The meltdown is so apparent it’s like that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazis all start melting after being exposed to the contents of the Ark of the Covenant. OK, perhaps that imagery is a push which should not be shoved this time of year; I mean as to not so-veiled Nazi/Republican conflations and the whole Obama as Messiah/Ark of the Covenant thing. Some people might read this and presume that I was biased. God forbid…
Anyway, those crazy Internets are full of “emails” which mysteriously appear in random inboxes like tatters of paper drifting down from Calvary, warning us of the impending arrival of the Anti-Christ in the form of Senator Barrack Obama. Either that or emails outlining Obama’s many terrorist connections. Or his history of Communist/Marxist/socialist involvement (apparently these magical mystery emails can not discern one –ism from another…
But this gem was just way too good to pass up.
After months of reading threads conflating Hitler with Obama (not the men, per se, but their oratory styles. That’s all…) turns out that there is indeed something to this oration business after all; Barrack Obama employs, sitting down?, the power of mass hypnosis.
That’s right. Mass hypnosis.
Remember the other day when Obama was speaking to something like 100,000 people in Saint Louis, MO? Hypnotized. Every single one of ‘em. That guy, waaayy in the back? The one who just locked his bicycle to that tree, swigging down the last of his latte (‘cause what else would an elitist Democrat Obama supporter be drinking at that hour of the day, or any hour for that matter?) Stone-cold hypnotized my friend.
And you. And me. But only if we’re Democrats.
You see, Republicans have been given special hats and earplugs to help stifle the hypnotic lullaby sung on honey smooth waves of creamy milk, licking your ears like the warm tongue of a lover, caressing their way around your brain, spooning you in the embryonic bed of what will ultimately be the end of America. Jesus, now I’m excited…
But enough about me, just read the story:
Obama's Use of Hypnotism
October 21, 2008
September 20, 2008
The Palin Gambit
A while back I was commenting to some friends that the real consternation amongst Republicans this presidential election year was that once again, they were up against charisma.
The last truly charismatic presidential nominee, and subsequent president, The GOP had was Ronald Reagan. Since then the GOP has earnestly been searching for the next Reagan.
Perhaps they were looking for love in all the wrong places.
According to linguist and political pundit, George Lakoff, in this article, "In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors."
In other words, what the GOP has known since their disastrous defeat in 1964, a paradigm shift was needed if they were going to win the presidency.
And so began a subtle re-alignment of what had previously been known as "the issues", to "values". That is, the issues really are values, and values are the issues.
As well, the modern Conservative movement was born with Senator Goldwater, but more importantly, a young recently-turned Republican politician from California was being hastily groomed through the right-wing ranks as Republican focus shifted from its older, East coast liberals to newer, West coast conservatives; Ronald Reagan.
In Reagan, the GOP had an unbeatable combination; Republican strength had shifted from north to south, from east to west, and Reagan was the physical embodiment of that shift. Young(ish), charismatic, wanna' be cowboy, great orator and staunch conservative, he was, in some ways, quite literally, the right-wing Superman whose magic elixir saved this country and the world.
And who have the GOP been able to put on stage since? As Margot Kidder's Lois Lane told Christopher Reeve's Superman, "You're kind of a hard act to follow, you know?"
And that's why the Republicans seethe at the mere mention of Bill Clinton; Clinton and the DNC stole pages directly from the RNC playbook. Twice. I believe that a large part of the acerbic animosity directed at Bill Clinton stems from a jealousy of Clinton's charisma.
I've noticed a political tendency favored by Republicans during presidential election season when they are faced with a clearly more charismatic opponent than their offering; they tend to attack the Democrat candidate on his "values", or lack thereof, which is really the point they try to drive home. Their intent, near as I can figure it, is to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans based purely upon mythological images of American values, somehow completely unique than those of any other country, sacrament for, of and to the Republican party, and of course, completely at odds with Democrat values. In this way, the particular candidate is not attacked based upon his, or her, stance regarding the issues, rather their complete lack of character.
George HW Bush was no Reagan, and he was in part punished for his short-comings by Republicans who did not vote for him in 1992. This was a part of why Clinton won, but the number one reason was his over-arching charisma; the Clinton/Gore ticket was, in the end, simply sexier than the Bush/(Noe means noe)Quayle.
