Greg Sargent (and others) are playing us rubes!

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013

What marks we liberals be: Following Kevin Drum, we’ll cite Greg Sargent’s post concerning the GOP’s possible overreach in pursuit of the current “scandals.”

Liberals are making this happy-talk argument all over the web. What fools we liberals be:
SARGENT (5/21/13): A few of us on the left have been arguing that the current scandal-mania gripping the GOP risks bringing about a rerun of 1998, when the frenzy amid the Monica Lewinsky revelations led the GOP to overreach, resulting in backlash.

Now we have a longtime respected nonpartisan observer, Charlie Cook, arguing that this possibility is very real. Cook’s piece, entitled “Republicans’ hatred of Obama blinds them to public disinterest in scandals,” notes that the scandals have not moved the needle at all on Obama’s approval rating, just as happened in 1998.
What fools we liberals be!

People like Sargent keep telling us rubes that things worked out fine in 1998. When people like Sargent say things like that, you need to check your history.

Things very much did not work out well in 1998. Democrats gained a few seats in the House. But then, these things also happened:

President Clinton got impeached. His ability to drive any kind of agenda came to a screeching halt.

And not only that:

Most significantly, the mainstream press corps unleashed a bloody war against Candidate Gore, Clinton’s anointed successor. That twenty-month war sent George Bush to the White House.

People like Sargent will not tell you that. But he knows that’s what occurred. He knows that 1998 led to disasters all over the world.

The press backlash to Clinton’s impeachment sent George Bush to the White House. Please don’t tell us that Brother Sargent doesn’t know this is true.

When careerists like Sargent tell pretty tales, they are conning us rubes. If we the rubes will agree with their tale, this means that they the leaders don’t have to fight the powerful inside players who are pushing the current wave of scandals.

The careerists get to sit the scandals out, just exactly as they did when the targets were Clinton, then Gore.

That new poll by the Washington Post is an indictment of weak career players like Sargent. Disgracefully, 60 percent of independents said they think the Obama administration “is trying to cover up the facts” concerning Benghazi. Only 28 percent of independents said they think the administration “is honestly trying to disclose what it knows.”

Those numbers are astounding. Click here and weep.

Those numbers are a tribute to the refusal of people like Maddow, Hayes and Lawrence to stand and fight. When one side fights and the other side runs, voters produce crazy numbers. And yes, those numbers may point the way to very bad future outcomes.

Obama’s approval is still 51 percent! On that basis, we city mice continue to frolic and play. We tell ourselves that we’ve done quite well in the current scandal wars.

We haven’t done well at all! Most specifically, our leaders have disgraced themselves since last September with respect to Benghazi. The children refuse to fight.

Can we talk? In the end, the scandal year of 1998 was a disaster for the world. The aftermath of that horrible year sent George Bush to the White House.

Career liberals have always refused to tell you. This week, you’re again getting played.

What could possibly go wrong this time: The current wave of pseudo-scandals is ginning up Fox voters. This could produce a disaster in next year's off-year elections.

Do you think Benghazi couldn't hurt a future Candidate Clinton? Rubes, please think again.

The children ran and hid for two years while Power invented tales about Gore. They've done the same thing for the past nine months as tales were invented about Susan Rice.

Your corporate-paid leaders won't stand up to Power. Dearest darlings! It just isn't done!


  1. Their paid not to.

  2. This is true, but the critical difference is: no Monica. Clinton's foolishness with said justified (with two years of snearing and dumb jokes from a media otherwise embarrassed by Whitewater and the like) the War On Gore. What you have here is Whitewater with no Monica, plus the memory of W's horrible Presidency, so Sargent may be correct on balance.

  3. Ha ha you ignorantameous liberals you're going down !!!!!

  4. Yes, defending the U.S. government's dissembling is "standing up to power." Hahahahaha! Good one, Bob!

  5. And you can pretty much count on the above fellow being a "ginned up Fox Veiwer," not much you are going to say is going to change things. But these numbers do suggest normal people see through Fox, and at some point will get annoyed.

    1. Rationalize it any way you like. When these things go unchallenged it has a bad effect.

    2. Please, keep "challenging". It's instructive to note the only reason there have not been calls for a special prosecutor is that Ken Starr so utterly debased the very concept. Again, you've got everything you need for traditional Republican Politics but the smoking "inturn." Tell me how it ends.....

    3. The question, Greg, is not what's going to happen on the right, "for traditional Republican Politics," or for a "ginned up FOX Viewer."

      It's what happens in the so-called center.

      The lack of an intern isn't going to prevent a hit to electoral support for Dems (for those who care whether Dems win elections against Republicans).

      The GOP money clearly believes this, hence their persistence, and the persistence of the press to remain "undecided" on the merits on the issue.

    4. Greg writes:

      >>>>>It's instructive to note the only reason there have not been calls for a special prosecutor is that Ken Starr so utterly debased the very concept.<<<<<

      Greg has just beamed in from a mirror universe.

    5. I thought our dim friend Mike was going to link to someone calling for a special prosacutor, but I guess the guy doesn't know much recent political history.
      Thing is, Anom, the Rebublican money really has nowhere to go except scandal town. Their policies work against the interests of most voters. Clinton was impeached with sky high approval numbers. They "won" in 2000 by, with the help of the embittered press, flogging Monica. They may not remember it that way, but they are none too. Bright. So we will see what happens. I've been wrong before, but not often.

    6. Oh sorry Greg, I didn't realize left clicking was a challenge for you. I'll paste here what you were expecting to materialize before your very eyes without your exerting yourself:

      Bill Keller

      [about whom Wikipedia says he is "son of former chairman and chief executive of the Chevron Corporation, George M. Keller... [and] is a writer for The New York Times, of which Keller was the executive editor from July 2003 until September 2011.]

      May 21, 2013, 2:37 pm 284 Comments

      Bring Back Ken Starr

      ...The president should announce that he has told the Justice Department to appoint an independent investigator with bulldog instincts and bipartisan credibility. The list of candidates could start with Kenneth Starr, who chased down the scandals, real and imagined, of the Clinton presidency....<<<<<

    7. Howard Fineman has played the SP card too! Love the Starr touch though, bring on the crazy!

    8. Sadly, the comments box on "Bring Back Ken Start" is running about 95 per cent negative. Best comment: "Bring back Howell Raines too."

  6. Hi just wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren't loading properly. I'm not
    sure why but I think its a linking issue. I've tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same results.

    Also visit my web site

  7. The point of proximity is definitely crucial(which you'd pointed out).

    Feel free to visit my webpage: how to attract women mentally

  8. "That twenty-month war sent George Bush to the White House."
    That and a partisan hack Supreme Court.

    "refusal of people like Maddow, Hayes and Lawrence to stand and fight."
    What, exactly, would that "standing and fighting" look like? They're debunking scandal mongering nonsense nightly, as far as I can tell.

    1. Let me answer my own question, partly. For me, those talkers could cut the time they spend on acknowledging scandals, and devote it to covering the important issues as they otherwise would.

  9. "Disgracefully, 60 percent of independents said they think the Obama administration “is trying to cover up the facts” concerning Benghazi."

    What's disgraceful? They are trying to cover up the facts. They did create a false narrative so that no terrorism could occur on their watch right during the election. Everything is true. That's why the Republicans are so pissed. They feel like they were robbed of an election victory because the wool was pull over the public's eyes.

    The only issue is that the Republicans have such morality after lying the country into war and would have done the exact same thing in the same situation.

    1. "They did create a false narrative so that no terrorism could occur on their watch right during the election."

      That is nonsense in crystal form.

      You ought to have some powerfully good citations of this "narrative" from your imagination!

      There's no sane parsing of, for example, Susan Rice's parroting of official intelligence, that has the administration asserting that "no terrorism could occur on their watch." Where does such pure crap come from? Do tell.

      Or maybe you can just tell us who's giving you your delusions? Did Rush say so?

      Or maybe you're that happy nut who imagines his own ability to discern between-the-lines that secret hidden message, however contradicted it may be by the obviously false front of any potential "quoted statements"???

    2. You missed the best bit:

      "Everything is true."

      Just awesome.

    3. Please. Next you will be telling us that Obama tries to save all the little children in Afghanistan but all those enemy combatants (any males in the vicinity according to Obama) just don't allow it. Put down the Kool-Aid Obamafiles. He's just a liberal Republican and does what all Republicans do. He lies..

  10. A real Left would point out that we never should have been in Libya in the first place, and that it was all a resource (oil and water) grab.

    The real scandal is that it was Obama who gave support to Salafists to take over an non-aligned country, and that the blowback was immediate.

  11. Oh, yet another theory on why Gore lost OTHER than that he was a poor candidate who picked a Cheney-ite VP candidate, failed to capitalize on New Hampshire's dislike for Bush (as evidenced by McCain's primary win there), and was too proud to use the greatest resource available to him - The Big Dog himself.

  12. What a information of un-ambiguity and preserveness
    of valuable know-how regarding unexpected emotions.

    my web page; hotel ibiza oakland ca

  13. You ought to take part in a contest for one of the highest
    quality websites on the net. I most certainly will recommend this site!

    Feel free to surf to my page; Maxman Reviews