Via TPM, this from White House spokesman Josh Earnest:
“Mr. Scalise reportedly described himself as David Duke without the baggage. So it’ll be up to Republicans to decide what that says about their conference.”
There’s an old political story — I’ve heard it told about LBJ — about the candidate who tells his campaign manager to spread a rumor that their opponent enjoys the carnal knowledge of barnyard animals.
“I can’t call him a pig-f**ker!” the staffer replies. “No one will believe it.”
“Sure,” says LBJ (oh heck. Go with it). “But make him deny it.”*
The beauty here is that there is no phantom pig in the room at all. There’s no possible denial, just, at best a bit of weaseling: “I didn’t know; I didn’t mean it; I’m sorry if anyone was offended.”
Republicans are who they are, the people their actions define them to be. The Democrats’ job is to make sure they own it. To that end, Mr Earnest, keep stuff like this coming:
“It is the responsibility of members of the House Republican conference to choose their leaders,” Earnest said. “Who they choose to serve in their leadership says a lot about who they are, what their values are and what the priorities of the conference should be.”
*The line works best when you really bear down on “deeeennnnyyyy”
Image: Charles Darwin, Head of Japan or Masked Pig, Copied from Mr. Bartlett’s paper in Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 1861, p. 263., illustration in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, Vol. I, Ch. 3 1868.
CONGRATULATIONS!
What it says to me: Scalise for President 2020.
catclub
The ONLY offense by a GOP pol, worth ( partially) punishing, was Larry Craig’s. Everything else is negotiable. David Vitter? The Senator from Nevada having an affair – and paying off the cuckolded spouse? Nothing
catclub
@CONGRATULATIONS!: That quote is only recent because it is being reported now. But I think it was from a conversation from before 2000. Ha, ha.
trollhattan
Good. Here’s one more possibly good thing.
BGinCHI
Anyone else see the David Duke quote about “degeenerate” Nicki Minaj?
Hint: the Jews did it.
That motherfucker is an old skool bigot. Someone should keep putting a mic in his face until we hear more about his relations with the current GOP.
Mandalay
@catclub:
It’s not even a quote. It’s a reporter stating what she claims she remembers from a conversation with Scalise from nearly 20 years ago:
She may have total recall. She may be sincere but completely inaccurate about what was said. She may be lying. Nobody knows for sure, not even the reporter.
There’s a good reason Josh Earnest very carefully used the word “reportedly” when throwing his bomb. I’m all for Scalise being made to squirm over his past, but using the alleged memories of a reporter to further that end is pretty despicable, and completely unnecessary.
ETA: Link to the “memory”: http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/state/11213737-123/stephanie-grace-scalises-pitch-to
Bob In Portland
This.
Maybe they can put Chelsea Clinton on the thone in Latvia or Dagestan. Princess Chelsea and the Bankers. Good name for a band.
SatanicPanic
@Mandalay: that’s not that far off from this:
SRW1
In somewhat tangenentially related news, former KKK duke David Duke called hop hop artist Nicki Minaj ‘degenerate’ for her comments on Eric Garner*.
Odd, those cathegories of Mr former Grand Wizard’s thinking.
* Won’t link to the comments. Suffice it to say, the ‘Joos’ also make an unfavourable apperance in them.
catclub
If it is the first day of the New Senate, McConnell can drop the filibuster entirely or bring it back under new rules.
So which is it?
lamh36
Speaking of LBJ…
I’m begining to think that the idea of a “white savior” to come rescue Black folk is so ingrained in a certain group of people, that the lack of a “white savior” narrative in Selma really does tickle the back of people brains. I mean to actually postulate that Selma was actually LBJ’s idea??? I mean really…
Awww shit! BOOM! Damn right Ava D!!!
geg6
I’m liking Mr. Earnest. About as much as I’m liking Pittsburgh’s new police chief, who has given the police union here the non-apology to end all non-apologies for his posing for a picture during the New Year’s Eve celebration here with a sign saying he supported confronting racism on the job.
AxelFoley
@Mandalay: I don’t care if it’s true or not. Like the LBJ quote above says, “Make him deny it.” I have no qualms about smearing the GOP.
