Torrid on Trial-- TJ v Digby

In his irrelavant but appreciative preamble to his support for the government seizing private property from the poor in order to return same said private property to the rich under the guise of public use and eminent domain, and in regard to a proper response to Rove's assault on reality, Torrid said:

I, like John Cole, am greatly wearied by the tabloid-style back and forth between the talking politicians. I do think his comments were coordinated as a noisemaker to blind and distract people, so the best answer is to press on.

By "wearied," "blind and distract," and "press on," I assume he's concluded that to "ignore and move forward" is the best answer.  I could be wrong.    If I'm right, it seems like a pragmatic approach.  Obviously, the GOP is trying to distract, perhaps from the DSMs, perhaps from the war, perhaps from those two and several others, a blanket all of the above.  In a sense Rove told his base, "Get your heads back in the sand.  The enemy is half of America and never forget that."  Right?  Wasn't that the prevailing message?  Wasn't this still about Dick Durbin?  Of course it was, and from a short review of blogs left and right, Durbin's older gaffe still has as much momentum if not more than Rove's more current tabloid-style slander. 

Perhaps Torrid's "press on" is rooted in the idea that the GOP is obviously floundering, so what the loyal opposition is doing must be working and that course should remain steady.  I tend to be more combative, especially if called a traitor.

I'll side with Digby here:

I've been reading around the blogosphere this morning quite a bit of advice that the Democrats should ignore Rove's comments. That by responding we are "playing into his hands" and "doing exactly what he wants us to do." [...]

As long as we've been losing they've been doing it with gusto.

Dukakis didn't respond. Gore didn't respond. Clinton did respond, (although I suspect that the real reason it didn't work as well with him was because his womanizing problems made it difficult to subtly label him unmanly.) They just spent a hundred million dollars calling Kerry a "flip-flopper" which in case you didn't get it, was designed to make you think of a flaccid penis. These guys aren't very subtle. [...]

Now, how you respond is the real question. I would like to have seen some Democrats say "Karl, why don't you say that to my face." I'd like to see women like Hillary and Pelosi pull out the ferocious mother card and angrily say "how dare you say that I would recklessly put America's children at risk the way you people have done!" No demands for apologies --- veiled threats. Bring it on. [...]

Republicans are very successful at connecting with the primal instinctive feelings voters have about people in charge. We aren't. It is their greatest weapon against us and it has nothing to do with policy or positioning or demographics. It has to do with the fact that a lot of people make their decisions about leadership on the basis of who looks the strongest.

So challenge them.  I argued against Dean's "white Christian" rhetoric.  I was defensive.  I suggested that what Dean said was bad strategy.  The same applies here.  However, what Rove did is only bad strategy if those he slandered argue, get defensive, and challenge him.  There are times to fight and times to press on.  The time to fight is when you're being attacked.

-- Zap

Comments

[Torrid]

I suppose I was speaking more specifically about the "he must resign!" outrage, as if Karl Rove would resign over something he said that most in his party don't even think is particularly wrong. If Donald Rumsfeld has submitted his resignation twice and been turned away both times, considering the overwhelming testimony for his dismissal, it's unrealistic to sputter about how victimized you feel and how he should apologize. That, to me, evinces the flaccidness of response you (and Digby) speak of. And Rove likely noted (correctly) that after Dean and Durbin, he could sneak his comments in and weather any outrage based on comparability and "but they're doing it" equivalency. There's a diminishing return on calling out comments.

When I say it's a distraction, I mean that it focuses the attention on Rove, rather than what he said or what information he's leaving unsaid. It's certainly fine to use Rove's remarks as a touchpoint for what's really wrong, as some have done (from Alterman's blog:

I think Karl Rove should spend more time in New York. He should talk to my neighbors, check out how these liberals reacted to 3,000 of their friends dying at the hands of Osama Bin Laden.

He should see how New Yorkers still treat fire fighters and police officers with solemn respect unmatched in this city's history. He should listen to the passion New Yorkers muster when they talk about how we might rebuild downtown Manhattan.

If he hung out here a while longer, I would challenge Rove to find one advocate of "therapy and understanding" among my neighbors. I bet he would find a whole lot of families with sons and daughters serving in our military overseas, a noble choice that was apparently beneath him and his boss (not to mention his boss's unemployed daughters).

And I would hope Rove would have the courage to stand there as my neighbors take him to task for letting Bin Laden escape unscathed. Rove should have to explain to the families that lost loved ones that the killer gets to go free so we can launch into an illegal folly that had nothing to do with the attack we suffered.

Karl Rove should hang out long enough to ask my neighbors how they reacted to the attacks of 9/11/2001. He would find that our blood flowed red. Our hearts sunk, yet stayed open and loving. Our eyes teared. Our muscles ached. We hugged strangers. We pulled together and pulled twisted metal off our neighbors. We prayed and raged and stood strong in our most troubling hour.

All we asked for was our country's support. All we got was a president who lied about everything, including the dangers we all shared from breathing in the charred dust and smoke of the smoldering wreckage of Ground Zero. He promised us justice. Instead we got shame.

New York still stands tall, liberals and conservatives together. We still talk about those days when we weren't sure everyone we loved had lived through it, when we weren't sure if there would be more coming soon. All we could be sure of is that we were going to persevere and triumph, that we would stand united and strong. Today, despite Karl Rove's best efforts, we still stand united and strong.

And we still wonder when we will see justice.

Karl Rove should hang out here long enough to see that.

But, as Rick told Major Strasser in Casablanca, "There are some parts of New York where I wouldn't suggest you go."

[Zap]

Excellent. I hope you realize my title and glib intro was meant to express an overall tone, sarcastic, but not particularly confrontational. I would like to see some SCLM primary sources take on the tone of Alterman.

I particularly like the idea of "say that to my face." He wouldn't like my response that's for sure. And btw, I know his comments were aimed at liberals, but I cannot help but read a little deeper into them, and see them indirectly insulting people like me who have opposed the war in Iraq.

[carla]

Karl Rove makes me want to forget what little manners I actually have.

Perhaps it's time to jump over the cliff and forget them altogether.

Tune in.

[Zap]

Dambit Carla. If your hit count is going up unusually it's because I keep refreshing PK to make sure you haven't jumped!

[carla]

Dambit Carla. If your hit count is going up unusually it's because I keep refreshing PK to make sure you haven't jumped!

So let it be written, so let it be done.

I jumped. :)