Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

The Permanent Obama Campaign

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 08:52
in

Mark McKinnon says it's unsurprising that Obama has dropped the "change" charade.

[T]he presidency is all about politics. Obama did an artful job of creating an image of someone divorced from the nitty-gritty of hardball, brass-knuckled politics. But it’s far from reality. Obama got elected, in part, because he put a team around him of combat-proven veterans who know how to, as Bill Clinton once famously said, put his opponents’ teeth on the sidewalk. [...]

It was pretty clear to me early on that President Obama understood the importance of maintaining and fueling a political machine. He was presented with the option to kill the budget for the political operations that work out of the White House. It would have sent a powerful signal about ending politics as usual. But then he would have handicapped his ability to enact the kind of change he’d promised his supporters.

This is exactly right. Obama has been more artful at this "iron fist in a velvet glove" game than most, but he's always been a ruthless machine politician.  The appointment of Rahm Emanuel was a very clear signal that Obama had no intention of changing the game.

Obama knows his strength, his brand, is his ability to appear conciliatory, thoughtful and sympathetic.  He can't be the Bad Guy in his administration.  So Obama has hired a Chief of Staff who can handle the Enemies List.   Rahm Emanuel will be the ruthless guy who knocks heads, threatens opponents and generally does the dirty work, leaving Barack Obama to sweep in as the nice guy who wins friends and charms enemies.  Good cop, bad cop.  We won't necessarily see it happening, but it will happen over and over again.

I measure the seriousness of a politician by how willing they are to work against their own interests to enact good policy.  It is a rarity.  As McKinnon points out, Obama's unwillingness to close the political shop - to elevate governance above politics - is a sign that he'll probably be an effective advocate of his policies....but he certainly wasn't serious when he wrote "it's not enough to just change the players. We have to change the game."

Democrats have not changed the game.  They aren't even changing the players.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Comments

Thanks for a clearly written article

Submitted by Frank_T on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:35.

Jon, your froth-free writing style exudes intellectual honesty. How refreshing!!

 

You set a fine example for your fellow Republicans.

Snark alert... Frank-T's sarcasm is set at Level 10.

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:41.

Frank_T, head back over to the DailyKos and tell them you won another argument defending the far Left's monopoly on the truth, ok?

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Submitted by Frank_T on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:22.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

On the one hand

Submitted by NMDem on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:53.

You applaud the statement, "The Presidency is all about politics."  Then you take a swipe at the President for having an effective political hardballer as his Bad Cop.  I don't get it.  His efforts at bipartisanship are getting him no where fast.  He's faced with an opposition that opposes for the sake of opposing, who care nothing about good policy.  They care only about power and will do anything and everything to regain it.  The way I see it, the President has dropped one glove and kept the other one up as a defense.  I'd take both gloves off and start kicking some ass.  But, that's just me.

Hey NMDem, maybe you should keep both hands busy in your lap?

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 16:25.

Instead of thinking because reading this next line, I swear you must have been whacking the monkey whilst writing...

His efforts at bipartisanship are getting him no where fast.  He's faced with an opposition that opposes for the sake of opposing, who care nothing about good policy.

I guess Obama's comment to House GOP leaders that "We won the election. We get to decide" is bipartisanship in your book.

I guess Obama's dismissal of House GOP budget cuts to even match his paltry but very public $100m Cabinet level cuts were bipartisan.

I'm betting you think Obama's "No Thank You, we're already working on it" line to House GOP and Senate GOP leaders about ideas on reforming health care is an example of bipartisanship.

Sorry, just like our Thug President from Chicago, your idea of bipartisan is the other side standing mute, nodding in agreement and worshiping The Great Obama in front of the press. 

That ain't bipartisanship. 

If you need some help wrapping your tiny little brain around the concept, please see Geo Bush's Administration on Education Reform with TeddieK or Bush's efforts to mainstream illegal aliens in the country or Bush's effort to secure bipartisan support for the War Resolution in Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq or the... well, you get the idea.

Those were bipartisan measures and heralded in the press at the time for Mr Bush's open nature and willingness to compromise --just like when he was Governor of Texas.

Our Thug President could learn a little, just like you, by studying the terrific bipartisan record of Geo W Bush.  Instead of spending so much time rewriting history for the Obama Team's legacy.

 

And what about Grassley

Submitted by NMDem on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 10:54.

and Enzi and Kyl  on Health Care?  That's bipartisan? Boner and Cantor stonewalling on every piece of legislation the administration wants - virtually NO Rethug votes at all? You must be spanking your own monkey with Glenn Beck on full blast.

NMDem, the claim made was that Obama is bipartisan...

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:37.

which many here, in various threads, including JackMountain have repeatedly pointed out with excellently instructive examples.

That you choose not to learn, that you choose not to listen, that you choose to remain ignorant is your own folly --those who point out why you're so wrong, so often aren't to blame; you hollowly claim Obama is a bipartisan leader; he's not.  Proof is in the record even if Obama is a pathological liar and narcissist.

