Saturday, July 16, 2005
In The Flat Field
Hey All,
I'd like to think that the Rove situation is a major moment of accountability for this administration - I mean, it should be - but I don't see it happening. Bush, I think, saw the last election as his only moment of "accountability," and since he won with a "mandate" (uh, no), he's free and clear to do as he pleases. And he's never going to give up his "architect," anyway. Even though Rove could easily move to a think tank, as Frank pointed out, I can't see Bush giving up Rove's symbolic place in the White House.
And of course the Democrats don't have the traction - or, apparently, the know-how - to actually capitalize on any of the opportunities they've been given. If the Downing Street Memo wasn't enough for them (or Abu Gharib, or the administration's lack of an exit strategy for Iraq, or the horrible economy, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example), how are they going to push the Rove issue in a meaningful way? They'd do well to make this into a security issue - I don't know why they don't hammer home the point that bombings in London, the Downing Street Memo, prison torture, and the like all prove that we're being made increasingly less safe under this "security" administration.
I had hopes that the parasitic, glazed-eyed press corp was actually pissed enough about having been lied to by the White House that they'd press the Rove matter. Alas, the coverage hasn't mirrored their anger, if they're still feeling it at all, and the issue's never really gotten more column space than Brangelina's adoption of a child from Ethiopia. Coverage would need to spike to the point where the issue really got in people's faces, I guess, instead of being just one more blip on that all-leveling CNN ticker.
Into the chasm gaping we,
Chris McC
I'd like to think that the Rove situation is a major moment of accountability for this administration - I mean, it should be - but I don't see it happening. Bush, I think, saw the last election as his only moment of "accountability," and since he won with a "mandate" (uh, no), he's free and clear to do as he pleases. And he's never going to give up his "architect," anyway. Even though Rove could easily move to a think tank, as Frank pointed out, I can't see Bush giving up Rove's symbolic place in the White House.
And of course the Democrats don't have the traction - or, apparently, the know-how - to actually capitalize on any of the opportunities they've been given. If the Downing Street Memo wasn't enough for them (or Abu Gharib, or the administration's lack of an exit strategy for Iraq, or the horrible economy, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example), how are they going to push the Rove issue in a meaningful way? They'd do well to make this into a security issue - I don't know why they don't hammer home the point that bombings in London, the Downing Street Memo, prison torture, and the like all prove that we're being made increasingly less safe under this "security" administration.
I had hopes that the parasitic, glazed-eyed press corp was actually pissed enough about having been lied to by the White House that they'd press the Rove matter. Alas, the coverage hasn't mirrored their anger, if they're still feeling it at all, and the issue's never really gotten more column space than Brangelina's adoption of a child from Ethiopia. Coverage would need to spike to the point where the issue really got in people's faces, I guess, instead of being just one more blip on that all-leveling CNN ticker.
Into the chasm gaping we,
Chris McC
