Rove talking points...

There is a set of Republican talking points on the whole Karl Rove, Valerie Plame/Wilson situation floating around the internet, and I think there's a very important thing to note:

This is not an unusual tactic for this particular batch of Republicans. They're attempting yet again to refocus the debate on minutia. These talking points are not factual, they aren’t intended to be factual.

In fact, they’re intended to be so partisan (and yet in such an innocuous way) that those who disagree with them politically will be drawn into disproving the falsehoods. They will (so the strategy goes) succeed, but in so doing, will lose focus on the end goal, and then if Mr. Rove walks free, the public has become so tired of the bickering that they don’t care whether a top government official flouted the law and beat it on a technicality.

This is actually, apparently, a standard Rovian tactic. Redirect the conversation in such a fashion that your opponents (and perhaps yourself) look like you’re engaging in partisan bickering. It doesn’t matter that you look that way, the burden of proof is on the other guys (innocent until proven guilty and all that), and so if both sides can be made to seem petty and childish, the American public gets tired of the story, rolls its collective eyes at the stupidity of politicians, and the guilty end up going un-punished even in (or especially in) the court of public opinion.

Lies and underhanded tactics are nothing new to politics, but just to give you some idea of the man in question (Rove), here are some highlights of his political career (thanks to several other bloggers who did the actual research that I’m flagrantly copying):

In 1969, Rove goes to work for the Senate campaign of Ralph Smith. One of his tactics was going into the offices of the Democratic candidate for State Treasurer to steal some stationary and then distributed fake invitations advertising a party with “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing” timed to coincide with the time and location of the opening of the Democrat’s campaign headquarters. These were distributed at hippie communes, rock concerts and soup kitchens. This led to Democrat supporters who showed up feeling like they’d been lied to by the Democrat, and others pointing to the decadence of the Democrat. The trick did not work, but it was also fairly minor compared to later tricks Rove would pull. A mere college prank.

In 1986, Rove was working for Texas Gubernatorial candidate Bill Clements against Democratic incumbent Mark White. When neither side could break out and things were running in a virtual dead heat, Rove suddenly announced in the papers that he’d found a bug in his office and loudly and publicly implied (but never quite stated) that the White campaign was behind it. Evidence points to the whole incident being faked, but the bad press turned the tide and Clements won.

In 1994, Rove was supporting W against incumbent Texas Democratic governor Ann Richards. Once again, things were close, and Rove had W’s campaign workers begin making “pollster” style calls asking questions like “If you knew that Governor Richards’ staff consisted largely of lesbians, would it make you more or less likely to vote for her?” The allegation was false, but of course it was not illegal because they didn’t SAY that it was true, only asked what the voter would do if he or she knew it was true. But the impression left was that the Richards campaign was a hotbed for radical homosexuality, and Richards lost.

There are several cases of information being leaked and then sources drying up, making the news organization in question lose credibility, that all have Rovian fingerprints on them. The Newsweek article about Korans in toilets, leaked from a high placed anonymous source, and then suddenly no longer supported by that source, once the story was published.

The same was done with regard to Bush’s alleged 1972 arrest on charges of cocaine possession. In 1999, a biography called “Fortunate Son” was published, which listed the drug bust and quoting “a high-ranking Bush advisor”, who said that the record was expunged in exchange for community service by W. In this case, though, the story was leaked (by Rove, it was later revealed) to an author who was also a convicted felon and had spent time in jail. When the author's own sordid past was revealed, the publisher pulled the book, and the surrounding publicity pushed the story into the public’s “politics is a dirty lying business” file. President Clinton was excoriated for trying marijuana (but “didn’t inhale”), but through this tactic, Bush’s past with alcohol and cocaine were turned into a non-story. Truth or falsehood, the public simply didn't care about it. Similar tactics were used in 2004 to discredit those who tried to shed light on Bush's highly questionable service record.

During the 2000 Presidential election, someone in the Bush camp sent a tape of Bush preparing for debates to the Gore campaign offices, along with detailed political strategy notes. Rove accused the Democrats of secretly bugging Bush’s offices (reminiscent of his 1986 ploy and also the Watergate scandal), a story which cost Gore some votes. Subsequent to the election, a Bush insider admitted to sending the tape to the Gore team.

So as we can see, Rove tactics generally revolve around leaking information in ways that steer the topic of conversation in the direction Rove would like it to go, with any of a number of endgames (disproving a potential source of damaging information, smearing a political rival, or simply misdirecting public opinion).

And that’s what’s going on here. The talking points aren’t true. They know they aren’t true. But in putting them out, there is a legion of un-critical thinkers who will parrot them verbatim, leading (if the tactic works) to one of the following outcomes, all positive to Rove:

1) Rove opponents stay “on message”, don’t allow the conversation to be steered off course, but the public now has these talking points creating a “reasonable doubt”. Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

2) Rove opponents waste resources proving the falsehood of the talking points. In the process, those resources are NOT used in keeping the original message out there. The public loses focus on the idea that outing a CIA agent is wrong (whether technically a crime or not) and Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

3) Rove opponents successfully manage to prove the falsehood of the Republican talking points while also successfully keeping their message in the forefront of public opinion. But now there’s so much conflicting information flying around that the average citizen has tuned it out or decided it’s old news by the time any verdict comes out. Public opinion hardly stirs if Rove gets off scot free.

In the mean time, all Rove has to do is convince the prosecutor that he does not meet the very strict set of circumstances necessary to be deemed in violation of the law. If he is successful and he gets off, he walks away a free man, and the Administration is not hurt at all by the fact that, intentionally or through carelessness, a part of our covert intelligence network on terrorism was destroyed.

You have to give Rove credit. He may be truth-impaired and he may be partisan and he may be more interested in his own power than the good of the United States, but he is damn good at politics.

Liam.