Every Bit As Qualified As Nixon
By Mitch Berg
One of the biggest, nastiest indictments against Richard Nixon’s legacy is that he used the apparatus of the Federal government – including the FBI – to gather information about his political opponents (although to be fair, so had LBJ and JFK, to one extent or another). It was supposed to have been a thing of the past.
It’s a very dangerous thing. It’s the sort of thing that President Bush’s critics carp about endlessly (although those critics seem to have trouble distinguishing between “internal political” enemies and “foreign terrorists arrested overseas”, but Bush Derangement isnt’ about distinctions).
So I’d like to make sure the whole world – or at least the part of it that reads this blog – knows that Hillary wants to do the same thing. If you haven’t read the linked piece, from my radio colleague Ed Morrissey, then do:
In other words, the White House would basically run their sales pitch through the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The federal government, rather than making its case through the normal legislative process, would instead deputize the DNC to run its publicity campaign, further politicizing the entire process. They would also use the DNC to “help keep the Democratic base groups pumped up and excited”, which gives readers an insight into the purpose of the entire program.
All of that falls into the category of “politicizing” the White House, and much more than having Karl Rove as deputy chief of staff.
But it gets worse:
But this goes beyond mere politicization. The HCTF foresaw using the DNC to “gather intelligence” on political opposition — a way to gain information to intimidate or extort their critics. It’s bad enough when electoral campaigns do this, but having the White House use the DNC for these purposes doesn’t border on abuse of power but invades it with a vengeance.
It gets into Communist and Fascist turf; using the Party as a de facto arm of government, as a web of informants gathering information not just to further the party’s legitimate election efforts, but as an adjunct to furthering government policy. It’d turn the Tic party into a domestic political surveillance operation reporting directly to the President.
I’d love to know what actual Democrats think about this.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:31 am
I’m sure MOST democrats will not have any problem with it. Hell, they’re all for appointing an activist judiciary since they have so many problems passing their agenda the proper way, thru legislation. It’s their agenda, it’s all that matters.
Just keep in mind the typical leftist mantra: The ends justify the means.
It’s too bad that so many on the right side either can’t, or refuse to, see this kind of crap for what it is.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
It’s interesting what the history gatekeepers decide is worth to talk about. Last year, National Review had a very interesting article on LBJ spying on Goldwater during the 1964 campaign. Including wiretapping (or was it office bugs?). So when the Goldwater campaign came up with a great idea, right before Goldwater would make a speach about it, Johnson would come out and say the same thing.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Barak Obama has finally figured out that the Clintons are the Bonnie and Clyde of sociopathy. I doubt rank and file Democratics will ever understand this obvious fact.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Most Democrats don’t think Slick Willie is capable of rape or sexual harrassment.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
“I’d love to know what actual Democrats think about this.”
Totally agree. You, and all other GOP members, should immediately cease all efforts to gather and disseminate information that helps support the policies of President Bush and Gov. Pawlenty.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I wasn’t aware that Mitch and all us SITD minions were/are employed by the Bush Administration.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Bill C wrote:
“I wasn’t aware that Mitch and all us SITD minions were/are employed by the Bush Administration.”
And Mitch’s point is that since you do not work for the Bush Administration you can not help in “gathering information . . .as an adjunct to furthering government policy”. So please stop.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Rick,
Disingenuous, as always. Hillary was talking about using the DNC to build dossiers on opponents of her policy.
If you can’t see the difference, then you must be kool-aid-sotted zea…
Never mind.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“dossiers” Oh no – when will the horror end. You mean they will actually put paper in a manila folder and keep it in a file cabinet. You know if they get really dastardly they might cut out newspaper articles and save those too.
Next thing you know the RNC might post embarrassing stories about Democrats on their website. I hope everyone at SITD can rally together to prevent this horror.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You mean they will actually put paper in a manila folder and keep it in a file cabinet.
No, they won’t.
Because Hillary got trounced in ’94.
It’s the (fascistic) thought that counts.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mitch wrote:
“It’s the (fascistic) thought that counts.” I totally agree, we really need to stomp out fascism in our midst. Did you know for example that some fascist has actually gone and tagged 127 posts on SITD with the moniker ‘Democrats’? Some GOP fascist might use that as a convenient way to access disparaging information on Democrats. For the good of the Republic, you really ought to just delete your whole archive.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
And Mitch’s point is that since you do not work for the Bush Administration you can not help in “gathering information . . .as an adjunct to furthering government policy”. So please stop.
