Arianna Huffington: Has the Turd Blossom Express Reached the End of the Line?

From the Huffington Post::

"Which, of course, is utter nonsense. Because while the legal jury may be out, the political jury is definitely in Whether someone in a position of power and authority has acted inappropriately is not a matter of narrow legal definitions and fine semantic distinctions. Given what we already know about Rove's conversations, we can, right now, without even a single new revelation, and without reservation, say this: he is guilty of behavior that dishonored the White House and that placed the dirty politics of vindictive retribution over national security.

Ethics isn't just about what is legal or illegal. It's about what is right and what is wrong. And what Rove did was wrong -- and no amount of legalistic hair-splitting will change that.

So the question is: will the press buy into the White House's attempt to put the two Rove trains on the same track? Perhaps but after ignoring the story for weeks (hell, years!), it looks like the MSM are smelling blood in the water. ABC's Terry Moran, CBS' John Roberts, and NBC's David Gregory were all aggressive in their questioning of McClellan at today's press briefing, and even Tim Russert weighed in on the Today show (wearing what Crooks and Liars called 'his super double secret serious face' -- see for yourself), saying 'One Republican said to me last night, 'If this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a second'.' (Don't you just love it when Tim slips on his ultimate insider status and models it like a sexy negligee?)

Here's the bottom line: let's imagine for a moment that Fitzgerald does not indict Rove. Does this in any way mitigate, excuse, or erase what Rove did? Does it take the onus off President Bush's promise to fire the White House leaker? Of course not. Rove leaked -- and he should be fired. The Turd Blossom Express has reached the end of the line."

Huffington makes a good point here distinguishing between ethics and legality -- a distinction Republicans were once adept at in the days of Newt Gingrich and minority status in Congress. Legality is the defense employed by Tom Delay as well. But its a moot point and a distraction. Ethics are what is at stake here.

Imagine for a moment you are a car salesman and a little old woman walks into your showroom. She needs a car to run errands around town. Do you sell her what she needs -- a parctical car to get around, or do you sell her the souped up Cadillac version with all the bells and whistles. If your sales and commissions are down you may find yourself wondering. But while the latter is not illegal, it is unethical. And in politics, particularly among our leaders, we hold them to a higher standard of ethics.