George W Bush has proven to be no Reagan either, but that has been through no fault of the RNC; the transformation of George W Bush, long in the line of deep political and financial connections, he from deep money dating back to the Mayflower, and he of New Haven, Connecticut, Yale and Harvard to just good ole' boy W with whom most Americans admitted they wouldn't mind having a beer with will, in my mind, no doubt go down as the greatest shell game in the history of mankind. He has been the most charismatic nominee and president the GOP has had since The Gipper, and let's face it; even that is a very long stretch of those pointy ears.
But in essence, the GOP has been putting up old white guys since Lincoln, and in all honesty, that's all they had lined up for quite some time.
Senator John McCain was not the GOP's first choice. I can assure you that. But 2008 is payback for McCain sucking it up after the 2000 smear campaign.
Many on the extreme end of conservative Republicans were less than enthused, to say the least, of McCain's candidacy throughout the primaries, with such notables as Coulter and Limbaugh threatening to vote for Clinton or simply not vote at all.
However, when Romney bowed out, essentially giving the nomination to McCain, Republicans were suddenly faced with a great conundrum and their greatest fear. They were faced with the very real possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that person would either be Clinton, or more than likely, Obama, two people greatly loathed by Republicans, especially conservatives. Their only hope was someone they wanted in the White House only as an "in case of an emergency"-type situation; John McCain.
Media focus shifted from the Republican primaries, now, despite Huckabee's dogged determination, and focused squarely on the bitter Democrat slug-fest between Clinton and Obama. And the Republicans were silently grateful.
For once not whining about lack of coverage, Republicans the country over had to do some serious soul-searching, because the way things were shaping up, there was, and is, every possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that more than anything, was what began the silent rally; Republicans would more than likely vote this year, and they were going to vote for McCain.
Then comes a governor.
Far outside of the so-called liberal MSM, conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity and of course the afore mentioned Rush Limbaugh, the two topics of discussion are Obama and Palin and only Obama and Palin. And just how is that being done? Why framing them in terms of their values, of course.
To the right-wing media, it's as if George W Bush and Dick Cheney have already left the White House, putting the key under the fake stone partly hidden behind a small plant (dare, a bush?...) by the front stoop. I mean, seriously, has anyone seen Cheney? Who? And McCain doesn't even rank 3rd most important topic; that spot is reserved for Senator Joseph Biden. It's as if the Right are quite literally acknowledging the complete lack of importance McCain holds for them, and quite clearly showing just how important Sarah Palin is to them.
I was indifferent when I first learned of McCain's VP pick; I had no idea who Palin was. The original reports on her seemed like Democrat reaches to try and dig up dirt on her. I waited, and so too did the US and the world; the GOP was keeping Palin well away from the press until they could sit down with her, find out everything they could because clearly McCain had not done much, if any, vetting, bot most importantly, the GOP needed to drill into Palin their talking points.
This could not have been made more clear to any non-partisan observer than with the Gibson and Hannity interviews; when it came to actual policy questions, she was a well-trained tape recorder who clearly had little to no real ideas of her own in regards to those areas (remember, she is the one who admitted that she had no idea what the vice-president actually did...) But partisan hacks, that is those people who crowd the Hannity.com boards loved her because she seemed like "one of them". And if we all can remember back just eight years ago, that was perhaps the biggest selling point for Bush's candidacy; "I'd have a beer with Bush."
But why the passion for Palin from the hard-core political insiders? Look no further than George W Bush.
In an article yesterday on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington noted that, according to one Republican insider, Palin is the perfect vessel for the neocons; "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."
Remind you of anyone else?
"That's why the Palin pick was so brilliant. On the outside, she's exponentially more likable and talented at connecting with people than Cheney ever was. But on the inside, once she graduates from the neocon finishing school, she'll be a complete and total Dick. Cheney. With lipstick."
Let's face it; the GOP has not had a charismatic presidential nominee since Reagan, and they are bitterly upset over the popularity of the Clintons, Gore and Obama. They know they are essentially backing a dead horse with McCain, so their only shot was sliding Palin onto the ticket; she has energized the base like no other candidate would have done, and if they do not win the White House this year, they have groomed, trained and prepped quite possibly the next GOP presidential nominee.
For McCain, what has he got to lose? He already bit the bullet once for the GOP in 2000, and this is his payback. If he does not win, there will be no 2012 for him, so it's now or nothing and Palin was most likely his one and only chance.
