It worked for them the last time and Republicans are nothing if not traditionalists.

i think your penultimate paragraph hits the nail on the head.

Republicans may be in the minority, but individually they're in the majority in their districts, and that's who they're playing to. And what's more, those individual majorities share many characteristics, including reflexive opposition to Democrats, racism and hostility to civil rights (note who is being targeted here, both in his own right and as a clear surrogate for Obama himself), and a general affinity for the politics of anger and resentment. This action is music to their ears and is very much in line with those Republicans keeping their seats.

As to Rove having a leadership role, well, I put that down to tactics, and I suspect it is as much accident as calculation. He certainly is capable of spotting such an issue early on and making a lot of noise at the most opportune moment. And I can see where the Republican office-holders are perfectly happy to let him lead the band, since it gives them a scapegoat if things go bad. But otherwise, he's just a mouthpiece, and mouthpieces are by and large interchangeable.

Even if the goal is just to have a fight for the sake of having a fight -- classically brilliant Rove there -- why would you do it over the Attorney General? Do Senate Republicans really want to piss off a man who's going to have that much investigatory and prosecutorial power at his fingertips soon after?

What bleh said.
These congresscritters know that if the senate hearings all go along really easy, they'll get no teevee coverage. Gotta have some oppositional bloviating to get on FauxNewsCNN.

For the die-hard evangelical neocon Rove personifies projected relevance, and therefore he commands the imaginations of his like-minded kin (aging and balding white males waisting themselves away with the extravagance of their privileged life-styles, while they sell the rest of us fear and loathing through canards of cultural distraction.)

Boy I'd think the current surviving congressional Republicans would see the toxic Rove for what he is - a Newt/Atwater dinosaur! -Kevo

It may not be so much an attempt to stop the nomination as it is an attempt to delay it. Here is a great discussion based on that idea.
http://tinyurl.com/5un9cw

why on earth would Senate Republicans care what Karl Rove thinks?

Well, Rip, there's a reason they call this the party of corruption. Mukasey is not fully cooperating with the transition team when it asks for opinions issued on torture. A new report recently was issued led by McCain and Levin, that blamed the party leaders for instigating torture techniques. This department, more than any other, is filled with mutilated skeletons. I would fully expect the Republicans to demand Obama nominate Snail Fitzgerald for the post. They sure as hell don't want some one who is fired up and ready to go.

They're following Rove because he's the only one giving orders that make any sense to them. They're taking orders because that's all they know how to do. They're a bunch of mindless attack sheep and if they're not on the attack, they're screwed. They were selected by the party because they could raise funds, follow orders, and repeat talking points. And if they knew how to think for themselves, the party would have opposed them. Republicans choose loyalty above all else, and that includes nominating sheep for their political offices. And so the sheep finally have their latest orders of attack and are glad to obey.

And I completely support them in that endeavor. The more they disgrace the Republican name with these sort of mindless attacks, the more the moderate Republicans and Bluedog Dems are going to have to reject them and stick with the Democrats. It's one thing if these attacks had traction or if there was already an unpopular grumbling about Obama, but there isn't. These are cuckoo attacks that a large majority of folks will see as being cuckoo (like anybody really cares about Marc Rich besides the fringiest of wingnuts), and the more Republicans try to fight this, the more dangerous it will be for anyone to be seen with them. Karl Rove is highly radioactive and anyone listens to him at their own peril.

I think it's significant that they're attacking the Justice nominee, of all the ones they could have gone after. If there is one department of government whose post-Bush credibility they DON'T want repaired, it's that one.

If they can successfully politicize the appointment, anything Holder might do to investigate or bring to light Bush-era bad acts/opinions would be tainted.

Actually I think that Rove is trying to cut a deal. Make a lot of noise and set up some potential opposition to Holder in order to back off at the last minute, with a promise that Holder's DOJ won't initiate any serious investigations into things like the Plame affair, politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic politicians, politically motivated USA hirings and firings, and stacking the Bush DOJ with political hacks in straight civil service jobs where political considerations are illegal. All these things have Rove's fingerprints on them and, should there be any serious investigations, could expose Rove to some serious jail time.

