Monday, June 19, 2006

More Rove/Truthout

Truthout stands by its Jason Leopold/Rove/indictment story. It's a long explanantion why, but basically they're saying that Fitzgerald indicted Rove, then used the indictment (and fear of its disclosure) to bring Rove and his lawyer, Robert Luskin, back to negotiations to extract more information from Rove. When Truthout published the indictment story, Rove and Luskin went back to negotiations with Fitz in order to stave off more public disclosure.

It's late and I'm brain dead from proctoring a four hour special education exam in a room that was 105 degrees and had only one working window, so I don't think I can pass judgment on the Truthout claim. I can say that something along the lines of "I wonder if Fitz threatened indictment of Rove in order to get cooperation out of him?" passed my mind before. After Luskin revealed that Fitz had announced to Rove that he wouldn't seek an indictment against him, I thought that sounded a little too convenient and the most likely explanation was that Rove had made a deal to cooperate against somebody else in the investigation. I still think, even after the denials from Rove's side about any deal between Rove and Fitz, that an informal deal could have been made between the two sides.

I will say it's awfully funny how Rove hasn't been jumping up and down criticizing Fitzgerald for hanging him by a thread all these months, the way J-Pod at National Review did last week. I'd bet Rove and his lawyer, Luskin, are being a little more circumspect because Rove knows he barely escaped indictment and he doesn't want to risk pissing Fitz off.

I agree. I came over to see what you thought, and it seems we came to the same conclusion.

I don't know if it's right, but it fits with my general theory of the investigation.

And, beyond the White House, what Defense attorney, especially one as "press friendly" as Luskin, wouldn't be shouting to high heaven at his victory. A defense attorney makes his money on these victories. "Oh, he was the one who got Rove off?"

He should be making noise right now, and he's not.

(And, it's almost summer. You've almost made it.)

I agree that something turned..and it was probably Rover..I refuse to buy into the "Leopolds a Liar" scenario..WaPo and Laurie tore into him this was uncalled for in my opinion.

Hope tomorrow is a better day for you..
You guys all sound like the one you hate,,, Rove
This must still be a death by one thousand cuts for Rove.
The release statement was still conditional, so the thought could be right on beam.

Hate Rove? Don't know that I hate anyone. But the manipulation of democracy, of which the man is a master, should appall anyone.
I found it strange that Luskin wasn't publicly gloating too...that, coupled with Rove's silence on the matter, is mostly what makes me think Rove just barely avoided indictment either through a deal or a skate. The Truthout story didn't really change my opinion. It has been Rove's and Luskin's public reactions to the events that makes me the most suspicious.

None of this means a hill of beans, of course. Vandehei of the Post could be right when he wrote that the investigation is basically completed but for the Libby trial. Or some of the more optimistic prognosticators who are saying that Rove cooperated against somebody else in the investigation could be right. As Mikevotes said a while ago, we just don't know. Only Fitz knows.
Let me add one thing, Vandehei, in my opinion, appears to have been sourcing alot from Rove, Libby, and Armitage's defense teams.

He seems to have one more frequent source from outside that core, somebody who is not under legal jeopardy, but has testified.

That doesn't mean he's wrong, but I always try to keep that in mind when reading him.

But again, we just don't know.


Define the "manipulation of Democracy".
Rove is well know and regarded as a political flim flam man. He is party to the leaders of the religious right duping followers to the imperatives of the Republican themes.
He has been complicit in duping, not just the US public, but those in my own countries, by perverting information to justify an unjustifiable military action.
He has shamelessly crafted false policy messages to ensure a compliant electorate reacts to the fear and paranoia the message is intended to convey.
But if you prefer, I will take a little longer on this issue, support these assertions with verifiable evidence.
The antics of this man have been quite shamelessly open and public, after all.

You're right about VandeHei and his sources.

Thanks for the definition. With that understanding in mind, could we not also say that Michael Moore engages in the "manipulation of democracy"?
I don’t recall Moore being part of the discussion. But as you raise the issue, I have to say it would be naïve to believe any political activist does not manipulate public opinion.
Not being American, Moore’s opinions have little direct effect on me, those of the White House unfortunately do.
It is a matter of degree and relevance. I guess history will tell the final story.

My introduction of Moore into the conversation was merely to establish a working definition that we could both relate to.

Do you really believe that Americans who wield as much political clout as Moore will have little future impact on you? There is a reason he was seated right next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, and I don’t think it was because they are close personal friends. When the then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle closed down the senate that it members my watch a private viewing of F 9/11 it was telling as to what type of political power Moore actually has with the Democrat party.

