“Turd Blossom” Will Not Be Indicted

Karl RoveThere are new developments in a story that I began covering on this blog last year (see two previous posts).

The news that Karl Rove (a.k.a. “Turd Blossom,” a nickname given to him by President Bush) will not be indicted in connection with the CIA leak case is probably the biggest political news of 2006. It’s big news because it puts a damper on Democrat efforts to use the 2006 mid-term elections as an occasion to accuse the Republicans of being the party of corruption. That effort did not work in the recent special congressional election in California, and the success of such a strategy in November looks even more unlikely now that Karl Rove is has been cleared.

This is bad news for the Democrats who will now have to end the smear-campaign and will be forced to debate issues and policy–a tack that has also proven to be a losing strategy for them in recent years.

Sources:
“Karl Rove won’t be prosecuted in CIA leak case” (Associated Press)
“Off the hook, and back on the campaign trail?” (Tom Curry, MSNBC)

Advertisements

6 thoughts on ““Turd Blossom” Will Not Be Indicted”

  1. Denny,

    I am sorry to be posting nothing but negativity around here (as you do seem like a likeable chap, to be sure), but I refuse to have Christianity intrinsically linked to republicanism (note that I did NOT say right wing politics…I have nothing but respect for classic right wingers in the mold of Buckley or Will).

    That said, how can you NOT call the Republicans the party of corruption? Let’s look at the facts here:

    1) DeLay. Nuff said. This guy wears his “Christianity” like a cheap suit. He has attempted to nullify democracy by re-drawing congressional districts to favor Republicans. He laundered money through PAC’s in order to help out lobbyists. This guy is scum. And that he’s one of the big faces of the Republican party should bode well for the Democrats if they have any sense of honesty in November.

    2) Cunningham. The guy admitted to taking bribes to secure business for all sorts of military contracts. That a Republican only won by a couple of percent in a HEAVILY Republican district is definitely a victory of sorts for the Dems. Or I hope it is.

    3) Abramoff. Let’s see here. The only democrats he gave money to were dems in states where privately owned casino gambling was in place (Nevada, New Jersey, Illinois). Coincidence? Probably not. He was after all helping his clients. But the Republicans helped themselves a lot more at the expense of Native Americans. To call this a bi-partisan issue is to be completely blind to the facts.

    4)Rove/Libby/Cheney: say what you will, whoever was involved (and it WAS a Republican) outed a CIA operative who was on the job. That is treason. There’s no spin on that whatsoever. Had Clinton done the same thing in 1998, every right winger would have been all over him like that aforementioned cheap suit. That Rove got off simply means that he’s not in the wrong THIS TIME. But the fact that he’s played the Christian Right like a fiddle for 5 years should be troubling to you (FMA, Late Term Abortion, etc). And if it’s not, that’s troubling to me.

    Are there corrupt dems in office? To be sure. My favorite local politician of all time was one of the most corrupt (Rostenkowski). But, he also realized that his job was to take care of his district. That’s something that DeLay hasn’t done (he takes care of his party, not his district). That’s something that Cunningham didn’t do (he took care of himself, not his district). That’s something that Hastert doesn’t do (that’s my parents district, I know that one well). Which means that these guys not only aren’t good people, but they’re not even good politicians.

    Which brings me back to Rove. His whisper campaigns, his dirty tricks and schemes and his partisan mudslinging have divided the country. And this WILL all come back to bite him. Not this time. But soon enough.

    Denny, you seem like way too smart of a guy to be defending these people. If you can tell a tree by its fruit, these are not Christians. Why in the world would you want to support them?

    Paul

  2. Paul,

    I do not believe that Christianity is “instrinsically linked to Republicanism.” It certainly is not. You are accusing me of holding a position which I do not hold.

