Since my views have started to attract some attention from a lot of users that do not maintain their own blogs, I have decided to post a weekly answer to some of the more interesting comments on my blog.

 

 

First of all, in response to “Liberal Nobility and the Myth of Conservatism”

TrueAmerican writes:	Monday, August, 20, 2007 4:09 AM
Good points...

 

You are correct that George Bush is the greatest disaster this country has had in modern history. But I would add this to the conservative voice, gay marriage, abortion and so called adding faith in government are not what conservatism is all about, those are just political mumbo jumbo to keep the masses appeased. This country has major problems, major, our infrastructure is falling apart, we are spending trillions of dollars on foreign ventures, again led by a politician and an party that claims conservatism. The reality is, they use the little things that mean NOTHING, to control the voices that think those little things are more than they are, so they can play slight of hand. Conservatives need a voice, but not a voice of BS, a voice that says lets move this country forward, not backward.

 

True American:

I’m glad that someone finally agrees with me on the topic of Bush, but I wouldn’t say that all of the moral “BS” issues are useless.  In fact, these issues are very important, but not necessarily from a policy perspective.  These wedge issues are used as a means of dividing an electorate, and forcing conservative voters out to support a particular candidate.  If it were not for issues such as these, conservatives would be hard pressed to win any election.  Unfortunately, the most important information is usually the least digestible for the masses…  That being said, I would say that the value of any issue in an election is only worth as much as the politician that it empowers. 

 

El Gordo and I have been commenting back and forth for a week or so, and it’s a shame that he doesn’t have his own blog.  He does make some interesting points.

 

Here’s what Mr. Gordo has to say about Humint and Russia

 

You forgot to mention the "Russian soul"

It is a common fallacy to explain everything anybody does in the world as a reaction to America, as if other powers did not have their own agendas (agendas, not just interests). Not everything in the world happens because of America. The missile defense shield is not an "aggressive military step". It is absolutely no threat to Russia and the regime must know this. It is therefore not really "scared". It has acquired symbolic value exactly because Putin chose to raise a stink. And you are falling for it. Putin´s reaction to the missile shield was designed to drive a wedge between Europe and America, because he had observed that a mixture of threats and complaints works with Europe and that there is virulent anti-Americanism to be exploited (just as his employee Schröder did when he was chancellor). Expanding NATO eastwards was far more consequential than the missile shield, but at the time the Europeans were on board, so it would not have worked as a wedge issue. You are not going to convince me that Bush planned the Russian overreaction by placing a radar installation in the Czech Republic (which last time I looked was a sovereign country no longer under Russian rule from which it is separated by about 700 miles). I find it touching that you can put yourself in these people´s shoes, but one can overdo these things. „Too many people are making too much money, and too many trends are pushing Russia towards the West for Moscow to blow it all with any sort of military action.“ - True. They probably can spread their brand of corporatist fascim without large-scale military action. How that is a trend that pushes Russia towards the west is unclear. The idea is to split and weaken the West and bad ideas have bad consequences down the road. As for your defense of the CIA and that self serving bureaucrat Tenet – sorry, I don´t know what you´re talking about. Sounds like Bush Derangement Sydrome to me.

 

Mr. Gordo, I agree that from a proper, strategic point of view, NATO expansion is far more threatening than a simple radar installation.  However, we are not just talking about radar, but actual anti-missile defenses.  These types of installations do have a very specific purpose, which has been highlighted by Russia time and again.

 

Furthermore, many things in the world do not happen because of the US, but this is one of the cases where the US is solely responsible.  True, the Czech Republic is a free nation, but all of the equipment being set up is at the behest of US interests.  Furthermore, how would the US react if, all of a sudden, Russia installed special defensive, anti-missile and radar posts in Cuba or Mexico?  I bet that your reaction would be quite a bit more alarmed.

 

I also agree that it is entirely possible that Russia is using this same action to drive a wedge between the US and Europe.  In fact, it’s working pretty well from their standpoint.

 

Can you be a bit more clear about what “corporatist fascism” is? 

 

It seems that in every development in Russia, you are seeing some sort of potential strategic threat, even in their economy.  This, in fact, is exactly the way that Russians see us, in exclusively strategic terms, which is why their foreign policy keeps falling flat on its face.

 

Also, I’m a bit unfamiliar with “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”  What is that exactly?