That’s why the left keeps losing to these fuckers–they play nice. Sure, the President and top Dems like Reid and Pelosi have to stay above the fray, but there’s always someone you can count on to get dirty and shank the enemy.
jl
I thought the entire public political aspect of David Duke was baggage. So count me confused.
geg6
@lamh36:
I’m a fan of the movie, but some of the criticism of LBJ in the film and the portrayal of him are not historically correct. He was not, in any way, a villain in the story nor was he against the march. There are actual recordings of him and King discussing how to coordinate their efforts for the VRA. One that is specifically relevant is this one:
http://millercenter.org/presidentialrecordings/lbj-wh6501.04-6736
Gin & Tonic
@Bob In Portland: Her “arrival in Kiev”? WTF? She has lived and worked in Ukraine for nearly 20 years. Plenty of people, of Ukrainian descent and otherwise, saw business opportunities there in the early 1990’s and acted on that.
And her “connection” with Glensor? Double WTF?
Mandalay
@SatanicPanic: You are right, it isn’t, and I have zero sympathy for Scalise.
But I have a big problem with the White House publicly attacking someone based on an alleged statement being recalled by a reporter after nearly 20 years. It’s inherently wrong, and doubly wrong since there is absolutely no need for it – Scalise is in deep shit anyway, based on factual information.
Mandalay
@AxelFoley:
Well that’s where you and I part company. When a spokesman for the president sinks this low we all lose.
lamh36
@geg6: have you seen the movie yet? Or are you like many others going by the articles being written. None of the actual film critic reviews of the film have made mention of LBJ coming off as the “villain” in this movie, but what has occurred is the number of artilcles written about how LBJ is being portrayed and not enough about the civil rights icons mentioned and showcased in the film
I find it interesting the number of people willing to take the obvious low level smear efforts of a few, as fact without having seen the film.
But of course with no white savior to latch on to, the film, rightly IMHO, focuses on the architects of the Civil Rights struggle, that included MLK and the other activist given showcase in the film.
Of course “certain” people find themselves latching on to LBJ, last I looked, the film is NOT about LBJ.
BTW, no one I know who have already seen a screening of the film came away feeling like LBJ was a “villain” in this film, but he sure is the easiest figure to latch onto for those who want a way to dismiss the impact of the film. It’s actual a classic strategy really, I mean take Dr King for example, certain people are chomping at the bit to get the “king tapes” Hoover allegedly made of Dr King and a mistress…why is that…oh, yeah, to diminish Dr King in some eyes and therefore diminsh the movement…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Good lord.
geg6
@Mandalay:
I don’t know about you, but it wouldn’t be even a little bit hard for me to remember a statement like that after twenty years. I would have been so taken aback by it, it would be an indelible memory for me. Don’t know why you think it wouldn’t be for the reporter in question. I totally believe it and have no problem with the WH saying same. Haven’t seen anything about him denying he said it. And, from what I’ve read, plenty of other people heard him saying pretty much the same thing.
geg6
@lamh36:
Yes, I saw it last week. And I don’t think the portrayal of LBJ was very sympathetic at all. No one is saying that the movie should be about him, but making him out to be as obstructionist as the movie does is not accurate. I liked the film and I’d be happier if they’d left LBJ out of it altogether. Not sure why they chose to portray him the way they did. It’s one of the only things about the film I can find to criticize, which makes it stick out all the more. The other thing I didn’t find very convincing is the portrayal of the women among the movement, by which I mean that they pretty much ignore the women completely.
And I could not care less about white saviors. I’m white and I don’t believe in white saviors.
Cervantes
@jl:
I’m with you.
Mandalay
@geg6:
Your memory might well be indelible, but it wouldn’t necessarily be accurate twenty years later. It would be a different matter if the reporter had transcribed the quote she wrote in her notebook from 1996 when speaking with Scalise. And if it was such a monumental statement, why has it taken the reporter 20 years to mention it?
