Wilson will win again
Posted by aogFriday, 14 July 2006 at 08:14 TrackBack Ping URL

There’s been much nattering about the civil lawsuit filed by the Plame/Wilson gang. The general gist is that Wilson et. al. will suffer terribly because of power of discovery this provides to Cheney et. al. The view is that WIson’s gang is delusional, making a big mistake by not understanding how this will play out. I think it’s the other way, that Wilson understands the dynamics better than conservative / GOP boosters.

The basis for thinking Wilson will be sorry is that there is so much information damaging to Wilson and his fellow travelers around to discover. This is, without a doubt, true. But from where comes the expectation that Cheney and his crew will take advantage of it? It’s just not the GOP style.

One need only go back to the last Presidential campaign. Remember all of the claims that Bush would eviscerate Kerry over his lies and consorting with the enemy during the Vietnam War? I do. Remember when the advertisements came out about all that? I don’t. The GOP just left all that on the table. I don’t see any evidence that the same thing won’t happen here, that Cheney / Rove / etc. and their lawyers will just not take advantage of the powers to savage WIlson. And even if they try it, Wison will offer a settlement that gets him out of the situation cheaply and this offer will be accepted.

On the other hand, the Wilson gang will find the entire adventure a monetary and publicity cornucopia, and with the cheap price of finishing at the end, a big net win. The other side will be left wondering where their shiny victory went, why so much was left undone. The MAL will have won yet another tactical victory. If it weren’t for the grander strategic tides of history being against the MAL, the conservatives would be toast.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Friday, 14 July 2006 at 15:45

i guess the real question is, then, why don’t the republicans ever fight back ? my take: a combination of gutlessness and an aversion to getting their pretty pink panties bunched up. just have to wait for a new party to come along. at least we won’t have to suffer through any more bushes in the white house, after the pitiful performance of the last two.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 14 July 2006 at 16:56

The GOP fights back somewhat, but I think the primary reason you won’t see any hard core nastiness is that the leaders are essentially co-opted by the glitterati in DC and they wouldn’t like it. It’s very similar to nerds sucking up to the cool kids and going along to get along, rather than standing up for their principles. The deeper question is why even Republicans in Congress define a bunch of dilettante leftists as “cool”. That, I cannot answer.

Andrea Harris Saturday, 15 July 2006 at 10:52

Both of you are much too cynical, or maybe you are, like so many Americans, still so traumatized by bad high school experiences that you can’t see straight. While there might be elements of cowardice and sucking-up in the Republican Party’s response to attacks on them by Democrats, I think that the reason they rarely get into scrims with the Dems and their leftist hangers-on is because too many of them still believe in civil public discourse. Any political fight with the other side invariably breaks down into an undignified mud-wrestling match, because — lets face it — the left is low-class. Politeness, dignity, and so on are upper-class values that leftists scorn, in favor of the so-called “real” nobility of the “working class,” which in modern leftist discourse means only those who don’t work, and their fellows in the intelligentsia. (Actual workers in this country make good money and therefore are tainted.)

I am willing to accept that the Republicans’ clinging onto the high ground of “ignore the brats” is delusional. But when they do try to fight, the old saying about the pig enjoying it comes to mind — Republicans are pathetic at these matches because their hearts just aren’t in it, whereas Democrats love that sort of thing and therefore invariably come out looking like winners even when they’ve fought dirty, which they almost always do. Republicans just can’t bring themselves to have a good time hitting below the belt, and their self-reproach sours the whole act, and makes them come out looking even worse. Unfortunately, I don’t think they have any choice in the matter, and the high ground is probably the safest place for them to be. If the Democrats “win” because they are willing to fight dirty — or rather, if we the people let them win — then we’ll get the sort of government we deserve instead of the one we need. Oh well, I’ve lived through the Seventies before, and I guess I can again.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 15 July 2006 at 13:09

Ms. Harris;

I still think there’s a middle ground, which the GOP won’t occupy, between mud wrestling and avoidance. For instance, in the Kerry case, rather than hysterical or accusing advertisements, the GOP could simply have run the unadorned tapes. As we have seen in the last few years, nothing makes the MAL more upset than quoting them in public.

I can’t help but think of former President Reagan and his “there you go again”. That’s the kind of fighting back without getting in the mud that seems to be missing.

On the other hand, the ability to stick to easily verifiable facts and obvious conclusions without becoming emotionally over-wrought and embellishing may be too difficult for the type of people who become politicians.

In essence, my point is that despite all of the gleeful “wait till the discovery phase!” commentary, I don’t believe that the defendents will, in fact, engage in any sort of strong discovery effort, certainly not of the sort that’s being bandied about (Just One Minute has some additional commentary about that).

I don’t worry too much about the 70s coming back. As I noted over at Brothers Judd, in the big picture, this will be one more wave on the sand castles of the MAL, but the Wilson gang will personally benefit from the action. It’s very similar to how former President Clinton and his gang managed to do so well for themselves while leading the Democratic Party off a cliff.

P.S. My high school years were, in many ways, the best years of my life and I knew that at the time. On the other hand, “cynical” is an adjective that sticks very well to me.

Michael Herdegen Tuesday, 18 July 2006 at 13:22

I didn’t go to high school, but my sixteenth and seventeenth years were among the best in my life as well - although I didn’t know it at the time. I was delusionally sure that “great things” awaited me. Ha !

Those years aren’t the highlight of my life, but they can’t be beat for sheer joy. It was like spending two years in an amusement park. Just a lot of fun, and little responsibility.

I had a job, no expenses, my Mother let me use her car pretty much at-will, and I had dozens of friends who were deeply into what I was into - Geek Alert - Dungeons & Dragons. (And similar role-playing games).

Good times.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 18 July 2006 at 14:52

Yes, those were the days my friend, I thought they’d never end …

I need to be careful, I don’t want to imply that I am now in some living nightmare of despair and pain. Life’s still pretty good. In comparison, tt’s unsurprisingly like moving out of your parents house — yeah, everything’s better but now you have to pay for it.

Post a comment