However, for the GOP, it really is a win-win situation. If McCain/Palin get in, they've quite possible got the White House for at least the next 12 years. If not, they have re-paid their debt to McCain and cleared the books with military veterans and the 60+ crowd, but they have also stacked the deck in their favor for the next go-round.
That's why Palin is such an intelligent move.
The GOP has only been able to put up old white men for president, and looking back on it, that's all they would have had for at least the next couple of elections. Democrats meanwhile had put up a charismatic woman with serious connections and experience, and a very charismatic and young black man. In the face of that, the GOP knew they were facing a potential sea change in voting demographics in this country, and in light of that, selecting on older Jewish former Democrat who is pro-choice, a charismatic, intelligent but Mormon, or a liberal-leaning Evangelical, there really was no choice if they wanted to be viable in the future.
So, see you in '12 when things get really interesting!
The last truly charismatic presidential nominee, and subsequent president, The GOP had was Ronald Reagan. Since then the GOP has earnestly been searching for the next Reagan.
Perhaps they were looking for love in all the wrong places.
According to linguist and political pundit, George Lakoff, in this article, "In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors."
In other words, what the GOP has known since their disastrous defeat in 1964, a paradigm shift was needed if they were going to win the presidency.
And so began a subtle re-alignment of what had previously been known as "the issues", to "values". That is, the issues really are values, and values are the issues.
As well, the modern Conservative movement was born with Senator Goldwater, but more importantly, a young recently-turned Republican politician from California was being hastily groomed through the right-wing ranks as Republican focus shifted from its older, East coast liberals to newer, West coast conservatives; Ronald Reagan.
In Reagan, the GOP had an unbeatable combination; Republican strength had shifted from north to south, from east to west, and Reagan was the physical embodiment of that shift. Young(ish), charismatic, wanna' be cowboy, great orator and staunch conservative, he was, in some ways, quite literally, the right-wing Superman whose magic elixir saved this country and the world.
And who have the GOP been able to put on stage since? As Margot Kidder's Lois Lane told Christopher Reeve's Superman, "You're kind of a hard act to follow, you know?"
And that's why the Republicans seethe at the mere mention of Bill Clinton; Clinton and the DNC stole pages directly from the RNC playbook. Twice. I believe that a large part of the acerbic animosity directed at Bill Clinton stems from a jealousy of Clinton's charisma.
I've noticed a political tendency favored by Republicans during presidential election season when they are faced with a clearly more charismatic opponent than their offering; they tend to attack the Democrat candidate on his "values", or lack thereof, which is really the point they try to drive home. Their intent, near as I can figure it, is to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans based purely upon mythological images of American values, somehow completely unique than those of any other country, sacrament for, of and to the Republican party, and of course, completely at odds with Democrat values. In this way, the particular candidate is not attacked based upon his, or her, stance regarding the issues, rather their complete lack of character.
George HW Bush was no Reagan, and he was in part punished for his short-comings by Republicans who did not vote for him in 1992. This was a part of why Clinton won, but the number one reason was his over-arching charisma; the Clinton/Gore ticket was, in the end, simply sexier than the Bush/(Noe means noe)Quayle.
George W Bush has proven to be no Reagan either, but that has been through no fault of the RNC; the transformation of George W Bush, long in the line of deep political and financial connections, he from deep money dating back to the Mayflower, and he of New Haven, Connecticut, Yale and Harvard to just good ole' boy W with whom most Americans admitted they wouldn't mind having a beer with will, in my mind, no doubt go down as the greatest shell game in the history of mankind. He has been the most charismatic nominee and president the GOP has had since The Gipper, and let's face it; even that is a very long stretch of those pointy ears.
But in essence, the GOP has been putting up old white guys since Lincoln, and in all honesty, that's all they had lined up for quite some time.
Senator John McCain was not the GOP's first choice. I can assure you that. But 2008 is payback for McCain sucking it up after the 2000 smear campaign.
Many on the extreme end of conservative Republicans were less than enthused, to say the least, of McCain's candidacy throughout the primaries, with such notables as Coulter and Limbaugh threatening to vote for Clinton or simply not vote at all.
However, when Romney bowed out, essentially giving the nomination to McCain, Republicans were suddenly faced with a great conundrum and their greatest fear. They were faced with the very real possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that person would either be Clinton, or more than likely, Obama, two people greatly loathed by Republicans, especially conservatives. Their only hope was someone they wanted in the White House only as an "in case of an emergency"-type situation; John McCain.
