Skip to comments.A Registered Democrat's Creative Writing (NTY publishes hit piece same day they endorse Kerry)
Posted on 10/17/2004 1:12:23 PM PDT by RWR8189
A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT'S CREATIVE WRITING
Just A Coincidence The New York Times Publishes Suskind Hit Piece On Same Day They Endorse Kerry?_____________________________________________________________
SUSKIND DOESN'T ALWAYS GET HIS FACTS STRAIGHT
Suskind Piece In New York Times Largely Based On Anonymous Sources And Second Hand Reports. Mr. SUSKIND: "It's not my analysis. It's the analysis largely of Republicans who cooperated with the the [New York Times] story. What did they say?" MURRAY: "But no names. No names. Mr. SUSKIND: "Bruce Bartlett Bruce Bartlett's in the lead of the story." MURRAY: "He's not in the administration." Mr. SUSKIND: "Well, but he talks to a lot to people still in the administration." (CNBC's "Capital Report," 10/15/04)
Ron Suskind's Wall Street Journal Profile Of Warren Buffett Produced A Series Of "Corrections" And "Amplifications." (Mark Jurkowitz, "Ire Starter Ron Suskind's In-Depth Writing Often Sparks Controversy," The Boston Globe, 1/27/04)
Suskind's Profile Of Boston Celtics Star Reggie Lewis "Remains A Subject Of Serious Dispute." (Mark Jurkowitz, "Ire Starter Ron Suskind's In-Depth Writing Often Sparks Controversy," The Boston Globe, 1/27/04)
In 1995, The Celtics Said They Would "File A $100 Million Libel Suit Against The Wall Street Journal Over An Article About The Death Of Former Superstar Reggie Lewis ... The Suit Would Also Name As Defendants Journal Reporter Ron Suskind." ("Boston Celtics Plan Libel Suit Against Wall Street Journal," The Wall Street Journal, 3/10/95)
SUSKIND'S SUSPECT SOURCES
In January 2003, Suskind Wrote He Reportedly Overheard Karl Rove Using "Shocking" Language. (Ron Suskind, "Why Are These Men Laughing?" Esquire, 1/03; Available At www.ronsuskind.com/newsite/articles/archives/000032.html)
In 2002, Former Bush Administration Official John DiIulio Accused Suskind Of Taking His Comments Out Of Context In An Article And Said He "Did Not Write" Nor "Recall Making" Statements Used By Suskind. (Joseph Curl, "Ex-Bush Aide Apologizes For 'Groundless' Remarks," The Washington Times, 12/3/02)
In 2002, Columnist Robert Novak Said Suskind "Took No Notes" And "Did Not Accurately Reflect" Views Of Those In Karen Hughes Profile. (Howard Kurtz, "Ron Suskind, The Confident Confidant," The Washington Post, 12/9/02)
Suskind Is A Registered Democrat. "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOTER REGISTRATIONS. Name: SUSKIND, RONALD STEVEN Party Affiliation: DEMOCRATIC. Registration Date: 12/20/1994." (Nexis People Search, Performed 10/17/04)
Suskind Has Worked For Democrats Including Charles Robb (D-VA) And John Downey (D-CT). (Mark Jurkowitz, "Ire Starter Ron Suskind's In-Depth Writing Often Sparks Controversy," The Boston Globe, 1/27/04)
At 2004 BookExpo America, Suskind's Appearance Made It So "Liberals Outnumbered Conservatives." "With Suskind also supposedly speaking from the left, liberals outnumbered conservatives 3-2 at the dais." (Hillel Italie, "The Un-Franken Factor: Left And Right Make Nice At Bookexpo America," The Associated Press, 6/5/04)
Suskind Has Demanded President Bush Admit Mistakes In Iraq "So We As Americans Can Get Out Of This With Our Skins." (Kevin Nance, "Little 'Crossfire' At BookExpo," Chicago Sun-Times, 6/6/04)The Wall Street Journal: "Author Ron Suskind... Well-Known Bush Antagonist." (Editorial, "The Non-Treasury Secretary," The Wall Street Journal, 1/13/04)
They shouldn't even respond to the Suskind article... Only gives it more credibility and readership.
Kerry already is using this in Florida...Lies..Kerry is not a good man.
Plus, none of these charges really indict him, besides showing that he is a regular liberal hack.
If Kerry is spreading it they must respond.
Any sane, objective person that believes anything written in the New York Times is certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer!!! Ron Suskind and the NY Times are going nowhere. John Kerry is toast. These rants are the desperate moves of a defeated traitor!!!