The House GOP leadership did ask Obama directly to be included in the planned, hastily created White House cabinet budget cuts.  They were told, no thanks; we won, we get to make the decisions. 

They asked to be included in the health care reform effort and all the takeover & bailout efforts Obama is famous for.  Obama said no thanks; it's our bill and our issue. 

As of today, they've asked to be included in the talks about withdrawing from Afghanistan and Obama has said, no thanks, he's Commander in Chief.

Bipartisans don't need the far Left's boogeyman in Glenn Beck to show them bipartisan change in DC ain't happening... Obama does it every single day, every single issue, every single time.  He did it with his Apology Tour before the UN's General Assembly yesterday --he made further commitments to fund the UN at the rate it sets even though no one in the House or Senate have agreed to that spending... he's our Unilateral, Hyper-partisan Thug Prez.

 

 

His efforts at bipartisanship

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 15:06.

His efforts at bipartisanship are getting him no where fast.

They have, in fact, ruined his administration, rendering it pointless and ineffective.

He's faced with an opposition that opposes for the sake of opposing, who care nothing about good policy.

Yes, and this was entirely predictable. It has been that way for years, now. That was the lesson of the Clinton administration. From a policy standpoint, Clinton was a mainstream conservative Republican. They did their best to destroy him anyway. There was absolutely no reason to assume they'd treat Obama any differently, particularly given that, as president, he's been a moderate liberal, and thus to the left of Clinton. I was writing about this since before Obama took office, and things have gone pretty much the way I predicted they would. On every major policy initiative, Obama has either reversed his previous view, adopting a conservative position in its place, or does his best Rodney King impression--"can't we all just get along?" The stupid stimulus bill was his first major policy initiative. He wasted nearly half of it on expensive, less stimulative tax cuts in an effort to woo Republicans into a bipartisan effort. At a cost of hundreds of billions, he got two Repub votes. Then comes health care, and, once again, he's Rodney King, setting aside the Republican-offending single-payer favored by the public and going, instead, for yet another industry-friendly plan. When that faced criticism from the right, he immediately began backing away from the "public option," one of the only genuine reform measures in the proposal. Result? There are five reform plans in congress at the moment, and not a single one has drawn a single Republican sponsor. Meanwhile, those he's trying to placate run around calling him Hitler, saying he isn't even a U.S. citizen, and so on. He publicly praises Charles Grassley as an "honest broker" on health care negotiations, and the very next day, Grassley is out telling crowds Obama wants to set up death panels to kill old people.

Alert

Submitted by rbottoms on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 12:42.

Seeing how the previous administration even used the terror alerts to help i win re-election i's pretty rich to talk about a permanent campaign. The GOP's strategy this next two years is oppose everything and try to sucker Democrats into wasting time seeing "bi-partisanship."

I think the best approach after healh care is passed to to tell the GOP to go Cheney itself and pass everything via reconcilliation.

 

Hey bottom boi... don't look now, you dropped the soap.

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 15:59.

Bottom boi contends:

Seeing how the previous administration even used the terror alerts to help i(t) win re-election i's (sic) pretty rich to talk about a permanent campaign.

Ummm, newsflash for bottom boi... Gov Tom Ridge disputes the farLeft's claim that he even implied that in his book. Ridge did say, to clarify the farLeft's latest lying penchant (this one was just before the one that claimed Glenn Beck was fired from FoxNews) that:

" (W)hen word got out about Ridge's accusations, Rumsfeld's spokesman Keith Urbahn issued a statement calling them "nonsense."  Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

In other words, HuffPo and WaPo and NancyPo all got it wrong in their spin cycles... just like our bottom boi does here --except they got the memo and shut the f*ck up.  Evidently, bottom boi can't read on his back.

 

New Call a Black Man Boy

Submitted by rbottoms on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 22:34.

Never call a black man boy.

BTW, this crime may spell the end for the GOP:

<a href="http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/census-worker-found-hanged/">A U.S. Census worker found hanging from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.</a>

The law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the case and requested anonymity, did not say what type of instrument was used to write the word on the chest of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and teacher. He was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky.

The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a slaying or a suicide, and if a slaying, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment. An autopsy report is pending.

Investigators have said little about the case. FBI spokesman David Beyer said the bureau is assisting state police.

"Our job is to determine if there was foul play involved — and that's part of the investigation — and if there was foul play involved, whether that is related to his employment as a census worker," said Beyer.

Beyer declined to confirm or discuss any details about the crime scene.

Lucindia Scurry-Johnson, assistant director of the Census Bureau's southern office in Charlotte, N.C., said law enforcement officers have told the agency the matter is "an apparent homicide" but nothing else.

Census employees were told Sparkman's truck was found nearby, and a computer he was using for work was found inside it, she said. He worked part-time for the Census, usually conducting interviews once or twice a month.