Rove is perfectly capable of throwing the GOP under the bus to save his own ass. A fight on Holder, if all they have is the Rich pardon, will end up pretty much the same way that Newt closing down the government over the budget in 1996, and Schiavo affair ended up for the GOP, a major debacle.

I think TR is closest with the suggestion of a fight just for the sake of a fight, but I also think this will be a relative constant during Obama's first term - a steady resistance just to probe for a nerve, a sense that their combative stance is receiving significant popular support. Really, it's all they know how to do; you won't find a fightin'er bunch outside of a uniform or a combat zone. Their halfwit base would support them if they suggested eating paint chips would make everybody smarter, but they're not enough on their own to win an election. It's a little early for the Pubbies to be thinking about an election, but again - it's all they know how to do. Perish the thought that they might assist in getting the country back on its feet: every issue is a wedge issue.

Still, it's puzzling why they would listen to Rove, as he gathers his tattered cloak of invincibility around his chubby shoulders once more. P.T. Barnum would have something to say about it, I'm sure.

The "Great Strategist" Rove has one simple schtick: throw all the mud you have at hand at the wall, and wait for something to stick. This is how he is approaching the Blegojevich-Obama "connection," and it is how he is handling Holder. And the Rethug politicos willingly fall in line. That was how they ruined the Clinton first year: travel-gate (what a farce!) the Foster suicide, insinuations about Whitewater. Distract and divide! Get ready for a lot more of this.

They have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.

I think we are missing the biggest issue related to DOJ and Rove. The senate and the house have outstanding subpoenas for Rove and others to testify under oath. The subpoenas have been lying idly by because the current DOJ likely would not follow through. But the new attorney general very well might. If so, it is best to tarnish him as much as possible.

Remember, we are five weeks from payback time from a lot of government employees, soon to be whistle-blowers. The Bush administration has been ruthless keeping a lid on everything, but their days are numbered. Rove and company knows it.

Well played, rove. Well played. Methinks it might be too little, too late though.

I think that nothing strikes terror in the hearts of Republicans than real Democratic success. Let's imagine, for example, that the Democrats manage to enact health reform that essentially eliminates the problem of uninsured Americans. Suddenly, a whole lot of working-class white "Reagan Democrats" who didn't have heath coverage do, and they'll know which party gave it to them. If the Republicans don't stop that from happening, what kind of future are they going to have?

So they'll obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Fortunately for us, Karl Rove has his own math to base his decisions on. And that math doesn't work very well. 58 + 3 = 61 in our world, but it's 59 by Rove's math. He thinks he has a filibuster, but he doesn't have 41 votes. You gotta love it when your opponents are stupid. And he was Bush's brain? That's kind of scary.

Would it be impolite to note that Holder is black? Opposing Holder over the Marc Rich deal is a "threefer" 1)You get a chance to see whether the Congressional Dems are willing to fight back this time (they weren't in '93). 2)You cater to your party's base. 3)You give the media a hook based in "Clinton-era scandals" (They've probably still got some theme music for that stuff).

Face it, this is what they have come to believe is governing. Cut, kill, grind and repeat. And as long as there is a reporter who lives for destruction and breathlessly reports innuendo as fact they will be successful. It's time we all grew up and got on with the adult things like real problems instead of those made up by the Republicans.

How dumb is it?

Very shortly there is a going to be an avalanche of Bush pardons coming down the chute.

Trying to argue that the Rich pardon disqualifies Holder, while simultaneously defending Bush's actions, will be like trying to sell popsicles to the devil on a cold day in hell...

That isn't just vanilla dumb.
It's dumbth to the nth power with a cherry on top.

"Would it be impolite to note that Holder is black?"

He's black? Didn't know that. I've never seen a picture of him. I've always judged him on what he's done. He seems like an intelligent and capable man. The Rich pardon was a little unseemly, but who among us has has a pristine record? I surely do not. And I try to do my best.

As with all uber-conservatives, the GOP needs a fuhrer to lead them through the gates of Hell and into the fiery bowels of the planet---so just think of it as the Right practicing "safe sex"---and Rove is the reusable condom....

