Poll: How will the Mainstream Media report it if (when) Rove's indicted?

Fox News)' -- but I seriously think you ought to remove the "Special to Fox News" because I think we are going to see the importance of the event low-balled in *every* media outlet.

Rove?

Rove who?

Immigration. Terra. Tony Snow. 911.

I am easy. Cheap, too.

for the press to make. They will say that this indictment is very, very significant. They will tie the indictment in with Bush's sinking approval ratings and the (albeit weak) push-back from Congress that has been increasing and now will increase even more. They'll talk about Bush's increasing inability to govern as he looses the support of the electorate and of congress, and ever more of his time is spent on fending off legal challenges to his administration.

The fighting pig already declared himself indicted a month ago. The whole bs with reshuffling the deck chairs was designed specifically to include Rogue's removal from the board as an integral part of the day-to-day policy machine.

No matter the indictment, pretty much a sure thing now and accepted as such by the criminal junta, the mad mastermind will be highly involved in the de legitimizing of their political enemies.
Our best advantage, besides that of one further blow against the image of the republicans and the * wing of the reprobate party, lies in the distraction that the legal complications add to his game. Keep him busy and in less trouble.

The media can do what they will, but it matters not to Karl Rove. Why, you can smell the bacon frying all the way out here in California.

http://pissedoffcabbie.blogspot.com/2006/05/emperors-new-orange-jumpsuit.html

I voted for Brittany. My sources tell me she IS knocked up again. That has to count for something.

"They don't have enough to get a conviction. It's obvious politics."

They're already saying that about Libby. They went from respecting of Fitz went about his business like everyone else to turning this into a "witchhunt over nothing".

Perjury is nothing when it outs federal agents and endangers national security.

Perjury is everything when it means lying about oral sex.

Rp

Whatever the machine tells them to do.

1. They will fall back to the " They didn't do anything wrong outing Plame and it's to bad he was indicted on a technicality"
2. He didn't lie, he forgot what and who he talked to because he makes hundreds of phone calls a day...and it happened so long ago he couldn't remember all the details.
3. Faux will continue to do "in depth" stories on Patrick Kennedy and missing white girl stories.

Also Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Arianna, Brad and so many others. And in the mainstream media, maybe Bob Schieffer. He seems to be the best of the bunch. (You are so right about Faux, of course, but we know they are hopeless).

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_051006_story1.jpg

:eyes:

Of course only a scarce few get to say that with any conviction (and Shuster, I'm talking to you, baby!), but that won't stop them from saying they've been mentioning it all along.

I was backpacking in Europe then, and a randy young guy who the girls loved because of my gorgeous long hair and sense of humor. Now, just another guy in his 50s; forget the hair, but the humor if anything is better. If Rove frogwalks, I will be 22 again.

is pregnant again."

Or do you mean that once Fitz opens the can of worms, someone (the Dems????) will actually go to the core of what this is all about? I hope you are right, with all my heart. I fear you are not, and Joe Klein et al will dismiss this once again, let alone the Hannity/Limbaugh drumbeat.

... A few months ago during another fever-pitch moment in the Plame investigation, the republican-defending pundits were all aghast at the notion of indicting rove on "process" crimes (obstruction of justice, perjury, etc.), while not indicting him on the "underlying crimes" (mishandling of classified information, conspiracy, etc.).

The republican press is NOW of the opinion that if the only thing you can indict someone for are "process" crimes, and not the underlying crimes, then you shouldn't indict him at all.

Of course, the republican press had a very different view when the process crimes were Clinton's.

As with all else for republicans, IOKIYAR.

So, my initial statement was meant to point out that rove's indictment will lead to the press gaggle repeatedly and solemnly questioning virtue of prosecuting someone without an indictment for an underlying crime.

It's of course completely idiotic, as (a) the whole reason for indicting on charges like perjury is that the uderlying crime can't be gotten to BECAUSE of the perjury, and (b) crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice are arguably more dammaging than almost any other "one off" crime - the former crimes are attacks on our very system of government.

What else do they have?