Joe Scarborough tried pulling this same stunt the other day, but had Eugene Robinson there to correct him. Karl Rove on the other hand was free to lie and project and twist Eric Holder's words on Greta Van Susteren's show this Tuesday night.

Rove wants the audience at Faux "news" to believe that Eric Holder pointing out the obvious, that there certainly are some Republicans that don't like him or President Obama because of racism is the same as saying all Republicans are racists. He didn't name names... so it's slander!!!

Here's a partial transcript of his hissy fit from Fox's site: Karl Rove Hammers Holder's 'Intellectual Sloppiness:

ROVE: I thought it was a general smear when he says, if you are opposed to me – some of the opposition to the president and myself comes from racial animus. Well, who is the some? I mean, by being so inspecific he is suggesting that anybody owe opposes President Obama or criticizes the attorney general is guilty of racial animus and I think this is very dangerous territory.

When those Democrats went out and slandered and attacked Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States, was it was out of racial animus? Including Mr. Holder himself. When Democrats went out and criticized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was that out of racial animus?

Should we dismiss the Democrat arguments by simply saying they were being critical of these individuals because of racial heritage? This is really bad. It’s a sign I think of intellectual sloppiness. Rather than deal with the arguments that people have about his conduct – the attorney general’s conduct and the president’s policies and his conduct – just smear them by saying some people engage in criticism out of racial animus.

...

Either be specific or don’t bring it up. This is a heavily charged argument. This is a way to basically say, “Don’t ever criticize me or I’m going to threaten you with accusing you – subtly I’m going to accuse you of being guilty of racial bias.”

The Attorney General of the United States that demonstrated time and again that he is a highly partisan, and a highly contentious, a highly divisive figure whose main object is to protect the President of the United States, not to uphold the laws, in my opinion. The way that he has acted do not represent that of an impartial attorney general acting on behalf of the American people.

...

This really is reprehensible conduct. He is the attorney general. To suggest that if people criticize President Obama – he is planting the seed that the reason you are criticizing President Obama is not a legitimate disagreement over issues or conduct, it’s because you are a racist.

If you criticize Attorney General Holder, it’s not because you disagree with his decisions to not defend U.S. laws in court or to take highly political actions, it’s because you are a racist and it is reprehensible, I repeat.

It is that last possible defense of somebody not willing to step up and have an argument on the basis of the facts and the equities of the issue. It’s somebody who just wants to slander his political opponents and his political critics and it is unacceptable in our country.

There's some "intellectual sloppiness" going on here alright, but it's not on Holder's part. Rove knows exactly what he's doing here, which is to project your worst traits onto your opponent and accuse them of behaving like you. One of the oldest tricks in the book they never get tired of.

[ad]