The Times did some short work on this, their relationship soured in 1998, when Perry ran. Rove was trying to get Bush more latino votes, which was good for Bush, and good for Perrys democratic opponent (Sharp ?). According to Carney, this strategy, would have helped Bush but cost Perry, at that point Perry went "rouge" and negative, and wound up winning a very close victory, but the 2 campaigns differed.
If you want to see some real hostility, look up what happened between them in 2000 when Bush became president, where Perry essentially wanted to kick Bush and his family out of the governors mansion ASAP, something which the Bush family did not take to kindly to.
Politics is like a soap opera, or pro-wrestling, todays friends, are tomorrows enemies, and todays enemies are tomorrows friends. Selective slicing and dicing can make anyone look one way or the other. In 2008, John McCain, over the objections of Karl Rove (who was working for him), picked Sarah Palin (Rove wanted Romney). Someone can always spin that as, in 2008, Rove worked tirelessly to make Sarah Palin the vice president. Karl Rove worked for the McCain/Palin campaign. Its true, but its not really accurate. (I used that as an example, because MSNBC has often tried to tie Palin to Rove together, and if Palin runs, they will do it again).
Just so it’s clear, my post wasn’t anti-Perry, (alhough I think it’s better for us and for Texas if Perry stays in Texas,) it was all out against rove. He is a rollins clone and a dirty player. Anyone who trusts him is going to get whacked one way or another. He’s a control freak on top of that and wants to stay in control regardless of the effect on his candidate or on the candidate’s constituency. That was never more clear than in the Bush white House where the constituency was the entire country.