Goodbye, Karl!

Nobody is shedding tears over the departure of the presidential confidant and aide, Karl Rove.

Pundits and Washington Insiders are falling all over themselves trying to evaluate Rove's legacy and they have come up with a two-part conclusions: he was an 1) effective 2) divider. What crap is this? Conservatives like David Brooks are desperate for Rove's tenure to be considered revolutionary and for his vision to be something envied. That is the only way that they can salvage his reputation, which is eternally tide with George Bush.

What is so visionary and effective about Karl Rove? In 1999, he made death threats against a journalist and his family, calling his house in the middle of the night after the writer uncovered Bush's cocaine conviction and printed his findings.

In 2004, Rove was directly responsible for financing and directing the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that inaccurately slimed John Kerry during the election.

His tactics are trivialized by calling them 'hardball', making it seem as if this stuff is allowable and defensible; that this is merely a tactic to be used. Death threats and baldly lying and disrupting the truth cannot be seen as tactics: they must be held as contemptible.

Similarly, his approach to governing was just as toxic, making manipulation of the courts (attorney firings and stacking the judgeships with inexperienced politicos) seem like a normal thing to do. Blatantly breaking federal law to silence the critics by leaking the identity of a CIA operative is criminal.

But the truth of this story is that this way of operating is inseparable from Bush; not just because Bush ended up doing the things that Rove suggested, but because he would do it anyway. In 1987, George H. W. Bush hired his son, W, to be a major campaign aide and what does he do? He pushes for the infamous Willie Horton ad that swung a big Dukakis lead into a significant Bush win.

The question of this shouldn't be on whether or not this is 'effective'. We cannot allow it to be seen as effective when people lie, cheat, manipulate the rules, manipulate the media, manipulate the people, lower the level of debate, and sacrifice the nature of law. Rove and Bush lied, and because they love to lie (as a political tactic), they must be considered liars. Because they are liars, they cannot be trusted.

Perhaps Rove and Bush's greatest achievement is making the public prefer to believe a liar than deal with the truth. What a convenient way for them to regulate their legacies!