If any of your screaming teabaggers are found to have had anything to with this the GOP is done

So which is it, bottom boi... "New" or "Never"?

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 06:33.

There is a difference, you know.

And by the way, the use of the term "teabaggers" identifies you soundly as part of the farLeft trolldom fresh from the DailyKos wars... and a die-hard, "He's My President, Damn You" contingent of the Democrat Party.

But let's take your implied wild-assed whooper of a comment that the GOP is somehow tied to the death of a Census worker...

Did you know that the D Boone Natl Forest is part of EASTERN Kentucky, bottom boi? 

Did you know that the Democrat Party of Kentucky just successfully waged a hotly contested political campaign for state senate there and the DEMOCRAT hillbilly candidate won?  In fact, some political analysts in Kentucky think the state will be moving farther to the Left in coming elections?

It's more likely the brutal murder of the part-time Census worker was done by one of your DEMOCRAT HILLBILLIES from eastern Kentucky.  Of course, they probably can't spell any better than you.

You truly are the village's idiot, bottom boi.

and thanks for apologizing for misleading us on Ridge...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 06:52.

I know you now know that you were wrong to continue that DailyKos-styled rant about Tom Ridge and the Bush Administration's treatment of our Natl Threat Level system --and you've accepted Mr Rumsfeld's and Ridge's attestation that the farLeft was wrong to misinterpert those unpublished remarks... it's good of you to apologize.

 

Apologizing is good, according to your president!

Heck, your president, Obama, apologizes all the time for all manner of past behaviors by America --I'm surprised he didn't cry when he was last in France and apologized to all there for the boorish and rude treatment of French waitstaff by American tourists.

Sorry Jack, did I miss that apology?

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:38.

Or is it film at 11?

btw Mi-GOPer... it's Jake, not Jack.

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:50.

I agree with most of what you write.  Except calling me Jack.  Cool?

sock puppets in love!

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:58.

awwww.....

"Implied"?

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 15:33.

Ummm, newsflash for bottom boi... Gov Tom Ridge disputes the farLeft's claim that he even implied that in his book.

It doesn't matter; that's what he wrote anyway. He's been backpeddaling like a madman, but that can't change what he'd already put into print, which was that Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and others had pressured him to raise the threat level, despite the fact that “there was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None." He even said he, himself, "wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’"

Of course it doesn't to CLD2, because you don't want truth...

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 16:53.

you want the soundbites and venom dished by the NYTimes and HuffPo and WaPo... like these headlines, written BEFORE the Secy's book was even published!

Now, how could it be that headlines and articles like those were being written before the book was published?  Guess what, my truth-avoiding friend, it was because the language was taken from the front flap written by Ridge's editors.

If Ridge was so bloody honest in your limited little mind to "tell the truth" about being allegedly strongarmed by the evil cabal leaders inside the Bush WH, why is it that now he's being dishonest in "backpeddaling like a madman" away from the allegation and not worthy of your trust in his honesty?

Sorry, CLD2, can't have it both ways.  Ridge's editors wrote the front flap info based on their reading of the galleys and it was approved by the head editor.

The level was NOT elevated.  Ridge stands by the correct reading of his manuscript and his memory.  There was no political pressure to raise the threat level in order to add more votes to Geo Bush's overwhelming victory of Kerry.  In fact, at the time, three natl polls had Bush up by 11 pts over Mr Flip Flop Liberal Grande.

Nawh, you lost this argument, too.

Welcome to the wonderful world of books!

Submitted by Mead50 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 17:35.

Geo Bush's overwhelming victory of [sic] Kerry. 

Bush won by 35 electoral votes, and 2.5% of the popular vote - the narrowest ever for a sitting president.

Now, how could it be that headlines and articles like those were being written before the book was published? 

I gather that you are not much into books? Allow me to state the obvious: five or ten thousand copies of this book were printed months before the "publication date", so that they could be distributed, via truck, to distribution centers around the country and from there on to the book stores,  so that each store could have it in stock on Day One. In the meantime, copies are distributed to reviewers so that their reviews can appear either on or just before the publication date so as to build interest in the book.

The level was NOT elevated. 

About that - here are Ridge's own words, from the book, not filtered through anyone else's interpretation:

But at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm. And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn't know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety.

I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go-up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government.

 

 

And those are Ridge's words,

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 23:06.

And those are Ridge's words, not anything that came off the "flap of the book." Ridge wrote them, and then Ridge, himself, backed away from them when the relevant members of the previous administration circled the wagons.

ClassicLiberal gets it wrong, again... when will it stop?

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 07:51.

Per your statement "And those are Ridge's words, not anything that came off the "flap of the book." Ridge wrote them, and then Ridge, himself, backed away from them when the relevant members of the previous administration circled the wagons."

See below.

Is that serving of crow you need to eat now to be Take Out or Dine In, my liberally lying liberal friend?  Hey save the Planet... you can just mooch off MEAD50's dinner plate of crow instead.