Media focus shifted from the Republican primaries, now, despite Huckabee's dogged determination, and focused squarely on the bitter Democrat slug-fest between Clinton and Obama. And the Republicans were silently grateful.
For once not whining about lack of coverage, Republicans the country over had to do some serious soul-searching, because the way things were shaping up, there was, and is, every possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that more than anything, was what began the silent rally; Republicans would more than likely vote this year, and they were going to vote for McCain.
Then comes a governor.
Far outside of the so-called liberal MSM, conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity and of course the afore mentioned Rush Limbaugh, the two topics of discussion are Obama and Palin and only Obama and Palin. And just how is that being done? Why framing them in terms of their values, of course.
To the right-wing media, it's as if George W Bush and Dick Cheney have already left the White House, putting the key under the fake stone partly hidden behind a small plant (dare, a bush?...) by the front stoop. I mean, seriously, has anyone seen Cheney? Who? And McCain doesn't even rank 3rd most important topic; that spot is reserved for Senator Joseph Biden. It's as if the Right are quite literally acknowledging the complete lack of importance McCain holds for them, and quite clearly showing just how important Sarah Palin is to them.
I was indifferent when I first learned of McCain's VP pick; I had no idea who Palin was. The original reports on her seemed like Democrat reaches to try and dig up dirt on her. I waited, and so too did the US and the world; the GOP was keeping Palin well away from the press until they could sit down with her, find out everything they could because clearly McCain had not done much, if any, vetting, bot most importantly, the GOP needed to drill into Palin their talking points.
This could not have been made more clear to any non-partisan observer than with the Gibson and Hannity interviews; when it came to actual policy questions, she was a well-trained tape recorder who clearly had little to no real ideas of her own in regards to those areas (remember, she is the one who admitted that she had no idea what the vice-president actually did...) But partisan hacks, that is those people who crowd the Hannity.com boards loved her because she seemed like "one of them". And if we all can remember back just eight years ago, that was perhaps the biggest selling point for Bush's candidacy; "I'd have a beer with Bush."
But why the passion for Palin from the hard-core political insiders? Look no further than George W Bush.
In an article yesterday on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington noted that, according to one Republican insider, Palin is the perfect vessel for the neocons; "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."
Remind you of anyone else?
"That's why the Palin pick was so brilliant. On the outside, she's exponentially more likable and talented at connecting with people than Cheney ever was. But on the inside, once she graduates from the neocon finishing school, she'll be a complete and total Dick. Cheney. With lipstick."
Let's face it; the GOP has not had a charismatic presidential nominee since Reagan, and they are bitterly upset over the popularity of the Clintons, Gore and Obama. They know they are essentially backing a dead horse with McCain, so their only shot was sliding Palin onto the ticket; she has energized the base like no other candidate would have done, and if they do not win the White House this year, they have groomed, trained and prepped quite possibly the next GOP presidential nominee.
For McCain, what has he got to lose? He already bit the bullet once for the GOP in 2000, and this is his payback. If he does not win, there will be no 2012 for him, so it's now or nothing and Palin was most likely his one and only chance.
However, for the GOP, it really is a win-win situation. If McCain/Palin get in, they've quite possible got the White House for at least the next 12 years. If not, they have re-paid their debt to McCain and cleared the books with military veterans and the 60+ crowd, but they have also stacked the deck in their favor for the next go-round.
That's why Palin is such an intelligent move.
The GOP has only been able to put up old white men for president, and looking back on it, that's all they would have had for at least the next couple of elections. Democrats meanwhile had put up a charismatic woman with serious connections and experience, and a very charismatic and young black man. In the face of that, the GOP knew they were facing a potential sea change in voting demographics in this country, and in light of that, selecting on older Jewish former Democrat who is pro-choice, a charismatic, intelligent but Mormon, or a liberal-leaning Evangelical, there really was no choice if they wanted to be viable in the future.
So, see you in '12 when things get really interesting!
August 12, 2008
Backdooring the environment
No; that's not a sexual reference. In this case, it's of political nature, as in creating a backdoor into something. And in that case, what Bush is doing to the Environmental Protection Act of 1978.
To wit:
"The proposal, which does not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years. Developers welcomed the plan, while environmentalists derided it.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming.
