Scott McClellan

[Sir Stewart]

I've long held that this administration was all about propaganda and that they defiantly used the most tried and true methods of the third Reich. The quote above reminds me of that and that Rove is as much an historical shadow off Goebbels as has ever existed.

 

 

 

This is the false balance people are always looking for. They assume that the current administration is acting this way as a payback for the previous administration. When I read the original quote I took it to be the hyper partisanship started during the Clinton administration, but perpetrated by the republicans. It seems like that was the era when the "liberal media" (talk radio etc...) was co-opted and began to push the idea that anything the other side did was automatically to be opposed as being bad. I don't think it was the democrats at all. I think the democrats were slow to respond to the hyper partisanship. They were still trying to work with the old rules of building coalitions to achieve political victories where bills were passed with bipartisan support, while the republicans had already moved on and had fallen under the hammer, where they toed the party line first and foremost if they expected to continue to get party support. It's where McCain got his maverick title, he was secure in his state and could easily win reelections with or with out national support so he could go off on his own. (now that he need national support see how quickly he is falling into line?) Anyhow if the dems had been more hyper partisan prior to 2001, had they been better organized to wage these sorts of political wars, the country may not have fallen as far and as hard as it has. As is was the republican took their power too far and in 2006 saw the results. In 2008 I have a feeling it will be worse for them.

 

As an aside I went to a tax conference about a month ago. One of the sessions was a legislative session where an aide of a republican senator and an aide of a democratic representative spoke. The democrat went first and talked in detail about a number of bills that they were working on and explained how they would work and what the effects would be. The republican spoke next and said none of that is going to happen because they were not going to send any bill to the president that they knew he did not approve of. So regardless of the quality of the bill they were going to block it. This mirrored what a lobbyist said at a similar conference a year ago when he said that he was told that his suggestion for a bill would not pass because they were not going to allow any successes during an elections year. In both anecdotes (witnessed by hundreds) I heard that obstructionism was the rule of the day. Party before country is the way I read it and is the way I have viewed this administration since day one. And you know what, they are entirely fine with it, they being the republican party. The republican party has fostered and lived by hyper partisanship, and this election they will reap the rewards of their efforts.

 

 

 

I'd never have a beer with Bush. That was a marketing strategy developed to pass him off as being a regular guy. He's not. He is and always has been a jerk. Put a beer or two in him and he would become an a**hole, or rather his inner a**hole would manifest itself in a more obvious manner. Anyone who read anything about Bush prior to his reinvention as Gov of TX would know this. Sure his behavior changed over the years, he drank less or perhaps not at all, but personality is personality, and his has never been anything other than that of a bullying spoiled frat brat.

Wow, you really are going out on a limb all over the place. So brave!

[mountain bed]

In my opinion Mr. Owl has consistently made great posts in this thread. He has stated my opinions more eloquently than I could have myself. Well done, sir.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

In my opinion Mr. Owl has consistently made great posts in this thread. He has stated my opinions more eloquently than I could have myself. Well done, sir.

 

Now, Mr. Owl. How many licks does it take to get to the chewy center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

 

[bobbob1313]

I've long held that this administration was all about propaganda and that they defiantly used the most tried and true methods of the third Reich. The quote above reminds me of that and that Rove is as much an historical shadow off Goebbels as has ever existed.

 

 

 

This is the false balance people are always looking for. They assume that the current administration is acting this way as a payback for the previous administration. When I read the original quote I took it to be the hyper partisanship started during the Clinton administration, but perpetrated by the republicans. It seems like that was the era when the "liberal media" (talk radio etc...) was co-opted and began to push the idea that anything the other side did was automatically to be opposed as being bad. I don't think it was the democrats at all. I think the democrats were slow to respond to the hyper partisanship. They were still trying to work with the old rules of building coalitions to achieve political victories where bills were passed with bipartisan support, while the republicans had already moved on and had fallen under the hammer, where they toed the party line first and foremost if they expected to continue to get party support. It's where McCain got his maverick title, he was secure in his state and could easily win reelections with or with out national support so he could go off on his own. (now that he need national support see how quickly he is falling into line?) Anyhow if the dems had been more hyper partisan prior to 2001, had they been better organized to wage these sorts of political wars, the country may not have fallen as far and as hard as it has. As is was the republican took their power too far and in 2006 saw the results. In 2008 I have a feeling it will be worse for them.

