So, I gather you all (Glenn Greenwald, most notably) picked up on something Time ME Rick Stengel said on The Chris Matthew Show Sunday about the possibility that Congress may pull Rove and Miers in to testify about the USA scandal: “I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove because it is so bad for them.”
It’s a sentiment that’s even harder to parse that the usual chat show banter. He’s uninterested because going after Karl is bad for the Democrats? Two problems: Since when did the Democrats doing something bad for themselves prove to be uninteresting? A second, bigger problem: Why is going after Karl bad for Democrats? The panel on Sunday seemed to be taking the line that going after Karl would somehow make the Ds look petty and vengeful; I tend to think it makes them look like they are doing what they were elected to do*: provide oversight of a “comically [and at times criminally] mendacious” administration. It’s unlikely that White House is fighting Congressional subpoenas because they think the Rove’s testimony will make the Democrats look bad. Hey, you know who’s probably going to look really bad if Rove testifies? Rove.
People say things they’d like to take back all the time on chat shows. God knows I have, and the main problem is usually that the format doesn’t allow people to reveal their full thinking on an issue. Maybe that’s the case here.
UPDATE: I think Rick is putting the actual paper magazine together right now (and, shockingly, that tends to take priority over blog-related things), but I’ll attempt to get some kind of response.
* Shortly after the midterms I spoke to someone in Rove’s own office about what their takeaway was and this person told me that it wasn’t a referendum on the war, but on corruption. So it’s not like the WH thinks voters would be “uninterested” in this…