Looks like we have two more people now vying to be our Village Idiot.

Be a man

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:26.

and comment on Ridge's words from his book:

About that - here are Ridge's own words, from the book, not filtered through anyone else's interpretation:

But at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm. And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn't know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety.

I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go-up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government.

 

 

Gee, Mead50, as Village Idiot, did you want to prove you

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:58.

can't read?

Here's the reply that continues to have ferreting around for something to tarnish former Secy Tom Ridge... it's right below for you to read... if you can follow simple directions.

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/the-permanent-obama-campaign#comment-40545

Or are you and ClassicLiberalDemocrat intent on carrying on debates in multiple threads and thinking the last word made by you was resounding in its truthiness.

Wrong about Ridge.

Wrong about his statements.

Wrong about the leaks of those words attributed to Ridge.

Wrong about the ins-outs of publishing.

Wrong about policy.

Wrong about Bush.

Wrong and highly partisan defender of Obama.

Be a man

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:59.

and comment on the words that Ridge wrote in his book. Before he started getting heat from his former "colleagues" about it.

Nice try MEAD50, but you're still wrong... again (sigh)

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 07:46.

Like with many other policy debates on this site, you're wrong again and there aren't enough bulls in India to pull you out of the mud you've gone and stuck yourself into...  it really has become tedious for many here to keep correcting the half-truths, the spin fests, the reiterated Daily Kos talking points you & ClassicLiberal2 love to chatter out.

First, Ridge's book, by his own admission, was one of the tightest held, tightest secured publications in St Martin's (the publisher) history... "My editors fought over whether or not to pre-release bits and segments of the most interesting parts of my book and my belief was that it was better to keep all that under wraps until the first day of release.  They ultimately agreed.  The front flap material showing up in the press right now --and interesting how it's the left-leaning outlets that are printing the stories-- is merely one editor's version of what my book explains and her take on my words in the unreleased, still embargoed book.  Your viewers probably know that the front flap material is usually written in a charged fashion by a group of editors and is intended to grab the reader, compel them to buy the book.  Normally the writer gets some screening privileges; I did not. Publishers & editors have been doing this sort of thing to writers for years and it's why writers rarely stay with one publisher."  C-SPAN interview of former HS Secy Tom Ridge, to be aired on Monday, Sept 28, 5:15 PM ET.

Care to have that crow served up now or shall we wait until ClassicLiberal2's serving makes it to your table?

 

And yet

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:24.

the Washington Post and the Erie Times both had advance copies upon which they based their stories.

I notice you didn't comment on the actual excerpts from the book posted above.

And yet, you're still wrong...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:49.

former Secy Tom Ridge's assessment, AFTER reflecting on the farLeft's attempt to spin his alleged words into something they are not, said the following:

(W)hen word got out about Ridge's accusations, Rumsfeld's spokesman Keith Urbahn issued a statement calling them "nonsense."  Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

Now, you wanted that crow served with a white or brown sauce?

Maybe for you, it's a yellow sauce, my cowardly friend?  Yeah, yellow sauce is more fitting.

Be a man

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:57.

and comment on what he actually wrote in his book, before his former "colleagues" warned him he was in deep doo doo if he didn't start walking back some of his comments.

About that - here are Ridge's own words, from the book, not filtered through anyone else's interpretation:

But at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm. And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn't know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety.

I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go-up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government.

 

Let's see if we have your illogic tonic right, Mead50

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 09:27.

1) Ridge is hated by the farLeft as a loyal, strong team member of the Bush WH for many years, writes a book, kept under wraps and not published

2) Ridge gets undercut by his publisher's editors and his words modified and spun to help sell the book and make the publisher some big dough; book editor writes front flap material

3) Far Left media fall in love with said spin-fested front flap words, now claim Ridge an honest hero and a beacon of truth

4) Ridge clarifies the spin-fested words and undercuts the far Left media

5) Ridge back to being a liar to guys like you

Former Homeland Secy Tom Ridge, AFTER reflecting on the farLeft's attempt to spin his alleged words into something they are not, said the following:

(W)hen word got out about Ridge's accusations, Rumsfeld's spokesman Keith Urbahn issued a statement calling them "nonsense."  Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

I asked earlier, did you wanted that crow served with a white or brown sauce? Maybe for you, it's a yellow sauce, my cowardly friend?  Yeah, yellow sauce is more fitting.

Be a man

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 09:31.

and comment on the words in the book, not Ridge's backpeddling afterwards when he realized that he was in trouble with the ex-Bushies.

Repeating a wrong-headed accusation doesn't make it right

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 08:47.

You're still wrong, Mead50.  Tom Ridge, in his words --not the words of an editor who was working for the publisher-- said this about your attempt to find some smoking gun where none exist:

Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

The threat level wasn't raised.  Staff and key Cabinet officials agree with Ridge that this is all pure, utter nonsense from the farLeft media and hacks like you.

