I wonder whether Rove’s comments are intended to influence the debate over net neutrality, an attempt to impose some Party discipline on wayward Republicans like Sensenbrenner and Party organs like the Christian Coalition.

And FWIW I think the timing of this attack has to do with a confluence of events: YearlyKos, Rove’s no-charge (which frees him up to complain about the case, if not Fitz), the Lamont poll, the Webb primary victory, and net neutrality.

Let Rove-Luskin eat their heart out. They think just because they got media training theirs is the most respectable argument. They know better: having their own spy reports from the Ykos convention last week that the anonymousphere when it showed up for the panel discussions instead of looking discreditable, for the most part appeared much like what one observer compared to a meeting of accountants; i.e., Rove’s opposition is informed, communicative, intelligent; just incompletely media-trained, as yet. When they pay their trolls to drop by, the bearers of barbs simply find their datapoints logged into the trollodex. I am sorry for Luskin that Rove encouraged him to select the paradigms he has for their fictitious publicity campaign. I believe none of us know yet how the numerous investigations will end, though polarized partisan commentary from their bullypulpit is to be expected until we transit election cycle and some of the study groups now engaging make their reports. I look forward to ABA’s publication of their research into the presidential signing memos practices of the current president’s administration.

Holy crap!

(lightbulb going off….)

Are they also signaling to the cocktail weenie crowd that if they stick with them, and ignore all that crazy truthtellin’ stuff, that they will protect them no matter what, and that if the weenie spear-carriers* don’t, well…..?

____
*those, of course, would be toothpicks.

This use of â€accountable†is fascinating. Seems to me, the broad definition would be â€one of us.†According to Luskin, CBS forgot its place (that it was Accountable to the White House) when it reported the story of Bush’s National Guard service. The cozy connections between D.C. insiders and certain journalists ensure that the Press is on the government’s team and therefore Accountable. Of course, one result of this bizarre form of Accountability is uncritical reporting of government leaks.

Really, it’s just scary how these people manipulate language in an attempt to lull the public into accepting whatever they do. Every sentence needs to be examined for its true meaning.

Per Luskin, it was o.k. for the Right-wingnut bloggers to hold the MSM accountable for the CBS National Guard story but the Left blogosphere has not held to the same â€principle†in the Rove story. Mary Mapes might like to set Luskin straight on her view of the â€principles†of the Right’s bloggers’ attack on her National Guard story.

It is sort of flattering to become the target(along with Kerry Murtha and a numerous other honorables) of a Rovian attack. Bloggers are players now, how times have changed.

The Rethugs have been operating this way for millenia — remember Ed Meese, Reagan’s AG? Under him, it was the â€Just Us†Department, dedicated to covering Republican ass wherever it was exposed. Instead of investigation, trial and punishment (as in Watergate), we got the wet farts of pleas and pardons touted as accountability for Iran-Contra. Maybe that’s the issue Dems should start beeping about: Republicans are dedicated to the proposition that, as superior beings, they are entitled to anything they want and allowed to rig the system to get it. Of all the ways they’ve damaged this country, that’s the worst. It’s no longer the land of equal opportunity — it’s might makes right and screw you, neighbor, I’m taking what I want even if it belongs to you. America the Unfair, where only a rich, born-again Southerner can ever be President — brought to you by Republicans.

The Investigative Reporters and Editors is having a convention in Fort Worth, TX this weekend, and they have been complaining about the way Investigative Reporters are seen by newspapers as an expensive luxury. They say Time magazine just laid off two prize-winning investigative reporters very recently, and it is a tendency among newspapers.

The publications can’t seem to figure out why they are losing readers.

The IJE suggests that the short-sighted view on investigative reporting is the reason. Big newspapers and TV networks are the only reporting organizations with enough money to field investigative reporters. They suggest that investigative reporting is an area of specialization that there is a demand for and that the internet cannot match.

I suspect they are correct. Daily reporting can be handled by Talon News or something similar. It really is just stenography. TV does headline news, and newspapers and news magazines can match the headlines on the internet. But who does investigative journalism?

Besides Talking Points Memo, of course.

Let the large news organizations do most of the real investigative journalism. Then ask Luskin how â€accountable†the press is to the administration.

It is true that a supply-demand effect applies to the field of investigative journalism and recently those ranks are thinned; but the largest news entities employ some worthwhile people still. There is a lot of expertise on the internet both by investigative journalists and people with diverse expertise. EW’s stature has appeared during the past year. There are other reliable people writing in the bsphere, as well. The regulatory atmosphere sets the tone, and that is what Luskin’s commission apparently has become, to give rebirth to the Powell FCC; he selected a difficult opening move, though.