Let’s see how much you approve of this approach by the White house Administration when the spokesman for President Cruz starts trotting out the alleged recollections of some reporter against a Democrat. It might not seem so fine and dandy then, right?
aimai
@Mandalay: Oh for fuck’s overreaction. Scalise’s politics and those of the Republican party are right out there in the open. One statement is neither here nor there. They need to be taught to own their shit–whether they deny this specific statement or deny their politics they are going to be in trouble with their actual base–the people who chose them specifically because they were like “David Duke without the baggage” or, to coin a phrase from a now forgotten leader “compassionate conservatives.” You are straining at a gnat.
lamh36
@geg6:
I’m glad you saw the movie. I hope more diverse group of people other than POC also see the movie. But let’s not kid ourselves, this need to latch on to LBJ portrayal by some, in a film not directly about him is not meant in some spirit of “historical accuracy”, the intial LBJ dude basically claimed Selma as more LBJ’s idea than MLK, or the other civil rights activists. The artciles since then on the “accuracy” of the film have ONLY focused on LBJ’s portrayal. Again, in a movie with so much richness, why the need to latch onto LBJ. This is being done for reasons other than “historical accuracy”. It’s a concerted effort to diminish the film by SOME and it’s become enough of a story that the director has felt the need to comment on it, and is being asked about.
gratuitous
Unfortunately, the facts about Mr. Scalise’s record have the insurmountable problem of being true, so we can be sure that the somnambulent bulldogs of the Fourth Estate will have to overlook his racism, because there’s no “both sides” that we can all agree on (the Rev. Wright smear has gone on the fritz). So, the millionaire pundits will just have leave it there for now, as we’re out of time. Next up, more baseless speculation about the disappearance of the Air Asia flight, and was Al Qaeda involved? No, we don’t have any evidence of Al Qaeda involvement, but that keeps you tuned in through the next commercial break, dunnit?
Yatsuno
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: My goodness! The tone! Gosh! How can we live with such indignities???
How’s about we make them own Scalise until he resigns from leadership? The Democrats are in the minority now. Why not just sit back & make them own their own caucus instead of bailing their asses out because it might be slightly uncouth?
BGinCHI
@Yatsuno: Pearls, clutched.
dedc79
@BGinCHI: Are you referring to this?
BGinCHI
@dedc79: Yepper.
Probably just one example of thousands of that kind of stuff from him.
It’s so ridiculous it’s almost quaint, the naked bigotry. Wonder how many GOP pols talk this way in private company.
Mandalay
@aimai:
Exactly my fucking point! There is absolutely no need for the White House to sink to being mealy mouthed about introducing alleged recollections from twenty years ago into the mix. Scalise is sinking quite nicely already.
gene108
@AxelFoley:
People, who will vote for Democrats and/or are liberals are not attracted to rhetorical flame throwing assholes.
Secondly, there is now nothing a Republican elected official can do to lose the confidence of his/her voters other than be seen to not be sufficiently right-wing enough. Hookers, extra-marital affairs, indicted for 20-odd criminal counts, etc. do not matter.
Thirdly, there is a massive media advantage held by Republicans, because there are billionaires who are also Movement Conservatives. This has only be exacerbated after the Citizen’s United decision. There’s a distortion to most folks, from the media, based on this conservative/Republican advantage.
Therefore to conclude the problem is a lot more structural than just being mean and hammering Republicans for the same shit they hammer Democrats on.
chopper
@Mandalay:
he is?
the reason people here are advocating giving a sinking gooper an anvil is, in america at least, membership in the GOP comes with a free pair of floaties. the opposition needs to keep hammering him over this.
Keith G
@lamh36:
I guess that I have been out of the loop for a bit too long. What idiot is saying that?
JPL
@dedc79: Does he believe in Israel’s right to defend itself by bulldozing over Palestinian settlements? That would be an interesting question.
SatanicPanic
@chopper: Yeah, he appears to be hanging on to his job. It’s not just about him either. It’s about beating the drum that the GOP is racist for young people who have trouble understanding the obvious or just don’t pay that much attention.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Mandalay: Earnest was responding to a question that said (roughly) “Scalise has apologized for speaking before a white supremecist group…”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-white-house-press-briefing-1514/ (starting around 57:28).