 

Be a man

Submitted by Mead50 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 08:51.

Comment on the words from the book.

But at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm. And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn't know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety.

I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go-up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government

 

Ridge has already clarified that your spin is wrong, Mead50

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 09:18.

he said, in his own words, not in the his words reflected in a publisher's editor...

Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

The threat level wasn't raised.  Staff and key Cabinet officials agree with Ridge that this is all pure, utter nonsense from the farLeft media and hacks like you.

Be a man on your own, stand up and admit you realize you're chasing the smoke from a gun that was never fired, never loaded.

From the DNC's own website, the leadership of the Democrat Party were telling their own faithful that Bush had at least a 5 point spread over Kerry just a weekend away from the election that, supposedly, you think is a smoking gun.

http://www.2004dnc.com/polls.htm

Just because this fake event is exactly something that your hero SlickWilly might have done as Pres, doesn't mean Bush 43 or his staff would stoop to that level... no need to bomb an aspirin factory to divert attention away from Clinton's likely perjury in a federal case.

 

So, was he lying in the book?

Submitted by Mead50 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 09:36.

Or is he lying now?

It has to be one or the other.

You keep on saying "but, but, but....the threat level wasn't raised". yes, well, it wasn't raised because Ridge intervened - and he was so appalled about having to do so he resigned shortly thereafter.

I amused that you consider the quoting the words from his book as spin.

 

Is playing the Village Idiot really that rewarding, Mead 50?

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 17:41.

What is so hard to understand, according to what I've read about Ridge's so-called controversial remarks, that a) Ridge didn't say it like the St Martin's editors who wanted to push his comments along in the hope of greater sales; b) Ridge has clarified the misstatements and mischaracterizations by far Left media and partisan types like you; c) if you were so quick to embrace Ridge as a good-guy and tell-all author, why is it now you want to call him a liar?

Here's what Don Rumsfeld had to say on this very issue:

"We have no idea what Tom Ridge's book actually says. The storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense. During the fall of 2004, Osama bin Laden and an American member of al-Qaida released videotapes that said in no uncertain terms that al-Qaida intended to launch more attacks against Americans. 'The streets of America will run red with blood,' al-Qaida warned. Given those facts, it would seem reasonable for senior administration officials to discuss the threat level. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible had that discussion not taken place."

That jives very nicely with what Jake Mountain and others have been trying to tell you for days and days here... and your thick-headed Village Idiot skull can't seem to comprehend.

I think others here have pointed out to you, also (sigh) that it is the publishing editors spin festival that has created the molehill for the far Left and it's exactly that molehill you want to make into a mountain.  But you can't climb that mountain unless you ask everyone else to suspend reason and thoughtful inquiry.

Did Tom Ridge say what you would like to have him say?  Or did someone else, taking his story, spin it to sell papers (and books)?  What does Tom think?  He thinks you're wrong.  He thinks your friends of the liberally lying Liberal Left media have it wrong, too.  He's said it; he'll say it to you on Monday night if you will watch C-SPAN's Book Editor segment.

Guess what, in that interview you'll hear former Homeland Secy Tom Ridge say this:

"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to (raise the threat level for partisan gain) ... no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."

Seems like you're stuck with a reprise of the role of Village Idiot, Mead 50.  So be a man and admit you've been flat out wrong to keep hyping a story that has "no there, there" and your game is all about the short-term partisan gains you ascribe to the Bush WH operatives.

Talk about projecting!  Gheeesh, you should be this year's Poster Boy for Projection.

 

An angry entry from CLD2, that's game, set, match.

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 18:22.

It should always be telling and instructive when the far Left folks like Mead 50 and CLD2 and NMDem and igm get so frustrated at losing policy debate after policy debate that they decide to call it over, call it quits and retreat before they are sized up for statutes in the town's fountain as the Village Idiots.

The funniest part is that the very guy they were applauding as a truth-telling, Bush-bashing hero for the Left decided to tell the truth, distance himself from his publisher's spin and be an honest civil servant --something alien to the Democrats and Village Idiots.

Now, can we get back to the ancillary question of whether or not Democrat Bill Clinton actually ordered the bombing of an aspirin factory in the arab Middle East to divert attention away from his own exploding legal problems?  Didn't think so.

 

As I have made abundantly clear, I have no interest in

Submitted by Mead50 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 18:34.

what the editors or the dust jacket or the reviewers have to say. I am quoting to you the WORDS FROM THE BOOK:

 

But at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm. And as the minutes passed at our videoconference we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information and didn't know any more than we did, and that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety.

I believe our strong interventions had pulled the 'go-up' advocates back from the brink. But I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government.

 

This has been a valuable exchange

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 17:55.

It has exposed the poisonous intellectual dishonesty of not only JakeMountain1, but of a large contingent of the conservative movement, of which he is a mere representative.

