How are you at deciphering political-speak?  Here’s some that needs decoding from the news story about Ed Martin’s departure from the governor’s office.  Blunt said that Martin “wants to pursue other opportunities” and spend more time with ….”  You could finish that sentence without my help, right?  Spend more time with his family, of course, just like Karl Rove.  Like Odysseus returning home from twenty years of war and adventures, the conquering hero just wants to snuggle up to Penelope and while away his dotage.

Translation:  He put us on the hot seat once too often, so we had to can his ass.  But don’t worry, he’ll end up working for the Archdiocese in St. Louis again.  And if that doesn’t pan out, we’ll find a slot for him in some think tank or agency.  We Republican high muckety mucks are loyal to the other big shots. We always find a wingnut welfare slot for our recently disgraced.


That’s what Matt would say if he dared.  Not that he does dare, but, in fact, he came perilously close to being honest.  When reporters pressed him to say whether he had fired Martin, he started out with, “Ed Martin resigned.”  (And he’s a wonderful person, blah, blah, blah.)  Translation:  Change the subject; I’m not answering that question. 

But reporters continued to press.  After they had asked the question four times, Blunt finally said:  “If you’re confused, that’s my intent.”  Impressive.  That’s more plain speaking than I would have expected from him.  It’s almost as if he didn’t want to flat out lie,  but considering his track record, that would be puzzling.  This late in the game, why get finicky about a little fib over firing Martin?

Whatever.  However the governor wants to explain (or not explain) it, Martin’s gone.  Too bad in a way:  The man had a talent for getting his boss in trouble, and he will be missed.  He was one of those family values people without any civic virtue, one of those abortion moralists who believed in lying, underhanded tricks, one of those people … who got caught at it.