(Cross-posted at My Left Wing.)
Rove, Rove, Rove, Rove, Rove... And a tad more Rove thrown in for good measure with a helping of Rove on the side. Many liberal bloggers continue to hit hard on the whole issue of Rove and the Plame leak.
As suspected, the announcement of a SCOTUS nominee has sucked every cubic inch of air out of the Rove story in the televised media.
SCOTUS is important. But not as imporant as Rove. We have to be prepared to make some choices.
More below the flip.
The TV media is the very definition of a short attention span. Like ants to leftovers abandoned on the counter, they swarm on the latest
BIG NEWS story be that Rove or SCOTUS or Aruba or the Runaway Bride. This isn't new information for anyone.
As a sort of preamble to the real reason for this diary, I thought it would be fun to see what news articles in the print and online media scored for today, July 20, 2005, using the search phrase 'Rove Plame'. I used the Google news engine and here's what I found:
Justice Department Criticizes Media Shield Bill. This article originally came from the AP and is also reported in these publications:
- The Washington Post
- Centre Daily Times (PA)
- Houston Chronicle
- Kansas City Star
- Guardian Unlimited (UK)
- Wilkes Barre Times-Leader
- The Conservative Voice
- The Arizona Republic
- Ad Nauseum Ad Infinitum.
The article highlights more the proposed shield legislation with the mention of Rove, while prominent, as being the driver behind the desire to protect reporters.
The good article that I found focuses on the Rove/Plame issue and the AF1 Memo. I found it in The Times (Frankfort, IN) but it's an AP article that starts, rather compellingly, like this:
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON - A State Department memo that has caught the attention of prosecutors describes a CIA officer's role in sending her husband to Africa and disputes administration claims that Iraq was shopping for uranium, a retired department official said Tuesday.
The classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration overstated the evidence that Iraq was interested in obtaining uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.
Find the full text here.
Ok. So the SCOTUS nomination has really knocked all of the sex appeal and sizzle of the Rove/Plame story off of the television media and off the front pages of major newspapers, generally. I don't think that surprises any of us. In fact, the prevailing opinion, rightfully, seems to be that POTUS planned the SCOTUS announcement for when he did specifically to take attention away from Plamegate. No surprise there, either.
Which brings me to the point of this diary.
Goddamnit, Rena, it's about time.
Sorry... Sometimes the voices in my head break through. My premise for the diary is that we need to spin as few cycles as possible on SCOTUS and return the focus to Rove. Shocking conclusion, yes? One you have perhaps heard about a thousand times in, say, ten minutes? Well, great minds DO think alike but let me expand because I think the Rove issue is more than just "the Rove issue" the way we talk about it from day-to-day.
I wrote a diary two days ago that had nothing to do with Rove and nothing to do with SCOTUS. It had to do with a New York Times Magazine article on framing, good bad and indifferent. Find the NYT article here and the diary here. I won't restate the original diary except to say that I think framing matters and it's something we should all embrace.
The comments to the diary were interesting as well. Again, I won't drag you through all of it except to note that there was a discussion thread about leveraging well-known negative frames to a broad messaging goal. An example would be the attempt to frame Iraq in the shadow of Vietnam. Done properly, it's very effective because it allows all the issues of Iraq to be pulled into one frame, and one that already has an overwhelmingly negative connotation. One of the key words that invokes that frame is "quagmire". Hearing "quagmire" one instantly thinks of Vietnam and, a majority of the time, internally believes that Vietnam was a quagmire and a mistake and at least considers the idea that Iraq is, also.
The Rove/Plame issue promises to be such a frame and one that we should be building. It ties as a unifying thought so many other issues around this Administration, both past and present.
Like canine Pavlovian drool at the sound of a bell, I think the word "Rove" should invoke the following frames:
- Abuse of Power (AbP)
- Above the Law (ATL)
- Arrogance (Ar)
If the frames are set properly, though, they won't merely refer to Rove and Plamegate. They fit a host of other issues specific to this Administration. Off the top of my head, I can think of:
- Rationale for Iraw War - AbP, Ar
- Downing Street Memos - AbP, ATL, Ar
- Terri Schiavo - AbP, Ar
- Patriot Act - AbP
- Bolton Nomination - Ar
- Nuclear Option - AbP, ATL, Ar
- Rove/Plamegate - AbP, ATL, Ar, and a host of others not listed
I think ALL of this is intuitive. What I think is important to remember is that, although 1-6 above fit into the frames I reference, they have not actually been framed. The Nuclear Option and, to a certain degree, the Bolton nomination have had framing language around them. But frames have to repeated... and repeated... and repeated... Until the mere mention of Rove (in whatever context) invokes the three frames and then leads the recipient of the message to associate things past.
So that is my $.02. I would rather see a graceful confirmation for Roberts so as not to distract, for a long period of time, from the quintessential issue of Rove and the Plame leak. From that current event springs every other key issue with which we can, finally, frame them.