So, we sympathize with the plight into which the GOP has intellectually maneuvered itself. But that sympathy can’t possibly extend to justification for today’s Review-Journal editorial defending Karl Rove.

Now, we understand that the R-J dislikes Democrats to the point that it will utter all manner of ridiculous things in order to bash them. But in defending Rove, the paper has driven onto a bridge that it’s own anti-tax philosophy has left dangerously eroded. And that sound you hear is intellectual cracks in the foundation.

First, the paper can only find its voice to criticize Rove for failing to privatize Social Security. Yes, if only Rove had been able to convince Congress to invest in the notoriously stable stock market. What a loser!

But the R-J quickly turns to the main event: Bashing Democrats. Too bad for the Democrats, not having Rove to kick around anymore! Now who will they investigate? Why are they so obsessed with this man, anyway?

Here’s why: Rove advanced one of the most notorious and odious election strategies since Richard Nixon capitalized on white racism in the South. (Run on the war, Rove shamelessly advised Republicans.) Rove was a key part of the administration that came up with the execrable justifications for the unnecessary Iraq war. Rove was behind some of the administration’s biggest scandals, like firing U.S. attorneys who just happened to be investigating Republicans for crimes, or at least failing to investigate Democrats for them. There are good, moral, legal and constitutional reasons to distrust, dislike and be disgusted by Rove.

After a quick, throwaway line justifying I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s lying to the FBI in the furtherance of a coverup in the Valerie Plame matter, the R-J recalls the "corrupt" administration of LBJ. Yes, let’s reach back to nail — surprise! — a Democrat for corruption, but pass over the more recent, and more corrupt, Nixon. To our recollection, Johnson served out his term and was never charged with a crime, while Nixon left Washington, D.C. under the shadow of scandal and only survived being indicted thanks to the intervention of Gerald Ford. Details!

But it’s the last line that amuses the most: Bush may not be finished yet. Look to history as an example. "During the final 18-month ‘twilight’ of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, American armies conquered France, the Philippines and most of Germany," the R-J says.

Whoops! Somebody forget that FDR was — surprise! — a Democrat. Not only that, the other accomplishments of his presidency included the New Deal, which is regularly derided on the editorial page. Apparently, only in the conquest of nations can a Democrat be favorably referenced.

And don’t think we didn’t notice the sly attempt to compare Bush to FDR, a comparison that necessarily must end at the fact they both shared the same temporary address. FDR was a reluctant warrior, taking up arms only after America was directly attacked, and then making war against those powers that had directly attacked (or shortly thereafter declared war upon) the United States. He employed long and patient statecraft with allies to build a coalition that saw perhaps the last "just war" in the world’s history. FDR didn’t lie about going to war, and he asked all Americans to sacrifice so it could be won. He helped unite a country in a common cause, and was loved by many for it.

In short, Bush is nothing like FDR.