Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Hug your local liberal today...

They might be near-suicidal with this news.

Ok, so, The great and powerful Karl Rove will not be indicted. What's next in Patrick Fitzgerald's bag of tricks?

16 comments:

Patrick Armstrong said...

Karl Rove is an unscrupulous political operative to which nothing is sacred if it can give him the edge. He doesn't care if Republicans govern well (or even like, well, Republicans), or make America a better place. He just wants the guys with "R's" by their name to win, win, win. At any cost.

So there may not be anything that can legally be pinned on him (yet). Go R-Team. Glad one of your champions really demonstrates those core values.

Fishplate said...

Karl Rove is an unscrupulous political operative to which nothing is sacred if it can give him the edge.

And James Carville is a saint.

Face it, all politics, R and D alike, is about getting reelected. The use of operatives like Rove and Carville is to keep the candidate's hands blood-free.

S.A.W.B. said...

Well put Fishplate.

paT, exactly at what point was it the job of an election strategist to make sure the elected are running the country in the way that you want them to, or at least feel that they should?

Might this perhaps be another glass of sour grapes from the party that keeps pouring Roundup(tm) on it's own grass-roots efforts?

liberalandproud said...

Can't say I'm surprised. This may be better news for those Rs than an indictment, but it has gotten the Plame case back in the news. The taint of corruption from the investigation is a lose-lose situation for the administration. The real story is not whether Rove is able to escape indictment because of a technicality. The real story is the underlying environment of questionable ethics obviously endorsed by the upper echelons of the establishment. It is time for a change.

Dante said...

No, the real story is how liberals are out there going on and on about stories like the Plame case that most Americans have completely lost interest in. Unless the prosecution finds something jucier than $90k in a freezer, this "environment of questionable ethics" slant isn't going to yield much, if anything.

Patrick Armstrong said...

So, the "you do it too" defense makes what Rove does OK? The existence of bad behavior on both sides excuses bad behavior on both? That's your defense? Against me, of all people, THE liberal who doesn't give bad behavior a pass on my side.

No it isn't an excuse, it isn't a defense of Rove. Keep in mind, Democrats only really started losing when our politics became about only getting re-elected.

Not that I agree with you that Rove is even in the same league as Carville (who helped write an entire book about merging good policy with good politics).

Dante said...

What Rove does is OK because that's his job. His job isn't to define the platform or see that it's enforced. His job is to help people win elections and he's good at what he does. We don't really know what he "wants" politically. He could be a liberal for all we know. Personally, if I were going to be an election strategist I would do it for the Democrats. It's a lot better to strategize about platforms you don't have an emotional involvement with. Rove's job isn't to be the good guy and isn't to get himself elected. Rove's job is to get people to vote for the party he advocates.

liberalandproud said...

Rove's current job is to get republicans elected, but he did spend sometime in a policy-making position. He's no longer a deputy chief of staff, but he once was, so the whole "it's not his job" line just doesn't fly.

Dante said...

I'm not following you, liberalandproud. Why exactly should Rove not do his current job to his utmost ability merely because of a job he used to have? Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?

Patrick Armstrong said...

What Rove does is OK because that's his job. His job isn't to define the platform or see that it's enforced. His job is to help people win elections and he's good at what he does.

Wow. I wonder why Barry Bonds, Logan Young and Jim Herrick didn't use that excuse! "What I do is OK because its my job. My job is to hit homeruns/win football/basketball games, and I'm good at what I do."

You dance with the one that brung ya. Rove's behavior reflects on the Office of the President, his boss, because that's who has the power to hire and fire him, and on Republicans in general who behefit from his bad behavior. It doesn't matter what position he holds, he doesn't act independently.

liberalandproud said...

"paT, exactly at what point was it the job of an election strategist to make sure the elected are running the country in the way that you want them to, or at least feel that they should?"

The point when it was his job was the time period during which he served as deputy chief of staff in charged of crafting major domestic policy.

patsbrother said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
patsbrother said...

Whether an individual is an election strategist, a corporate CEO or an attorney representing a vile client, it is wholly appropriate to expect him to be a principled individual and to eschew pursuing his goals down the low road. If the only means you have to further your goals is to wallow in dreck, it speaks poorly of those around you or in the same cause that they don't ask you to leave so that someone else may further those goals responsibly. It speaks poorly of them because their choice to endure your tenure is an endorsement of your unfortunate ignobility. Regardless how future analysts will paint the fruits of President Bush's terms in office on their own merits, history itself will associate his administration with ignominy, double-speak, unscrupulousness behavior, and scandal. For that the President may thank Karl Rove and his own indefatigible loyalty to that sad, extremely flawed man.

Patrick Armstrong said...

Speaking of all this Rove business, here's the photo we've been waiting for...

Dante said...

"I wonder why Barry Bonds, Logan Young and Jim Herrick didn't use that excuse!"

These guys all have something in common with each other: they did something illegal (assuming that Barry Bonds did indeed use steroids). I know the libs were hoping that something of an illegal nature would be pinned to Rove but that didn't happen here. Rove has done things that the other side of the isle considers low and unethical but so far he's done nothing illegal.

"...history itself will associate his administration with ignominy, double-speak, unscrupulousness behavior, and scandal."

Right. Just like the Grant, Eisenhower, and Reagan administrations that were also wrought with scandal in their day. Don't let your desires get in the way of logic and precedent. Members of the Reagan Administration sold guns to Iranians! That's even a scandal with ties to current events, but nobody really talks about it all that much and that's not typically what Reagan is remembered for. So far, it seems that Nixon and maybe Clinton will be the only Administrations in our lifetimes that will be defined by their scandals.

bristolfrombrunswick said...

An aside to the Rove issue: I have long wondered about something that I have heard only Paul Begalla (sp) raise as an issue. If Rove is a Republican political strategist why is he on the White house (i.e. public) payroll rather than that of the RNC?