Redstate

They want to investigate "crass politicization" but not Chuckie Schumer. Go figure.

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Democrats — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The New York Times is so shrill it can be comical. In their Tuesday editorial, they accuse Karl Rove of "politicizing the federal government." They offer no specifics; the closest they get is a few wild swings at "the decision to fire nine top federal prosecutors." There was nothing improper or illegal, nothing irregular, about what the White House did, but the Times is venting its aging spleen.

Congress must investigate Rove, the Times argues, because the various, sundry things he did "quite possibly violat[ed] federal law." The modifier "quite" is out of place, and I suppose it is possible that darn near anything possibly violated federal law. But let's talk about which actions, and which specific federal laws they violated.

Chuckie Schumer beat the Times to the punch, howling yesterday that Rove's resignation "will not stop our inquiry into the firings of the U.S. attorneys."

Read On…

From that childish NYT editorial:

The American public needs to understand the full story of how this White House — with Mr. Rove pulling many of the strings — has spent the last six and a half years improperly and dangerously politicizing the federal government. Mr. Rove is already defying one Congressional subpoena to testify about the United States attorneys scandal. He should be made to respond to that one, and should also be subpoenaed to explain his role in several other cases of crass politicization.

That is quite an accusation, that the President put politics before the welfare of the nation, but even if it were true, it's something that could not be proven. It's a wild-eyed, sloppy charge. And it is also not an allegation of illegalities.

About which "several other cases of crass politicization" are they writing? Politicization, even if it occurred, is nothing new and not illegal. "Crass" is the paper's term, and its use is rather… well, crass – but the NYT editorial board has long since taken leave of its senses, making it a laughing stock at worst, an afterthought at best. (It was at its best this morning for me, but it was a thought nonetheless.)

Politicization. Let's talk politicization. The entire U.S. attorneys investigation is purely political, a DSCC fundraising stunt. The various non-binding resolutions dealing with ways to surrender in Iraq, pure politics at the expense of our soldiers and our national security. The Democrat tirades about the terrorist surveillance program is called "domestic wiretapping without a warrant" for purely political reasons: it rallies the lefty grassroots, who cheer like autonomic peasants with pitchforks, and convinces them to empty their wallets, converting their hard earned wages into Democrat campaign cash.

Look, Karl Rove is gone. These stinging editorials and sundry investigations, though laughably puerile, can be a good thing if they keep the Democrats busy, their approval ratings sinking, while we help Iraq to restore itself. The Democrats have about 16 months to wrap this nonsense up before they are bounced from office and the President's term expires. The NYT can keep doing their thing until the continuing loss of circulation and ad revenue forces them to shut up shop and find some productive employment.