 

Later on, Mr. El Gordo practically wrote me a dissertation on America and Europe Part II: How Europe sees US, so I’ll go ahead and say that I do agree with some of what he says, but I’ve picked out a few parts that strike me as inaccurate.

 

Look, I followed the pre-war debate in Germany, such as it was. Back then most European governments did not deny that Iraq was close to having nuclear weapons or was a dangerously aggressive regime that threatened the region. They simply did not want to face it, just as they simply hope for the best with regard to Iran now. They did not advance a single credible alternative to the war. Containment or sanctions would have been entirely up to the US. Almost all talk shows and editorials dealt with the need to stop the US, not with adressing the problem at hand.

Actually, I think that you might have your timing a bit off on this one.  The major criticisms with the war were that Bush authorized the invasion based on the congressional resolution that empowered him to “Disarm Saddam by Force.”  However, as the date for invasion came closer, the story for war kept changing.  The first story, WMDs, was based on evidence that was more than 10 years old, the same stuff that Clinton used to justify bombing baby-aspirin factories (which the Republicans jumped all over in the late 1990s).  Then, after Hans Blix concluded that there were no WMDs (later verified by the Pentagon in 2006), the story changed to “Saddam is a terrorist, and he supported 9/11 hijackers.  Polls taken before the war showed that nearly 40% of Americans thought that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. 

 

After reporting on this showed that Saddam’s special service was not in support of Al-Qaeda, the last rationale, even before the first bombs fell, was that Saddam was just an awful man, and that he deserved to die.  This is why the invasion was renamed “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” ostensibly designed to liberate the Iraqis from their dictator. 

 

Europe didn’t pose any solutions because the problem was already solved: Saddam was not armed, and not affiliated with terrorists, so the threat that he constituted didn’t actually exist.  Europe wasn’t ready to jump on the war bandwagon just to get rid of one more dictator, simply because they (and we) are in bed with lots of questionable regimes, far worse than Iraq was.

 

„Remember that regional conflicts of this nature can spread very, very fast“ / „looking at the potential consequences of a war with Iraq, and looking at all of the evidence, Europe feels entirely justified at criticizing US behavior in Iraq“
- it seems we are on different continents. Well, one immediate consequence of the Iraq war was that asylum applications by Iraqis in Germany (which had been going at about 1000 per month in the years before) went down by 80-90 percent. No that the press mentioned this; I had to look up the statistics myself. One thing people here do not fear is that the instability is spreading to them. If they say it, they don´t mean it. They feel very snug and secure. I have heard this often enough: Oh, the Americans are always fearful, they are paranoid, but not us.

 

When I was talking about the problems with regional wars, I was referring to different cases where remote wars suddenly consumed large areas.  It was a definition of principle.

 

Anyways, the Iraq was has had lots of effects on the European continent, not the least on oil prices.  France and Germany had deals with Iraqi oil, and an invasion would leave their countries in a very vulnerable position, which is why they opposed it as soon as Blix gave his report (see the above rationale cycle).

 

Honestly, I, too get fed up with European condescension, but no matter how smug they are, they were right about the problems of going to war.

 

Here's another good one on the end of Karl Rove.

Just remember conservatives, the only reason that the democrats hit the last election out of the park was that they finally started swinging at Rove's softballs.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/20/rove/

Honestly, as a Christian and a patriot, I just do not understand any possible way that another American could approve of this man's behavior.  Every time that I hear any sort of defense of Rove, it's either "this whole thing is just a big, liberal conspiracy" (which has never been the case), or "Yes he's bad, but at least he has empowered a conservative president" (also untrue).

Liberal conspiracies do not exist.  Or, rather, they do, but only if someone considers grassroots political activity and a healthy system of democratic activity a conspiracy (Russian Tsars, German Autocrats, Communists of all stripes and Islamic Theocracies have the same opinion).  In the nineteenth-century understanding, I suppose a liberal political action would be considered a conspiracy. 

For all of the die-hard, conservatives out there, just remember that these "conspiracies" were the very same that have led to nearly every major source of American social progress.  Thanks to liberals, children are not sent to coal mines to die at an early age in order to line the pockets of industrialists.  Thanks to liberals, the federal government has played a major role in enhancing US society, giving this nation the assets that we need to move forward (things like universities, laws, social programs and environmental protection).

