Message Discipline
OK, Washington Democrats, watch how it's done. When one of your guys gets out in front and says something controversial, don't start backing away and shooting at him.
And, in perfect form, they completely ignore the inherent hypocrisy in their statements, and act like their reality distortions don't exist. Yes, this was the same Ken Mehlman who last week was on TV calling on Dean to apologize for a comment that had much more objective truth than Rove's. But there is no need for Rove to apologize. Scott McClellan uses his finest "If you groundlings had a brain you'd see why your question makes no sense" dismissiveness. "Of course" the President won't ask Karl to apologize; he agrees with him. Silly reporter!
Andy Card plays the "false equivalency" gambit, suggesting that excessive language in criticism of torture can be equated with excessive language to feed red meat to party zealots. Meanwhile, Ms. Devenish pretends to have forgotten that their criticism of the Democratic candidate last fall was that he was too liberal, seemingly suggesting that Karl Rove (who flogged that horse until it was dead), was carefully making a distinction between "liberals" and "Democrats". Right. And while we're at it, who paid her to "guide" the Democratic Party, or to warn them about being "misguided"? No one; her job is to make people think Democrats are some sort of mental deficients for criticizing Rove. Children, patsies, and the mentally ill can be 'misguided'.
See how that goes? Mehlman comes in from the side, with the reinforcement comment that it's "true." Card handles the "let's all calm down" pose, while slipping in the idea that everybody's at fault, equally. Devenish fires a cloud of protective smoke, positing a distinction that everyone knows wasn't on Rove's mind, and subtley framing the Democrats as mentally deficient. And they've only just begun.
Have we seen Republican sentators standing up to say that Rove "doesn't speak for them?" (No, though we can hope.) The more over-the-top, the more divisive, the more the Party message-makers work the "nothing to see here, move along" theme, with their trademark dash of suggesting their critics are the ones with the crazy talk. In the process, they reinforce the message and plant a marker in the rhetorical ground that is just a bit further along than they were before. And they aren't shy about offending anyone while they do it, nor are they trembling because someone might not like what they say. Rove took the national tragedy of 9/11, seized and exploited it for a crass partisan message, insulting half the country. But it was "true", "of course" there is no need to apologize, and anyone suggesting there is must be "misguided". Imagine.
This is how they win. This is the way they hijack the national debate. This discipline is a powerful tool.
It would be refreshing to see it used for Good, not Evil.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan came to Rove's defense, saying the president's chief political adviser was ``simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism.''See? The Rethuglicans know how to do it even when their guy says loathesome, divisive, tasteless comments, exposing the crass heart of their party for what it is. In fact, perhaps because Rove's comments were so bad, the Republican message machine deploys in formation immediately.
``Of course not,'' McClellan said when asked by reporters whether President Bush will ask Rove to apologize. ...
Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because ``what Karl Rove said is true.'' White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, asked about the Rove dispute on CNN, noted, ``We have seen pretty hot rhetoric from both sides of the aisle lately.''
White House communications director Nicolle Devenish said Rove was speaking ``very broadly about the liberal movement'' and that he never referred to Democrats. ``I think the Democrats are misguided in their attacks on Karl Rove,'' she said.
And, in perfect form, they completely ignore the inherent hypocrisy in their statements, and act like their reality distortions don't exist. Yes, this was the same Ken Mehlman who last week was on TV calling on Dean to apologize for a comment that had much more objective truth than Rove's. But there is no need for Rove to apologize. Scott McClellan uses his finest "If you groundlings had a brain you'd see why your question makes no sense" dismissiveness. "Of course" the President won't ask Karl to apologize; he agrees with him. Silly reporter!
Andy Card plays the "false equivalency" gambit, suggesting that excessive language in criticism of torture can be equated with excessive language to feed red meat to party zealots. Meanwhile, Ms. Devenish pretends to have forgotten that their criticism of the Democratic candidate last fall was that he was too liberal, seemingly suggesting that Karl Rove (who flogged that horse until it was dead), was carefully making a distinction between "liberals" and "Democrats". Right. And while we're at it, who paid her to "guide" the Democratic Party, or to warn them about being "misguided"? No one; her job is to make people think Democrats are some sort of mental deficients for criticizing Rove. Children, patsies, and the mentally ill can be 'misguided'.
See how that goes? Mehlman comes in from the side, with the reinforcement comment that it's "true." Card handles the "let's all calm down" pose, while slipping in the idea that everybody's at fault, equally. Devenish fires a cloud of protective smoke, positing a distinction that everyone knows wasn't on Rove's mind, and subtley framing the Democrats as mentally deficient. And they've only just begun.
Have we seen Republican sentators standing up to say that Rove "doesn't speak for them?" (No, though we can hope.) The more over-the-top, the more divisive, the more the Party message-makers work the "nothing to see here, move along" theme, with their trademark dash of suggesting their critics are the ones with the crazy talk. In the process, they reinforce the message and plant a marker in the rhetorical ground that is just a bit further along than they were before. And they aren't shy about offending anyone while they do it, nor are they trembling because someone might not like what they say. Rove took the national tragedy of 9/11, seized and exploited it for a crass partisan message, insulting half the country. But it was "true", "of course" there is no need to apologize, and anyone suggesting there is must be "misguided". Imagine.
This is how they win. This is the way they hijack the national debate. This discipline is a powerful tool.
It would be refreshing to see it used for Good, not Evil.
posted by Paul at 11:26 PM |
|
email this
