From 2000 to 2008, George W. Bush was the “dumbest president ever,” a man who whom the left first derided as having attained places of power simply because of his father’s name, and whom they later criticized for having succeeded only because of Karl Rove’s political strategies. As a matter of fact, the pin-the-blame-on-Rove game continued even after Bush left the White House (it continues to this day in some circles).

No wonder the possible release of Wes Jones’ “College Republicans” as a feature film seems like an attractive option to students of postmodern politics.

This film chronicles Rove’s attempts to secure the chairmanship of the College Republican National Committee in 1973. Along the way, it attempts to communicate Rove’s ideas, personality, and methodology to viewers.

From what I’ve seen of the script, the aspects of Rove’s life highlighted in the film will not provide the left with as much red meat as they probably want. In other words, while the film casts a bad light on Rove in more than one instance, its enduring focus on Rove’s pragmatism actually seems to justify his misdeeds by showing that he stuck to his guns instead of abandoning ship when the going got tough.

For different reasons, the Religious Right will likely not enjoy the focus on Rove’s pragmatism either. My guess is that if (or when) this film hits theaters, large swaths of evangelicals will see Rove as a man who will do or say anything to promote himself or get his candidate elected.

This point comes through clearly as Jones’ script chronicles the early days of Rove and Lee Atwater’s relationship: a relationship “College Republicans” depicts as one based on pulling out all stops to undercut opposition to Rove’s chairmanship and elevate him to a position of national notoriety that would open the door to running a successful presidential campaign (as he did with George W. Bush).

Throughout the script, Rove and Atwater handle opposition to Rove by any means necessary. This entails Atwater operating from a Sun Tzu point of view (“The Art of War”) and Rove from a Machiavellian one (“The Prince”). As I read the script, I couldn’t help but think that Rove’s approach dominated based on Machiavelli’s views of “taking power.” For as Machiavelli clearly held that people who rose up against the prince ought to be put down in such a way as to show that the prince’s power ought not be challenged, so too Jones’ depiction of Rove is one of a man willing to deal ruthlessly with his opposition.

Jones brings this out in depicting Rove and Atwater attacking the character and intelligence of Rove’s opponents as he sought the chairmanship. From floating rumors about the sexuality of his opponents in the South, at a time when Southerners were decidedly anti-homosexual, to using rules of order and other technicalities to undercut (and replace) the delegates who wouldn’t support Rove’s chairmanship, Jones’ presents Rove as man who both outsmarted and outmaneuvered those who opposed him.

Machiavelli would be proud.

The late Lee Atwater

Yet, while the left may not think Rove is depicted as evil enough and the Religious Right that he is depicted as a man lacking a moral compass, “College Republicans” should be a hit with those who see that politics are ultimately about power. In other words, those who see politics as a vehicle to implementing one’s agenda, or the agenda of one’s party, will probably be more than happy to overlook the means Rove used (fictional or not) to attain power in exchange for knowing that such attainment opened the door to implementation.

“College Republicans” held my attention from start to finish. On the one hand, it presented Rove’s successful rise to the Chairmanship of the College Republican National Committee in a way that did not place Rove on a pedestal: it opened with him in dire need of a man like Atwater and ended with the realization that Rove’s hard sought position in the College Republicans made him but the veritable gopher of the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), among other things.

But the film also demonstrates the genius behind being such a gopher at a time when the Republican National Committee Chairman was a gentleman named George H. W. Bush, and one of Rove’s occasional duties included carrying the Bush family car keys from Chairman Bush to his son, George W. Bush, who waited outside the office of the RNC on one of DC’s bustling sidewalks.

While Jones’ gives us Rove as the right man, in the right place, at the right time, he also gives us Rove as the man who knew where he had to be in order to be in the right place. For this reason, “College Republicans” ought to be a dream-come-true for political junkies the world over.

President Obama — David Axelrod

You know. Like Wanda Sykes, Sandra Bernhard and the Teabag-loving MSM.

As to Mr. Axelrod’s crude and lame attempt at insulting humor that should be beneath the dignity of any presidential advisor, I can only conclude that he made that derogatory comment about Carrie Prejean because Miss California shares his boss’s negative attitude  toward gay marriage.