 

As an aside I went to a tax conference about a month ago. One of the sessions was a legislative session where an aide of a republican senator and an aide of a democratic representative spoke. The democrat went first and talked in detail about a number of bills that they were working on and explained how they would work and what the effects would be. The republican spoke next and said none of that is going to happen because they were not going to send any bill to the president that they knew he did not approve of. So regardless of the quality of the bill they were going to block it. This mirrored what a lobbyist said at a similar conference a year ago when he said that he was told that his suggestion for a bill would not pass because they were not going to allow any successes during an elections year. In both anecdotes (witnessed by hundreds) I heard that obstructionism was the rule of the day. Party before country is the way I read it and is the way I have viewed this administration since day one. And you know what, they are entirely fine with it, they being the republican party. The republican party has fostered and lived by hyper partisanship, and this election they will reap the rewards of their efforts.

 

 

 

I'd never have a beer with Bush. That was a marketing strategy developed to pass him off as being a regular guy. He's not. He is and always has been a jerk. Put a beer or two in him and he would become an a**hole, or rather his inner a**hole would manifest itself in a more obvious manner. Anyone who read anything about Bush prior to his reinvention as Gov of TX would know this. Sure his behavior changed over the years, he drank less or perhaps not at all, but personality is personality, and his has never been anything other than that of a bullying spoiled frat brat.

 

You are the type of person who isn't worth discussing politics with.

[jakobnicholas]

Funny how some of you take McClellan so seriously.

 

 

McClellan's timing of this book wreaks of someone trying to cash in while he can.

 

Mary Matalin (yeah.....a nazi conservative, I'm sure most of you think), said McClellan was let go because he wasn't adding anything to any of the meetings Bush and others had. For example, Matalin says Scooter Libby was always chiming in with good suggestions or ideas, along with others, but McClellan never offered up anything. She claims he was super quiet....not much of a contributer at all. When Snow was brought in, Snow insisted that he get to sit in on meetings and get to offer his thoughts and wisdom. And most in the White House are saying McClellan never acted as if he had any problems with his duties while at work.

 

Shouldn't the dude have bailed out earlier if he was so wrecked by being a yes man to the evil Bush empire? Gimme a break.

[owl]

I'd never have a beer with Bush.

 

Agree 1,000,000,000%.

[Good Old Neon]

Funny how some of you take McClellan so seriously.

 

 

McClellan's timing of this book wreaks of someone trying to cash in while he can.

 

Mary Matalin (yeah.....a nazi conservative, I'm sure most of you think), said McClellan was let go because he wasn't adding anything to any of the meetings Bush and others had. For example, Matalin says Scooter Libby was always chiming in with good suggestions or ideas, along with others, but McClellan never offered up anything. She claims he was super quiet....not much of a contributer at all. When Snow was brought in, Snow insisted that he get to sit in on meetings and get to offer his thoughts and wisdom. And most in the White House are saying McClellan never acted as if he had any problems with his duties while at work.

 

Shouldn't the dude have bailed out earlier if he was so wrecked by being a yes man to the evil Bush empire? Gimme a break.

 

So now it is the press secretary

[owl]

In my opinion Mr. Owl has consistently made great posts in this thread. He has stated my opinions more eloquently than I could have myself. Well done, sir.

 

It's possible that I might've thought about this stuff a few (too many) times.

 

Now, Mr. Owl. How many licks does it take to get to the chewy center of a Tootsie Roll Pop?

[John Smith]

You are the type of person who isn't worth discussing politics with.

 

I agree. I wouldn't discuss politics with me either. I get pissed off at what has happened to my country, and get pissed off at people who support what has happened. I don't take this lightly. When I graduated college I enlisted in the military because I feel every one should serve in some way. I put off starting a career and family for 7 years because I thought it was that important. I tear up each and every time I hear the Star Spangled Banner played. I grew up a republican believing that governemnt intrusion into my life shoudl be kept to a minimum. Politics used to be this benign thing that hapened in Washington and that the damage done was hardly ever outweighed by the good or neutral. (Vietnam being a major frickign exception in my lifetime) That obviously is no longer the case.

 

Beyond that a simple statement such as yours or Sir Stewart's really does little to add to the conversation. What exactly am I going on on a limb about? What exactly makes me not a person to discuss politics with? refute what I say if you don't agree, or ignore me but don't make a half assed comment that carries no meaning.