 

Famous Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were considered liberals in their day.  And, thank God, they were empowered by the people of this nation to make America a better place for all of us.

The major problems with liberals are that they can get carried away.  However, we have elections that will easily change the political spectrum.

Also, the myth that George Bush is truly conservative is probably one of the most widely-believed fabrications that I have ever heard.  He has done nothing, NOTHING, to advance conservative politics, and his reckless administration had defiled the name "conservative" for at least the next two election cycles.  Just look to the new, grassroots conservative movements that are emerging to advance their own, independent agenda.  Bush has done nothing against gay marriage, nothing to stem abortion, his so-called "conservative judges" constantly make rulings that overturn his policies, and the closest he came to advancing faith in this nation was a half-hearted semi-endorsement of intelligent design.  I am sure that his two terms will be remembered as one of the great mistakes of my generation.

He is the democratically-empowered voice of conservatism in this nation (assuming that anyone still believes that he is a conservative), but he has left conservatism powerless.  Furthermore, he has split the Republican party apart, giving liberals the best chance in the last 15 years to push through any policy that they might think up.  George Bush is singly the greatest disaster that the American right could have ever suffered.

As a moderate, I try to include views from both sides. In fact, I was really pondering whether or not to become a conservative in the last decade, but I had a lot of doubts, beginning with the State of the Union Speech in Winter 2002.  As soon as I heard that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were all being lumped together by the president in one group, I was certain that some sort of foreign policy disaster was inevitable.  I didn't expect domestic policies to take such a terrible nosedive as well.

Anyways, the direction of Conservative Politics has been so utterly shaken in the last two years, that the Republican party can no longer function as a proper representative of the will of its constituents.  I never imagined that I would see such a profound political disintegration in my life, but after the 2006 elections, it all came true.  Even worse, nobody in the Republican Party seems even remotely willing to re-unite the scattered interests, or to lead them into the future.

I saw a comic strip with a funny take on the whole thing, check it out:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/08/20/tomo/

In response to Oliver North's article about the looming threat of Russia, he couldn't be further from the mark.

Russia's direction is not one of military confrontation for the simple fact that Russia could never pose a true conventional military threat to either Europe or to China.  Russia's economy is growing with incredible speed right now, thanks only in part to some petrodollars, which is giving its leaders more and more reasons to play ball with the rest of the world.  Russia's admission into the WTO was recently finalized, it hosted the last G8 Summit, and it was just recently awarded the 2014 Winter Olympics bid, which will give it even more reasons to stay the development course.

The tough-talking responses that have made Putin such a hit with his local population work to build up and maintain a body of support.  Putin is using the eternal Russian problem of alienation from the outside world to attract real support from nationalists, hard-liners, patriots, young professionals, aspiring politicians and the military simultaneously.  Russia has always felt threatened by the outside world, and the only way that it can reassure its population that everything will work out is to answer threats with threats.

Let us remember that all of this happened when the US took the most aggressive military step in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War with the promise of deploying a missile shield.  This missile shield (which doesn't even work - it never has), has no real strategic value, but tremendous symbolic value.  Realizing the loss of American support in Europe, Bush wanted to try to keep Europe from moving more towards Russia and Iran, and closer to the US in terms of relations.  The quickest way to scare Europe is to get Russia to make threats.  The quickest way to get Russia to make threats is to scare Russia.  The quickest way to scare Russia is to deploy anti-missile systems that are pointed at Russia.

As far as military exercises are concerned, Russia needs a military ally, and China fits that role neatly.  China is already Russia's #1 customer for raw materials, and Russia's biggest, strongest neighbor.  China also sees the advantage of keeping the cheapest commodities market in the world happy.  After all, both armies use Kalashnikovs.

Russia, although intimidating, is much more of a trading partner than a potential military threat.  Too many people are making too much money, and too many trends are pushing Russia towards the West for Moscow to blow it all with any sort of military action.

However, I do want to point out that I completely agree with the point made about a lack of capable humint in Russia, or anywhere for that matter.  Bush's gutting of the CIA and appointing of cronies in top positions after George Tenet's resignation - taking a bullet for Iraq - has left US security in a dangerously perilous position.  Intelligence is by far our most vital asset in combating terror, and the administration's actions in destroying our intelligence networks, either through re-aligning the CIA or in mishandling / revealing agents is entirely inexcusable.  The administration obviously no longer considers security a priority, and they have taken the most clumsy and reckless action to endanger the US since 9/11.