During this live interview, in which Hot Seat host Peter Sagal referred to Mr. Axelrod as ‘the moustache behind the throne’ and the ‘Rasputin of the Magic Kingdom’ (my personal favorite, for reasons you shall soon know), Mr. Axelrod also slammed a comparison to his predecessor, former Bush advisor Karl Rove: “I always reject that. I’d like to think we’re better than that.”

Mr. Axelrod may like to think he’s better than Karl Rove, but he’s actually far worse than Karl Rove ever was in both class and principle.  Example. In the wake of the controversial DHS Right Wing Extremism report, and as the Tea Parties were happening, Mr. Axelrod said the following in a Face The Nation interview: “Any time that you have severe economic conditions, there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy.” Hint hint.

Mr. Axelrod also also added this qualifying disqualifier: “We value our liberties and our values of liberty and to express ourselves, and so far, these are just expressions.” So far. Does anyone else notice how closely Mr. Axelrod adheres to the controversial blanket statements of the DHS RWE report? Show me one instance in which Karl Rove implied Leftie demonstrators were a potential threat to the Republic, even when joking of President Bush’s assassination had become chic.

Yet for Mr. Axelrod, throw one peaceful nationwide Tea Party and it’s a national security concern.

Like Rush Limbaugh, for example, whom Mr. Axelrod helped coordinate a political campaign against with the power, resources, authority and consent of the White House. Can you imagine the uproar if President Bush and Karl Rove orchestrated a political campaign against Al Franken or Michael Moore from directly within the Oval Office? The Left would have been foaming at the mouth about death camps and Nixon’s enemies’ lists.

Yet, like Rasputin and unlike Karl Rove, President Obama’s ‘Mad Monk’ is fast accumulating enemies across the political spectrum. Mr. Axelrod’s defense of the President’s blocking of the detainee photos, along with the Obama administration’s plan to restore military tribunals of Gitmo detainees, is riling everyone on the Left from the ACLU to Code Pink. One member of Code Pink now wonders when she should start calling President Obama a war criminal.

Also like Karl Rove, David Axelrod has accumulated no shortage of political enemies. But unlike Rove, the Mad Monk’s political adversaries now run the gamut from the ACLU’s Anthony Romero to Dick Cheney. That’s quite an achievement, to piss everybody off in a short three months!

Anyone who knows the story of Rasputin can see the rich similarities here. A wild-eyed True Believer and political loose cannon with extraordinary influence having a derogatory effect on Tsar Obama’s kingdom, making enemies everywhere. Though I doubt Obama’s Mad Monk will suffer the same poisoned wine and tea cakes and multiple gunshots before being bagged and tossed into a river as his freaky Russian progenitor, I expect Mr. Axelrod’s big mouth will sooner or later bear the treadmarks of Obama’s political bus tires.

Then again, the President has been loathe to toss those closest to him where they belong. Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers were major political albatrosses, and candidate Obama didn’t give them the heave-ho until it was nearly too late in the campaign. That being the case, and knowing the Mad Monk’s close association with President Obama, maybe he’ll be allowed to just keep on spouting insults, innuendo, vitriol and hypocritical excuses to extend Bush-era national security policies, and continue to offend even more millions of Americans of all political stripes.

He certainly hasn’t failed to disappoint to date. And I’m hoping he continues to do just that. I am a Republican, after all. By the way, Politico’s Alex Conant concurs with my assessment. Only he uses a different historical point of reference: Machiavelli.  His analysis is well worth the read, yet I disagree with Mr. Conant on one Point of Parliamentary Procedure. Machiavelli believed that you should “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”

Obama’s Mad Monk is making no friends, except for the intellectual retards in NPR’s Hot Seat audiences. And his enemies are closing in from all sides. NPR can’t save him there. And with President Obama’s flip-flopping on national security issues and other disastrous policies, the Mad Monk’s inevitable pretzel-twisting logic to justify measures candidate Obama ran against, and the political backlash sure to follow as it has to date, I can only imagine the poisoned wine and tea cakes will start looking real good to Rasputin II as his Magic Kingdom turns to shite.