Talking-point heaven

Republican apologists trying to thread the needle of both disdaining their leader while obligatorily disdaining the opposition party that also disdains him for many of the same reasons has been, to mix metaphors, a high-wire act of highest amusement. It's been a fascinating show, and promises to get even better.

The poor dears are beside themselves. For electoral reasons they appreciate the urgency of distancing themselves from Radioactive George, even trashing him publicly. He's botched everything he's touched, and one more mutual embrace could politically toast them as well.

Yet Democrats are villifying George for much the same cause. How, oh how, then, can at-large Republicans trash Dems for trashing George who's now routinely trashed by everyone but Barney, without un-trashing their intended trashed target of George? You see the problem.

We've seen a few talking-point dress rehearsals rolled out of late -- George may be pixilated, but Dems are indecisive; George may be a big spender, but Dems are bigger spenders; George may be isolated, but Dems are beholden to narrow special interests.

But for my money, columnist Robert Novak wins the prize this morning for rolling out in the most innovative way the most acerbic talking point yet: Democrats don't play well with others. They're "rude." They're uncooperative. They disdain bipartisanship.

Novak's petulant offense-defense has the added benefit of incorporating the highest of Republican values -- hypocrisy. Those who snubbed and ignored the minority for six years -- those now of minority or embattled status themselves -- are sudden acolytes of the Holy Grail of bipartisanship. Jaw-dropping, indeed.

The columnist saw his opening when Democrats rejected George's stated state-of-the-union idea of a bipartisan "special advisory council" to consult on the "war on terror," meaning, of course, the disastrous war in Iraq. But the idea -- the offer -- was a set-up (which Novak fails to directly concede in his column), for George already "had in his pocket a rude rejection from Democratic leaders," doubling as an "overt snub."

Nevertheless the Democratic rejection, opined Novak, showed that the opposition wished not to "function ... as friendly colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship." Bad Democrats. Bad, bad Democrats.

Further, "The Democratic leadership is beyond consultation on Iraq, as demonstrated by the selection of Sen. Jim Webb to deliver the party's response to the president Tuesday night. Webb ... is a hard-edged critic of the war not interested in bipartisanship. Discarding staff-written talking points, professional writer Webb declared: 'The president took us into this war recklessly.'"

Let's see. The president did, didn't he? Aren't rebuttals supposed to clarify as well as rebut? And if so, I can't think of a better or more obvious clarifying rebuttal to Mr. Bush's war management than the charge of "reckless."

Novak's most endearing insincerity, however, was this: "Webb's astringent comments contrasted sharply with Bush's tone, which indicated he still has not shed illusions [about bipartisan cooperation] that he carried from Austin to Washington in 2001."

Our congenial, cooperative president, observed Novak, deliberately shunned socially conservative topics such as abortion and same-sex marriage in his state of the union speech so as not to offend oppositional sensitivities, and instead graciously offered Democratic-enticing olive branches of, for instance, better health insurance and energy independence.

Yet sadly, as Novak further observed, those shameful Democrats are rebuffing Mr. Bush's splendiferous grace. Bad Democrats. Bad, bad Democrats.

But wait. Novak's assessment was beginning to show too much friendliness toward Radioactive George, was it not? To fix this -- to distance from, after cozying up -- Mr. Novak quickly spun and quoted an unnamed, Republican "ranking House committee member" as saying "The president and his aides are irrelevant and out of touch, removed from realizing what happened in the election."

See how it works? Bad-good Bush. Bad-bad Democrats. Double-good Old Guard.

You gotta love it.

Comments

[ProgressivePatriot]

Novak is a treasonous tool.

[CV]

Run an inversion filter on everything Novak says. Half of it stays gibberish, the otherhalf tells what's really happening

[Vic Anderson]

While Novak mirrorspeaks Bushist bipartisanship; MAYBE the DEMs recognize it for the doubleplus-ungood framing and involuntary intercourse it is. If so, they better put IMPEACHMENT back on the table, instead!

[willymack]

If all the liars and crooks connected to this cleptocracy were thrown into jail, we'd have to release all the poor saps already there on minor drug charges. Hey! Not a bad idea!

[Mark]

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Anybody who remembers at all the tone of the media while Bill Clinton was President and contrast that tone with that of today's scribes and pundits--of whose number Robert Novak is quite possibly not the worst-- while George W. Bush has occupied the White House, will not be able to avoid the obvious conclusion of massive prejudice. A charge easily laid! But think about the ramifications. The media are what Americans depend on to give them the picture of the real world. The media ought to be objective and above favoritism. So where do we go, and how do we respond, when we discover that the media are no longer objective, if they have ever been, and that behind-the-scenes interests manipulate them, and us, according to their own undisclosed plans?

I believe Dick Cheney is central to this whole issue. Not that he was there at the beginning, or that he is the sole cause of the existing evils of media complicity or bias. But he embodies the very most arrogant elements of willful secrecy and smug contemptuous disregard for public opinion that the Right Wing has fallen into in a sickening spiral since the Nixon Watergate hearings. Cheney is the one to nail. He would probably refuse if a subpoena were sent regarding any matter of information disclosure refusal during the Bush administration. He has the stupid self-confidence to believe that the "Unitary Executive" principles being rapidly enacted into law by the Heritage Foundation's most activist members will shield him into the indefinite future. Scooter Libby's trial, even now advancing toward very interesting legal points of controversy, will mark the first opportunity Democrats have had to nail the Vice President who openly congratulated himself for telling a Democratic Senator "Go fuck yourself!" on the Senate floor. Records of the Energy Task Force meetings in early 2000 would be a good thing to subpoena for, and see whether Cheney is still as good as his defiant refusal of that year. The media will likewise be put in an awkward position, by being forced either to help a criminal cover up his crime or openly turn on one who has been coddled by them for six whole years.