Honestly, I began this entry as one big response to several comments in Matt Lewis' blog, but it has just grown out of hand...  So, I'm separating it into several parts.

Here's the comment page that started this whole thing:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=f5d08614-b704-435c-bd4a-8a5877c51b44&comments=true#f1c0eed2-9a89-4267-a494-ebd44bcc9b57

I'm addressing this post to any reader interested, but the question was raised by Nee and El Gordo.

3.) How Europe Sees the Rest of the World
I want to head off all of your criticism at the pass here, and say that I do not want to sound condescending, nor do I want to appear to lecture you all, since you all seem to be educated individuals.  However, I have found some statements about the nature of Europe to really be in error.

"Europe criticizes the US more than China, Russia and Iran."
This is entirely untrue.  If someone has told you this, especially someone on the radio or on television, then you should not listen to that person ever again.  Europe is absolutely brimming with criticism for all three of these nations, and I'll address each one in turn:

a.) Russia:
Europe is full of far more criticism for Russia than for the US, for the simple reason that Russia borders the EU on several fronts: with the Baltic states, Finland, Germany and Poland via Kaliningrad.  The EU is scared to death of Russia, especially with the potential of Russian political aggression, intelligence service operation or energy threats.  The Litvinenko case is a glaring example of how the EU and Russia are always just one week away from a diplomatic catastrophe.  The EU has also raised more objections than any other nation regarding Russia's HR record, constantly blocking attempts by Russia to take part in EU activities.  On the other hand, the EU realizes that by vilifying its largest and most powerful neighbor, reform will be less and less likely.  In this sense, the EU alternately chastizes and makes up with Russia, hoping to defend its own ideological position while simultaneously pushing for a safer, more democratic Russia. 

b.) China:
I'll go out on a limb and say that Europe isn't the only country that suffers from a lack of criticism for China - the US is also in this camp.  Actually, I'll go ahead and reverse myself and say that China is criticized less by the EU press than the US is, but I don't think that this casts the EU in a light that is especially worse than the one we enjoy here.  So, ok, you got me.  The EU doesn't criticize China as harshly as it should, by the EU's own standards.

c.) Iran:
Iran is not on the receiving end of a lot of criticism from Europe for the simple reason that Iran is just America's most recent boogeyman.  Also, Iran is a major potential ally of the EU for several reasons:
            1.) Iran, other than Russia, holds the largest reserves of natural gas in the world
            2.) Iran is the only, the ONLY Islamic Republic that is actively reforming itself to become more free
            3.) Iran harbors no intentions of following some sort of international nuclear jihad
Yet, the EU does still level a lot of criticism at Iran, despite these reasons.  They do complain when Iran tries to announce some new nuclear program, or incites more destability in the region.  EU sources also are upset that Iran is continuing to destabilize Iraq.  US criticism is only about Iraq, but the Iran criticism is actually far more nuanced.  So, no, Iran gets it worse than the US does from the point of view of the EU.



Also, the freedom that is mentioned in criticizing America is not a symptom of something that is wrong, but something that is right.  Europe is America's most treasured international neighbor, which feels comfortable enough to criticize us as well as we feel comfortable in criticizing them.  Are they freeloaders?  Sometimes.  Do they depend on us?  Yes.  Do they criticize us?  Yes.  Do we criticize them back?  Always.  Do we depend on Europe?  Certainly.

 

Honestly, I began this entry as one big response to several comments in Matt Lewis' blog, but it has just grown out of hand...  So, I'm separating it into several parts.

Here's the comment page that started this whole thing:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=f5d08614-b704-435c-bd4a-8a5877c51b44&comments=true#f1c0eed2-9a89-4267-a494-ebd44bcc9b57

I'm addressing this post to any reader interested, but the question was raised by Nee and El Gordo.

