Instapundit and RedState.org have some interesting analysis of Rove's remarks the other day. It seems to me that Rove provided enough context in his remarks that there is room for debate as to whether his assessment was justified or not. What's more, the Republicans come out ahead whether or not they were justified because if they were justified, it's because liberals are weak on national security, while proving them unjustified would require Democrats to publicly repudiate the likes of Michael Moore; moveon.org, a major source of funding for them; Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate; and Howard Dean, their own party chairman. If Rove's comments turn out to have been wrong, he should back down from them and apologize, but liberals/Democrats-Based on the reaction of Democrats, I assume there's not much difference between the two now that the election season is over.-have to prove him wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he should have back-tracked simply because people were angered by his comments. He provided sufficient context for them to be defensible, and he should have only backed down if proven wrong. This is the difference between what Rove said and the comments of Dean and Durbin. Where Dean's and Durbin's comments were absurd on their face, Rove's require a substantive rebuttal, and as long as Democrats simply continue to complain about them and demand their retraction, Republicans and conservatives can throw back all of the comments made by their number that have gone unrepudiated. NPR's Mara Liasson was smart enough to realize this when she made the comment on "Special Report with Brit Hume" that if we're going to hold Howard Dean to account for making insulting and ridiculous statements, we should do the same for Rove.
No comments:
Post a Comment