Press on the Offensive--Day 2
We got at least one more day of the press swarming over something worthwhile. And there aren't even any missing white women involved (as far as we know). Scott McClellan had another what I'm sure seemed like a marathon press briefing in which he continued to refuse to answer any questions about Karl Rove. Roughly 60 percent of the questions involved Rove, including such queries as whether the White House and McClellan in particular had any credibility left and whether the journalists would be better off talking instead to McClellan's attorney. It can't have been a good time.
And W got into the action today, as well. Or rather, joined Scotty in avoiding the action. In a press appearance with the prime minister of Singapore, Bush was twice asked if he'd fire Rove. According to The New York Times, the President responded with "stony silence."
Will the press's interest in the story linger into Day 3? The New York Times fronts "Rove Case May Test Bush's Loyalty to His Closest Aides," but The Washington Post ("GOP on Offense in Defense of Rove") and the LA Times ("White House Deflects Questions on Rove as RNC Defends Him") look to be straying over to the GOP's point of view. Can the press keep their focus? One big hint will be tomorrow's press gaggle. If the White House press corps lightens up on McClellan and starts to let him off the hook, Rove can start breathing a sigh of relief, as he'll probably survive this downturn, at least in the court of public opinion.
But then, there's always Fitzgerald's legal case. He's the U.S. attorney in Chicago and he's known as a good Republican, but he didn't hesitate to go after former Republican governor George Ryan when everybody was sure Ryan would skate. That situation ended in a somewhat startling indictment of Illinois's most recent ex-governor (he goes on trial in a couple of months). Fitzgerald, by all accounts, takes his job very seriously and shouldn't be underestimated. Everybody tonight seems to be linking to Murray Waas on Novak's testimony before the grand jury, and if Waas is even half right, Novak, Rove, and who knows who all else could be in big legal trouble. If Rove gets hung out to dry in federal court, it's not going to much matter what the court of public opinion thinks about him.
posted by Doug @ 11:42 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I'm just now reading Catch-22 for the first time, and these Q & A sessions with Scotty (see Press Agression ) sound remarkably similar to many of the nonsensical and absurd conversations in the book. After this is all over, we could just print these and we'd have our comedy of the absurd nouveau.
I'm working on a theater piece now in which the characters quote these press appearances and slowly turn into rhinoceroses.
I'm sure it has been noted many time, but isn't it ironic that had it not been for the decision made by the editor of Time to reveal his reporter's notes, a move broadly disliked by first amendment advocates, Karl Rove, a person most of the same first amendment advocates I'm sure would love to see discredited, would not have be in the uncomfortable position he is in?
This thing is full of irony. I also liked the fact that Rove's big shot lawyer's grandstanding was what finally convinced Matt Cooper to testify. The lawyer told The Wall Street Journal, "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting." Since it was precisely Karl who Cooper was protecting, this made him think twice. Cooper and his lawyer took it as an invitation to request the personal waiver from Rove. (Editor & Publisher has a transcript of their comments after Cooper testified on Wednesday.)
Post a Comment
<< Home