If I were to tell you that just because Rush Limbaugh is not on the Republican payroll, he has no effect on you as a foreigner, I suspect you might respond in such a way as to insinuate that I was naive - and you would be right.
I'm not a big fan of Moore myself. I saw Bowling for Columbine. I found it to be manipulative. In the movie he used this little kid who brought a gun to school in Michigan and shot another little kid. I can't remember if it was a fatal shooting or not. He spent a lot of time trying to show that the shooting wouldn't have happened if the shooter's mom, a mother who worked at one of Dick Clark's restaurant, had been around to supervise him. But he neglected to mention the kid got the gun from his uncle, a drug dealer. That's just one example of Moore's manipulating the facts, leaving things out and/or outright lying about stuff in the film. And the "interview" he conducted with an obviously sick former NRA President Charlton Heston was over-the-top. Take on the current NRA head, leave the old man with the alzheimer's alone, even if he is a symbol of the NRA.

Moore bugs me. I never bothered to see the 911 movie he made. I don't like somebody manipulating me. I don't care if I tend to agree with a person's politics. I want them to be as honest and as forthright as they can be. I don't think Moore is either.

I'm glad you spoke up on this one. I think it's the first time we found common ground! lol! However I must ask: Using cartledge's definition, do you find him on the same plain as you perceive rove?
Arch do you find him on the same plain as you perceive rove? that is a big ask.
Certainly Moore can claim a degree of 'power' to persuade. But the reality is that Rove is currently driving the bulldozer.
If Moore was in the seat, and playing the same game, he would deserve the same level of criticism.
I'm just not persuaded that your analogy is relevant to the core argument in the present situation.
Leaderships (and by extension Rove is leadership) left, right or any other position, have a clear duty to use their authority for the good of the people.
When Moore has that authority I will be among the first to judge how he uses it.
arch stanton, I think your comparison of Moore to Limbaugh is more apt than a comparison of Moore to Rove. Political consultants like Rove use the media, but I feel at bottom they are political animals. If Moore and Limbaugh weren't political propagandists, I bet they'd still be working in their respective mediums. Heck, wasn't Limbaugh a Top 40 disc jockey back in the 70's? And can't you see Moore working at some god-awful Candid Camera knock-off?

In as much as I do not perceive Rove as one who fits your definition, I do not find him on the same plain as Moore, whom I think perfectly fits said definition. However, this is not to say that provided credible evidence to the contrary, I wouldn’t cast Rove in a similar light as Moore.

The analogy is completely relevant to the core argument in that, were it not for political activists in the private sector like Rush Limbaugh and the fire he started with respect to American amplitude modulated radio, Rove would have never ascended to the level that allows you to perceive him as someone who affects you. I believe it is safe to say that Moore has swayed to the left many a fence sitter and as such political outcomes may be affected in the future. Certainly had John Kerry won the U.S. election in 04, you could see how Moore's Leni Riefenstahl like movie Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been credited with moving enough voters to Kerry’s side of the isle. I personally believe that had it not been for this movie Kerry would not have come as close to the White House as he did.

Who is to say that Rove is not using his “extended authority” for what he believes to be the good of the people? Just because one doesn’t see eye to eye with another, doesn’t necessarily mean that the other is insincere.

While I cede the point that there are those in the world of politics who have engaged it as a moment of opportunity, make no mistake that Moore, Rove & Limbaugh are absolutely cut of the same cloth in terms of their passion for politics.
Arch, I don't question your underlying argument for a moment. I've been actively involved in politics since the mid '60s, and influenced by it all my life.
I know these people, which is why I steer clear of parties, movements and labels.
I have had my heart broken by some of the best 'flim flam' men, and Australia knows hot to produce them.
My argument here is about apples and pears.
Who has the power? Moore, like Nader before him, will always be seen as part clown.
The speak only to an audience of converts. It is the ones who can speak beyond that, spread fear and concern deeply through the community.
Rove can do that. Few in opposition can do it, and even fewer who are not within what is essentially a two party power sphere.
I have seen it happen. The guy who launched the world first Green Party was my doctor for a time. He knew, still knows, how to rally that fear.
I lost trust in him, even if I share some core values.
Manipulation has become central to the system, but only because people seem to want to be told how to think and act.
It seems the only way to get the attention of the great public out there is by scare tactics. That doesn't say a lot for our average 100 IQ society.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?