Ah, the hypocrisy of modern politics is speeding up. It took Karl Rove just around three weeks to change his stance on the Arizona Immigration bill. A couple of days ago, Rove was asked by Greta Van Susteren, why he thinks President Obama came out against the Arizona Immigration Law. HIs answer: "I think it's politics."

That's odd, weeks earlier, Rove said that he wished that Arizona hadn't passed the bill. He said there were "better tools" to use to fight immigration. He also said, "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill."

But guess who now disagree with Karl Rove about the constitutional problems? You got it. Karl Rove.

Well, look, we've already got a 9th circuit opinion, the circuit in which Arizona -- California with -- the far -- the far left coast, so these are not necessarily mainstream judges -- that already held an officer's allowed to ask someone about his or her immigration status, regardless of whether the officer possessed a reasonable suspicion that the individual is unlawful in the country. So they're allowed to ask... We've got a federal standard that's less than the Arizona standard. So if this law is ill-conceived, the Arizona law, then what is federal law?

Most everyone understands why this Arizona law was passed. And people also agree that the law is problematic and isn't the best way to solve Arizona's issues. The real attack is "Why isn't Obama doing more to patrol the border?" but, obviously, Rove can't argue that because the federal government didn't do enough when he and President Bush were in office. For him to ignore his own dislike of the law and now claim that the President is only against it for "political" reasons seems like the height of hypocrisy.

It honestly seems like Rove's biggest issue is the racial angle getting played up by the President but that seems to be an issue that he skirts around. Most likely, for political reasons. Always better to attack the President on generalities than actually put out a fully formed point of view that might be open to its own debate.

This is nothing new, I guess. But always disappointing.