2.) Europe's Perception of US
Mr. Nee and Mr. El Gordo, once again, I want to point out that I am not in complete disagreement with you about the perception of the US in Europe.  First of all, I want to make it clear that Europe is a very diverse place, with nations that, until 60 years ago, were entirely focused on the destruction of each other.  Europe is also host to many thriving and truly free societies, where an incredible diversity of opinions are expressed.  There are many who adore America (especially in Poland), and many who do not (especially in France).  I also want to say that most Americans are European in ancestry  (at least 65% as far as the last census goes), which means that most of us are not that far removed from Europe itself, by blood or by culture.  So, before I begin, I just want to be sure that when someone says "Europeans have this belief," they really need to be more specific as to which Europeans they are referring to.

Bearing this caveat in mind, I'll address my experience with European perceptions of the US.

The majority of Europeans that I have dealt with are middle-class professionals or students, from almost every country.  The overall opinion of America is a little different from one country to another, with French, Spanish and  being typically less approving, and British, Germans and Eastern Europeans more approving.  What I have found is that most Europeans, regardless of their country of origin or status, are not opposed to America, but somewhat overwhelmed with us.  They like US culture, US food, US music (sometimes), speak a certain degree of English, watch Hollywood movies, and keep track of US politics.  However, the majority of Europeans that I have met do not approve of the way that the Bush administration has carried out its foreign policy, nor the way that the US has conducted itself in ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.  For most Americans traveling abroad, and dealing with Europeans, I believe a similar point of view would be easily found.

Now, I want to address the complaints from the EU point of view.  It should be remembered that the EU is an isolationist body, that only tries to interfere in local politics if another nation wants to become an EU member, or if there is some major domestic impact within the EU.  The cardinal sin, in the EU's point of view, is to start a war without a very, very, very good reason.  Iraq is the prime example of this.  Remember that regional conflicts of this nature can spread very, very fast, endangering the very security of the EU ( The only thing that separates the carnage in Iraq from the borders of the EU is Turkey).  Furthermore, regional conflicts (Eastern Europe, Balkans, etc) rapidly became entire global conflicts, involving all of Europe.  Thus, looking at the potential consequences of a war with Iraq, and looking at all of the evidence, Europe feels entirely justified at criticizing US behavior in Iraq.

Furthermore, the perception of Iraq, or involvement in Iraq is such a sensitive topic in Europe, that it nearly led to the collapse of Blair's party, mitigated only by the PM's banishment.  When it comes to Iraq, the European public is very, very, very serious.

Now, that being said, I also want to address non-Iraq-based anti-American rhetoric.  Just bear in mind that there are a lot of countries that have protestors that really do not speak for the majority.  In fact, in France and Germany, pointless political protest is something of a national hobby.  Taking that into account, the real decision-makers and policy-shapers rarely are influenced by these kinds of temporary objections.  Also, pro- and anti-American points of views are very handy wedge issues that can be used in local elections.  A good example is the recent elections in France, when the Socialist party tried to discredit Sarkoczy's campaign as "pro-American."  The pro-American news made it to the US, but Sarkoczy's real popularity was not tied to this.  He was elected, because of his domestic economic plan of liberalization and ending protectionism, allowing the French economy to grow.  In fact, he is pretty much what a Republican candidate would look like, if he were to run in France.

So, when it comes to Iraq, Europeans feel that they are entirely justified in their objections to the US, but when it comes to any other issue, take European criticism with a grain of salt.

Honestly, I began this entry as one big response to several comments in Matt Lewis' blog, but it has just grown out of hand...  So, I'm separating it into several parts.

Here's the comment page that started this whole thing:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/default.aspx?mode=post&g=f5d08614-b704-435c-bd4a-8a5877c51b44&comments=true#f1c0eed2-9a89-4267-a494-ebd44bcc9b57

I'm addressing this post to any reader interested, but the question was raised by Nee and El Gordo.

1.) Our Perception of Europe
So, before we continue to gripe about who owes who what, lets understand exactly where both sides stand.

Mr. Nee, and Mr. el gordo the first thing that I want to point out is that you seem to be looking at Europe from a very outdated point of view.  World War II ended over 60 years ago, and Europe is entirely different.  Remember that when you say that we arrived in Europe to save it, we only saved one half of Europe from the other half.  Remember that Germany, Italy, Romania and Finland are all European countries.  Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the whole idea that for 50 years, America's prodigious nuclear arsenal, incomparable technological prowess and tireless intelligence kept Western Europe out of reach of the Communist Eastern Bloc.  That event, likely more than World War II, shaped modern Europe.