Rove rants about â€hate and anger†in the blogs, which merely parallels the one true core of the conservative movement. We forget the Rove (and the Bush family for that matter) believe in political jujitsu – throwing your own biggetst failing into the eyes of your opponents, which is what this charge. does. I say ignore it and go on the attack.

What could be said to be the major failing of the progressive blogs? One could make an argument that â€conspiracy theory†ranks pretty high on the list. Slap that label on Rove. Hell, his whole rant reeks of â€conspiracy theory†and makes the claim plausible. Make Rove look weak, foolish, stupid and bizarre. That’s the one thing bullies really can’t tolerate and it is their true Achilles heel. It’s also usually true.

NOOSE TIGHTENS AROUND CHENEY’S ASTROLOGICAL NECK…SEE ABOVE POST

tnhblog, sorry, I’m no good at this dot-connecting. Why do you think it’s Cheney? I kind of think so too– but just because of those handwritten notes on the article.

In the article Novak says it all began July 6. Theeafter, he says, he had a lengthy conversation with a senior administration offical. So it could be anytime after July 6. It doesn’t really matter. Or, like you say, he could be lyng about everything.

You are so right. No one ever in the history of the White House wrote notes on an article about a critic of the White House who happens to be a liar.

Perhaps, Cheny was wondering who on his staff sent the incompetent liar. Give it up folks!

AlleyCat

I think I’m the person who has least believed the partisan gunslinger comment, period (I think it’s intentional misdirection), and who has believed that Woodward’s source (which is not what Novak was referring to) could be Cheney, but who now believes it is Armitage.

Proof number one is a filing in which Armitage fits the redactions best–and Cheney doesn’t fit at all. Proof number two are comments from Jeffress that Official One (Novak and Woodward’s source) is not in the White House. I think Cheney might be Novak’s source, as a third source. But if so we need to rethink what Novak has told us.

Absolutely fascinating, EW.

Yes, Rove is beneath contempt (a cliche which fits him perfectly), but we knew that already. The vital thing now is to keep the pressure on about net neutrality. THAT’S the big deal at the moment, IMO. Everybody check Josh Marshall everyday, and if your Senator waffles, get on the phone to their offices and let them have it (civilly but in no uncertain terms). This is one of those issues which people in congress think nobody really cares about that much. We have to show them that we do. Yes, there are two sides to the argument, but the this is war against an opponent without scruples. Screw the other side of the argument.

As for dogging Rove – that’s actually not a bad idea in a way. Rove is like Atwater in more ways than the obvious, tactical one: he really cares about his reputation as a person, believe it or not. I somehow doubt that Rovie would apologize on his deathbed like that asshole Atwater did, but I do think he really cares about being ’respectable’, a family man, a ’nice’ man personally, etc. [ ’It’s just politics John (McCain)’ – Bush in the S. Carolina primary 2k]. The DC bubble is of the utmost importance to him because it enables him to be the amoral prick he actually is and still ’feel good about himself’. ’Murdering puppies is just my day job!’.

The other night, Larry King had a panel of people being (except for David Horowitz) publically outraged by Coulter’s 9/11-wives schtick. The (sorry!) grotesque Georgette Mosburger (sp?) was properly offended by Coulter’s crap, but then said something to the effect of ’you have to admit, though, that she is a brilliant marketer’. That is the GOP/Reagan/Bush sickness, right there, and it effects ’liberals’ just as much as anybody else. ’If you can’t be good, be careful’. Dog Rove, but chances are, you won’t find much dirt of the tittilating kind on him (maybe, but who knows?). He’s a family man all the way, I think. It’s the obvious: the amorality, the awful character, the vertiginous cynicism that’s key. Rove and Bush exemplify that. You don’t have to make anything up or find nasty sexual secrets, just concentrate on what’s in plain sight. Dog him to make him personally responsible. He’s not the president and has no offical teflon. Embarrass him. MSM reporters don’t like to be held up to scrutiny, but Rove is an even better target for this kind of thing. Make the guy squirm personally. He would HATE that, and, unlike members of the press corp., he really can’t conceivably provide any public service – he’s just a scummy political operative.

Joe McCarthy used to booze it up with reporters and say stuff like ’Of course there’s no list of communists – I’m just playing the game, boys! Haw haw haw. Have another drink’. But that was before the Unmaking of the American Consensus. We have to make these varmits wish they had been careful for what they wished for (and got). The idea that ’if it SELLS, it’s good’ is the modern GOP’s biggest weak spot, and the contradictions it implies are deep and systemic (the Immigration ’debate’ – with bidnis on one side and nativists on the other – is just one exponent of this contradiction). Rove is at the center of it all, the absolute apotheosis.