Ridge had been making a complete fool of himself as he's made the rounds in the press pimping the book and backing away from what he'd written. What you've been discussing is only a single incident, the one he says in the book became the straw that broke the camel's--or his own--back. Back in 2005, after he'd left the administration but long before the book, he'd publicly described multiple incidents wherein he and his department were overruled, the threat level being raised over their objections and with no real evidence to support doing so. He's told the same story for over four years, and only after the book's release did he begin backing off.

He's lying now, or he was lying then, and whichever it is, he didn't have help from any editor, any publisher, any "farLeft" conspiracy of Jews, any Atlanteans from black helicopters, or anyone else but himself.

Tom Ridge has already spoke to nuts like you...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 10:46.

"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to (raise the threat level for partisan gain) ... no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."

Do you often have a problem grasping reality or is this just a ploy to complete the Village Idiot look?

He says he was not DIRECTED to raise the threat level

Submitted by Mead50 on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 11:30.

which is perfectly consistent with the quotes from the book. As a cabinet secretary, the only person who could direct him would be the President. In the book he is clearly saying that his PEERS wanted to raise the threat level - but of course, his peers can't give him orders. He was so disgusted with having to fight this fight he resigned.

 

Mead 50, I think Jake's right, you are a village idiot -savant

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Sun, 09/27/2009 - 21:48.

but not on understanding what Ridge said and has repeatedly clarified so that spin-mysters like you have no excuse for getting it so wrong, so often.  You have zero savant claims on understanding Ridge.

You say:

...He was so disgusted with having to fight this fight he resigned.

Ridge says:

"I knew in early September 2002, as acting Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, that I wasn't cut out for Washington politics and my heart, my family and my future were back in Pennsylvania.  I'd signed on with the President to develop and implement a comprehensive national --not federal-- plan for homeland security.  We were almost finished with that task when the 9-11 Commission recommended making a Homeland Security Dept to better implement the national plans we had designed.  I told the President, I'm here until the plan is in place and then I'm going home to my beloved Pennsylvania, try to find a good paying job in the private sector so I can pay for my kids' college education and spend more time with Michele, who's suffered long and hard as the wife of a government official."

You're absolutely wrong about Gov Ridge wanting to leave govt because of the supposed "battle" over threat levels before the 2004 election --Ridge had been ready to leave Washington in Jan 2003 when Michael Brown (Brownie) was appointed by Pres Bush over a hand-picked choice of Ridge's.  Ridge was also crying to the press about the manhandling his Office got from the FBI at classified senior-level WH briefings.  He was always just a step away from leaving.

It'd be nice if the far Left and press friends could spin a tale of intrigue inside the WH of manipulating threat levels --it would provide cover for Kerry's crushing defeat by a President who had a disapproval rating of anywhere from 49-52% just before the election.  But there's no there... unlike SlickWilly's bombing of an aspirin factory to deflect the Nation's anger over his sexual predation and perjury.

But it didn't happen; the threat levels weren't tampered with for political or partisan gain.  All the principals agree except for the far Left media and St Martins editors who are trying very hard to spin a story for sales.  Ridge said you guys were wrong, Mead 50.  Jake's pointed it out to you and you still can't accept the truth.

Frankly, people who know Ridge say he was always just a step away from leaving federal service.  His work had been completed.  He stayed on longer to help smooth the transition into a cabinet level department... but Ridge hated DC, he hated inside-the-beltway political machinations and he needed to get back home and make some money --bad.  In one weekend back home after retiring from public service, Ridge was appointed to three Boards of Directors and paid over $389,000 for that service... and he's got about a dozen other Directors' spots since then.

And you think he was pushed out of the EO because of a disagreement with Rummie?

How can it be that your side was ready to make Ridge your new poster boi for "Speaking Truth to Power" tour and now that he's clarified you and his editors got it horribly, undeniably, unequivocally WRONG, he's a liar?  I think it's because you dream of a Bush-Bashing slugfest and he took away your gloves, your shorts, your shoes and your punches... all Ridge has left you guys is a boxing ring bell and you're dinging it hoping for something, anything.

our choices

Submitted by lgm on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 07:54.

Our alternative is not between Obama and some Republican Platonic ideal,  We have a choice between the Democrats we have -- Obama and his team -- and the Republicans as they are now: Inhoffe, DeLay, Palin, and the rest of that awe inspiring group.  Everyone plays hardball politics, which we sometimes wish they would not do.  But who is better or worse.  Surely you're not claiming that Obama is worse than Bush.

Yes, Obama approval ratings have slipped, particularly on health care.  But still twice as many people approve of Obama than congresionan Republicans.  By two to one, Americans think Obama is better.  Do you think otherwise?

igm, you're wrong; those are false choices

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 08:29.

No one that I know or work with in govt is arguing we ought to adopt some plato-like GOP ideal that doesn't exist in real life... nor are they saying --even the most radical, farLeft Democrat union goons-- that it's a choice between Obama or that GOP ideal.