Modern Europe is no longer a group of empires and semi-empires devising the most horrendous means of killing each other - culminating in the world wars that nearly destroyed Western civilization.  Modern Europe, taking in part from the essential strucutres that comprised NATO, the G8 (then G6), and the EEC gave rise to the semi-national federation that currently dominates Europe, and will soon dominate the global economy, the European Union.

Now, the EU is the bastion of true and free government, spreading the word and wisdom of democracy with, frankly, incredible speed and success (Eastern Europe for example).  War on the Continent is now about as likely as another US Civil War.

However, even if I were to take your point of view for granted, I disagree that Europe somehow owes us a debt of honor for World War II.  The Nazi regime truly deserved to be battered, smashed and thrown into the creatories of history, but if some other situation appeared anywhere else in the world, the United States would be honor-bound to intervene.  Furthermore, the United State did not participate in the majority of the fighting during WWII.  More than 75% of the ground war took place in Eastern Europe, between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.  US fighting, outside of Africa and Italy took place only after 1944, at the same time as Operation Bagration, where the bulk of fascist armed forces was annihilated by Zhukov in Belarus.  If somethine like that happened in North America, then Europe would be honor-bound to intervene as well.  As far as I am concerned, our involvement in WWII was not an investment, but a true and just cause.  We rebuilt the entire Western world, which laid mostly in ruins, and saved them from Communism - that is where our credibility lies. 

If the US has any major credibility for WWII, then it lies from the side of the Chinese, who we indirectly liberated from the Japanese by winning the war in the Pacific - but US-Asian mutual perceptions are a whole different discussion all together.

Furthermore, we owe quite a lot to Europe as well.  It was thanks to a lot of French intervention that the United States was able to finally become independent.  Furthermore, it was thanks to the European models of government and to European Enlightenment thinkers that our Founding Fathers had a suitable philosophy to create the basis of the finest nation on earth.  In more recent times, Europe provided a staunch ally during the Cold War, and the unity of our two markets, EEC and the US, we were able to grow economically, forming the two most unstoppable economic powers in the history of humanity - the EU and the United States.

We two continents are joined at the hip, inextricably dependent upon one another, as we always have been and as we always will be. 

 http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

What we're seeing right now is nothing less than a complete revolution within the Republican party. If this posting was correct, then an entire generation of American politics is ending its role right now. Ever since the removal of Tom DeLay, the cracks on the edifice of Republican power have gotten longer and deeper. I truly wonder what will be in 2008 if such a massive part of national leadership, politics and campaigning all vanishes.
Perhaps that is the very reason that all of this is occurring? Are the Republican ranks being forced into retirement (purged) in order to make the slate as clean as possible for the upcoming 2008 election? Either that, or the Republicans have finally decided to do the honorable thing, to exit peacefully from office, leaving in their wake a trail of scandal, corruption and damage to this nation that has re-shaped the direction of American and global politics for the coming decade.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, with the departure of Karl Rove from the Republican party, we are witnessing a true shift in the landscape of American politics. Truly, as I have stated before, he was no miracle-worker, not a Pygmailion (see Salon's article http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/14/rove2/index.html), and certainly no Machiavelli. As in the above-mentioned article, the main failing of Karl Rove's politics was a lack of long-term vision, a lack of, well, real politics. He managed to unite as many fringe groups as possible from outside of the well-endowed Clintonite majority, and promised each one the moon for their support. However, he, like many other short-sighted politicians, simply promised too much to too many, and could not dig himself out of this impossible situation. All of these caveats nonwithstanding, I'll continue...

The re-alignment of American politics is significant, because Karl Rove served as what was likely the most important go-between for the Bush administration and the public, which they are so tacitly empowered to represent. His departure is the second blow to the Republican Cerberus (Rumsfeld being the first and Cheney to be the last). The great legacy of Karl Rove is that he re-shaped the Republican party around his own caustic and short-lived style of politicking. Using the entire Republican party as collateral, he bet his future on the unity of all the fringes of American conservatism, betting that their mutual and prolonged disgust with the prospect of a Democratic victory would pardon any neglect on his own part. This was not the case.

The idea of being a constantly embattled ruling party does not hold in a free society. There was no control of the media to ensure that the great, unseen, liberal-terrorist enemy remained the focus of the population's fear, and that very mutual disgust on the loosely tied far-right could not hold. Now, to the Republican party remains the task of re-inventing itself, and ridding itself of the last three years of its history. Rove's exile is the first step.

