Howard Dean Teaches Sleaze - The Pivot

[Rich Engle]

It's an amusing story, and it makes its point, but nobody can take it seriously. Thompson is not a credible source on the political history of the period, and the story just doesn't pass the smell test. By every other account I've seen, Johnson won that election (to the Senate; he was already in the House) by vote fraud, which Thompson alludes to indirectly toward the end.

Doesn't matter, that's often how he worked. I tend to agree with his opinion that objective journalism doesn't really exist anyway.

[Reidy]

James Taggart and his drinking companions would agree.

[Rich Engle]

James Taggart and his drinking companions would agree.

Hmm. Got a hardon for HST, eh? S'Ok, he's surely not for everyone, esp. the "serious."

Lots of great direct experience/insight in politics and political journalism, though. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 is a heck of a good read. Much better than a lot of the stuff out there, most of which smells like the inside of a coffin.

But we're not going to hijack, right? Right?

rde

Pivoting

Edited September 20, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Selene]

It's an amusing story, and it makes its point, but nobody can take it seriously. Thompson is not a credible source on the political history of the period, and the story just doesn't pass the smell test. By every other account I've seen, Johnson won that election (to the Senate; he was already in the House) by vote fraud, which Thompson alludes to indirectly toward the end.

Yep. We brought this up, over and over, in the Presidential campaign of 1964. We had fliers on the "Miracle of Ballot Box 13". We told the story of Miguel and Pedro, two (2) Texans of Mexican descent who were talking after the election and Miguel said how upset he was that his grandfather did not stop in and say hello to him on election day.

Pedro said to Miguel, are you loco, your grandfather is dead! And Miguel answered that sure he was, but he came back to vote for Lyndon, the least he could have done was to stop in and say hello to me!

"ASSAULT ON PRECINCT BOX 13: Johnson’s victory in the 1948 U.S. Senate primary can most charitably be described as 'curious'. In a recount, Johnson emerged victorious by a margin of 87 votes. The election turned on 202 'found' votes from Precinct Box 13 in tiny Alice, Texas. A later examination of the votes—all but two cast for Johnson—would reveal that the names were added to the poll list in a handwriting and ink different from the originally counted votes, and all in alphabetical order. An election-night miracle!

Well, it wasn’t quite so magical. Local election judge Luis Salas would tell many years later of a meeting in Alice with LBJ associate and local crony George Carr (known as 'the Duke of Duyal County' in Texas political circles). Carr said that LBJ was pleading for 200 more votes, so Carr ordered Salas to make it so. LBJ’s supporters would deny this charge throughout and after his lifetime, but their defenses weren’t always predicated on Johnson’s inherent goodness. 'He was much more devious than that', said one. Others were more shocked at the continued ballyhoo over this alleged 'scandal'. 'Of course they stole that election,' said a former LBJ aide. 'That's the way they did it down there.'

The Texas Observer’s founding editor, Ronnie Dugger, interviewed LBJ in Texas near the end of his life. Dugger claimed that LBJ showed him a picture of five county officials posing with Precinct Box 13. When Dugger attempted further inquiries, LBJ only smiled. Years later, Dugger interviewed an aging Luis Salas, who produced the same photo."

Its a good thing we have grown since then and now our elections are absolutely honest!

Oops...Daley and 1960. O'bama and the first caucus in 2008. Philadelphia and the Panthers in 2008.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

Heh. I lost it years ago and wish I still had it, got it for .10, which was pricey considering the content--"The Johnson Wit," 94 pages (and that had to be a stretch). God, he was a despicable bastard.

But hey, let's get back to pivoting. How about those Cleveland Indians?

(pause)

Eh, maybe not.

[Rich Engle]

It's great to watch sleazeballs work, though. Martin Short got it down with the Nathan Thurm character, a sleazy corporate lawyer. This is a later one where he revisits his role. He really captures it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLBQxk72NY

[Reidy]

Saw this and thought of this thread. Lopez is telling us that Fiorina is a master of the pivot, as McDonnell was in Virginia last year. In both cases they changed the subject from social-conservative issues to jobs, just as Dean advises his students to do.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Reidy

[9thdoctor]

Here's the technique at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgINkTs3y1Q&feature=player_embedded

As bad as can be. Now why she chose to appear on MSNBC, what good could come of it for her?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

She did that on Glenn Beck, too. He got to the point of blowing her off. (After a clear question--more than once--and her pivots, he said something like "I think you are saying xxxxxx, but I can't be sure." Then he did not let her speak anymore.)

For as much good as Michele Bachmann has done, I find this disturbing. And it makes me want to keep an eye on her from distrust.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

She is inartfully following what Rush Limbaugh has been positing that if you go on these shows, you should stick to your points and not respond to their questions. He suggests that you never accept their premise or assumption.

However, he states that you should begin by explaining that their question is based on a false premise and then go into your points.

She just skips the important steps of taking on his ridiculous question.

She should have said, "Chris, apparently you wish to diminish a complete rejection of President O'bama's socialist agenda by the American productive taxpaying citizens by making reference to my suggestion that our majority use its power to investigate un-American activities."

"Before I answer that question, and I will answer it, allow me to explain our agenda going forward" and then make her four (4) points and then answer his question.

She just is not quite adept as she needs to be.

Adam