For how many years is this pattern going to continue?

1. A Republican or several Republicans launch a blatant, divisive, plain-as-the-nose-on-your face partisan attack against a Democrat or all Democrats.
2. Democrats point out the factual existence of this partisan attack and demand that it be retracted, or that the attackers be held responsible.
3. Republicans respond by accusing Democrats of blatant, divisive partisan attacks for pointing out the factual existence of their own partisan attack against Democrats.

My guess is, "For as long as the press lets them get away with it." Today's crystal-clear example:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- White House adviser Karl Rove should either apologize or resign for saying liberals responded to the September 11 terrorist strikes by wanting to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Democrats said Thursday.

[…] Bush's chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he told the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

[…] The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

I'd bet a quarter that not one of the talking head shows calls the White House on its continued, blatant hypocrisy. It works for the GOP so well because the press will not call them on it at all, in any arena.

• In GOP-world, saying Democrats coddle terrorists is not a partisan attack, but pointing out that they said it is an attack against them.

• Sending troops to die in Iraq is "supporting" them, but acknowledging their sacrifice is a "publicity stunt."

• Taking money from the poor to give to the rich is not class warfare, but pointing out that they're doing it is class warfare.

• Attacking gay Americans is not bigotry, but pointing out that they're attacking gay Americans is bigotry against their "Christian values."

If the parties were reversed, the Republicans would mention a Democratic White House Chief of Staff's transgression in every interview, on every talk show, and to every reporter, in every context, until he apologized. Then they would call on the President to fire him anyway, and keep that up until they either got a big concession on something (like eliminating the income tax for people making over $2,000,000 per year) or until the CoS was fired. They'd see it as an opportunity to take down an effective opponent, and they would not stop until they'd succeeded or until they got counter-attacked, something they're not used to experiencing.

Calling for an apology is not enough. If they can't hang this around Karl Rove's neck and make it weigh more than Howard Dean's scream, what the hell are they doing representing the party? All Tim Russert is going to care about is whether or not Howard Dean will scream again. Democrats have to do this on their own.