Posted by Brad @ 8:58 pm on May 29th 2009

Great Moments in Republican Talking Points

H/t Dailykos.

Karl Rove, giving a juicy little tidbit.

ROVE: What’s interesting to me, though, is the question of how effective she’s going to be on the Supreme Court. We know that David Souter was a cipher. We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she’s not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it — you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues. […]

VAN SUSTEREN: What did Justice Alito say about working with her?

ROVE: Well, I’m not going to comment on what he said about her…blah blah blah

Survey seeeez…

Sotomayor served on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Alito served on the 3rd Circuit.


  1. Not to defend Rove, ’cause I don’t want to, but it seems to me that parsing words is a selective exercise in your circles, Brad.

    Comment by James — 5/30/2009 @ 1:45 am

  2. Yes or no James, to two questions:

    Do you believe that Karl Rove was intentionally implying that Samuel Alito had personally told him that Sonia Sotomayor was a bitch (in not so many words)?

    Do you believe that Karl Rove, in his media appearance, stated outright that Samuel Alito worked with her personally, and that he had heard these things at least in part from him (hint: “I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court…”).

    Bonus question: Do you believe that Rove knew what he was doing in both cases, i.e. was fully aware of how the majority of people would take his comments?

    My answer to all three questions is yes. What’s yours?

    For the record, the original story here (linked at the top). You can find the full video at Greta Van Susteren’s site.

    Comment by Brad — 5/30/2009 @ 2:01 am

  3. I think James’s point may have been that the constant focus on Republican responses to stories, as opposed to focusing on the stories themselves, may be wearing a bit thin.

    Truth be told, I’m one of the ones doing it and it’s wearing a bit thin even with me. We can be participants in the dialogue, not just observers of it, if we choose to be.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/30/2009 @ 2:06 am

  4. Ok. What’s the story here?

    Here’s the point: this kind of response set obfuscates dialogue at best or sets the terms for it at worst. I view this kind of example of all the problems with the “mainstream media” people always go on about. Anonymous sourcing, partisan actors being allowed to run innuendo up the flagpole unchallenged almost solely for the sake of it, people inventing things to bicker about not because they are “issues” but for the sake of the bickering. These are not issues that Republicans have objectively “found” and are bringing to the table for healthy dialogue. It’s innuendo and whisper campaigns and dog whistles and, in this case, literally invented anecdotals. It is not trying to slap those things down that gets in the way of dialogue—my soapbox is very selective, and very small, whereas Karl Rove can reach a million people in a weekend just casually. It is not REJECTING this kind of thing that gets in the way of dialogue, it is not rejecting them enough, allowing them to have a veneer of reporting or objective analysis or, worse yet, to take root. These are the weeds that are, on this issue and many others, overtaking the field. In large measure because an entire class of people—journalists, politicians, insiders, commentators—often deem it impolite to start pulling those weeds, or where the very act of trying to demand a fair debate and policing for it comes off as partisan and shrill.

    So we try to rise above, and they sow below us. And we just generate a polite fiction that this stuff doesn’t matter, so we smile politely as they lie to our faces. But I’m tired of it. I’m tired of The Script.

    Yeah. Anyway, I’ll start laying off, as obviously it’s bothering people here.

    Comment by Brad — 5/30/2009 @ 1:14 pm

  5. I thought this story was that Karl Rove was likely lying about someone.

    Maybe because it happens so often it isn’t news, but it’s nice to bring up when it’s about current events because we’ve seen VERY often how misinformation becomes the dominant narrative.

    PS does anyone want to talk about the coming kaboom in the economy before any politicians comment on it?

    Comment by thimbles — 5/31/2009 @ 12:13 pm

  6. Farking hell. Can’t get my anchors to anchor-like.
    The kaboom article I wanted to link.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/31/2009 @ 12:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.