Has Karl Rove been given too much credit for the political successes of the Republican party?

I ask myself this question, wondering just how much I know about the inner machinations of the RNC, yet I think that his position has and has not been overstated. As a moderate, my usual answer is maybe, and this time is not an exception.

Rove's role in past elections has been tremendous, but I wonder just how effective he would have been without the income that Tom DeLay's K Street programs provided, or the shady influence that was bought through Cheney's office? Furthermore, I wonder just how key he would have been, had he not been dealing with a legion of fully compliant media outlets that would take even the most radical conservative opinions entirely at face value? Was he truly some sort of mastermind, or just the money-changer at America's filthiest temple? John Ashcroft, and old foe of we Missouri voters, was the first member of the administration to draw the line between supporters of Bush and those who support the terrorists. Was this at Rove's behest? Furthermore, the first scandal that started to tear apart the administration was the Valery Plame scandal, which seems to always lead to an indictment for Rove, no matter how many times he sees fit to assert his executive privelige or amend his testimony. That scandal, coupled with his inability to keep discipline in many parts of the administration (The Justice Department), led to a whole flock of cronies spilling their guts about all sorts of horrible skeletons in the administration’s closets. I can't help but think that Rove could have prevented all of this.

I am all for giving due praise to a master of Realpolitik, but Rove is certainly not one. He has had epithets heaped upon him, including comparisons to "Machiavelli," but he simply has not warranted these. He never could have succeeded against the crack team of PR men in the Clinton White House, which very adeptly managed to tear down Newt Gingrich, among other once-successful Republicans. Furthermore, the only way that Rove could get Bush elected was to make a bunch of wishy-washy liberal promises in the 2000 election, save for the surplus check refund. Thus, I doubt that the end of Rove is really akin to slaying a dragon. Rove was simply moving from one lucky win to another, and his fortune seems to have finally run out.

With the crumbling edifice of the Republican party gaining speed in its, well, crumbling, the rest of the political spectrum of the United States seems to want to come to terms with the departure of Karl Rove. His presence has been truly gigantic in the days following Bush's 2000 victory, and his reputation for invincibility seemed to defeat opponents even before they appeared.

To be honest, such a sudden and catastrophic end for the architect of the most significant Republican victories in the last decade seems pretty shocking. How could a party so renowned for its discipline and fundraising simply let their most prized leader go? Even though the Republican losses in 2006 were catastrophic, to say the least, he still managed to raise more money than Rahm Emmanuel, ($175 m vs. $145 m). Even in defeat, he defies political logic.

His victory in 2000 was not because he re-aligned the political spectrum into two warring poles, but because he tried to smear the Republican message as thinly as possible across the the center of the US political spectrum. The RCN made a huge effort to demonstrate their close ties with minorities, gays, and the rest of the liberal community, leaving their base in a state of confusion at the same time. 2002 was a referendum on Osama bin Laden, and a time when the Democrats were truly cowed. 2004 was a surprise: a squeaker finish with only a few wedge issues defining the outcome: gay marriage and the unelectability of the hapless John Kerry. The crippling loss that the Republicans suffered in 2006 was likely inevitable, given the administration's obvious corruption, incompetence and betrayal of their own base since 2004. In fact, it is impressive that Rove was even able to raise $140 m, much less $175. For the first time that I can remember, the party that spent a considerably larger sum lost, and lost achingly.

His departure is the public appearance of a decapitated Republican party, and perhaps the most significant re-alignment in national politics since the 2002 demolition of the Democrats. Truly, he has left a profound mark on this nation, from working with Cheney in the babysitting of a front-man executive, then a front-man governor, finally a front-man president, to bringing back old-fashioned, dirty, hateful, spiteful, evil politics. All of his wins were close, and none were clean. Yet, they all counted, and 6 years of Rove at the helm makes us all remember just how much our political apathy can cost us - it reminds us of just how vulnerable we all are.

George Bush was not elected by a cabal, but by tens of millions of Americans that truly believed that he was the man for the job. That was Karl Rove's legacy, the Bush-Herald - empowered by years of a cowed media, a pliant congress, an endless bankroll, and a trusting and forgiving public. I hope that we shall not make the same mistake again, my fellow Americans.