Opposition to Obama's planned takeover of health care, the insurance industry, the atuo industry, the banks, the housing markets, the courts, our future tax dollars, his ramping up the federal deficit to a point that it now exceeds all the federal debt of all prior presidents going back to Washington and the Continental Congress... opposition to those dangerous, unplanned policy takeovers are the right of every citizen --even citizens who may have been culled by the Obama slick lies during the campaign and voted for him.

More Americans do NOT want the health care plan envisioned by Obama and his far Left cohorts in Congress.  Most Americans did not judge the so-called carbon emissions threat advanced by the radical eco-terrorists to be a concern worthy of action by Obama... in fact, in two separate polls before the Inaugural, they judged it to be DEAD LAST in a long, long litany of issues for the new administration.

You think it's a choice between Obama and folks like Palin, Delay and Inhoffe? 

No, last time I checked Palin was no longer a GOP official... in fact, most of your team thinks she belongs secretly to a Alaska Separatist Party and isn't even a GOPer.  Delay is a discredited former conservative House leader who has been roundly and rightly tagged as a bad apple that took the GOP and conservatism on a careless joyride for years and ruined the GOP brand.  Oklahoma Senator Inhoffe is one of 218 GOP members of Congress out of a total of 535 seats --that's one of 218, igm... and he chairs no Senate Standing Committee because, get this, he's in the minority in the Senate.

The choice is between marching-lock-step with Obama the Messiah and bowing in worship at the altar Democrats erected for all at the Democrat Party Convention, or advancing alternative ideas (like the GOP continues to do) and arguing against ObamaCare and the effort to push this country to the Left & European Socialism.

False choices on your part.  False comments on your part.  Part of advancing good, sound rational policy alternatives to Obama is to first say "No"... otherwise, as we've all learned, the president will lie and say anything, of any sort, to any one in order to just get them nodding in agreement.  He's a lawyer --he's a liar by trade and training.

The best vs the worst

Submitted by lgm on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 10:28.

Granted, the best Republican is better than the worst Democrat.  Snowe is better than Jefferson.  But, on balance, the Obama administration (for all its flaws) is far more competent, cleaner, and saner than any presidential administration the Republicans have given us or are likely to give us. 

 

Meanwhile

Submitted by NMDem on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:01.

the permanent Fox News Boss Limbaugh campaign of character assassination has resulted in the lynching of a census worker in Kentucky.  Congratulations, guys.  You've gotten Dr. Tiller killed and now some poor substitute teacher who did work for the Census part-time is hanging from a tree in the woods with the word "fed" scrawled on him.  Good work, right wingers.

NMDem, you have to learn to read... your trolling peer

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:53.

bottom boi already played that scare/shame card earlier...

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/the-permanent-obama-campaign#comment-40469

And JM took him on and squarely dusted the boy up wickedly with this point:

 But let's take your implied wild-assed whooper of a comment that the GOP is somehow tied to the death of a Census worker...

 

 

Did you know that the D Boone Natl Forest is part of EASTERN Kentucky, bottom boi? 

Did you know that the Democrat Party of Kentucky just successfully waged a hotly contested political campaign for state senate there and the DEMOCRAT hillbilly candidate won?  In fact, some political analysts in Kentucky think the state will be moving farther to the Left in coming elections?

It's more likely the brutal murder of the part-time Census worker was done by one of your DEMOCRAT HILLBILLIES from eastern Kentucky.  Of course, they probably can't spell any better than you.

You truly are the village's idiot, bottom boi.

I'm just wondering when exactly you and bottom boi lost all your humanity and decency by trying to hoist the senseless slaughter of a single-parent and Dad onto the backs of the GOP or Tea Party?

By the way, that Census worker you are so quick to use in your shallow attempt to gain some moral high ground, deserves better even from a scumbag like you. Shame on you.  He isn't even buried and you are using him for your cheap partisan theatrical claims.

You have no room

Submitted by NMDem on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 10:35.

to call someone  else an idiot when you use the phrase "Democrat Party".  Anyone who engages in that juvenile, assinine conduct does not deserve to be listened to or read. 

Mi-GOPer is right, NMDem, it is the Democrat Party

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 08:43.

Unless you think engaging in wide spread voter registration fraud, undercutting natl security, destroying the morale of our troops in harm's way, massive bribery and corruption in America's largest cities, wholesale selling out our allies and embracing our enemies, lying repeatedly to the American People about the Stimulus, lying about why they had to close down the Cash4Clunkers, lying about the bail outs of banks and investment houses, the true reason behind the real estate econmic collapse (hint, Barney Frank's lover as the BigBrain at FannieMae), and how undemocratic and corrupt one of the largest Democrat Party organizations --ACORN-- can continue to operate... let alone the undemocratic proposals to give unions undemocratic leverage over workers who will not submit to the union organizers... I think when the Democrat Party starts acting democratic again, it can reclaim the name.

