Michael Tomasky wrote an excellent article on Karl Rove in Tuesday's Guardian. Sadly, I can't find in on Guardian Unlimited. So a chocolate mouse will go to anyone who can find it on line.
The gist of the piece was that Karl Rove had said that, by getting Bush elected in 2000, he (Rove) had started a McKinley-like period of Republican supremacy in the US. (McKinley became President and started a 30-odd year period of Republican US dominance).
But, as Tomasky summarised, first of all Bush wasn't elected in 2000. Gore won by 500,000 votes but Bush won through five Supreme Court votes.
And of course, far from an uninterrupted period of unquestioned Republican dominance, there is no the lamest of lame duck Presidents and Democrat control on the Hill.
So, Tomasky's article was a bit of a "slam dunk" in terms of trashing Rove's legacy.
For me, the most disturbing piece of Rove's "achievements" was how he made an art of trashing reputations of opponents. John Kerry was, of course, the classic example. Kerry had a reasonable brave Vietnam war while Bush took time off from national guard duty to "campaign" for a senatorial candidate in Alabama.
And yet, Rove turned this round so that Bush was the hero and Kerry was the zero. In one way, it was brilliant. In another, you could argue it was Kerry's fault as he was perhaps cack-handed in fending off the attacks. But, ultimately, the American people were the losers. They have been given, as a result of Rove's campaigning style, a President who is down there at 26% with Truman and Nixon.