An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The White House And Matthew Dowd
Watch a subtle discrediting action and listen to talking points. Note that this is aimed at taking away from the weight of the former Bush pollster’s charges and expression of disappointment in President George Bush or at the least to decrease their impact by suggesting personal problems are at the root of his assertions:
13 Responses to “The White House And Matthew Dowd”
Saw this. It is quite obvious that the politics of personal destruction has a comfortable home in the Bush administration. In my opinion the entire republican party operates this way. They are trying very hard to destroy Dowd without appearing “vindictive“. They failed. Laughably they want everyone to believe that it is Dowd that is defective, not the Bush, Cheney, Rove horror that resides in the White House.
Yes, luckily the Democrats NEVER resort to such tactics. That would imply they are part and parcel of all politics.
Truman said it best, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
Well I think there is a trait seen on the right to view only the perception of a policy, whereas the Democrats tend to discus the policy itself. If Bush makes a decision, and you don’t like that decision, then you are a pussy or a traitor and thats why you don’t like it. It doesn’t matter that there is a ton of evidence to back up your view or not.
This is typical of the authoritve mindset of very conservative folks. Take right wing talking heads like O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh. Whenever they talk to someone from the left or center or even slightly not as right as them, they hit them with a complicated question and then hammer them for a very short answer. Usually they will brow beat them to answer in a yes or no fashion to a question that simply is larger than yes or no. The result is that any answer they give will of course have major holes in it they can then make hash of. This is theatre masquerading as discussion and they do it alot.
I frankly don’t see this tactic among the left nearly as much.
lol i never heard that one before. it’s a great one though
common, the also say “He’s a really good guy”, “we can respectfully disagree”, “I think he has a legitimate disagreement”. If you want your actions and words to be taken at face value, you have to do the same for your opponents, at least until you’ve got something VERY substantial.
austinroth,
can you please provide evidence where the dems have ever called someone a nutcase because they disagreed with their policies?
im sorry, but prefacing that someone is a nice guy, then smearing him as a wackjob with personal probs is as low as you can get
Well, TNR did it last month. But they may have just been charitable to Cheney; he’s much worse than insane.
Sam, O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and others are the paid mouthpieces for the neocon agenda. An agenda based in the fascist ideology of Social Darwinism They are paid to proliferate corporate propaganda that the ultra rich and powerful benefit most from. Essentially they enable oppression of the middle class by nefarious means. They say the visceral things that republicans cannot say or none of them would ever get elected. They stir emotion with half truths, lies, and lies of omission. Its rather humorous because O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh have all demonstrated their absolute cowardice when confronted in public so I doubt they believe but a small portion of what they are programmed to say. The left has nothing by comparison to these propaganda artists. I used to worry about them, but no longer. BS can only be taken so far. lol
FYI Austin. The issue is NOT whether when you see one side do it someone else does it. We send kids to the office at schools for saying that. This deals with how they dealt with Dowd. That and the now tiresome “but under Clinton” don’t excuse a character pattern in this administration and the people who defend it.
I didn’t say Clinton – I carefully avoided it. I used a quote from Truman on purpose. I could have gone back to Roman or Greek times if I wanted.
My point is that politics is played for keeps by very serious people with very serious agendas (at least in their minds), from all sides. This is just part of how it works, always has worked, and always will work.
I am not being cynical, I am merely stating the obvious. Those who get in the ring expect to get bloodied, and this ain’t school, nor do Marquess of Queensberry rules apply.
Just once before I die, I’d like a see an episode discussed on its own merits.
Not ‘so and so’ did it, too.
Not ‘it’s always been done’
Not ‘it’s typical of this party’
I’d like to hear simply that this (whatever) was a nasty thing to do. As a bonus, it would be sweet to hear suggestions about the proper way to deal with like situations.
OK, I thought that is what I did, but I will make it clearer.
On the merits, I don’t find this as anything to get in a dither about, or particularly nasty, because it is just normal politics, not something extraordinary or beyond the pale.
I will save my righteous indignation for something more egregious.
Not all lefties are thrilled with Dowd. Sidney Blumenthal has an article in Salon questioning his motives, and there’s this from the always entertaining Daily Howler: Dowd’s Sad Story