 

Sure I make outrageous statements, I recognize that. But often within those statements are kernels of truth or observations that individually don't directly say what I say, but they sure add up to something that is pretty damned close. I also don't explain my self fully. I shouldn't have to If people are discussing something and don't ask questions, It's not my job to fill in the blanks. I usually assume people who try to talk about topics are somewhat informed on those topics. Case in point. In a disucssion elsewhere I made a comment about the president of Iran having less power than the govenor of Texas and was hammered for it. The probelm is the people hammering me had no clue what powers either office holder had/has. The Gov of TX has very limited powers, no apppointment power, limited ability to introduce legislation etc... and the President of Iran has no control over the military and pretty much answers to the clerics on every issue. But my statement sounded outrageous and shall I say wing nutty in the context I was using it for.

 

This is about the only blog/message board I read I look at some message boards attached to individual stories in the trib. But generally I get almost all of my information from reading the Trib/NY Times/Washington Post/WSJ & the BBC, and apparet from here and the Trib I discuss it very little. When things come out and he source is available I read the source. How many here have read: the Gore/Bush case? The Tugba Report? The thus far released John Yoo memos (among the most poorly written legal documents I have ever read, and I read a lot of them, almost always tax related)? If they are available I read them to compare them to what the media is putting out there. Who wouldn't?

 

lastly those still supporting this trainwreck of a presidency Ask yourself why and then think about that reasoning. Perhaps maybe, just maybe McClellan, or Richard Clarke, or the print media have got it right. When the main focus of the adminsitrations refuting something involves shooting the messenger and not focusing on the message that might just be an indicator that ther is more here than meets the eye.

 

I'm done I've had enough.

[owl]

In my hometown, people have campaign-type plastic signs on their front lawns that say "Thank You, President Bush."

[IRememberDBoon]

Mary Matalin (yeah.....a nazi conservative, I'm sure most of you think), said McClellan was let go because he wasn't adding anything to any of the meetings Bush and others had. For example, Matalin says Scooter Libby was always chiming in with good suggestions or ideas, along with others, but McClellan never offered up anything. She claims he was super quiet....not much of a contributer at all. When Snow was brought in, Snow insisted that he get to sit in on meetings and get to offer his thoughts and wisdom. And most in the White House are saying McClellan never acted as if he had any problems with his duties while at work.

 

 

 

and you buy that?

[MrRain422]

Why would the press secretary be chiming in at policy meetings? Seriously, in a group of supposed policy experts, why would any of them even care what the press secretary thought on the subject, let alone welcome his comments? Matalin is spouting pure nonsense -- contributing to policy meetings is not the press secretary's job, nor should it be.

[Good Old Neon]

I agree. I wouldn't discuss politics with me either. I get pissed off at what has happened to my country, and get pissed off at people who support what has happened. I don't take this lightly. When I graduated college I enlisted in the military because I feel every one should serve in some way. I put off starting a career and family for 7 years because I thought it was that important. I tear up each and every time I hear the Star Spangled Banner played. I grew up a republican believing that governemnt intrusion into my life shoudl be kept to a minimum. Politics used to be this benign thing that hapened in Washington and that the damage done was hardly ever outweighed by the good or neutral. (Vietnam being a major frickign exception in my lifetime) That obviously is no longer the case.

 

Beyond that a simple statement such as yours or Sir Stewart's really does little to add to the conversation. What exactly am I going on on a limb about? What exactly makes me not a person to discuss politics with? refute what I say if you don't agree, or ignore me but don't make a half assed comment that carries no meaning.

 

Sure I make outrageous statements, I recognize that. But often within those statements are kernels of truth or observations that individually don't directly say what I say, but they sure add up to something that is pretty damned close. I also don't explain my self fully. I shouldn't have to If people are discussing something and don't ask questions, It's not my job to fill in the blanks. I usually assume people who try to talk about topics are somewhat informed on those topics. Case in point. In a disucssion elsewhere I made a comment about the president of Iran having less power than the govenor of Texas and was hammered for it. The probelm is the people hammering me had no clue what powers either office holder had/has. The Gov of TX has very limited powers, no apppointment power, limited ability to introduce legislation etc... and the President of Iran has no control over the military and pretty much answers to the clerics on every issue. But my statement sounded outrageous and shall I say wing nutty in the context I was using it for.

