Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

-Lurid Crime Tales-
Jack Palladino, detective hired by Bill Clinton to discredit women in 1992, on life support after robbery
2021-01-30
[FOX] Jack Palladino, the private investigator hired by former President Bill Clinton during his 1992 campaign to help discredit women claiming extramarital affairs with him, was reportedly on life support after being robbed Thursday outside of his San Francisco home.

Palladino, whose celebrity clients have also included Harvey Weinstein, Don Johnson, Kevin Costner, Robin Williams, Huey Newton and Snoop Dogg, fell onto the pavement outside his home when the robber grabbed his new camera from around his neck, the San Francisco Police Department said,
“There ought ta be a law against taking other people’s stuff!”
“Fuggeddit, Bub, this is San Francisco.”
according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Fell 37 times"
He suffered a traumatic brain injury in the fall and wasn’t expected to survive, his stepson told the newspaper.
Related:
Jack Palladino: 2006-02-10 Hillary Clinton Ally Threatens Ken Mehlman
Link


Home Front: Politix
GOP Wants Secret Ballot ( Bushies Seek Amnesty Proponent)
2007-01-19
AoS note: please note the formatting changes I made. I can't do this to every article; I'm more likely to delete them if it takes too much time. Your comments are in yellow hilite, not italics.
Hat Tip: FrontPageMag.com
I'm a Republican, but this kind of chicanery is exactly one of the reasons why the GOP lost in the last election. Amnesty for illegals is a no-fly idea and it needs to be stopped.

Republican National Committee members think they will get a secret ballot on today's election of a new general chairman, which would protect members opposed to the White House's push to fill the new slot with an advocate of an amnesty for illegal aliens. "If we get the secret ballot as promised, then every member will feel free to express his or her view without the fear of coercion or intimidation," said RNC member Curly Haugland of North Dakota.
What? Secret ballots? Why, why, that would be like democratic or something and we can't be associated with that now can we?
The move to create a new top office on the committee and fill it with Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida is scheduled to take place today, on the third day of the annual RNC winter meeting here. Mr. Martinez supports President Bush's plans for what conservative critics call amnesty for illegal aliens.

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a former state party chairman and RNC member who attended the meeting yesterday as an observer, was talked up by some members as an alternative to Mr. Martinez. Mr. Steele, praised by name in a farewell speech by outgoing Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman, lost a Senate run in November but remains popular with RNC members.
Steele would be a good candidate for the position IMO.
"The Republican Party is against amnesty for illegals, but if the president wants Mr. Martinez as general chairman, that should be the president's prerogative," Mr. Steele told The Washington Times.
Then again...kowtowing to the President on this issue is just stupid. Being Republican doesn't mean blind obedience to stupid ideas.
The RNC leadership's desires historically almost always carry the day, especially when a Republican is in the White House, but some members yesterday said they saw hope that things might turn out differently this time. "If it is a secret ballot, it will make a huge difference," said RNC member Denise McNamara of Texas, who said she intends to vote against the creation of the general-chairman position and, if that move fails, to vote against Mr. Martinez to fill the office, regardless of whether the vote is secret or public.

So far, a minority of members share her willingness to publicly express opposition. "I will vote against the creation of an office of general chairman, even if it is a voice vote," said RNC member Steve Cloud of Kansas. "But a lot of others on this committee who also oppose the creation of that office -- whether because it violates the rules or because they oppose amnesty for illegal aliens -- they will be afraid to say what they think unless there is a secret ballot."

At issue is whether the RNC's rules permit the creation the "general chairman" position. The rules governing the RNC, adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention, call only for an elected chairman and co-chairman. RNC member Robert M. "Mike" Duncan, a Kentucky resident and the current treasurer, is running unopposed for chairman. RNC member Tim Morgan of California is exacted to become the new treasurer.
Great! Just what the GOP needs - another layer of bureacracy. I swear the parties get more and more alike every day.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Michael Steele to become RNC Chair
2006-11-10
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose party just lost both chambers of Congress, will leave his position in January, and the post as party chief has been offered to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. "It is true," Mr. Mehlman told The Washington Times when asked about reports last night that he would resign. "It's something I decided over the summer. No one told me I needed to. In fact, folks wanted me to stay."

Other Republican Party officials said some Republican National Committee (RNC) members, including state party chairmen, have mounted a move to have Mr. Steele succeed Mr. Mehlman.

But they said that President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who is Mr. Mehlman's mentor, would rather see Mr. Steele serve in the president's Cabinet, perhaps as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. These officials said no one has actually offered Mr. Steele either the RNC post or a Cabinet post.

Steele spokesman Doug Heye said last night that "I don't know of any conversations that Lt. Gov. Steele has had on this topic, but I can tell you that there are many people who have said he would be an ideal candidate, based on the race he ran this year."

"I talked to him very briefly about it today. He has not made any decisions yet about what he will do next. He is still focused on his role as lieutenant governor," Mr. Heye said. . . .
Link


Home Front: Politix
Michael Steele for Republican National Chairman?
2006-11-09
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who came up just short yesterday in his Senate race against Rep. Ben Cardin (D), is mulling a bid for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, according to an informed GOP source.

Steele would not challenge current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, but chatter among Republican insiders is that Mehlman has made clear for months that he might not return to his current post. "Chairman Mehlman will be making an announcement regarding his future at the RNC in the coming weeks," said RNC communication director Brian Jones.

Mehlman has made outreach to the African American community a priority during his time as head of the party, and Steele would be seen as a logical successor to that effort.
Steele is smart and charismatic. Can he crack heads at the RNC and get them ready for 2008?
Link


Home Front: Politix
Jim Geraghty: more from "Obi-Wan"
2006-11-07
Obi Wan Kenobi and I haven't heard much.

Obi Wan was intrigued that in the RNC conference call, Ken Mehlman mentioned Montana, Michigan, and House seats in Georgia and Hawaii (!). The first two were in response to a question from Hugh Hewitt, but if any early data looked bad, Mehlman could have been more equivocal or tried to downplay those races. As it was, he seemed a bit enthused.

(And if once-left-for-dead Michigan and Montana are looking good, how do places like Tennessee, Missouri, Rhode Island, Maryland or New Jersey look?)

At noon, it's not clear what the party folks know, but they will know how the morning turnout, GOTV operations, etc. are going compared to the morning two years ago, or four years ago. I have yet to encounter any signal of low turnout in red-leaning areas. In fact, as the Hilton Head, S.C. downpour report from Dad indicated, Republicans seem to be turning out a lot, even if there's nothing particularly close or exciting on the ballot. A Kerry effect, maybe?

Another report from Burke - turnout is comparable to last year's governor's race (at a polling place that seemed to have a lot of federal employees supporting Jim Webb, judging from bumper stickers in the parking lot). George Allen had better be getting good turnout in southern Virginia.

By now, Obi notes, the folks in the "quarantine room" where the exit poll data is being collected have some idea of how the night is going. Something will slip out, sooner or later. Of course, both sides know this, and it's almost certain that there are those who will try to spread rumors, to affect the moods, and potential turnout, of those of us attached to the Internet and hungry for any data we can get.

UPDATE: One last point - there's been nothing to indicate the Republican wave crested or slowed within the past day or two. Wish we had comprehensive data for one more day, but the big, deep, broad shift to the GOP may have hit at just the right time for this election.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Crocodile Tears for Joe
2006-08-14
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- Mary Matalin, longtime Republican political operative and Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser, seemed near tears on the Fox News Channel Tuesday night as adverse voting returns for Sen. Joseph Lieberman came in from Connecticut. With Matalin a reliable indicator of her party's line, she began an outpouring of GOP grief over Lieberman's Democratic primary defeat. That was a remarkable reaction to a liberal senator who has given George W. Bush scant help on any issue other than Iraq, from which he now also has retreated.

In Lieberman's and my school days, this would be called shedding crocodile tears (defined by Webster's as "a hypocritical show of sorrow"). Cheney himself deplored Connecticut's results, and presidential adviser Karl Rove placed a publicized telephone call to the senator. Republicans cast anti-war primary winner Ned Lamont as a cross between Joe McCarthy and George McGovern. Contradicting his 18-year Senate voting record, Lieberman is identified as a Democratic centrist (supposedly one of the last of that breed).

With Republican morale sliding three months before midterm elections, Connecticut provided welcome news for GOP strategists. Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman on the day after the primary was in Cleveland facing a Republican meltdown in Ohio and warned of a McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party by elitists. Mehlman described Rep. Sherrod Brown, a left-wing congressman who leads Republican Sen. Mike DeWine for re-election, as a Midwestern Lamont.

But how different from Lieberman would Lamont vote in the Senate? Not much. President Bush, always seeking Texas-style centrists, famously hugged and kissed Lieberman on the House floor after delivering the 2005 State of the Union Address. Aside from Iraq, it has been unrequited love with Lieberman consistently denying Bush needed votes. Lieberman was in Connecticut campaigning Aug. 3 when the Senate again failed to break a filibuster against estate tax relief, but he would have voted no had he been there.

In key votes of the last Congress selected by the Almanac of American Politics, Lieberman followed the straight liberal line in opposing oil drilling in ANWR, Bush tax cuts, overtime pay reform, the energy bill, and bans on partial birth abortion and same-sex marriage. Similarly, he voted in support of Roe v. Wade, and for banning assault weapons and bunker buster bombs. His only two pro-Bush votes were to fund the Iraq war and support missile defense (duplicating Sen. Hillary Clinton's course on both).

Lieberman's most recent ratings by the American Conservative Union were 7 percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005. "Well deserved!" ACU Chairman David Keene told me. "I don't see why any conservative should be overly concerned about Joe Lieberman's plight."

Lieberman has opposed Bush as the environmentalists' Senate leader on global warming. He rebuffed attempts to compromise Social Security reform. He had a perfect record, seven for seven, backing filibusters that blocked Bush judicial nominees. He voted for cloture on three judicial nominations only after a compromise by the bipartisan Gang of 14 (which included Lieberman). He voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

This record of party regularity has won Lieberman's independent candidacy little backing from party stalwarts. Only four (out of 44) Democratic senators announced post-primary support for him. I could not find backing for Lieberman's independent candidacy from any of my longtime Democratic sources, who never have been associated with the MoveOn.org, neo-McGovernite wing of the party. Primarily because of Iraq, the clock has run out on Lieberman in his party since he was its 2000 nominee for vice president. In his disastrous 2004 campaign for the presidential nomination, he lost badly in eight consecutive state contests (doing no better than 11 percent in Delaware).

For Lieberman to have any chance in November, Connecticut Republican voters will have to reject the party's lackluster nominee (former State Rep. Alan Schlesinger). The only conceivable motivation would be Lieberman's position on Iraq, but even that faded last week. In a desperate Sunday night effort to separate himself from the president, he said "many of the Bush administration's decisions regarding the conduct of the war" were not "right." That did not fit the post-primary profile of courage that subsequently was sketched for him by the Republican high command.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Republicans predict victory
2006-08-05
Vowing victory in this fall's elections, Republicans emerged Friday from a two-day national strategy session rejecting new independent warnings that they face a possible "electoral rout" and loss of control of Congress. "It will be a tough election, but we will keep control of the House and Senate," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Friday.

He made the prediction after unveiling a strategy that he hoped would frame the fall election as a choice between Republicans and Democrats, rather than a referendum on President Bush and Republican control of the government. Party leaders hope that fear of Democrats will trump anger or disappointment with Republicans.

As the Republicans huddled, their public optimism was offset by two new detailed looks at the House and Senate races and the national mood by Larry Sabato, a noted political analyst, and the Cook Political Report. Both concluded that Republicans are in big trouble. Independent political analyst Charles Cook warned this week that Republicans face the threat of "an electoral rout." "First, the political climate will be extremely hostile to Republican candidates. Second, while Republicans benefited from turnout in 2002 and 2004, this time voter turnout will benefit Democratic candidates. And third, the advantages that the GOP usually has in national party spending will be significantly less than normal."

Vilsack encouraged by Democrat prospects in November
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack stood at the end of a wharf Friday and said he thinks the Democrats' ship is going to come in during the November elections. Vilsack, who is considering a 2008 bid for president, was in Charleston for this weekend's National Governors Association meeting. "I guarantee you Democratic governors will have a majority of the governerships of the country by the time the fall elections are said and done," Vilsack said.

The former chairman of the Democratic Governors Association is doing what he can to get one of his own into the governor's office in South Carolina, campaigning with fellow Democrat and state Sen. Tommy Moore who is running against Republican Gov. Mark Sanford in the November election.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Key Democrats unite for troop pullout
2006-08-01
Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence. In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops. "U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces and force protection of U.S. personnel," the Democrats wrote.

Bush has consistently said there will be no such pullout until the fledgling Iraqi government can secure its position and Iraq's security forces can defend the country. Republicans said the letter amounted to Democratic leadership surrendering to terrorists. "The Democratic leadership continues to demand that American soldiers end their mission and wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq," Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a statement.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, issued a similar statement. "Waving a white flag in Iraq may appeal to the nut net roots," Mehlman wrote, referring to Internet activists, "but it will embolden the enemy, encourage more terrorism and make America less secure."

Democrats had previously advocated reducing reduce troops levels in Iraq, but were split on the precise approach. During a recent floor debate in the Senate, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin proposed legislation that would require troops to be out of Iraq by July 2007. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats backed a measure that called for a phased redeployment to begin by Dec. 31, but did not set a deadline for all troops to be home.

The recent letter, dated July 30, is significant because - signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs - it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season. The letter also was signed by Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, his House counterpart.
I think we should have several roll call votes on this excellent suggestion....oh, that's right, we did.
I'm betting Mr. Rove would like at least one more in early October ...
Link


Home Front: Politix
Smell The Desperation: Donks To Push Cut 'N Run In Senate, Now
2006-06-21
The DhimmiDonk Mantra: Defeat = Victory... in November. No graphics for Sedition, Traitor or Coward, so I had to settle for these.
Democrats said yesterday that the United States must start "redeploying" troops from Iraq, calling the recovery of the mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers a "grim reminder" of why withdrawal should begin soon.
Actually, I'd say it's a reminder of why we want to do the fighting there, in the asshat's back yard, rather than here.
Republican leaders called the proposal for withdrawal a "cut and run" that would embolden terrorists.
Obvious, if you aren't a partisan asshole, total idiot, or utterly lacking a sense of shame.
The Senate is expected to spend at least five hours today debating two competing Democratic proposals to start pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq.
Productive.
The killings are "a grim reminder of the price we're paying for a failed policy in Iraq," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip. "It's time for Iraqis to stand up. When will this end?"
Yo, Turban Durbin, when will you stand up? Have you no shame? When will this end? I'd say not until you're sent packing to find productive employment.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said withdrawing troops would be a "dishonor of historic proportions. The Iraqi people want us and need us to help them. If we break our promise and cut and run, as some would have us do, the implications could be catastrophic," the Tennessee Republican said. "Surrendering is not a solution. We cannot go wobbly. The price is too high."
Though not a favorite of mine, Fristy's nailed this issue cold.
Last night, in a speech at the Hyatt Regency Washington to Republican volunteers, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said, "Republicans unite on the need to stay on the offense to confront terrorists; Democrats are having a debate in their party." He characterized the Democratic debate as some "say we need to cut and run; some people say we need to walk ... and other people say we need to jog." The comments come as lawmakers embark on a second week of debating Iraq policy, this time in the form of the Senate's defense authorization bill.
Some (heh) say the Donks should drop dead, too. I would like to help them, but that's just me.
Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, have sponsored an amendment that calls for "phased redeployment" to begin by Dec. 31. The nonbinding amendment would require the Bush administration to submit a schedule for continued troop withdrawal.
Typical poseurs trying to look important and in charge - and this bit of sabotage is the only thing they can come up with.
Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin have a binding amendment calling for all combat troops to be redeployed by July 1, 2007. A similar measure offered last week was overwhelmingly defeated in the Senate.
But this time it'll be different. Really. We're not wanking for press releases and MSM orgasms. We've, uh, played with the numbers and dates and stuff, so this time will be special. This is what the Senate is for, y'know.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Feingold -- potential presidential candidates in 2008 -- sent a joint e-mail to Mr. Kerry's 2004 campaign supporters saying that withdrawal will lead to a more effective war on terror. "Our troops have served valiantly in Iraq," the senators said. "Now, it's time to put the future of Iraq where it belongs: in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders."
Potential. Heh. Um, more effective how, exactly? Actually, your wet dream is more dead soldiers. It's the only thing that will serve your political ends. BTW, release your records, yet?
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats agree that there "should be a redeployment starting sooner rather than later," and downplayed the difference between the Levin and Kerry amendments. "Even though we have at least two positions, I think if you look at them closely, they are both basically the same: that there should be redeployment of troops. It's a question of when," the Nevada Democrat said.
Yes, indeed, all of you are finally on message: Defeat.
Mr. Levin and Mr. Reed insisted yesterday that their amendment is not "cutting and running," and that it sets no pace or speed for combat troops to leave Iraq.
Then it is utterly unnecessary - and taking the decision out of the hands of the commanders on the ground, putting it in the hands of political hacks, is cutting and running.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, disagreed. "I don't support it. I strongly believe it's not when we leave, it's how we leave," he said.
Victorious. No more Dhimmidonk military adventures cut short because they didn't have the stomach for it. The "when" is easy - when victory is achieved and Iraq is secure. The lessons learned the hard way in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. - y'know, those places where we've had troops for 50+ years.
Either amendment would need 51 votes to become attached to the defense authorization bill. It is unlikely that enough Republicans will join the about 40 Democrats expected to vote for the Levin amendment. Fewer Democrats are expected to back the Kerry amendment because it fixes a date for complete withdrawal from Iraq.
This is pure kryptonite - America does NOT back either of these idiot ideas - the RINOs had better keep that in mind - to cover for lacking any innate sense or courage.
National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters on Air Force One yesterday that Iraqis are eager to assume responsibility for their nation's security. "Their concern is that we will move, draw down our forces too quickly, before they're ready," he said.
Why, that's rational!
The Senate last year passed a resolution declaring that 2006 would be a year of "significant transition" in Iraq.
Yep. That's what the Senate is for. Pointless uninformed posturing.
Last week, House lawmakers voted 256-153 to reject a timetable for troop withdrawal and approved a nonbinding resolution that affirms the Bush administration's Iraq policy. The 10 hours of House debate and expected five hours of Senate debate are the most significant discussion of Iraq policy since the war began in March 2003. More than 2,500 troops have been killed in the war.
Um, this has been shot down in the House, already, General Levin. Been there and done that. Just last week. Makes you wonder doesn't it? About the motives, I mean. This couldn't be another purely political Dhimmidonk stunt, could it? These Dhimmidonk "statesmen" are above that, right? I love Levin's pretentious little image thing, with the glasses down on his nose and his comb-over. I presume it's meant to convey serious scholarship and wisdom. Something like that. Funny, though, he doesn't seem to recall last week very clearly. I guess it's either Alzheimer's or politics. Probably both.
The Senate yesterday voted 79-19 to pass a nonbinding amendment saying Iraq should not grant amnesty to terrorists who attack, kill or wound U.S. troops, responding to a newspaper report that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was considering limited pardons for militants who lay down arms. Senators also voted 64-34 to approve a measure saying Congress recognizes Iraq as a sovereign nation.
Yep. That's what the Senate is for, alrighty. Nonbinding? Of course. Pointless? You said it. Irrelevant? Hey, it's the Senate, dood!
I've decided that losing your sense of shame leads directly to insanity and then to the Dhimmidonk Party, though some might suggest they are the same thing. You don't pass "Go", but you'll collect alot more than $200 - if you're reliably partisan.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Talk of Pelosi as Speaker Delights Both Parties
2006-05-30
(NYT) WASHINGTON, May 29 — Hoping to win a Congressional majority in November, some optimistic Democratic lawmakers have taken to referring to Representative Nancy Pelosi as "speaker," as in speaker of the House. So have some optimistic Republicans. "She ought to be a big component of the fall campaign," said Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and lobbyist. "There are some Democrats who make really good bad guys."

Ms. Pelosi, the California Democrat and House minority leader, lends herself to easy caricature by Republicans. She is an unapologetic liberal, with a voting record to match (the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, said she was neither a "New Democrat" nor an "Old Democrat" but a "prehistoric Democrat"). She is wealthy (married to an investment banker, she has assets listed at more than $16 million). She represents San Francisco, which Republicans love to invoke as a hotbed of counterculture decadence and extremism.

"Is America ready for Nancy Pelosi's Contract With San Francisco?" asked Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida, posing a question that, one imagines, could form the basis of many Republican advertisements this fall.

Link


Home Front: Politix
The Politics of 'And'
2006-05-06
Hat tip Orrin Judd.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman delivered remarks at the 2006 Republican National Committee State Chairman’s Meeting.

So let’s accept the ‘and’ premise:

We are a nation of immigrants.

And we are a nation of laws.

And together, we must practice the politics of ‘and,’ forging a new way, a solution that recognizes these two essential concepts.

Because if we give up on either one …

If we close ourselves off to the very lifeblood that gives our nation strength and vitality …

Or if we say ‘anything goes’, to heck with our laws and system of justice …

Then we have given up on America.

Mr. Mehlman's speech is too long to post here: go take a look. I provide the key teaser above. The man has me cheering and clapping by pushing the politics of 'and'. Immigration is not an either/or problem, it's an 'and' problem. We can have security AND immigration, respect for the law AND humane behavior. He gets it, and I wish I'd written this speech.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Fake, but Accurate: How MSM Helped Elect Bush
2006-03-01
President Bush, for the first time, is hailing the rise of the alternative media and the decline of the mainstream media, which he now says “conspired” to harm him with forged documents. “I find it interesting that the old way of gathering the news is slowly but surely losing market share,” Bush said in an exclusive interview for the new book “Strategery.” “It’s interesting to watch these media conglomerates try to deal with the realities of a new kind of world.”
The only problem with that is that us new media depend on the old media to gather the actual raw news. I say good riddance to the pseudonews organs, but there are also real reporters out there, and they should be considered a precious resource.
For example, journalist Dan Rather was forced out of his anchor chair at CBS News after bloggers revealed he had used forged documents to criticize Bush’s military record in September 2004. The forgeries, which Bush now calls a conspiracy, ended up helping his re-election campaign, he acknowledged in the Oval Office interview.
Bush is merely being accurate in his terminology. It's hard to accidentally forge documents. You can misinterpret, you can be wrong in your analysis, but when it comes to actually typing up what you want to report you're conspiring. By the way, whatever happened to Lucy Ramirez? I was so looking forward to hearing from her.
“It looks like somebody conspired to float false documents,” he said. “And I was amazed about it.
"I couldn't believe they'd be that stoopid. Normally, when somebody's hatching that sort of a plot they preserve some sort of plausible deniability. Rather really led with his chin!"
"I just couldn’t believe that would be happening [and] then it would become the basis of a fairly substantial series of news stories.”
"I said, 'Rove, you're a friggin' genius!' Imagine my surprise when he told me they'd done it themselves, without his help!"
He added: “Then there was a backlash to it. I mean, a lot of people were angry that this could have happened. A lot of Americans are fair people and they viewed this as patently unfair. So in a funny way, I guess it inured to our benefit, when it was all said and done.”
"So all I have to say is, 'Thanks, Dan. You really hosed that one, didn't you?' Oh, and a big 'Thanks!' to Mary Mapes, too. Dan couldn't have done it without her help."
The episode, known as “Memogate,” inoculated Bush against further scrutiny of his National Guard record for the duration of the presidential campaign. “It also, frankly, gave us an opportunity, frequently, when things came out in the media that we didn’t believe or didn’t like, to say, ‘It’s another CBS story,’ ” said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was the president’s campaign manager. “I mean, it gave us a serious response to bad news.”
"Talk about political manna from heaven! We were rollin' in it!"
Memogate was initially expected to harm the president, but it ended up backfiring spectacularly on the press. “The guy that it hurt most was Dan Rather and the executives at CBS,” said White House strategist Karl Rove in an interview for “Strategery.”
"Nurse! Bring the oxygen tank! Karl's talking about Rather, and he's lost his breath laughing again!"
“It further disgraced a network which is third in ratings and, if you look at the demographics of their consumers, it’s like 70 percent Democrat.” Rove said Rather’s eagerness to broadcast obviously forged documents proves he is “no serious reporter.” As for Rather’s insistence, to this day, that the documents are real, Rove said: “That’s really bias.”
"Or maybe wishful thinking. Nobody takes him seriously anymore since he move to Lalaland."
Memogate has helped accelerate the decline of the mainstream media, generally defined as CBS, NBC,ABC, The New York Times and other establishment news outlets. There has been a corresponding rise in popularity of the alternative media, which includes free daily newspapers, the Fox News Channel, talk radio, the Drudge Report Web site and a host of Web logs, or blogs.
Keep in mind that with the partial exception of Fox News, all of those sources use raw news provided by AP, AFP, Rooters, and UPI. Even when we're mining the foreign press, much of what we bring back we could have taken from the day's wire service story. Asharq al-Aswat, KUNA, Beirut Daily Star, and Pak Daily Times actually carry news before it hits the wires, but if we didn't mine them most of what we carry would eventually end up there, if a bit garbled.
“I think what’s healthy is that there’s no monopoly on the news,” Bush said. “There’s competition. There’s competition for the attention of, you know, 290 million people, or whatever it is. And the amazing thing about this world we live in is that there’s a kind of free-flowing, kind of bulletin board of ideas and thoughts out there in the ether space, sometimes landing on somebody’s desk and sometimes not, but always available. It’s a very interesting period.” Having long been pilloried by the mainstream media, Bush now finds the rise of the alternative media nothing less than revolutionary. “It’s the beginning of the 21st century; it also happens to be the beginning of — or near the beginning of — a revolution in newsgathering and dissemination,” he said. “Not
in newsmaking — that tends to be pretty consistent.”
Translating the hodge-podge of press releases that are the raw material of most news becomes the hard part. Even as a hardworking member of the alternative media, I don't have that much patience. I could maybe handle the part about hanging around the bar in a hotel in Baghdad drinking gin and tonic, and maybe the part about occasionally riding around with the infantry and taking notes, but not the press releases."
Rove considers Memogate a watershed in the rise of the alternative media.
"That was where an entire industry shot itself in the foot and then ignored the bleeding. It was wonderful!"
“The whole incident in the fall of 2004 showed, really, the power of the blogosphere,” he said in his West Wing office.
Charles Johnson, take a bow!
“Because in essence, you had now an army of self-pointed experts looking over the shoulder of the mainstream media and bringing to bear enormously sophisticated skills.” Still, Rove cautioned that the Internet’s political potential has a darker side. “There is so much ugliness and viciousness and fundamental untruths that the blogosphere transmits,” he lamented. “It also is a vehicle for ugly rumors, for scurrilous personal attacks, an avenue for the creation of urban legends which are deeply corrosive of the political system and of people’s faith in it.”
Simple solution: if they don't source their stuff, you can ignore them. There's no reason bloggers should be held to a lower standard than the mainstream press. A fair bloc of it holds to a rather higher standard, and hopefully will continue to do so. Given time, the sourced version — like Rantburg, but also like LGF, Roger Simon, Donald Sensing, Belmont Club, Bill Quick, Kathy Kinsley, Glenn Reynolds, and hundreds of others, will stand in contrast to the fairy tale venom sites. Drudge takes a lot of heat for his occasional inaccuracies, but his stuff looks pretty good when compared to some of the corkers that have appeared in the MSM, quite aside from the obviously egregious Rathergate affair.
Rove said Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, were gunning for the president and trying to help his challenger, Sen. John Kerry, by broadcasting the forged documents in the heat of the presidential campaign. “From her body language and his body language, their enthusiasm for this story was in large measure fed by the belief that they were playing a constructive and perhaps determinative role in the presidential campaign,” Rove said of Mapes and Rather. “They made a decision in this instance — I think quite prematurely and quite unfairly — to pursue a story that attacked the president. And I thought it was, to me, one of the most incredible examples of how fundamentally unfair it was.”
"Then it blew up in their faces. It wasn't one of those little blowups that you can explain away, a few bits of egg on your face but your dignity still intact. This was the big blowup, where the entire nation was watching while a handful of bloggers pulled their pants down and shoved them over in the schoolyard. Not only did they get dirt rubbed in their faced, but the bloggers made 'em cry. Kinda makes you just smack your lips and say "Yes! There is a God! And one of his commandments is not to bear false witness! And he does have a sense of humor!'
Rove expressed astonishment that CBS ignored the warnings of document experts hired by the network to authenticate the National Guard memos. “It goes back to the failure of the mainstream media, in this instance, to honor their own experts,” he said. Rove is not the only senior Bush adviser who considers the mainstream media biased against the conservative president. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was outraged that the TV networks refused to declare Bush the winner on Election Night, even after all the votes were counted in the pivotal state of Ohio and it became obvious Kerry could not win. “Some of the talking heads,” Card said, “were rooting for a crisis in Ohio. It wasn’t just that they were afraid to admit we had won.” Card became particularly incensed when Bush’s Ohio lead reached 120,000 votes, which was mathematically insurmountable. “Nobody wanted to call it so that we had won,” he said. “It was like,
c’mon,are they just afraid to say it?”
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More