Politico's baseless, charged rhetoric fueling Republican attacks on Democrats
Two recent articles in The Politico have become the basis for Republican attacks against Democrats: a February 5 piece by chief political correspondent Mike Allen, in which he baselessly claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "has a bubble around him," and a February 14 piece [posted to its website February 15] by Politico congressional bureau chief John Bresnahan that used the charged label "slow-bleed" to characterize the Democrats' strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq.
Allen reported that Obama held a February 2 reception for members of the Democratic National Committee to which the press was not admitted, and that Obama refused to answer Allen's questions following the reception. Citing no other evidence, Allen claimed that Obama "already has a bubble around him that is tighter than the one that surrounded Texas Gov. George W. Bush" during the 2000 campaign. Obama has since made several press appearances, and he gave an interview to Roger Simon, The Politico's chief political columnist.
On February 9, the Republican National Committee issued a news release titled "The Dem Dodger," which alleged: "Obama Bubble Tightens As Candidate Dodges First Primary Forum." The RNC's sole source for alleging Obama's "bubble" was Allen's February 5 article.
In his February 14 article, Bresnahan wrote:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.
Bresnahan did not attribute the term "slow-bleed" to anyone and did not use quotation marks, suggesting that it was his own formulation.
On the same day, however, the RNC issued a letter from chairman Mike Duncan that cited Bresnahan's article in falsely claiming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) call the Democrats' strategy "their 'slow-bleed' plan":
The Democrat [sic] strategy on Iraq is finally clear.
We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat [sic] Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.
They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.
'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?
'Slow-bleed' cannot become law. Luckily, we have an opportunity to stop it. The Murtha plan depended on stealth. Now, however, the press has broken the story. And now we can act.
Bresnahan's article was the only source cited for the RNC's claims, though Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, was apparently the first to use the "slow-bleed" construction to characterize the reported strategy of the House Democratic leadership.
From Lizza's appearance on the February 13 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
LIZZA: And look, they're reading the same polls that we're all reading, and they realize that the American public doesn't quite -- there's not a big majority for defunding the troops, so it doesn't look like the Democratic leadership is going to go there. Instead, what you're going to have is a strategy led by Murtha, which is going to be to limit the number of troops available to President Bush by putting some restrictions on what troops will be allowed to be brought over to Iraq.
So that's the strategy that the -- that's the sort of two-part strategy: first, this non-binding resolution, and then restricting what troops Bush can use. So, it's a sort of -- a slow bleeding of our ability to do much more in Iraq.
Conservative bloggers also latched onto The Politico's "slow-bleed" characterization. For instance, a February 14 entry on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air weblog stated: "If they do what they're apparently planning to do, 'slow bleed' will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops."*
In a February 15 article, The Washington Post reported that the Democrats' plan "is to slowly choke off the war." The Post did not attribute to anyone the phrase "slowly choke."
If Barack Obama has a bubble around him, George Bush must have a ten foot fortress around him.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
First of all, Mike Allen apparently has trouble holding a steady job. In the last two years or so, he has apparently been with the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and now with Politico. Second, this is not the first time that what Allen has written in a column has surfaced as Republican talking points. In June 2006 or sometime around then, he wrote a column for Time magazine which was basically nothing but Republican talking points. Last time what he wrote had already been Republican talking points, and this time what he wrote had been used as Republican talking points. I'll say again as well, he talks like he has Tourette's syndrome, which I hope he does not have, which I said before as well. Speaking of bubbles George Bush claimed in his St. Valentine's day press conference that he had never been to Iraq, which is false. He made that infamous Thanksgiving 2003 trip there in which had the infamous fake turkey. Appropriate, since George Bush is a turkey and a fake.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I wonder what you call what's been happening to our troops for the past three plus years. A slow dismemberment? A mismanaged meatgrinder? The Dems need to respond to this quickly and counter this. I could see this metaphor being used across the entire spectrum of the Right's propaganda machine to devastating effect. Slow bleed has a certain ring to it that will play will to rightwing dimwits and assorted half-wits.
The Dems need to respond to this quickly and counter this.
Yes! And I think they not only have to be quick but brutal. The RNC has no conscious. I don't think there is a high road with them.
I heard a radio interview where a Republican congressman said Democrats want to cut funds to the troops. Shouldn't this guy get b!tch slapped until he understands Democrats want to cut funds to the War?
From what I've been reading, the Democrats are not trying to cut funding for the war, but are putting conditions on funding that keeps the war going. http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese02152007.html
They don't seem very interested in stopping this war crime. They're just blowing smoke and claiming to be doing something. But none of the proposals brings our troops home. Only Kucinich is saying stop the funding and stop the war. The rest are just arguing for a few minor restrictions but not the end of the occupation.
Troops! Home! NOW!
Exactly - and what reward do they get for their caution? They get attacked, just as if they had proposed a complete cutoff of funds!
The political "experts" that argued that a Democratic cutoff of war funds was "political suicide" didn't figure on one thing: the Republicans are going to attack whatever the Dems do.
Now we have the worst of both worlds: being attacked for "abandoning the troops" while not even doing anything effective to end the war.
Well, I did tell everyone to vote for the Greens. I told people Democrats won't go after Bush or stop the war. I was right! If the Greens woulda won, the troops would be cheering right now....because they would know that they're coming home. If the orders were given, our boys could be rolling back across the Kuwaiti border within weeks. First troops could be moving south within days of receiving the command.
Republicans and Democrats are just far too in bed with AIPAC to stop the slaughter. We need leadership that's not beholden to the racist ambitions of a foreign power or up to their armpits in war industry bribe money. We need leadership that's not willing to kill children for a few campaign dollars.
They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs.
This is the crap that the RNC sends out to their base? And people actually believe it?
unfortunately, in a word, yes. i posted something last week from ellen goodman's column. she quoted a pew research poll as saying only 23% of college educated republicans believe humans are causing global warming, vs. 75% of democrats. it's all explained in one simple phrase: "ditto, rush".
Please explain it to me. How do intelligent practical people leave their brains at the door when it comes to politics.
"Please explain it to me. How do intelligent practical people leave their brains at the door when it comes to politics."
Easy. They become Republicans.
It's simple. They're not intelligent practical people to start with. If they were, they wouldn't keep voting for their own enslavement.
Slogans. The RNC stuff is as good with slogans as that info-commercial with the “Set it and Forget it” slogan for selling cooking thingamajigs. The RNC comes up with slogans that are vapid, mean, and misleading - and often they stick. “Cut and Run” , “Flip Flopper” All media hits. And “Slow-bleed”, damn it sounds like a cool movie everyone would want to see. Do they have the secret formula behind the “Where’s the beef?” slogan – or the “It’s the economy stupid”? The RNC is wasting their talent in politics, they should branch out and start coming up with catchy slogans for colonoscopies and hemorrhoid cream. They could really excel there.
The RNC is wasting their talent in politics, they should branch out and start coming up with catchy slogans for colonoscopies and hemorrhoid cream. They could really excel there.- ajwan
I think either one of those would require a load of experience working around A**holes. Oh, perfect!
Aiding and abetting the enemy (Repugnants) is the stealthy Corporate Media Oligopoly - the S.C.U.M.* - which will manufacture and distribute talking points for the Repugnants that even the Repugnant machine had not yet invented. How do the Dems counter this latest example? Well, since so few watch CSPAN, and since that is the only opportunity most Dems can access, to refute the anuses with the microphones, we have a real problem.
A great reason to overturn the consolidation of the media, and allow a truly free press to be reborn. Work on Rep. Hinchley, get MORA (Media Ownership Reform Act) resubmitted, and at least force the S.C.U.M* to cover the inevitable veto by Bungle.
*Thanks to Easy To Refute Wingnut for this acronym: So-Called Unbiased Media
MORA! MORA! MORA!
Your rambling post looks like one of those spam emails that slip through my filter that throws random words together in a way that makes no sense. What in the hayl are you talking about Conley?
In fact, this post is pretty near on target.
If you regularly read Bob Sommerby, his theme is similar. The only difference is it's not so much the "corporate media" involved in a political agenda as it is political reporters entering into the six-figure salary range that puts them out of the strata of the average working American.
In the meantime, where the "corporate media's" public disservice comes into play is the fact that they want to pay as few people as possible to actually do investigative journalism. Rather than true Woodward-and-Bernstein investigative work that was once done to reveal scandals, scandals such as Whitewater, Paula Jones, China donations, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Swift Boat Veterans, the War Against Gore etc. are manufactured by deep-pocketed political operators who leak mis-information to the media.
Actual investigation into such claims by media is scant because media employers are much more interested in double-digit growth for their organizations on Wall Street rather than make the expenditures to hire the number of people needed to investigate these baseless claims. Employers will pay one person handsomely to "crap out" stories, but keep that person too busy to actually properly investigate what he or she writes.
And that person who is the writer is fat, dumb, and happy... actually raking in the dough while doing the substandard journalism that his employer thinks is just fine.
The answer lies far beyond ownership restrictions. Corporate media runs their shops just the same as the "mom-and-pop" operations. What needs to be tweaked are things such as the "fairness doctrine" and putting the emphasis back into the way media meets "public service" regulations... standards that have been relaxed by the FCC as well.
Consider The Source
Mike Allen is of poor quality, and I have often wondered how the hell he got any job. However, Allen has been jumping from job to job every since I knew he exist.
Allen has been on CSPAN as a regular, and he represents the closet conservative posture CSPAN has come to represent. Whenever Allen appears, he obviously shows this conservative bias. The bias is the reason he has not been able to hold a job. Nobody is going to pay him lots of money just to create or advance talking points.
To pare Barack Obama with George Bush is stupid. The have nothing in common. As a conservative in the closet, Allen has to find someway to advance his conservative agenda. Allen will soon loose this job and maybe get the next job working for Safeway's sale newspaper. There, he can talk about the right side of the cow without any fallout.
Joseph