Over at The Politico, they've been talking to Karl Rove about the 2008 race. Long story short, Karl says, too much, too soon, which is probably something even diehard political wonks would agree with.

On the other hand, there were a couple of things Rove said that really stood out,

Looking to the immediate political horizon, Rove said Bush is confident that seeking common ground with Democrats will allow him to shape the debate for years to come, and perhaps even score some legislative accomplishments as President Ronald Reagan and others have done when they were lame ducks heading a divided government.

"In one way, things are bad," he said. "We had the majority, and now we don't. On the other hand, that happens with frequency in American politics. What the American people want to know is: Are you going to take the time that you have and turn it to good purpose? Are you going to pick yourself up off of the mat, are you going to go get back into the game, and are you going to do so in a way that gets me to applaud you? If we pick ourselves up off of the mat and get back in the game, as we are, then this'll be a good thing for us."

This is worrisome because George Bush is a big government Republican who has shown himself to be disinclined to veto bad legislation and the more he cooperates with the Democrats on domestic issues, the more harm will be done to the country. As a conservative, the last thing I want is George Bush bending over backwards to get on board with the Democrats in order to get "some legislative accomplishments."

Remember something, George: the left will always hate you and if they ever say a nice thing about you, it'll be through gritted teeth, after you die (hopefully at a ripe old age), so that they can try to make some other Republican look bad. Buckling on liberal legislation isn't going to change that, but it will further antagonize your base.

Then there's this:

"I am by nature an optimist," he said. "And, look, I know this is an opportunity. I know why we lost. I know we lost the Congress in part because of Iraq, in part because of the sense of entitlement, in part because of the scandals and in part because of beliefs about congressional earmarks and spending.

"I went out there and made speeches about how we've kept discretionary domestic spending underneath inflation, but the average cat out there saw high-profile things about spending that just sunk in," he said. "All those bad things they thought about Washington came back up."

Note the things that Rove doesn't mention: illegal immigration, Bush's numerous political screw-ups and low approval ratings, as well as the massive government programs that Bush was pushing, like the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. But see, that would be admitting that Bush was a big part of the problem and if Bush is a big part of the problem, well, then what does it say about Bush's political guru?

Here's another question: if Rove is such a political genius and Bush wasn't a big part of the reason why the GOP lost in 2006, then why has Bush's approval rating been in the toilet for more than a year and a half? During Bush's first term, I thought W. and Rove were really sharp political operators. But, after seeing them operate for the last two years, I realized that they weren't that good, the Democrats were just that bad.

So, given how the Bush admin performed over the last couple of years, isn't it time that the "Rove Is A Political Genius Myth," was put to bed?