Karl Rove retires, just like Jay-Z

I don't quite understand the reaction I'm witnessing to the news that Karl Rove is "retiring" from his post as White House political adviser. That he's leaving the White House over a year before his boss's term in office is up should be no reason for excitement. Review a few basic nuggets of common sense with me:

1. Karl Rove's political career is not over. He's a relatively young person, and he orchestrated two elections for a group that has enjoyed notorious longevity despite their governing policies. Plus, remember that the public has a very short memory span, as evidenced by how many former Nixon administration officials have been a part of this White House. He will be back, and he'll probably be back with a few new filthy tricks added to his repertoire. The question, then, is when? He says he won't join any of the 2008 campaigns (and they probably can't really afford to have him since every GOP candidate has tried their best to distance themselves from Bush), but who knows how much stock we can put into that statement.

2. White House policies won't suddenly improve. Even if W. and Company packed their bags and left tomorrow, the damage they've done to the Constitution and to the Office of the President will be lasting. Because Karl Rove isn't around doesn't mean that we can begin to pick up the pieces from this Administration yet; it just makes this Administration that much less effective in peddling their messages and policies to their base. Plus, they've still got this Dick Cheney guy working for them...

Karl Rove has been a destructive force in American politics and government. Believing that his career is over at the end of the month is akin to believing that Jay-Z was really done rapping after 2003's The Black Album. We know we haven't seen the last of him, so therefore there's nothing to really get excited about as Rove returns to Texas to watch and wait.

Who's Your Daddy?

I'm really disgusted (but not surprised) by the media's reaction to the way Congress is attempting to subpoena White House aides in the USA Firing scandal. The conflict between President Bush and Democrats leading the investigation has taken the tone of a stern father reprimanding misbehaving children, as though it's somehow out of line for Congress to want to hear some official testimony on this case.

Events like this have been a hallmark of the Bush presidency. Even when it's perfectly clear that the administration is wrong, and well past the point when any savvy politician would've given in and let the news cycle run it's course as quickly as possible. Instead, by puffing his chest out and taking a stand on exactly how Karl Rove and Harriet Miers ought to be interviewed by investigators, Bush is keeping the negative issue in the limelight for extra days and even weeks.

He must really be covering something good up here, because allowing testimony on the record here shouldn't hurt them any more than if they continue to act like they're actually succeeding in hiding any wrongdoing. In fact, the stalling is making it look worse than it probably is. If they were smart, Rove and Miers would've squealed already, everyone's suspicions would've been confirmed, Alberto Gonzalez would probably take the fall, and the American public goes back to their new episodes of Law and Order by the end of the week.

However, this "liberal" media has pretty much removed the necessity for any political savvy in instances like this up to this point. Why should they (or Bush, for that matter) change what they're doing now?