Thought this might be of interest to some of you
##################################

Source: http://henwood.blogspace.com/?p=7133

Karl Rove : the exit interview

Wall Street Journal - August 13, 2007

‘The Mark of Rove’ By PAUL A. GIGOT

Washington

These are the days of Republican doubt, with President Bush fighting
an unpopular war, Congress in opposition hands, and a 2008
presidential field trailing Democrats in nearly every poll. But don’t
tell that to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political alter ego, who even as
he prepares to resign from the White House after six and a half years
sees recovery ahead.

Sitting in the book-lined living room of his townhome on Saturday
afternoon, a relaxed, cheerful and typically rambunctious Mr. Rove
hands over two sheets of paper on which he has tapped out a pair of
outlines. One says “Up to Now,” and summarizes what he thinks are the
achievements to date of the Bush presidency. The second, “Months
Ahead,” lays out an agenda for the next year and a half.

“He will move back up in the polls,” says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my
reference to Mr. Bush’s 30% approval rating by saying it’s heading
close to “40%,” and “higher than Congress.”

Looking ahead, he adds, “Iraq will be in a better place” as the surge
continues. Come the autumn, too, “we’ll see in the battle over FISA”
– the wiretapping of foreign terrorists — “a fissure in the
Democratic Party.” Also in the fall, “the budget fight will have been
fought to our advantage,” helping the GOP restore, through a series
of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.

As for the Democrats, “They are likely to nominate a tough,
tenacious, fatally flawed candidate” by the name of Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult
given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but “I think we’ve got
a very good chance to do so.”

If that quinella pays off, however, Mr. Rove will have to savor it
from somewhere other than his West Wing office. He’s resigning
effective Aug. 31 — 14 years after he began working with Mr. Bush on
his campaign for Texas governor, 10 years after they began planning a
White House run, and after 79 months in the political cockpit of a
tumultuous presidency.

“I just think it’s time,” he says, adding that he first floated the
idea of leaving to Mr. Bush a year ago. His friends confirm he had
been talking about it with others even earlier. But Democrats took
Congress, and he didn’t want to depart on that sour note. He then
thought he’d leave after the State of the Union, but the Iraq and
immigration fights beckoned. Finally, Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told
senior White House aides that if they stayed past a certain point,
they were obliged to remain to Jan. 20, 2009.

“There’s always something that can keep you here, and as much as I’d
like to be here, I’ve got to do this for the sake of my family,” Mr.
Rove says. His son attends college in San Antonio, and he and his
wife, Darby, plan to spend much of their time at their home in nearby
Ingram, in the Texas Hill Country.

Mr. Rove doesn’t say, though others do, that this timing also allows
him to leave on his own terms. He has survived a probe by a
remorseless special counsel, and lately a subpoena barrage from
Democrats for whom he is the great white whale. He shows notable
forbearance in declining to comment on prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald,
who dragged him through five grand jury appearances. He won’t even
disclose his legal bills, except to quip that “every one has been
paid” and that “it was worth every penny.”

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

“I’m a myth. There’s the Mark of Rove,” he says, with a bemused air.
“I read about some of the things I’m supposed to have done, and I
have to try not to laugh.” He says the real target is Mr. Bush, whom
many Democrats have never accepted as a legitimate president and
“never will.”

It is his long and personal relationship with Mr. Bush that has made
Mr. Rove arguably the most influential White House aide of modern
times. The president calls him to chat about politics on Sunday
mornings, and they have a contest to see who can read the most books.
(Mr. Rove is winning.) I’ve known Mr. Rove for 19 years and spoken to
him hundreds of times. Yet I can’t recall a single instance where he
disclosed how his views differed from Mr. Bush’s. Mr. Bolten hasn’t
decided on a replacement, and Mr. Rove’s duties may yet be divided up.

Mr. Rove’s political influence has been historic, notwithstanding the
rout of 2006. His crucial insight in 2000 was recognizing that Mr.
Bush had to be both an alternative to Bill Clinton’s scandalous
behavior and “a different kind of Republican.” In 2002, the
president’s party gained seats in both the House and Senate in a
first midterm election for the first time since 1934.

