So, how does a sitting President make one of the worst betrayals of public trust and possible acts of treason magically disappear? Well, you take full advantage of a fourth estate that is so eager to please that it will fall over itself chasing its own tail.
You keep a close eye on the comings and goings of the Special Prosecutor, fully aware that indictments against members of your team are likely and that they are just as likely to be handed down before the grand jury disbands on October 28, 2005.
You devise a strategy to use the nomination process to divert attention from the coming indictments by asking one of your loyalists to agree to “accept” a nomination to become an associate justice of the supreme court with the understanding and expectation that the nomination will be withdrawn well before the "nominee" is to be questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
You thereupon have the loyalist “withdraw” her nomination on the pretense that continuing her nomination will neither serve the interests of the country or the post to which she has been nominated. In truth, again, it was never the intention to allow Harriet Miers to get anywhere near the Senate Judiciary Committee as it is readily understood that she has neither the legal qualification or political muscle necessary to satisfy even the most ardent of supporters; that being the good soldier, hers was the unenviable task of absorbing punishment from every quarter until the day it became clear that indictments were near and her services were no longer necessary. The timing of the "withdrawal", however, is actually not intended to coincide with the expected indictments or to compete with if not completely divert attention away from the pending criminal prosecution. It is rather the eventual nomination of a new associatejustice which is expected to distract the media and public from the soon-to-be-announced indictments.
You either have foreknowledge that the indictments will not be handed down until Friday or simply catch a break because Fitzpatrick is not ready to go public until Friday afternoon. As a result, whereas Libby’s indictment and the shroud of corruption that the indictment would otherwise throw over the White House would have dominated the news had the indictment been handed down earlier in the week, the Friday disclosure allows the shroud to dissipate over the ensuing weekend despite extensive coverage by the Times, The Post and other news outlets.
You then announce the nomination of Samuel Alito to succeed the Miers’ “nomination” at 8am on the Monday following the Libby indictment. By doing so, it is the Alito nomination and not the Libby indictment which immediately becomes the news of the day as the morning talk shows are coming on the air. In doing so, you choose someone who you know will appease your base and, at the same time, antagonize the moderates in your party as well as nearly the entire Democratic party. The resulting firestorm of protest -- the likely threats of a filibuster and the ensuing implementation of the dreaded "nuclear option" -- and the media attention is receives further serves to put distance between the Libby indictment and talk of the corruption reaching Big Karl and the VP and the day's discourse.
You unleash your minions -- the Pat Buchanans, the Bill Kristols and the rest of the gang -- to take to the airwaves and proclaim the whole thing much ado about nothing and, with little or no response invited or provided, the "fair and balanced" characterization morphs into a generally accepted view of the indictment and the events that led up to it.
In the meantime, the resulting media attention and hysteria surrounding Judge Alito -- who he is, what he stands for and how he is likely to vote once he takes his seat on the court -- dominates the print, television and internet media for weeks if not months to come as the nomination process drags on. Scooter who?
Alls well that ends well, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment