« TARP Executive Pay Cuts Don’t Solve Anything
Middle East: Things Look Catastrophic But It Will Work Out, Why I’m Optimistic (Guest Voice) »
Politico Breaks Story Re Unprecedented White House Political Strategy
Um, NOT. The strategy is to “marginalize [the administration's] most powerful critics.”
This is the first of a two-part look at the marginalization of the GOP. Tomorrow: GOP officials fear that the party’s image is being defined increasingly by boisterous conservative commentators.
President Obama is working systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.
With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.
Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.
It’s all about intimidating legitimate dissent:
Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.
All of the techniques are harnessed to a larger purpose: to marginalize not only the individual person or organization but also some of the most important policy and publicity allies of the national Republican Party.
It’s hyperpartisan; it’s divisive; it’s increasing political tensions:
The campaign underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations — with a strong focus on redrawing the electoral map and discrediting the personalities and ideas that have powered the conservative movement over the past 20 years.
This determination has manifested itself in small ways: This president has done three times as many fundraisers as President George W. Bush had at this point in his term. And in large ones: Beginning with their contretemps with Limbaugh last winter, Obama’s most important advisers miss few opportunities for public and highly partisan shots at his most influential critics.
It’s too early to tell if the campaign is working, but it’s clearly exacerbating partisan tensions in Washington.
“They won — why don’t they act like it?” said Dana Perino, former White House press secretary to Bush. “The more they fight, the more defensive they look. It’s only been 10 months, and they’re burning bridges in a lot of different places.”
To which Greg Sargent replies:
Not sure Perino is the ideal messenger for the line that the Obama administration is being too rough on its political opponents. After all, her administration tried to paint much of the opposition party — not to mention major journalistic institutions like The New York Times — as traitors who were actively encouraging terrorist attacks on our country.
Perino’s claim that Obama administration officials are “burning bridges” with critics seems debatable, too. After all, whether it’s powerful interests running multi-million-dollar ad campaigns attacking Obama’s agenda, or leading conservative media figures attacking Obama as a “racist” who wants to brainwash the nation’s schoolchildren, Obama’s foes never seemed all that interested in maintaining cordial relations with the White House to begin with.
And that’s fine! Politics is a rough business. Seems like whatever bridges that existed were blown to bits and sank to the bottom of the river long ago.
What are you talking about? What’s all this stuff about bridges falling into a river? These scorched-earth tactics have got to stop (emphasis mine):
This is straight out of the Rahm Emanuel playbook. Opponents are not defeated; they are destroyed. Forget about engaging on the issues; opponents must be vilified and disqualified from being taken seriously.
Aside from the Nixonian quality and unseemliness of the entire approach, this is a trap for those practicing politics in this manner. The White House, whether on Van Jones or health-care opposition or Guantanamo, has failed to appreciate serious policy and personnel errors and correct them. Too busy discrediting opponents, the White House staff missed the soft underbelly of their own decisions and in each of the aforementioned cases found themselves eventually scrambling to catch up and deflect widespread public anger or criticism.
And as a style of politics, over the long haul, this sort of hyper-partisan nastiness takes its toll. Independent voters, already disenchanted with the president’s Left-leaning agenda, tend not to approve of such tactics. Indeed, it was the promise that Obama would rise above Clintonian tit-for-tat politics and leave behind past baggage that made candidate Barack Obama so attractive. The American people are quickly learning that candidate Obama — the model of dignified calm, moderation, and bipartisanship — bears little resemblance to the Obama in office.
You know, the woman’s got a point. Clinton took office in 1993. It’s 2009 now. Sixteen years of Clintonian politics should be enough for anyone, don’t you think?
17 Responses to “Politico Breaks Story Re Unprecedented White House Political Strategy”
LOL, Helen Thomas, the New York Times, and the Washington post, as well as other media outlet have been critical of this approach by the administration in their effort to muzzle the press. Put it together with the fake astroturfing and planted questions that they have engaged in and you have a full out propaganda campaign.
Must not criticize Barack Hussein Obama, Mmmm Mmmm Mmmmm
http://www.cagle.msnbc.com/news/FoxHunt/images/…
http://www.cagle.msnbc.com/news/FoxHunt/images/…
Better 8 more years of Clintonian politics, than one more of Obamanation. Bill did a pretty good job governning mostly as a moderate in touch with the nation and not a left-winger from outter space. He could make deals across the aisles and win some GOP support. I bet Hilliary could keep Nancy Pelosi in line and aware of who was leading the democrats.
Kathy I've read your post twice and I'm not following your reasoning here. Could you add an addendum spelling it out a bit?
Her reasoning appears to be two (unsubstantiated) wrongs make a right now that our guy is in the Oval Office :p
“LOL, Helen Thomas, the New York Times, and the Washington post, as well as other media outlet have been critical of this approach by the administration in their effort to muzzle the press.”~ Leonidas
*********
Oh but they're not muzzling the press, they're exposing Fox. What does the press and Fox have to do with each other? Fox is a “news” outlet like the bailed-out banks are “loan outlets” right now.
Talk about “Not”! …lol..
Its probably due to the influence of the Clintons. This power couple was almost defeated in the 90's by the right wing noise machine– and I can just hear Bill n Hill advising him to fight it rather than try to rise above it.
“Put it together with the fake astroturfing and planted questions that they have engaged in and you have a full out propaganda campaign.”
Don't forget the earlier Communist-style (Stalinist, too, given the use of the personality cult motif) advice given to the Faithful Herd to become informers on their fellow citizens, that good old denunciation and informer campaign. (Openly intended to suppress dissent through fear and intimidation, naturally.)
How nice of ObamaCo. The only question is, why would Kathy defend it against attacks by everyone, including the liberal media (oh, about 85%, say), who know that after the public protestors and Fox, that they are obviously next (which they knew already from the stage-managed press conferences, the iron fist inside the “campaigns that last forever, like Communist revolutions” velvet glove and nice smiles).
Kathy, you are still missing your red beret or pink hat — autographed by ObamaCo's model (yours, too?):
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/show/506
“Its probably due to the influence of the Clintons.”
They learned their lesson, insofar as they conceded to reality and abandoned the worst radical extreme words and some deeds (though not all the corruption and other misconduct, obviously), even reversing course (privatization, deregulation, joining others with the “Third Way” DNC “moderate” appeal to people).
“Milder-mannered, lighter, smoother, safer and saner Democrats”
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=1…
“Must not criticize Barack Hussein Obama, Mmmm Mmmm Mmmmm”
At least the exploited kids (are NFT activists behind this? Duncan's people?) haven't been made yet to have Obama's portrait in every classroom and next to the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance (whose PC demonization status is hereby suspended if not re-appropriated) — have they?
“'Barack Hussein Obama, Mmmm Mmmm Mmmmm”
[...] exploited kids”
(Faithful Dems among the public, at the grade K-3 level, this is your duty as a loyal citizen, too.)
I suppose this is the new script for all future press conferences, too. Press, read and recite from now on. If the President is short of time, only the last part will be recited.
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all say, “Hooray!”
Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans in the great Red, White, and Blue!
So something, Mr. President, we all just something-some,
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip, hooray!
Hip, hip, hooray!
Hip, hip, hooray!
Are you being serious or is this snark? Because if the first, I'll be happy to clarify anything you want clarified, but I do have to know what it is that you want clarified first. Um, specifically, I mean.
Kathy –
1. You can't defend the attacks against Fox — they're the very same as against “un-American, Nazi” members of the public daring to express dissent at town hall meetings whose outcomes were not of the approved kind — even the rest of the media (maybe they're just 80 per cent liberal now; that fraction need not be a quibble) is concerned (and already has objected to being stage-managed).
2. As for the hat, yes, I was serious. I've suggested pink rather than red, necessarily, so it matches what you're wearing in your photo. Kathy, the Pink Panther. Of course, a Che' beret (Che'-vette) or autographed Chavez beret would work, too.
Meanwhile while calling Fox not a news organization what does Obama do? Meets with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in private.
Maddow/Olbermann Invited to White House Chat with Obama, But Fox Isn't a News Organization?
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/maddowo…
This is like refusing to deal with dictators while inviting Stalin to chat over tea.
Are you being serious or is this snark? Because if the first, I'll be happy to clarify anything you want clarified, but I do have to know what it is that you want clarified first. Um, specifically, I mean.
Nope, not trying to be snarky, just trying to tie all this together. Too much of other people's opinions and not enough of yours maybe.
Is your conclusion that the Rahm Emanuel approach is nothing new, and therefore acceptable for Obama?
Actually, my opinions are all over that post. It's just that I wrote it in a very satirical way. Maybe that's the problem, I don't know.
The problem I have with the Politico piece and the approving responses and additions from right-wing bloggers is that it's dishonest. It's dishonest on so many levels it makes the head spin. Like that last bit from Jennifer Rubin that I put in bolds: You don't think that's dishonest? I mean, the reason I bolded it is that it's extra extra extra dishonest. It's breathtaking. Do you really not see that?
I can't speak for DaGoat, but I certainly don't see what you're talking about, Kathy. I don't see even garden variety dishonesty in that bolded comment from Rubin, let alone “extra, extra, extra” dishonesty (whatever that even means.)
I don't see even garden variety dishonesty in that bolded comment from Rubin, let alone “extra, extra, extra” dishonesty….
That is truly astounding. That's all I can say. I have no other words.
I mean… What I'm saying is, I guess, so be it, then. I can't make you see it. Spelling it out isn't going to help. It's all but spelled out already. You just don't think it's dishonest. What can I say to that?
Jennifer Rubin is completely correct.
If you need an emotional crumb, Kathy, well, Obama has changed the words and some of the direction of the tit-for-tat politics from what and where Clinton directed his. That's Change [tm].