08 May 2006

Rove's Paw II

From Andrew Sullivan: "The NYT says today that Rove's strategy will be to emphasize the horror of Speaker Pelosi as a reason for Republicans to show up in November. We'll get the usual gay-baiting, nicely timed to be rolled out in the Senate on 6/6/6."

And here is why it might work, in her own words, taken from a John Fund column in Wall Street Journal, and he surely is more tuned in to White House strategy than I am. In lamenting how hapless the Republicans now are, he hopefully looks on the bright sided:

"So far Democrats are offering little should they take control of the House. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, told the Washington Post last week, that she planed to launch a series of investigations, starting with the five-year old meetings of the energy task force that was convened by Vice President Dick Cheney and that the Supreme Court has already ruled was within its rights to hold secret meetings. The Washington Post reported that "Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, 'You never know where it leads to.' "

This is the perfect straw man (sorry Nancy) for the Rovian machine to spin. No one but the liberal base cares about these things for the moment, and no one but the liberal base seriously wants to see an impeachment. If this is all they have to offer in return for a Democratic House it will simply be a race to see how much the public has turned against the Republican party: it will have to be willing to see Pelosi in charge rather than the Republicans.

But as in the last post, I think we can clearly see the first roll out of the Rovian counterattack.
Surely you knew there would be one.

1 Comments:

At 09 May, 2006 16:31, Blogger Parker said...

What is wrong with wanting an impeachment? The GOP has spent the past 7 years doing all the things they accused Clinton of but exasperated themselves trying to pin on him. The recent headlines about prostitutes for votes, a town full of lobbyists and congressmen colluding to launder money, the outright lies leading to war... everyone seems blaise about all this, in stark contrast to the outrage that Clinton may have made an inside land deal 20 years ago and may have messed around with one or more women other than his wife--what is wrong with people! And if these horrible things are true, they are worse than the alleged transgressions that the GOP deemed a reasonable basis for impeachment barely a decade ago. Are you saying that the GOP shouldn't be held to the same standard they expected of Clinton and the Dems in the '90s? And even if Bush is only directly responsible for the lies and war, shouldn't Pelosi et al be all over the idea of tarring and feathering every other GOP member for their party's blatant disregard for the laws of this land?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home