    You are long on accusations, but short on arguments and facts. Yes, you can point to some Republican bad apples (a la Duke Cunningham), but such criticism could be levelled against politicians on both sides of the aisle (as you acknowledge). But pointing to the extraordinary cases like Cunningham is merely a way for Democrats to avoid having to discuss issues and policy. When Democrats have to do that, they lose.

    Also, many of your accusations are factually inaccurate. “DeLay Nuf said” is not an argument. I don’t know how things will turn out for him, but as you well know the verdict is still out. Your willingness to assume the worse exhibits the kind of cynicism we could all do without.

    As for the CIA leak case, you assume that a crime has been committed. Isn’t it interesting that Patrick Fitzgerald has been working on this for over a year now, and he hasn’t been able to indict anyone for outing Valerie Plame? It makes me think that you are just repeating what you’ve heard from the left-wing hacks, and we all know that there’s no shortage of those.

    Thanks for the comment.

    Denny

  3. Denny,

    Interesting. However, I would reply with the following arguments…

    1) By being yet another member of the religious right, without giving voice to the other side of the aisle, you are indeed helping to facilitate the idea that Evangelical Christians are all Republicans. Not only is it a dangerous idea, not only is it not true, but in my view, it doesn’t hold true to Christian principles. Maybe this is me projecting my frustration at the situation. The right seems completely bent on shaping Christianity around a very skewed version of the pro-life side of things and gay marriage, when both you and I know that there is much more to discuss beyond that. The left, save for Jim Wallis and my fellow Mennonites refuse to give credence to religion whatsoever (you think I talk trash on here? You should see me on the jazz boards!) This is why it bothers me so much that the right gets it so very very very wrong. It leaves Christians who believe more in social justice than hot button topics out in the cold. And that is nothing short of infuriating.

    2) I’m a liberal, and I’ll discuss policy and issues any and every day of the week. However, if someone is going to say that the Republicans shouldn’t be called the (more) corrupt party at the moment, I believe that it is worthwhile to point at the very people who prove my point.

    As you point to issues and policy, what’s the better policy? Bury ourselves in debt, allow the Chinese to run a huge trade deficit on us, allow millions of illegal aliens across the border without going after the businesses that employ them, shackling our military for generations to come by putting us into a senseless war, dismantle necessary federal agencies like FEMA (hey, it worked great under Clinton!), show utter contempt for our poor and disenfranchised while calling ourselves a Christian nation, and doing next to nothing about a growing oil crisis while we enrich the very people that want to destroy us?

    Personally, I like the Democrat version better: get ourselves out of debt, pull us out of a useless war, go after the businesses that hire illegal aliens in the first place, attempt to give our poor and disenfranchised a helping hand, stop corporate welfare, find other sources of energy that either make us self sufficient, or at least stop handing money hand over fist to the Saudis and stop ourselves from dealing with more nightmares like NAFTA.

    3) Denny, if you noticed, there was more typed after “DeLay, nuff said.” His redistricting attempts alone should put him on everyone’s list of deplorable characters. And if he’s not on yours, I wonder if you have a commitment to democracy. As for the money laundering stuff, you’re right, time will tell.

    4) Okay, let’s assume for a second that no crime was committed by Rove/Cheney/Libby. Now let’s talk ethics. If I say something you don’t like, are you going to come after my wife (well, my wife in three more days…)? It was at the very least, an ethical misjudgement of grand proportions. At the most, it was treasonous. Either way, when your choices are ethical misconduct or treason, you’re not talking about people that I’m proud to say govern my country.

    With that, I must get to bed. Hopefully I made some sense.

    Paul

  4. Denny,
    It is interesting to watch how the “party of corruption” rhetoric has come back to bite Dems in the butt. Rove is now exonerated while William Jefferson is under investigation. You are right. It does not bode well for Dems. Perhaps Matthew 7:1-2 is a good lesson for us all.

    Brent

  5. just a note on paul…karl rove is not and does not claim to be a follower of Christ. He has long been a sort of agnostic. He has no mainline religious belief.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s