Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Pholus

(4,062 posts)
65. The section of Clinton's "My Life" describing the GOP asking him to delay running comes to mind...
Mon Jan 2, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jan 2012

The exact reference escapes me since it was a gift "book on tape" that I listened
to on a cross country drive but I remember the part where the GOP came to Bill
and said in effect that they liked him and could work with him but they wanted
the presidency in 1992 so if he would delay running they'd help him in later.
When he said he was running anyway they said "Nothing personal but we will
destroy you."

Another theme of that book was that many of the "clowns" in the opposition had
a different, more reasonable personality when the doors are closed. That doesn't
mean the positions change, but they are more logically presented. We the people
get the WWF version of each personality because they need to ham it up for the voters.
None of these guys are as stupid as we think they are. Period. Well, except Bachmann
but even Jon Stewart has caught her making sense on things where she works on
a relevant subcommittee.

Anyway, my takeaway for this election is that the GOP is willing to let their crazies eat
themselves. Why not? First, it shows the crazies that they cannot win by themselves
and puts them back in their place as reliable voters and contributors who don't get
what they want. Second, if they find the President someone they can work with
(and face it, he has been a VERY generous negotiator) it is a waste of money
to fight him (which is GG's point). Third, they might look at the hard choices that need to be
made in the near future and realize that the person who makes them will be incredibly
unpopular and easier to unseat with an establishment Republican later. Fourth, they have
a big reputation mess to clean up after GWB and it takes time for those memories to fade
or to be easily argued as "in the past."

You may not like hearing it, but I think they elite old-boys-club guys in the GOP think they can
get what they want with President Obama and so they have no great desire to try and
take him out of office. So we get the clown car.

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #1
LOL! JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
GG didn't blame Obama for the ridiculous clown parade. Quantess Jan 2012 #13
Well he did kind of, in an oblique way. Quantess Jan 2012 #19
Better Believe is now a Paid Troll? Is That what you are accusing that poster of being? fascisthunter Jan 2012 #3
Uh, I believe the poster was referring to Greenwald, MineralMan Jan 2012 #10
Why not let the poster respond for him/herself unless they asked for your help? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #16
Umm....because I can reply to any post I wish. MineralMan Jan 2012 #23
So does the poster believe BBI IS Greenwald? And you know that? Autumn Jan 2012 #17
As far as I know, BBI is not Greenwald. MineralMan Jan 2012 #24
No, but I don't buy that the poster was talking Autumn Jan 2012 #29
It's my opinion. That's why I said, "I believe..." MineralMan Jan 2012 #30
It's irrelevant now. The jury Autumn Jan 2012 #33
The jury has ruled. I love the new DU3. MineralMan Jan 2012 #37
So do I. I love the transparency. Autumn Jan 2012 #53
I disagree with the jury censorship decision. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #44
They do stand. Anyone can see them. Autumn Jan 2012 #51
Of course FSogol can answer you.` MineralMan Jan 2012 #57
They can't answer in this thread muriel_volestrangler Jan 2012 #61
Ah, you're right. I forgot that. MineralMan Jan 2012 #62
And you don't have a problem with that sort of censorship? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #64
It's not my site. I participate here, but don't run it. MineralMan Jan 2012 #66
Contrary to your comment, FSogol is in fact prohibited from answering my question .... Better Believe It Jan 2012 #63
As I said above, I forgot that rule. MineralMan Jan 2012 #67
I've never had any interest in looking at your profile. Did you want me to look at it? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #70
That would be completely up to you. MineralMan Jan 2012 #71
ANNNNND the pedantic circle is complete!!! Kudos. In record time! Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2012 #42
That's how I interpreted it. eom City Lights Jan 2012 #28
Nailed it!... SidDithers Jan 2012 #4
And your comment is directed to me? Better Believe It Jan 2012 #18
Non-Union Shop. The peasants will do as told, or else. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #20
Ah ProSense Jan 2012 #5
Apparently, Obama made the GOP SUCK!!!! JoePhilly Jan 2012 #8
He ProSense Jan 2012 #11
I'll bring the bus around for him. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #25
"... he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs." Quantess Jan 2012 #32
Can ProSense Jan 2012 #35
continuation of the tax cuts, Quantess Jan 2012 #41
So ProSense Jan 2012 #56
Same shit, different day n/t Spazito Jan 2012 #6
Oh, for pete's sake! MineralMan Jan 2012 #7
Fuck Greenwald surfdog Jan 2012 #9
Glenn Greenwald telling the truth and angering corporate fools everywhere. fasttense Jan 2012 #12
You're mistaken ProSense Jan 2012 #14
What if that was part of Obama's plan all along? Being centrist would push the RW into a looney bin. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #15
Actually I thought that was what I was being told back during the hostage negotiations.... Pholus Jan 2012 #22
Well, I have to give Greenwald a few points for the following: tabatha Jan 2012 #21
he is identifying a core dilemma getdown Jan 2012 #26
I haven't read any coherent rebuttals of Greenwald's article, just low-level personal attacks. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #27
Here: ProSense Jan 2012 #31
how can you deny getdown Jan 2012 #34
I ProSense Jan 2012 #38
you're doing it again getdown Jan 2012 #40
Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #46
you repeated getdown Jan 2012 #52
I feel the same way. I am older and remember Mojorabbit Jan 2012 #58
it is getdown Jan 2012 #60
Ignore: It's what's for dinner. theaocp Jan 2012 #36
Greenwald's articles are low-level attacks lacking coherence. MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #45
see post #27. provis99 Jan 2012 #54
I might give this viewpoint some credit, except that LiberalAndProud Jan 2012 #39
you make good points getdown Jan 2012 #48
Greenwald has allied himself with the GOP in his attacks on Obama MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #43
see how crazy that is?!! getdown Jan 2012 #49
Nicely done. EFerrari Jan 2012 #55
ty getdown Jan 2012 #59
Not sure I agree with Glenn on this one, though he has a valid argument tpsbmam Jan 2012 #47
"started to sound like..."? getdown Jan 2012 #50
The section of Clinton's "My Life" describing the GOP asking him to delay running comes to mind... Pholus Jan 2012 #65
Great verbiage as always, but WRONG conclusions. freshwest Jan 2012 #68
doesn't the carjacker getdown Jan 2012 #69
So when people didn't vote in 2010 they "voted for the regressives' in 2010. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Glenn Greenwald: The Real...»Reply #65