That has to be one of the most spectacular examples of failure of reading comprehension I have ever read in my life.
Please tell me you were being facetious?
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“That has to be one of the most spectacular examples of failure of reading comprehension”.
1. Fell free to point out how I misread Mitch’s comment. He objects to a political party gathering information on the opposition in order to further the legislative agenda it’s own elected officials.
2. You will notice Mitch is not denying that is his claim.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
1. Fell free to point out how I misread Mitch’s comment. He objects to a political party gathering information on the opposition in order to further the legislative agenda it’s own elected officials.
You missed the first sentence:
One of the biggest, nastiest indictments against Richard Nixon’s legacy is that he used the apparatus of the Federal government – including the FBI – to gather information about his political opponents…
Neither Mitch, SITD, nor of the SITD commenters (as best as I can remember from what little people have written here about their employment) are employed by the administration, or employed by the federal government. His point is THE GOVERNMENT (and all its resources) should not be used to gather information on opposing political parties. The RNC is not federal government appratus. SITD is not federal government apparatus, Mitch is not federal government apparatus, and none of us are federal government apparatus (apparatusses? apparati?)
2. You will notice Mitch is not denying that is his claim.
Because Mitch isn’t making the claim you are trying to attribute to him.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Upon further reflection, I amend that to say “Neither Mitch, SITD or any of the commenters are officially part of the RNC”.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Bill C wrote:
“His point is THE GOVERNMENT (and all its resources) should not be used to gather information on opposing political parties.”
No. Read the penultimate paragraph more carefully. He objects that the DNC did this.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
No RickDFL, you need to read more carefully. And examine paragraphs in context. Even the paragraph you mention contains:
“It’d turn the Tic party into a domestic political surveillance operation reporting directly to the President”
I’d ask “are you always this dense”, but I know the answer. 🙁
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Troy: Way to score on your own goal. Glad you are on the other team.
“It’d turn the Tic party into a domestic political surveillance operation reporting directly to the President”
i.e. the DNC (the Democratic Party) would gather information on the opposition in support of the policies of a Democratic President. Exactly what I have been saying Mitch said.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Ah. Rick thinks he’s playing “gotcha”. Got it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
*rolls eyes* I know of no one who is so arbitrarily specific AND general, detail oriented AND lazy, immune to correction AND an ‘in your face’ busybody. It’s as if the Odd Couple inhabited one body, but more irritating.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Mitch/Troy
That the best you got? Non-specific whining?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
RickDFL, you think this:
“It’d turn the Tic party into a domestic political surveillance operation reporting directly to the President”
is this:
“the DNC (the Democratic Party) would gather information on the opposition in support of the policies of a Democratic President.”
so I don’t think I can help you. *shrug*
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Troy:
I do not think the first “is” the second. I think they mean the same thing.
They sound different, but that is just a little rhetoric designed to fool rubes like you. Mitch and Ed simply use scary sounding words like “surveillance” to describe perfectly ordinary and legitimate efforts to “gather information”.
Mitch wants rubes like you to think Hillary had the DNC doing something illegal or improper but he can not say it, because it is obviously not true. Instead he simply uses words associated with espionage tradecraft e.g. “dossiers” to describe the perfectly legitimate activity of keeping files of information on political opponents.
The giveaway is that neither you nor Mitch can point to any specific activity they consider improper.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
RickDFL:
Common English parlance seems to be enough to “fool” you. That you label others “rube” is laughable.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Troy:
“That you label others “rube” is laughable.”
What term would you prefer for someone who fell for Mitch’s little game of rhetorical bait and switch?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
RickDFL:
If someone fell for a “game of rhetorical bait and switch” in the woods, I am almost certain you would not be able to hear it.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Probably not, because I would not be in the woods.
Seriously, are you just pretending to be this stupid?
January 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Where would you be, RickDFL, if not “in the woods”. Lost in the weeds perhaps? Treading water maybe? Searching for needs in haystacks?
I imagine you would be ignoring reality, making poor arguments, and declaring victory. Oh look! It’s a dream come true. 🙂