It has always amazed me that pundits actually come up with salvo after salvo against the opposition, little of which ever has anything to do with what ends up being the deciding factor in elections.

Some millions of Americans get most (or all) of their current events news from television infotainment shows... but, lucky for us, there are magazines and books written by thoughtful people without whose thoughtfulness, if not their courage, we would all be utterly lost.

Source:
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE 4.22.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Wehner

In his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday E.J. Dionne, Jr. said this:
'Hillary Clinton is running as the tough fighter, and if Obama doesn’t show Democrats that he can be a tough fighter against the Republican attack machine, so-called, but in fact it is, then, you know, Democrats are going to pull back from him.'
This has been a theme of Dionne’s for years now. I’d urge readers to do a simple Google search with the words “E. J. Dionne” and “Republican attack machine” or “right-wing attack machine” and see the treasure trove you’ll stumble across. Dionne believes the “Republican attack machine” is brutal, efficient, and unique. Republicans play dirty, according to this narrative; Democrats do not. “Democratic attack machine,” as best as I can tell, does not exist in the Dionne lexicon. It should.

The term “Democratic attack machine” would have applied, for example, when Senator Edward Kennedy charged that the war in Iraq was a “political plot” hatched in Texas and when Kennedy went to the Senate floor and said about President Bush, “week after week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.” It would have applied to the attacks Senator Kennedy leveled at Robert Bork during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

“Democratic attack machine” would have also applied when Howard Dean hinted that President Bush knew in advance about the attacks on September 11. It would have applied when Al Gore charged that Bush has brought “deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon” — and when Gore called Bush a “moral coward” and said his administration was allied with “digital brownshirts.” It would have applied when Tom Harkin called Vice President Cheney a “coward” and Max Cleland accused the president and others of “flat-out lying.” And it would have applied when the NAACP aired a commercial accusing Bush of killing “all over again” James Byrd, an African American who had been murdered by racists.

It would have applied when MoveOn.org ran ads accusing General David Petraeus of “betraying” his nation. And it would have applied many times to the Reverend Jesse Jackson — for example, when Jackson claimed the Christian Coalition was a strong force in the slaveholding south, when he equated American conservatism with South African apartheid and Nazism, when he likened conservative Supreme Court justices to arsonists of the Ku Klux Klan, and when he accused Ward Connerly of being a “house slave” and a “puppet of the white man.”

The term “Democratic attack machine” would have fit perfectly when the Clinton team attempted to destroy, on almost a daily basis, the reputation of Kenneth Starr and his team of prosecutors. It would also have applied when they attempted to destroy the reputations of Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky.

Come to think of it, Dionne has been critical of the Clinton tactics — but only in the last few months, when they have been used against his favored Democratic candidate for president, the very liberal Barack Obama. After years of accusing Clinton critics of being “Clinton haters,” it looks like Dionne is now able to muster some antipathy for his once-favorite political couple. In January Dionne wrote, “The Clintons’ assault on Obama is so depressing.” But where was E. J.’s anger and depression when in the 1990s the Clinton’s Democratic attack machine assaulted, in a far more ruthless fashion, their GOP critics and various women whom they viewed as a threat to their political power? Some moderately liberal voices, like Stuart Taylor of National Journal, demonstrated admirable independence at the time. But Taylor and the late Michael Kelly were almost alone in their examples of consistency and fair-mindedness.

The truth is that both parties have admirable and dishonorable political strategists; neither political party is the exclusive home of knaves or the virtuous. To pretend that the only political “attack machine” belongs to the GOP is wrong and can’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny. I suspect that E. J. Dionne, a bright and delightful man, would concede as much in his more reflective moments. Perhaps someday soon we’ll see him concede as much in his public comments as well."

— Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Let me get this straight--the Clinton/Democrat "attack machine" destroyed the "reputation" of Monica Lewinsky???? Just exactly how did they do that? By putting her on the stand to show what a dumb bimbo she was? I mean, technically you could say Bill "soiled" her reputation, but come on.

And Ken Starr should be dis-barred and publicly horsewhipped. He wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars to uncover a blow job. And nothing--I mean NOTHING the Clintons ever did or said was as disgusting or as inexcusable as what Ken Starr did to Susan MacDougal.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
Let me get this straight--the Clinton/Democrat "attack machine" destroyed the "reputation" of Monica Lewinsky???? Just exactly how did they do that? By putting her on the stand to show what a dumb bimbo she was? I mean, technically you could say Bill "soiled" her reputation, but come on.

And Ken Starr should be dis-barred and publicly horsewhipped. He wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars to uncover a blow job. And nothing--I mean NOTHING the Clintons ever did or said was as disgusting or as inexcusable as what Ken Starr did to Susan MacDougal.

"I did not have sex with THAT woman..."

If the former President had not committed and suborned perjury, then he would not have been impeached by his peers, and we would not have had to spend millions to get him to admit the obvious.

By the way.... it was not "a" oral sex.... it was 21 separate instances, in his place of work, with a subordinate, several times while his wife was in the family residence. To characterize the young lady with whom he had sex under those conditions as a "dumb bimbo" is unchivalrous and degrading to gentlemen.

I would say that his conduct is exceedingly "disgusting".

As for the Denocrat "attack machine", it is as alive and well as it has ever been... and we;ll be seeing more and more of it between now and November.

So what is new?!

You changed the subject, Michael. I questioned how the "Democrat attack machine" ruined Monica's reputation. You seem to think that machine is in Bill Clinton's pants. Bill Clinton is a lying, adulterous piece of garbage--but whether it was one time or 500, Ms. Lewinsky willingly had sex with a married man. That pretty well puts an end to her "right" to be treated like a lady. She's an ignorant slut, a dumb bimbo who cashed in on having sex with a famous man by writing a book about it, which actually moves her down a notch from "bimbo" to "whore."

The Democrats have an attack machine alright--they modeled it after the one Karl Rove built for the Republicans. Trouble is, the Dems don't have all the kinks worked out yet, so their machine doesn't run as well as the Republican one. The Dems have been testing it on Hillary and Obama lately, and hope to have it primed and ready to run this fall.

No use Michael, Pete will defend Clinton all day long.


(and then be quick to point out he didn't vote for him )

Please point out the sentence that "defends Clinton"!!!??? Here is a direct quote: "Bill Clinton is a lying, adulterous piece of garbage.."

Does that sound like I'm defending him??

Keep squawking, chickenhawk.

Hate to tell you this PA, but Pete doesn't defend him. I think it got lost in translation from the Monica bashing. I am not defending either one (not that any here would expect me to).

It was YOU who "changed the subject"... which is fine, if it must be done.

Any opportunity to turn Bill Clinton's outrageous immorality into an electoral asset is, I have found, usually taken.

In fact, if voters aren't careful, America may be infested by 4-8 more years of him and his wife... and THEIR "Democrat Attack Machine" which, mostly, attacks other Democrats.

For anyone to imagine, much less to write in public, that the Democrats model their attack machinery on Karl Rove and the GOPs' is clearly either under the age of 21 or is gratuitously forgetful of American political history.

There are a lot of good reasons for disliking Karl Rove, or even the GOP, but creating partisan political attack machines ain't one of them that is justifiable based on facts.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
You changed the subject, Michael. I questioned how the "Democrat attack machine" ruined Monica's reputation. You seem to think that machine is in Bill Clinton's pants. Bill Clinton is a lying, adulterous piece of garbage--but whether it was one time or 500, Ms. Lewinsky willingly had sex with a married man. That pretty well puts an end to her "right" to be treated like a lady. She's an ignorant slut, a dumb bimbo who cashed in on having sex with a famous man by writing a book about it, which actually moves her down a notch from "bimbo" to "whore."

The Democrats have an attack machine alright--they modeled it after the one Karl Rove built for the Republicans. Trouble is, the Dems don't have all the kinks worked out yet, so their machine doesn't run as well as the Republican one. The Dems have been testing it on Hillary and Obama lately, and hope to have it primed and ready to run this fall.

quote:

It was YOU who "changed the subject"... which is fine, if it must be done.

Umm, Michael--I asked you a direct question that was related to a direct quote in the article YOU posted. And you STILL have not answered the question. How did the "Democrat attack machine" as described "ruin the reputation" of Monica Lewinsky? What specifically did they do and what purpose would it serve?

quote:

Any opportunity to turn Bill Clinton's outrageous immorality into an electoral asset is, I have found, usually taken.

Any opportunity to re-hash the Clinton fiasco for political gain is usually taken as well.
Interesting that you harp on Clinton's outrageous immorality while giving the "young lady" a pass for her participation.

quote:

For anyone to imagine, much less to write in public, that the Democrats model their attack machinery on Karl Rove and the GOPs' is clearly either under the age of 21 or is gratuitously forgetful of American political history.

For anyone to write in the condescending manner as shown above they must be terribly self-righteous, woefully uninformed, over 70 or missing the point--perhaps all those things combined. The Democrats learned a lot from Karl Rove--and while they had an existing attack machine before he came along, the Dems have fine-tuned theirs to match his out of political necessity.

quote:

There are a lot of good reasons for disliking Karl Rove, or even the GOP, but creating partisan political attack machines ain't one of them that is justifiable based on facts.

I guess technically it was Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch who "created it", while Rove simply tailored the message and made use of the machine that others built. Thanks for separating the wheat from the chaff, Michael.

The premise and conclusion is faulty... at NO time in our history has there not been a partisan "attack machine". I posted the article that started this thread simply because words of that kind aren't published nearly as often as screeds describing the GOPs' many trangressions.

Karl Rove, and James Carville, (being two of uncountable exemplars) are merely among the more recent practitioners of the black art of character assassination in the name of party loyalty.

Michael, you are correct, these types of "attack machines" have been going on since the 2nd or 3rd election in our political history. Look at how Jefferson was attacked for leaving Virginia to the British while he was Governor (being a coward), nevermind that he was directed to do so by the military stationed there (can't remember who the general was that told him it might be in his and the state's best interest to run, least the British hang him). Jefferson was attacked on this point as well as fathering a slave baby (or several, which turned out to be true). Look at how the newspapers at that time printed bold faced lies about the candidates they didn't support. There were no truths to many of these items they printed, not even an inkling of it, yet they ran with them anyway. The attack machines have been going on for over 200 years in this country when it comes to political power.

Kevin... perhaps we would agree that the even more amazing thing is that that sort of thing actually works!

I guess people believe what they want to believe, even if false... when sometimes the truth is far worse than that.

This may be what keeps me interested in American politics... trying to sort out truth from lies, and then doing something about it... not that is possible to.

Usually, most people I come across have zero interest in anything beyond perpetuating self-serving emotionally comforting hideous lies.

quote:

Usually, most people I come across have zero interest in anything beyond perpetuating self-serving emotionally comforting hideous lies.

This happens to the best of us on both sides of the fence more often than getting at the truth. Why take the time to research the story when you can just live with the fact that Obama is Muslim, right?