Karl Rove: Decoy for Downing Street

I'm tired, heartsick, and cranky so I'm going to be very blunt and more than a little profane.

The news for the next few days will all be about what Karl Rove meant in his recent speech.  Did he really mean that all liberals are traitors?  Is it really a philosophical difference about how to pursue terrorists? Does it compare with what Dick Durbin said?  I'd bet that the Republicans timed this massive "liberals are traitors" blitzkrieg as soon as Durbin spoke that unpleasant truth on the Senate floor.  They believed it gave them a license to tell pretty much any eliminationist Dolchstoßlegende they wanted.  And they wanted.  Oh, how they wanted.

But this whole firestorm about Karl Rove is a bullshit distraction.  Just like the firestorm around Dick Durbin was a bullshit distraction.  Durbin was telling the truth, Rove is telling a particularly nasty lie, but it's all going to dominate the news cycle.   And the structure as it's been set up lets the Republicans trot out all of their bogus talking points about how they're all manly men whose brass balls are so big they have to walk all gingerly bowlegged so as not to make an oddly euphonious clanging sound which would lure in all of the women from the surrounding countryside, and if it wasn't for that, they'd be out there themselves impaling  terrahrists on their big manly bayonets.  It lets the Republicans trot out still more eliminationist rhetoric both from their political leaders and their media apparatchiks.

Just for shits and giggles, let's say that for the first time ever, George Bush fires someone for being too much of a bastard, too nasty, too vile, too wrong.  So fucking what?  Does anyone think that Karl Rove won't continue as an under-the-table consultant?  This is the most secretive White House in history.  You think they can't hide some correspondence with Karl Rove if they want to? 

And even if the White House really did sever ties with Rove, does anyone think he won't be offered a hundred consulting gigs and a cozy sinecure with Grover Norquist's group or some other anti-American Republican think tank, where he can pull the puppet strings on ten or twenty campaigns if he wants to?  Rove doesn't give a shit whether or not he has to resign.  He's done everything he can for the hollow suit in the Oval Office, and he knows it.

It's all a distraction.  Because you know what's not in the news for a few more news cycles?  The occupation of Iraq.  The Downing Street Minutes and all the other British memos.  When the majority of the American people now believe the invasion of Iraq wasn't worth it, that all those dead  and maimed soldiers and children aren't worth it, when there's finally some evidence gathered in one place that shows what those of us opposed to the invasion have been saying all along, what's on the news?

Are Liberals Traitors?  Film at Eleven!

Keep your eye on the ball, people.  Maybe you could tie the two themes together:

"Why did famously disciplined Karl Rove choose this moment, when the media is starting to investigate the Downing Street Minutes, to make a profoundly controversial public statement he must have known would cause a firestorm?  By his deliberately outrageous insult, is he trying to distract the public attention from the President's awful poll numbers and the violent quagmire in the President's occupation of Iraq?

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Amen and well said
This is exactly right.  
by Jeffrey Feldman 2005-06-23 09:32PM | 0 recs
Glad I didn't bite.
Exactly what I was guessing. Rove is incredibly
powerful and he's being dangled in front
of you like a carrot to the donkey.

But the biggest and best attack you could launch
on him, would be like water off a duck's back
here.

Meanwhile, a sitting President of the United States
has been presented with evidence that he has
committed High Crimes. Not like Bill Clinton's
Misdemeanors.. we are talking full on,
totally High Crimes.

Keep the focus on Downing, but also bear in
mind the eerie judgement against private
property too... if you have the grandson
of a NAZI in the whitehouse as a senior
advisor to the President - you do NOT
want Government to be increasing its
power to be able to seize your property.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-24 01:18AM | 0 recs
Excellent catch paperwight
The sad part is that it will probably work. This time the price Rove and Bush pay may exceed the benefit. The outrage meter on this statement has exceeded all of the Nazi comments on both sides combined. This time the 9/11 families have a bone to pick with Rove and even Republicans are astounded.

My favorite L.A. Talk radio host, Doug McIntyre, commented that "what Rove said is just wrong." That's about as close as we can expect a talk radio host to come to calling Rove a liar. What's interesting is that nobody called to defend Rove.

Scotty and Card can pretend that there is nothing to apologize for, but even the wingnuts can see through this one.

I think we can capitalize on the WH and GOPER failure to apologize. In a curious way, Durbin's apology could work in favor of the Dems, because of the contrast it provides to Republican defense of Rove. What Rove said is indefensible.

The WH and the M$M may use this as a distraction from the DSM, but the American people have heard enough to be intrigued. Democratic hearings are the key.

Getting Senate Democrats on board is the real key. Why are the Senate Democrats maintaining nearly unanimous silence on the DSM? It's time to turn up the heat on Senate Democrats.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-24 08:16AM | 0 recs
And it may have worked before,
but this Rove distraction (which I fully believe it to be) will go away, in shorter time than Right Wing talking points used to.  I believe the American public, and the RWCM who is seeing their slide in ratings and credibility suffering permanent damage the longer they tie themselves to a lame duck administration, that is inextricably tied to the failed neocon chess game of middle east arrangement.

And when the Right Wing distractions start holding less weight, and holding it for shorter periods of time, I can see typical Rove responses getting stronger, and nastier -- but the benefits for Democrats, AND liberals (let them try to draw the distinction -- it gives an opportunity to define ON OUR TERMS what a liberal is) is tangible and long-lasting.

There are too many people who know too many soldiers screwed over by this neocon agenda (add in underfunding schools, cuts in funding for first responders, overreaching Schiavo-type issues) and America is finally ready to hear the alternative.  And Dean is the perfect one to deliver the message, using the bottom-up approach that we are helping along.

In the meantime, the Downing Street Minutes are still there, and the enlistment shortages aren't going away -- leaving little wiggle room for the neocon reality to keep being swept under by Rove's outrageous statements.  What worked before, isn't going to work forever (outside the real fundies).  There are too many outlets for the real truth, and the RWCM is growing a spine, less they end up on the crap heap, never able to regain their credibility after chasing pretty-white-girl and Michael Jackson stories.

by Intellectually Curious 2005-06-24 08:20AM | 0 recs
Respectfully disagree
I usually the one to say "keep your eye on the ball." But not this time. This is an opportunity to highlight everything the administration has done wrong with the war of choice in Iraq. If used properly (a big if with Democrats) Rove's comments can easily be turned on the Bush Administration highlighting the need to look into their motives for invading Iraq.

As public opinion continues to go against Iraq, and increases in opposition, the willingness of the public and MSM to take an active roll in evaluating Bush policy and place more validity in information like the Downing Street Memos.

This can only be good for our side. Kristen Breitweiser, one of the 9-11 widows leads by example for us here.

by michael in chicago 2005-06-24 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully disagree
Read the last 2 grafs, please. I think you and Chris Bowers only read the fun bits at the start and didn't continue to the actual recommendation at the end. That is of course my shortcoming as a writer -- I should have put the recommendation up front.
by paperwight 2005-06-24 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Respectfully disagree
Good point. We're on the same page.
by michael in chicago 2005-06-24 09:12AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads