If you just can’t get enough on Karl Rove’s exit, scroll down the page. Several of my TMV colleagues offer a formidable series of reactions for your consideration, including this round up by our revered Editor-in-Chief.
For my part, as I noted at Central Sanity this morning …
I sincerely hope [Rove's] resignation is the end of short-sighted, divide-and-conquer politics, and that the likes of John Danforth and his “politics of reconciliation” will be the rule of the day in the not-too-distant future.
However, beyond that passing recognition, I don’t think I (or any of my moderate-Republican counterparts) should dwell for long on this event. Granted, it’s an encouraging sign; a step in the right direction; one minor item to check off our wish-list; but it’s nowhere near material enough (in the context of the larger revolution we’re attempting to wage) to afford ourselves a distraction.
We still have a group of GOP candidates running for President who are largely intent on pandering to the very base Rove inflamed. We still must get a srong message to that group of candidates that we are the new base, the new majority, and we will no longer stand for the Rovian divide-and-conquer strategy.
In short, we still must play Sisyphus, diligently pushing the rock of moderation up the steep mountain before us.
Case in point: A fellow Republican has challenged our letter to GOP leaders, concerned in particular with our statements on habeas corpus and foreign policy, and confused as to why we have seemingly not extended our belief in “personal responsibility, self-reliance, capitalism, and the power of markets” to the subjects of education, health care, and alternative energies.
Today, I started my response to this fellow Republican, and while it’s admittedly an ant-on-an-elephant’s-behind of a debate, I think it’s representative of the series of grassroots debates Republicans must engage en masse, among themselves, if we are to ultimately break the curse of Sisyphus and eventually watch the rock of moderation gain enough momentum to roll down the other side of the mountain, becaming once again the rule rather than the exception for this Party.
And thus, I’d strongly encourage all moderate Republicans to acknowledge Rove’s departure for what it is and move on. We have more substantive matters with which to occupy our time.
Pete,
I noticed that your response to that commenter was a lot more nuanced than what you wrote in the letter. The letter is black and white, that war should never be a pretense for suspension of habeus corpus. In response to that person’s critique based on Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus, you had a more nuanced opinion of that (and you gave a good rebuttal to the argument, in that you don’t think that the current war status is an appropriate pretense because the war is open ended).
I don’t know where you are in the process of gathering signatures and don’t know if you are interested in casting a wider net- but it seems to me that you might get more people on board with you if you’d change the language in that part of the letter to include shades of gray instead of stark black and white. I know I’d reconsider, maybe that’s just me though.
Christine,
Good point, though I struggle on exactly how to amend the current language.
Would it be acceptable to amend it in minimalist fashion, to wit … ?
Or something more substantive, to wit … ?
Or something else …?
Any guidance would be appreciated, as I do wonder how much this passage has caused others to balk at signing.
Pete,
Something along those lines would be good, I think. Let me consider the wording a bit more and I’ll try to e-mail you if I can fine tune it.
[...] habeas corpus to foreign policy, my debate with a fellow Republican continues [...]