Oh, I see...
Has anybody read the Price of Loyalty book? What is it like?
Kerry Statement on Bush Plan to Privatize Social Security
Senator John Kerry released the following statement today in response to reports that the president said he will come out strong for social security privatization should he be sworn in for a second term:
Just yesterday, we found out that the president told his biggest and wealthiest donors about his big January surprise. Hes going to come out strong to fight for his plan to privatize Social Security. This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but its a disaster for Americas middle class. The presidents privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security will be broken
it's the magazine piece;
Without a Doubt By RON SUSKIND
Published: October 17, 2004
Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''
Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?'''
Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''
Biden paused and shook his head, recalling it all as the room grew quiet. ''I said, 'Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough!'''
The democrat Biden and the Republican Bartlett are trying to make sense of the same thing -- a president who has been an extraordinary blend of forcefulness and inscrutability, opacity and action.
But lately, words and deeds are beginning to connect.... ...snip
There is nothing to which to respond. Suskind's piece is genuinely provocative and explains the unique hatred for Bush that I have seen among many of my acquaintances. Suskind's "reality -based community" is another term for "conventional wisdom" which is always wrong. The President does not need the cohorts of policy wonks that have influenced policy over the last half century. The RBC is Calvinistic in its approach to policy. The"approach" determines the answer and yesterday's answer is given too much weight in determining today's answer. This leads to monumental and tortuous decisions that are no more likely to be right than a "faith" or intuitive - based decision
'Biden, who early on became disenchanted with Bush's grasp of foreign-policy issues and is among John Kerry's closest Senate friends, has spent a lot of time trying to size up the president. ''Most successful people are good at identifying, very early, their strengths and weaknesses, at knowing themselves,'' he told me not long ago. ''For most of us average Joes, that meant we've relied on strengths but had to work on our weakness -- to lift them to adequacy -- otherwise they might bring us down. I don't think the president really had to do that, because he always had someone there -- his family or friends -- to bail him out. I don't think, on balance, that has served him well for the moment he's in now as president. He never seems to have worked on his weaknesses.''
I held my nose, kept the barf bag handy and got thru about 1/2 the Susskind hatchet job until I just had to stop.
Amazingly, when you boil the entire pack of lies and distortions down, you are left with the same old, tired, cliched, left-liberal rants about Republicans in general and George Bush in particular.
His entire article seeks to bash Bush on two bases:
1. Bush is stupid.
2. Bush is religious and believes in God and that is dangerous.
This is just a ten-thousandth rehash of these tired canards, showing the intellectual vacuity of the left. You'd think they'd learn already... but no, here is another hit piece that says the exact same things the libs ALWAYS say; Dont vote for Bush, he is dumb OR Dont vote for Bush because his belief in God is dangerous.
The NY Times really sucks.....
''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.''
Say what? I've never seen the Republicans as solid as now, most of the factions are at truce with one another. The fiscal conservatives will have their knives out, but everyone knows this is needed anyway.
LOL......isn't the left weird when it goes into spontaneous combustion.
The left will never discuss the completely vile and unhinged behaviour of their own minions.
Help me understand this mindless hatred towards all that is good and decent in this country.
'And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president.
He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times.
And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
Finally, something in the article I could agree with!
what a weiner.
bitt...I can agree with that quote too, except to the average Joe Fibeetz, it's framed to make W. (and McKinnon) sound totally arrogant...wonder what else McKinnon said? (couldn't face reading the article, myself...sorry, LOL!)
I don't know anything about him, actually, but it's curious that the "Lucky" Google search gave me a TownHall bio. that seems to stop after '93...that's "junk research" on my part, but just "FYI"...!
He must mean between the Log Cabin Republicans and the rest of the party, hardly a fair fight, LOL.
"They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community." The arrogance of the Left knows no bounds. The only reality they know is what they create. It is not based on truth or facts, just their emotions and taste.
The audience was all dems but McKinnon was great, as was Luntz.
Deutch tried to call the Swift Boat Vets for Truth sleazy but interestingly enough Toobin didn't allow him to get away with that so he retreated to calling the advertising team who made up the ad for the Vets sleazy.
These people just don't get it!
I just don't LIKE them...
Nah, actually this needs to be done more often. The press needs to be held to account so that journalists can't laugh off Republican claims of bias. I think it does make a dent, even if it isn't reported in the papers. The press maybe extremely introspective and all that, but it's an act. Journalists primarily want to be seen as being invincible with a monopoly on the truth.