December 15, 2007
Obama Drug use: Lessons from Turd Blossom
The press timorously asked, "George, what about your drug use?"
George replied, "I'm not going there." "It's rule one of gotcha politics that each answer to a query such as "What about your drug use?" only results in 'gotcha scenarios' and more questions. Therefore, I am not going there."
He did not go there and the media quit, no digging, no witnesses, no nada because George had learned from Karl that if you give the (lazy, frightened, sheep like) press zip, zippo, nada by way of easy lines and gossip you quash the topic.
Everybody knows part one of Rove's public relations manipulation schemes...rank propaganda.
If a meeting ends with Bush and company in agreement on legislation to turn back a decade of EPA constraints thus directly leading to increased chemical fouling of the atmosphere, I see them giggling and turning to Rove and asking,"Karl, what should we call this bill?"
He replies. "The Clean Skies Initiative" amidst high fives and laughter.
A voice is heard saying, "God damn, Karl can make almost anything seem sweet."
To which Dubya guffaws, "Why do you think we call him Turd Blossom."
But, part two of Rovian deceit par exellence is what Bush employed vis a vis his drug use.
The rule is, if, under ordinary circumstances, discussing a certain subject can not result in positive results then simply state that you will not discuss that subject. You might note that the pre Rove method was to talk around the subject or change the subject or get partially gothcha-d.
Absent a gutsy press, the subject will die.
Not going after Bush's drug history by the press or Kerry was victory numero uno for Rove's in-your-face deceit politics.
It emboldened the methodology which became Saddam caused 911, Saddam has nukes and "we torture but we don't call it torture."
Barack need only say, "I was a teenager. I dabbled. It's been discussed. Subject closed."
And we should pray that he doesn't thusly become infected with the viral dishonesty of Dubya and Turd Blossom.
George replied, "I'm not going there." "It's rule one of gotcha politics that each answer to a query such as "What about your drug use?" only results in 'gotcha scenarios' and more questions. Therefore, I am not going there."
He did not go there and the media quit, no digging, no witnesses, no nada because George had learned from Karl that if you give the (lazy, frightened, sheep like) press zip, zippo, nada by way of easy lines and gossip you quash the topic.
Everybody knows part one of Rove's public relations manipulation schemes...rank propaganda.
If a meeting ends with Bush and company in agreement on legislation to turn back a decade of EPA constraints thus directly leading to increased chemical fouling of the atmosphere, I see them giggling and turning to Rove and asking,"Karl, what should we call this bill?"
He replies. "The Clean Skies Initiative" amidst high fives and laughter.
A voice is heard saying, "God damn, Karl can make almost anything seem sweet."
To which Dubya guffaws, "Why do you think we call him Turd Blossom."
But, part two of Rovian deceit par exellence is what Bush employed vis a vis his drug use.
The rule is, if, under ordinary circumstances, discussing a certain subject can not result in positive results then simply state that you will not discuss that subject. You might note that the pre Rove method was to talk around the subject or change the subject or get partially gothcha-d.
Absent a gutsy press, the subject will die.
Not going after Bush's drug history by the press or Kerry was victory numero uno for Rove's in-your-face deceit politics.
It emboldened the methodology which became Saddam caused 911, Saddam has nukes and "we torture but we don't call it torture."
Barack need only say, "I was a teenager. I dabbled. It's been discussed. Subject closed."
And we should pray that he doesn't thusly become infected with the viral dishonesty of Dubya and Turd Blossom.
Labels: Clinton, drugs, Obama, Shaheen, Turd Blossom
Comments:
<< Home
A good press could use the Letterman method. Mention exactly once a day that Oprah has not called back. Thus a non-story becomes the biggest story.
Good method.
What is it called when the moderator asks, "When did you stop beating your wife?" What is the name of this technique?
What is it called when the moderator asks, "When did you stop beating your wife?" What is the name of this technique?
One thing it's called is dishonest. You are couching an accusation within a question in such a way that both yes and no answers are self-incriminating. It's kind of a catch-22 for the target.
Now, if the accusation happens to be true? is that still dishonest? Then again, the fact that the reporter thinks it's true, doesn't make it true. So, I guess it's just a rhetorically camouflaged accusation, which is probably unfair.
I don't think the Letterman method is unfair at all, unless, of course, he never really did invite her or give her a reasonable chance to respond. Joe McCarthy kept saying, I have here a list of communists in the state department, when it was really his grocery list.
Now, if the accusation happens to be true? is that still dishonest? Then again, the fact that the reporter thinks it's true, doesn't make it true. So, I guess it's just a rhetorically camouflaged accusation, which is probably unfair.
I don't think the Letterman method is unfair at all, unless, of course, he never really did invite her or give her a reasonable chance to respond. Joe McCarthy kept saying, I have here a list of communists in the state department, when it was really his grocery list.
I thought you might know the name of the technique I describer. That's all...not pejorative in any way good sir.
No offense taken! I was just thinking out loud. Exploring the issue. I don't know a formal name for it, but it does seem like there should be one.
Post a Comment
<< Home