But, let's stay on MiGoper's main point: you are a shameless cad for trying to use the death of Bill Sparkman for your petty, mean-spirited, shallowly opportunistic partsian gain.

Let alone, the fact theat your premise is all wrong --they more likely the killer(s) were Democrat hillbillies.

I agree with MiGoper, shame on you.  And shame on the Democrat Party.

The GOP has long since driven

Submitted by rbottoms on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 02:28.

The GOP has long since driven thoughtful comment and occasional sense of the greater public good in favor of phantom interment camps, Gurka assasins dispatched with GPS coordinates to citizen's home to snatch up their weapons, frantic seniors wailing about keeping the government out of their Medicare, and teabagging birther infomercials.

Willam F. Buckley is rightly spinning in his grave.

Michelle Bachmann, she of the census conspiracy crazy, doesn't deserve to lick the boots of the poor guy killed trying to serve our constitutional mandate for a count of all who reside within our borders every ten years.

As stupid and paranoid as the militia dingbats of the 1990's were, this crowd is worse by far since they aren't relegared to Wildcat BBS rantings and shortwave braodcasts that sandwhich their blue helmet anxieities between contrail nuts and UFO conspiracy freaks.

To them the election of Obama is a usurpation of power instead of the natural corrective built into our system. Their party had eight years to run the country into the ground and they did a pretty spectacular job of it. Perhaps they just want to finish the job.

We won. Eat it, suck, chew it, however you want to phrases it. We kicked your butts at the polls because George Bush show the utter lack of ability to lead the nation in war or on the domestic front. The creationist, anti-evolution zealots, 4,000 year old Earth believers will have to look somewhere other than the White House for support for the next eight years. Or mroe.

The owner of the site, when he bothers to post anything mew, holds that Beck, Limbaugh, and all the rest aren't long term winners for the GOP.

That the marjotiy of the posters on the site don't agree makes me feel just fine. If you were to actually heed his and David Frum's warnings the Republican party might be a worry in 2012.

 The biggest rhetorical argument so far is that my name sounds funny.

 

 

 

rbottoms, you're sounding more like Mead 50s sour grapes...

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 18:09.

You are absolutely correct, Obama and Biden won the 2008 election.  They won because of the corruption and abuse of voter registrations by ACORN.  They won because of the corrupted big city Democrat Party machines.  They won because American voters are gullible and wanted to believe the hype about Hope & Change was real and they wanted to be able to set aside all the racial division guilt by electing a mixed-race American, no matter his qualifications.

You or one of your peers might say that sounds bitter.  No more than the harsh partisan, divisionist rhetoric for 8 yrs from your side of the aisle over Bush's stunning and dramatic 2000 win.

You've got both chambers of Congress, the WH and many governorships... so why is the Democrat Party in so much trouble?  You can't get a House health care package through the Senate, you can't get a Senate package through the House, ObamaCare isn't even written beyond lofty soundbites from your teleprompter Prez.  Cap & Trade is in the toilet.  The Clunkers program was so mismanaged, so misadministered that it looks like any other Cash for _____ (dryers, washers, ovens, frigs, lawn tractors, snowmobiles, jet skis, etc) is unlikely to pass either chamber.

The Prez is being scorned across the Nation as the most deceitful president since Richard Nixon, his Cabinet is full of tax cheats and tax frauds, his Veep is a loaded gun ready to go off at a moment's notice and destroy whatever shred of credibility the WH still maintains, even the far left media outlets are starting to bristle at the smoke & mirrors of Obama on everything from lying about Iran's intentions... to standing buy our troops in Afghanistan... to withholding any additional investigations into the CIA.

Mr Obama has a full court press of opposition in his face each week and it's them that are winning... one week it's his czar's making a fool of Obama's wisdom in selecting them... the next week his #1 political crony group getting defunded and under investigations in more than a dozen states, under investigation by the IRS, HUD's InspecGen Office, the Justice Dept and the FBI... the next week, Obama is trying to explain how he could let a convicted mass murderer from Pan 103 free from Scottish prison and why Col Quadaffi Duck is so pleased Obama got elected!

I don't think the problem is with people here accepting the corruption that led to Obama's election.  Or that Obama is the president --for now.

I think what you are so angry about and others here from your side are frustrated about is the seeming lack of capacity and inability of all those wonderful, botoxed, metrosexualized Democrats being able to govern.

I had no expectation that they would be able to govern... so to watch them fail so pitifully is pure enjoyment for me.

I'm sorry you are so bitter about winning.  But governing takes far more skill and talent than just waging a perpetual campaign... and that's why you'll lose big in 2010 and 2012.  And I hope then, the future GOP WH turns the tables and begins fresh investigations into the widespread corruption of Democrat Party officials in ACORN and the unions.  That'll be sweet revenge and fair political justice.