It occurs to me that it might be helpful to consider this week’s flap over Karl Rove’s slander from Rove’s perspective.<\/p>\n
The White House’s top political strategist was in New York at a time when his boss’ approval ratings are tanking, the war in Iraq is failing, the president’s signature domestic policy initiative has become a fiasco. Just this week, political reporters have been focusing on the fact that the CIA director knows where Osama bin Laden is but can’t (won’t?) catch him, Dick Cheney maintains mysterious beliefs that the Iraqi insurgency is in its “last throes,” and the Downing Street Memos are actually interesting after all.<\/p>\n
Rove, like most Republicans, wanted some kind of detour in the political narrative. Dick Durbin was a useful pi\u00c3\u00b1ata for about a week, but his unwarranted apology effectively ended the fiasco. Howard Dean has been a useful target, but he hasn’t given Republicans anything to work with this week. It was time for something new.<\/p>\n
Rove, for whom very little happens by accident, wrote a carefully crafted speech, delivered in the media capital of the world. His remarks were not off the cuff; he planned to say every word — which leads me to believe he also expected the reaction he received.<\/p>\n
The inevitable effect of these flare-ups over controversial statements by high-profile political players is that the statement in question gets repeated, over and over again, in every news avenue. That can either be beneficial or not, depending on the message.<\/p>\n
If a magazine labels a lawmaker the “dumbest member of Congress,” the wrong move for him or her is to hold a press conference to deny it. It’s not in the member’s interest to draw more attention to the fact that others find him or her dumb. Rove, however, desperately wants to have a conversation over whether Dems are weak on fighting terrorism, so he lashes out at them with slanderous rhetoric, expecting the left to go apoplectic.<\/p>\n
The effect, again, is predictable. “Rove says Dems are weak and pathetic; Dems say they’re not.” This is not a conversation that helps Dems in any way.<\/p>\n
Is this to say that Dems should back off and let Rove’s vicious slur go unchallenged? No, but if the Dems are going to go after Rove, they need to focus the message on a preferable conversation. So, what should be the Dems message? One option is to accuse Rove and the Bush gang of exploiting 9\/11 for partisan gain. That’s not bad, but this has been a staple of White House politics for nearly four years now, and in this context, Rove’s slander was nothing new.<\/p>\n Another option is to counter Rove on the substance, pointing out how terribly wrong his accusations are. This tack probably doesn’t help, because it suggests Rove’s slurs are substantive enough to warrant a serious critique. They’re not.<\/p>\n
\n
\nI’m afraid, based on the news accounts this morning, the narrative so far is not quite right. Most outlets are focusing on<\/a> “Dems object to accusations of timidity.” That won’t do; it gives Rove’s message a megaphone.<\/p>\n