And in 2004, for only the second time in history, a president won re- election while helping his party gain seats in both houses of
Congress; the other time was 1936. Much has been made of John Kerry’s
ineptitude, but the senator won some eight million more votes than Al
Gore did in 2000, and Mr. Rove claims Democrats outspent Republicans
by $148 million thanks to billionaire donations to “527″ committees.
Yet amid a difficult war, Mr. Bush won by increasing his own vote by
nearly 25% over 2000, winning 81% of U.S. counties. The Rove-Ken
Mehlman turnout effort was a spectacular achievement. If it did
nothing else, that 2004 victory put John Roberts and Samuel Alito on
the Supreme Court.

A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for
2006 — Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress.
Mr. Rove has no doubt. “The sense of entitlement was there” among
Republicans, he says, “and people smelled it.” Yet even with a
unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was “a really
close election.” The GOP lost the Senate by its 3,562 vote margin of
defeat in Montana, and in the House the combined margin in the 15
seats that cost control was 85,000 votes.

A prominent non-Beltway Republican recently gave me a different
analysis, arguing that the White House made a disastrous decision to
“nationalize” the election last autumn; this played into Democratic
hands and cost numerous seats.

“I disagree,” Mr. Rove replies. “The election was nationalized. It
was always going to be about Iraq and the conduct of Republicans.” He
says Republican Chris Shays and Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman
survived in Connecticut despite supporting the war, while Republicans
who were linked to corruption or were complacent lost. His biggest
error, Mr. Rove says, was in not working soon enough to replace
Republicans tainted by scandal.

What about that new GOP William McKinley-style majority he hoped to
build — isn’t that now in tatters, as the country tilts leftward on
security, economics and the culture? Again, Mr. Rove disagrees. He
says young people are if anything more pro-life and free-market than
older Americans, and that, despite the difficulties in Iraq, the
country doesn’t want to be defeated there or in the fight against
Islamic terror. He recalls how Democrats thought driving the U.S. out
of Vietnam would also help them politically. “Instead, Democrats have
suffered ever since on national security,” he says.

Mr. Rove also makes a spirited defense of this president’s policy
legacy, sometimes more convincingly than others. On foreign affairs,
he predicts that at least two parts of the Bush Doctrine will live
on: The policy that if you harbor a terrorist, you are as culpable as
the terrorist; and pre-emption. “There may be a debate about degree,”
he says, “but it’s going to be hard for any president to reverse that.”

He’s less persuasive on Medicare, where he insists that market
reforms and health savings accounts are building a “critical mass” of
popular support that will make them unrepealable. Yet Democrats are
even now trying to kill Medicare Advantage, blocked only by the
promise of a veto. If Mrs. Clinton wins in 2008, the Medicare drug
expansion may prove to have been all spending and no reform.

He also insists that Social Security reform was worth the failed
effort, and that Mr. Bush’s ideas will be adopted inevitably by some
future president. I ask if, given Mr. Bush’s falling approval ratings
in 2005 due to Iraq, he shouldn’t have pushed for something less
ambitious. Not a chance. “You cannot advance on the fronts you want
to advance if you’re playing mini-ball,” he says, once again sounding
like Mr. Bush.

As for 2008, he says, Americans “do want change,” but “every election
is a change election”; even in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was popular,
the Gipper famously said at the nominating convention for George H.
W. Bush that, “We are the change.” Adds Mr. Rove, “I don’t want to be
Pollyanish about it, but if we keep our nerve and represent big
things, we’ll win.” He won’t cite a favorite, if he has one, among
the GOP candidates, though he has friends in the various campaigns.
He’ll offer advice, if asked, but at 56 years old says he is done
with political consulting.

He’d like to teach eventually, but he has no specific job plans, save
to write a book on the Bush years, which “the boss,” as in Mr. Bush,
“has encouraged me to do.” As for what his own White House mistakes
have been, Mr. Rove winces and says, “I’ll put my feet up in
September and think about that.”

And what about Jeb Bush in 2012? Mr. Rove first says with a tone of
skepticism, “Ask Jeb.” Then he adds, “You better get a younger man.
My wife would kill me.”

Mr. Gigot is editorial page editor of the Journal.