 

This is about the only blog/message board I read I look at some message boards attached to individual stories in the trib. But generally I get almost all of my information from reading the Trib/NY Times/Washington Post/WSJ & the BBC, and apparet from here and the Trib I discuss it very little. When things come out and he source is available I read the source. How many here have read: the Gore/Bush case? The Tugba Report? The thus far released John Yoo memos (among the most poorly written legal documents I have ever read, and I read a lot of them, almost always tax related)? If they are available I read them to compare them to what the media is putting out there. Who wouldn't?

 

lastly those still supporting this trainwreck of a presidency Ask yourself why and then think about that reasoning. Perhaps maybe, just maybe McClellan, or Richard Clarke, or the print media have got it right. When the main focus of the adminsitrations refuting something involves shooting the messenger and not focusing on the message that might just be an indicator that ther is more here than meets the eye.

 

I'm done I've had enough.

 

For what it's worth, I enjoy reading your posts and well informed opinions - quite a bit. Unfortunately, I don't think my endorsement carries much weight around these parts.

[bobbob1313]

I agree. I wouldn't discuss politics with me either. I get pissed off at what has happened to my country, and get pissed off at people who support what has happened. I don't take this lightly. When I graduated college I enlisted in the military because I feel every one should serve in some way. I put off starting a career and family for 7 years because I thought it was that important. I tear up each and every time I hear the Star Spangled Banner played. I grew up a republican believing that governemnt intrusion into my life shoudl be kept to a minimum. Politics used to be this benign thing that hapened in Washington and that the damage done was hardly ever outweighed by the good or neutral. (Vietnam being a major frickign exception in my lifetime) That obviously is no longer the case.

 

Beyond that a simple statement such as yours or Sir Stewart's really does little to add to the conversation. What exactly am I going on on a limb about? What exactly makes me not a person to discuss politics with? refute what I say if you don't agree, or ignore me but don't make a half assed comment that carries no meaning.

 

Sure I make outrageous statements, I recognize that. But often within those statements are kernels of truth or observations that individually don't directly say what I say, but they sure add up to something that is pretty damned close. I also don't explain my self fully. I shouldn't have to If people are discussing something and don't ask questions, It's not my job to fill in the blanks. I usually assume people who try to talk about topics are somewhat informed on those topics. Case in point. In a disucssion elsewhere I made a comment about the president of Iran having less power than the govenor of Texas and was hammered for it. The probelm is the people hammering me had no clue what powers either office holder had/has. The Gov of TX has very limited powers, no apppointment power, limited ability to introduce legislation etc... and the President of Iran has no control over the military and pretty much answers to the clerics on every issue. But my statement sounded outrageous and shall I say wing nutty in the context I was using it for.

 

This is about the only blog/message board I read I look at some message boards attached to individual stories in the trib. But generally I get almost all of my information from reading the Trib/NY Times/Washington Post/WSJ & the BBC, and apparet from here and the Trib I discuss it very little. When things come out and he source is available I read the source. How many here have read: the Gore/Bush case? The Tugba Report? The thus far released John Yoo memos (among the most poorly written legal documents I have ever read, and I read a lot of them, almost always tax related)? If they are available I read them to compare them to what the media is putting out there. Who wouldn't?

 

lastly those still supporting this trainwreck of a presidency Ask yourself why and then think about that reasoning. Perhaps maybe, just maybe McClellan, or Richard Clarke, or the print media have got it right. When the main focus of the adminsitrations refuting something involves shooting the messenger and not focusing on the message that might just be an indicator that ther is more here than meets the eye.

 

I'm done I've had enough.

 

I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but you seem so set in your opinions that it isn't worth discussing it with you. That goes for most people on this board. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

 

I don't support Bush even a little bit, but I also don't think he's near as bad as many here do. The economy works in cycles, I'm not going to blame this cycle on him anymore than I give Clinton credit for the good economy during his years. He's probably the worst President in a long time (probably since the 20's), but he'd probably not crack the top 10 in terms of most corrupt. He was the wrong President for this time in history, but I'm not convinced that many people could have done well given the circumstances of this time.

 

Also, you compared the Bush Administration to Hitler's regime, which is fucking stupid. That sort of makes me want to write off everything you say from here on out.

[solace]

but he'd probably not crack the top 10 in terms of most corrupt.

 

i'd like to see your list...

[bobbob1313]

i'd like to see your list...

 

It'd be mostly guys from 1820-1920. They might not have done as much damage since the office of the presidency was much weaker then, but there were some pretty corrupt dudes there.

[Good Old Neon]

He was the wrong President for this time in history.

 

True, for instance, he would have excelled at this point in history.

