It's not just a partisan question, but we're certainly hearing lots of stories about how Rove was the greatest political genius we've ever seen, never lost, and blah, blah, blah.
A story in today's Globe raises yet another question about that, although Rove's name isn't even mentioned.
I've made this observation before, and now it's been confirmed and even Arlen Specter agrees with me. It has to do with the unceremonious way they dumped Rumsfeld after the election last year. You remember, a few days before the election Bush was asked if Rummy was staying on and Bush replied that he absolutely was, that he was going to be the Secretary of Defense for the forseeable future? And then, the day after the election, Rummy was out all of a sudden. Bush even admitted lying about it, although not in so many words.
Today's Globe has a story based on a long series of FOIA requests, which were finally successful after months of stonewalling by the administration, and now it turns out that Rummy's letter of resignation was signed the day before the election. The White House confirmed yesterday that Rumsfeld's letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006, the day before voters -- many of them furious about the war in Iraq -- evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.
Now we know that no decisions were made in the Bush White House without Rove, but doesn't it strike you that it might have been smarter to toss Rove under the bus before the election? That's what Arlen Specter thinks: "If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said at the time. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."
So this obviously proves that Rove isn't as smart as the conventional wisdom (and he) would have you believe.
It also proves that, after all these years, we finally have something to thank Rove for.
Who would have thought it?