The proposal would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.
The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects."
This one sounds like something from a Daily Show skit:
"The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft.
"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said."
But wait, there's more:
"The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to a source with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.
In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.
But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.
Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes."
The Bush Administration: making sure that you have the God-given right to shoot wolves from airplanes and helicopters, drink poisoned water and ensuriing that if there is a Yellowstone Park, you will be able to ride your snowmobile through it.
To wit:
"The proposal, which does not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years. Developers welcomed the plan, while environmentalists derided it.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming.
The proposal would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.
The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects."
This one sounds like something from a Daily Show skit:
"The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft.
"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said."
But wait, there's more:
"The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to a source with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.
In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.
But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.
Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes."
The Bush Administration: making sure that you have the God-given right to shoot wolves from airplanes and helicopters, drink poisoned water and ensuriing that if there is a Yellowstone Park, you will be able to ride your snowmobile through it.
May 28, 2008
Ari Fleischer - Come sit at the Master's knee
This morning, as the news of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's tell-all book consumed Clinton's Kennedy comments, another former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer was asked by MSNBC anchor, Norah O'Donnell what his thoughts were on the book and on McClellan himself. Watch and learn:
Notice the following from Fleischer:
1) Look of complete sincerity.
2) Reiterate the unnecessary: That McClellan has the "right" to print thin book. Thanks for that reminder and the little American flag lapel pin...
3) Repeat the talking points which will be later echoed by the White House: Several times Fleischer mentions of McClellan that he, Fleischer, is confused, that McClellan never mentioned any of this while Press Secretary, that this is not the Scott he knew.
4) And pay attention to the masterful dodge when O'Donnell asks Fleischer point-blank, at about 2:30 regarding McClellan's remarks that he, McClellan and Fleischer were used to sell an "unjust war" as part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, does he, Fleischer, "deny that?” Fleischer never answers her question nor McClellan's allegations but instead answers with a truthful assertion about something else entirely.
5) Blame others and Clinton as soon and as often as possible: When asked about the information regarding Hussein's WMD "stockpiles", Fleischer immediately throws George Tenet under the bus, but not without first mentioning that he was previously Bill Clinton's Director of CIA.
6) Make not-so subtle suggestions regarding the person's character: After briefly mentioning that "we all were wrong", Fleischer then turns to subtly dismantling McClellan's credibility, saying that his words sounded like somebody who was an opponent of Bush. Later, someone from the White House will say that McClellan is just "disgruntled".
Later on, Fleischer again lays the blame on "foreign nations, the Clinton administration..."
This is classic stuff from the man who threatened the White House press corps shortly after 9/11 to watch what they say and who also said, after stepping down as press secretary that "I am leaving the White House but I am not leaving President Bush."
Hmmm...
Notice the following from Fleischer:
1) Look of complete sincerity.
2) Reiterate the unnecessary: That McClellan has the "right" to print thin book. Thanks for that reminder and the little American flag lapel pin...
3) Repeat the talking points which will be later echoed by the White House: Several times Fleischer mentions of McClellan that he, Fleischer, is confused, that McClellan never mentioned any of this while Press Secretary, that this is not the Scott he knew.
4) And pay attention to the masterful dodge when O'Donnell asks Fleischer point-blank, at about 2:30 regarding McClellan's remarks that he, McClellan and Fleischer were used to sell an "unjust war" as part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, does he, Fleischer, "deny that?” Fleischer never answers her question nor McClellan's allegations but instead answers with a truthful assertion about something else entirely.
5) Blame others and Clinton as soon and as often as possible: When asked about the information regarding Hussein's WMD "stockpiles", Fleischer immediately throws George Tenet under the bus, but not without first mentioning that he was previously Bill Clinton's Director of CIA.
6) Make not-so subtle suggestions regarding the person's character: After briefly mentioning that "we all were wrong", Fleischer then turns to subtly dismantling McClellan's credibility, saying that his words sounded like somebody who was an opponent of Bush. Later, someone from the White House will say that McClellan is just "disgruntled".
Later on, Fleischer again lays the blame on "foreign nations, the Clinton administration..."
This is classic stuff from the man who threatened the White House press corps shortly after 9/11 to watch what they say and who also said, after stepping down as press secretary that "I am leaving the White House but I am not leaving President Bush."
Hmmm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
