Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bush might time his Supreme Court nomination to overshadow the story (as he seems to be doing already, since he promised a nomination within days last week, but now - following the Post story about the Rove link - he is saying he won't offer one until next week), and he will try to link the two matters, so that he can make the defense that any investigation stemming from the Rove debacle is part of a Democratic plot to fuck with his nomination or revenge against a nomination of a conservative.
He'll also be able to use the nomination as an excuse to not discuss the Rove debacle. He'll say something like "I have much to accomplish, and am too busy to be bogged down in the poilitics of personal destruction."
But if its Rove, this story ain't going to disappear, no matter how hard Roger Ailes tries to deep six it. The Wash Post, Newsweek and Vanity Fair, not the Times, are leading the charge on this one. The Post desperately wants to get Watergate II, particularly since it got scooped on Deep Throat. If bush is smart, he'll try to cozy up to Woodward and offer him exclusives early... a make a friend of the imminent enemy defense. Woodward has questionable ethics and has already written a glowing kiss ass book about Bush's reaction to 9/11. Maybe they can buy off Woodward and the Post... maybe not. But either way, they have to deal with Newsweek, which wants Bush's head at the moment, due to the Koran story whipping his admin gave it...
|
The problem, son, is that all your media amounts to 1 pebble of credibility. Vanity fair? A year ago it was publishing stories about how Bush stole Fla in 2000. do you think anyone cares at all about its "scoops?"
CBS news and Newsweek lies have ruined any abiltity by the media to do anything to Bush. He could start lynching guys on the white house lawn he finds disloyal. Press can't touch him.