 

[bobbob1313]

LOL

 

 

CUZ THEY ARE CAVEMANS!!

[Good Old Neon]

This afternoon, Salon's Glen Greenwald posted a damning indictment of the media - it's an extremely interesting and disturbing read.

 

An excerpt:

 

CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative

 

Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:

 

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

 

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

 

I think, over time...

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

 

YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

 

The video of that exchange is here. As noted in Update II below, Yellin today said that she was referring to her time at MSNBC.

 

Yellin's admission is but the latest in a growing mountain of evidence demonstrating that corporate executives forced their news reporters to propagandize in favor of the Bush administration and the war, and censored stories that were critical of the Government. Katie Couric yesterday said that threats from the White House and accusations of being unpatriotic coerced the media into suppressing its questioning of the war. But last September, Couric revealed even more specifically the type of pressure that was put on her by NBC executives to refrain from criticizing the administration, after she conducted a "tough interview" with Condoleezza Rice...

 

the entire post - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/29/yellin/

[bjorn_skurj]

This afternoon, Salon's Glen Greenwald posted a damning indictment of the media - it's an extremely interesting and disturbing read.

 

An excerpt:

 

CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative

 

Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:

 

 

the entire post - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/29/yellin/

Yeah no shit. Even at our pissant little paper, nobody wanted to stand in front of the war train and be accused of being the type of person who spit on Vietnam vets when they came home.

[owl]

And the Bush Admin made no effort to distinguish between having reservations about going to war and spitting on soldiers.

[tugmoose]

Yeah no shit. Even at our pissant little paper, nobody wanted to stand in front of the war train and be accused of being the type of person who spit on Vietnam vets when they came home.

At the Cleveland Plain Dealer we put out a special color pullout the day after "Mission Accomplished" which featured a full-page graphic on how the war was won (it really "popped"!) and a tribute to the 100+ Americans who gave their lives.

 

Frankly, everyone was (and still is) scared shitless of losing advertisers, and all you need is one loudmouth to put the pressure on corporations. you saw how quickly Dunkin Donuts caved over a friggin' scarf.

[John Smith]

I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but you seem so set in your opinions that it isn't worth discussing it with you. That goes for most people on this board. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is...

 

Also, you compared the Bush Administration to Hitler's regime, which is fucking stupid. That sort of makes me want to write off everything you say from here on out.

 

That goes for most people on the board, yet do you state it to all of them?

 

I didn't compare the Bush administration to Hitler's regime. They use many of the same propaganda methods and Rove has more than ably filled the Roll of Goebbels. The use of the same propaganda methods is pretty easy to see as is the role of Rove, so what's the problem? The problem is that the Third Reich was one of the most evil regimes in the history of man kind (I'll toss in Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot into the mix, but Germany out did them all). If anyone used the methods of the third Reich they would be considered evil, but if you point out that they use certain methods you are considered a wing nut. The whole thing is a catch-22 issue, especially when the administration compares every tin-pot dictator in the world to Nazi Germany. For instance if you read about the Gestapo you learn that they had their own enhanced interrogation techniques (Versch

[Good Old Neon]

That goes for most people on the board, yet do you state it to all of them?

 

I didn't compare the Bush administration to Hitler's regime. They use many of the same propaganda methods and Rove has more than ably filled the Roll of Goebbels. The use of the same propaganda methods is pretty easy to see as is the role of Rove, so what's the problem? The problem is that the Third Reich was one of the most evil regimes in the history of man kind (I'll toss in Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot into the mix, but Germany out did them all). If anyone used the methods of the third Reich they would be considered evil, but if you point out that they use certain methods you are considered a wing nut. The whole thing is a catch-22 issue, especially when the administration compares every tin-pot dictator in the world to Nazi Germany. For instance if you read about the Gestapo you learn that they had their own enhanced interrogation techniques (Versch

[jff]

Frankly, everyone was (and still is) scared shitless of losing advertisers, and all you need is one loudmouth to put the pressure on corporations. you saw how quickly Dunkin Donuts caved over a friggin' scarf.

 

I'm not sure I'm following you. Typically it's the newspaper/news program that caves, and not the (potential) advertiser.

 

Dunkin' Donuts, being a source of advertising revenue, was in a position to say "It's obviously just a scarf and nothing more. If you insist on equating us with terrorists we'll take our advertising dollars elsewhere."

 

I know there's another thread for this, but I thought I'd chime in anyway.