immigration reforms. His social security reforms have evaporated. His good pal Michael Brown made sure that FEMA was an absolute joke during Katrina, which pretty much revealed to the world (including all those enemies slinking around in nasty places waiting to blow Americans up) that the richest nation on the planet was intensely incompetent. The ball has totally been dropped on catching bin Laden and the NATO coalition is now finding itself battling a recharged Taliban. The White House's most important Central Asian ally, Pakistan, looks more and more to be sliding towards some sort of pro-Islamist regime.

        I dunno. It doesn't look to me like Bush has accomplished any goals, unless his goals were the humiliation of the US on the international stage.

        (I would lay the blame for 9-11 on him as well, but to be honest, his part in that was rather small. The blame for the attacks sits more on Bill Clinton's shoulders. So take that, you Dwemocwats).
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:28AM (#20211777)
    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!
    • jeez dude, way to intimidate people. who's going to feel up to your sarcasm after that?
      (this is nice: 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 minuti
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nagora (177841)
      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.

      Well, if it's a discussion about Rove, decorum and civility would be highly inappropriate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by o'reor (581921)

      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.

      You are absolutely right, and I think that Slashdot is an example of civility that should be taken as a model by LittleGreenFootball, the DailyKos, Alternet and

    • by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@@@ticam...utexas...edu> on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:13AM (#20212397) Homepage
      ...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.
      • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @01:35PM (#20214133)
        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.
    • by mosch (204) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:56AM (#20212917) Homepage
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        When you make a statement, you imply the inverse. When you say that Karl Rove, in his evil ways, wanted to create a permanent Republican majority, you're implying that there is no idea in liberal minds of creating a permanent Democrat majority.

        I don't think that's really true, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Rove for doing well what Democrats would love to do. Remember, Rove is where he was because of the outcome of an election. I don't really understand what your crying about interests not
        • by mosch (204) on Monday August 13, 2007 @01:41PM (#20214223) Homepage
          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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Xonstantine (947614)
        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.

        I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Democratic side that dream of cementing a permanent Democratic electoral majority too. Neither objective is evil, unless of course, you consider the Democratic or Republican party as innately evil. And if you do, honestly, you have no business discussing politics.

        The contention that we sh
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wakko Warner (324)
          I don't like Rove (mainly because he's been disasterous for conservatives), but Rove was hardly some grand architect of "us versus them".

          Sure, he wasn't. He only pitted the entire country against each other on the issues of terrorism, same-sex rights, Iraq, immigration, abortion... every even election year, the Republicans trotted out another dead horse to beat righteously in a desperate attempt to attract blacks, fundamentalist Christians, anyone they could, to the Republican party.

          If anything, he's a "bi
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:29AM (#20211789)
    Apart from the blatent click-whoring of the pointless "Politics" section, why is this on /. at all?
  • i don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:31AM (#20211817) Homepage Journal
    yes, the man is a slimeball

    and this thread will get about 10,000 cheers for his departure and exclamations of his slimeball status

    regardless, neither the comments nor this story has anything remotely to do with slashdot

    "news for nerds", right?

    yes, this is news, but not slashdot news
    • by sheldon (2322) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:38AM (#20211929)
      He's most definately a nerd. He's so much of a nerd, even the geeks beat up on him in high school.
    • by HerculesMO (693085) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:43AM (#20212001)
      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.
      • Oh Please. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:57AM (#20212195)
        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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shajenko42 (627901)

        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.

        Bush can pardon Rove

    • Re:i don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PJ1216 (1063738) * on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:44AM (#20212003)
      If this slashdot post results in that many responses, then obviously this something we'd deem "stuff that matters."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by linguizic (806996)
      I thought what makes someone a nerd is having an odd penchant for publicly stating unwarranted opinions on everything.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cybermage (112274)
      yes, this is news, but not slashdot news

      And that, my friend, is the problem.

      Politicians in both parties are ruining this country because people have divorced themselves from the political process. Politicians will continue to take your money and spend it as they see fit, get us into wars, and commit attrocities in your name whether you're involved in the process or not.

      Voting is not just a right: It's a responsiblity. Being informed about the issues allows you to take that responsiblity seriously.

      I know man
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bemopolis (698691)
      Of course it's relevant to Slashdot — he uses an iPhone. Which just goes to show how great a product it is; I mean, who knew it could handle that level of fire and brimstone?
  • by Himring (646324) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:31AM (#20211825) Homepage Journal
    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....

  • I'm not sure if I should rejoice or freak out. I'm glad to see him out of there, as I'd like to see the whole administration gone. But at the same time, while I'm not a mega-tinfoil-hat kind of guy, I do wonder if he's leaving because he's now completed whatever he wanted to do there, and how afraid should I be of whatever that might be.
  • Trade off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkAudit (975261) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:35AM (#20211879)
    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.
  • Bush awards him a "Presidential medal of Freedom" or some other insanely high accolade that he is undeserving of as a final parting shot before he leaves in 2009? I mean come on, if Brownie is doing a "heck of job", just imagine what Bush must think of Turd Blossom.
  • by Noryungi (70322) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:37AM (#20211919) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • by jaldot (997119) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:39AM (#20211951)
    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.
  • Well here goes (Score:4, Informative)

    by phoenixwade (997892) on Monday August 13, 2007 @10:49AM (#20212083)
    To start - I'm a libertarian, I'm very opposed to the current administrations handiling of a number of items, not the least of which is the impinging of my right to privacy, the handling of the "War on Terror", and getting us into a war in Iraq that I still fail to see how it benefits the US citizen. I have taken a bit of criticism from my friends by asking that question, but my response is and has been "When you spend US solders lives and Billions of US dollars, it seems to me that there should be an answer to the 'What did we purchase?' question."

    That said, Karl Rove's handling of the 2000 presidential election was excellent, but the 2004 presidential election was masterful. Granted, the democrats helped some (and appear to be helping again now, for that matter), but there is no way Bush would have been re-elected without his help. In any normal situation the incompetency of any of those three items would have cost Bush the 2004 elections. I'm kind of sorry to see him go, regardless of my opinion of the administrations polices, Karl Rove is a master of politics and for good or for badad, I think he should have stuck around to see it though, there is only another 18 months in the administration, after all, and I'm sure he's on the short list of blanket pardons that Bush is going to write as he exits his term in office.

    Besides that, who is left for the media to target? Dick? He is already a target, and doesn't care. He has so much "clout" in Washington that he can, and does, ignore everyone and do his own thing.
  • My take (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Orange Crush (934731) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:02AM (#20212267)

    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.

  • Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZoneGray (168419) on Monday August 13, 2007 @11:36AM (#20212691) Homepage
    "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?
  • by Dracos (107777) on Monday August 13, 2007 @01:47PM (#20214287)

    This move doesn't make any sense. Just when the Bushites need him the most, he "quits"? Here's a list of reasons why this is bizarre:

    • Bush's approval ratings are approaching Nixon's low-point record
    • Few are buying the Gonzales Defense anymore (ie, "I can't recall")
    • Congress has begin waving big sticks, who knows if they will actually use them
    • "The Surge is working", even as
    • The Iraqi government is collapsing [bbc.co.uk]

    Like so many before, "spending time with his family" is a polite lie. Just because he's leaving his official post doesn't mean he won't still be pulling the puppet strings from backstage.

    Something else, really big, is going on.

  • by doom (14564) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Monday August 13, 2007 @04:14PM (#20216151) Homepage Journal
    Now that he's retiring maybe he can spend even more time on troll accounts on slashdot.

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...