Why do you have to make me defend anything connected to Karl Rove? It makes me feel skeevy, but accuracy is far more important than my feelings, so:

"Karl Rove appeared on the "Today" show soon after the nomination was announced, and called Holder "controversial," and promising, in his best passive voice, that "there will be some attention paid to" Holder's Clinton-era work."

That is not passive voice, that is an existential clause. It might seem like a piddling detail, but a) if you're going to nitpick someone's grammar, do it right, and b) the whole anti-passive voice thing is one of the last bastions of prescriptivism in writing, and there's never been a good argument for why passive voice is bad outside Orwell's essay that claims without foundation that there's something weak and subversive about it. Despite the fact that in "Politics and the English Language", a little over 20% of the verb formations were passive. See these articles from professional linguists for a better explanation of why there is nothing innately bad about the passive voice.

Justin Hilyard - I don't understand why you make this argument. Would you agree that Attention will be paid, is passive voice? If so, it seems the actual case merely depends on whether will be modifies paid or attention. As for whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, it seems that would be a matter of effective writing style, not grammar, as I understand it. I do think Steve was pointing out the passive voice to suggest that Rove was denying any future blame, which would be devious (or subversive, as Orwell put it). However, I would be interested in whether Frank Luntz and his polling suggested this was an effective way to dissemble, rather than whether linguists find its usage appropriate.

I am hoping in my naive way that the majority who elected Barack Obama, and that includes Republicans and independents, will be so disgusted by Republican obstructionism and whining that it will not be tolerated, especially as the economy continues to tank. Assuming Obama does a decent job, looking ahead to 2010 it's adios to a lot of Republican fanatics--including many who voted to bail out AIG and Citigroup but not Detroit. But then again, Republicans don't always do things in their own best interests, do they?

Why would they follow Rove's Lead?

Because they have done it for the last eight years.

Because there are far fewer of them left now.

Because they don't have a clue how to deal with the abysmal mess their policies created for the past eight years.

Because they are petrified that the Democrats might have enough power to pass effective legislation that wins them scands of new loyal voters for the next election cycle.

Because policy has NEVER been what they are about....spin, fear, slime and innuendo, mixed with a healthy dose of corruption and lying proved a powerful weapon for about 7.5 years and they are still trying to figure out why suddenly it doesnt work. So they are trying some more of it.

Talk about heard mentality. If Rowe is for it it has to be wrong.

Holder's involvement in the Rich pardon makes him totally unsuitable as AG. There will be no change in our justice department and renewal of the rule of law if this inside the beltway practice of law is allowed to continue.

Rowe's involvement, as always is just a distraction to what the real issue should be. Sounds like normal operating procedure for him.

And we are being suckered again.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your article.
That said: WHY IS ROVE STILL OUT THERE, able to spout his venom? WHY ISN'T HE HAUNTED/HUNTED/IN JAIL???

But here's the part someone's going to have to explain to me: why on earth would Senate Republicans care what Karl Rove thinks?

Er, they probably don't care what Rove thinks. But they're probably willing to at least listen to his advice on Holder because: A) he's won a lot of elections for them; and, B) it's obvious that Holder is their one chance to do some political damage to the new administration. Holder and March Rich are as good a place to start as any. This is the only genuinely bad pick that Obama has made so far. I'd personally be elated if he found a graceful way to dump Holder ASAP.

Since when does the Senate let targets of investigations choose their prosecutors?

IMHO, part of the strategy of the Clinton impeachment was to just use up as many Clinton's last 1461 days in office as they could, so Clinton couldn't do any more damage to the Reagan-Bush legacy, and hopefully have another GOP President not have too much to undo from 2001-5.

It looks like, since that was such a success, they are going to start early on Obama. With 20 out of the last 28 years having a GOoPer in the WH, they have a LOT invested. If they can spend the next 4 years with scandals - imaginary or not - I think they believe they will have done a lot to increase their chances in 2012 and get back on track of demolishing the U.S. Government and flushing it down the toilet.

Too tinfoil hat? I don't think so. . . Never overestimate the brainpower of the Red States nor underestimate Rove's intention of capitalizing on it.

.