The President is the (nominal) head of the Party. Commenting on the leaders of the other party is hardly out of bounds…
Cheers,
Scott.
chopper
@gene108:
no, but they are attracted to people who call assholes out.
dedc79
@JPL: Google “David Duke” and “Israel” and you’ll quickly learn he’s not a fan. To put it mildly.
The Iranian government invited him onto their state run news network to say bad things about jews and Israel.
jl
@Keith G: One of LBJs ex-aides asserted that Selma was LBJ’s idea in a column criticizing the historical accuracy of the movie. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I don’t want to judge the movie. But I think, clearly, the aide was ticked off by the portrayal of LBJ in the move and got over excited and imaginative about the history. I haven’t heard anyone else saying that Selma was LBJ’s idea, but would be interested to know if anyone is. It is clearly not true.
geg6
@lamh36:
I just wished she’d left that out since she also, as you have shown, had her own biases there. Why set yourself up for the criticism? I don’t get it. LBJ’s portrayal, as I mentioned, wasn’t the only problem with the film. And more than the white savior thing, it was the erasure of the women from the narrative that bothered me. No Fannie Lou Hamer or any of the other women who were central to the effort, unless they were serving coffee or something? Seriously?
Jay C
@dedc79:
Yep. Sounded a lot better in the original German, though (and better graphics)…
geg6
@jl:
Yes, Califano. Who is an idiot. But I can see why he got so upset by the film. LBJ does come off a bit like a villain. Maybe not a villain, per se, but not as an ally, let us say.
jl
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Thanks for the link.
I heard Earnest say “reportedly described himself as David Duke without the baggage’. That seems accurate to me. So, the problem people have with Earnest’s statement is… ? What? I don’t get it.
“reportedly described himself” and that is exactly the case here.
J.D. Rhoades
“David Duke without the baggage” sounds like the right wing dream candidate.
Cervantes
@Keith G:
@jl:
Well, if you want to read what Califano wrote, you can do so here.
BGinCHI
Breaking news on the Pope:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-francis-attends-outdoor-mass-in-cutoff-denim,37567/
JPL
@dedc79: He didn’t get the memo from the evangelicals who are known as Israel’s best friend. Of course, they are not going to heaven cuz, but that is not often discussed.
Svensker
Problem is, the Right has already got its line down re Scalise/Duke: Obama/Rev Wright! So, both sides, and our guy is not only worse but is President so neener neener. The issue is toast.
jl
@geg6: Thanks. It was Califano, who was not helpful in saying nonsense like that, even if the film does portray LBJ in an unfairly unsympathetic way.
I remember when ‘The Butler’ came out and wingers were outraged because they thought it portrayed their zombie godhead St. Reagan as a racist. I saw the film and did not see Reagan portrayed as a racist at all. So, I figured it was all projection of personal agendas of our current illustrious wingnuts. Maybe Reagan went along with some racist policies, but I don’t see how he was portrayed as personally racist at all.
So, from what I have heard, difficult for me to tell whether what the film did with LBJ was standard giggling with history to create drama, or something really mean and pointless and outrageously inaccurate. I’m eager to see the film, though.
Bobby Thomson
Don’t think about a pig ****er.
jl
@Cervantes:
I did read it, but forgot who wrote it.
Up towards the top of the article is says:
” In fact, Selma was LBJ’s idea, ”
Only person I have heard that from is Califano. What do historians say? Am I wrong?
Bobby Thomson
@Mandalay: Yeah, your concern is noted. I’m glad you’re here to let us know that Earnest is the real
racistvillain. Now isn’t there a fire somewhere?catclub
@jl: Check out Pierce. Not wrong, but as usual, complicated.
AxelFoley
@Yatsuno:
Thank you.
Fuck all this trying to be nice to the GOP, especially in light of this racist asswipe being potentially promoted to a high position in the House.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@gene108: If true, then we will lose every election from here on out for the rest of your life.
You seem fine with that, but most of the high-roaders who would rather lose with honor than win by any means necessary are.
AxelFoley
@Svensker:
Seriously? You’re comparing Rev. Wright to David Duke?
Steeplejack (tablet)
@AxelFoley:
Svensker is saying (very clearly) that is the right’s argument, not his/hers.
jl
@jl: I read the transcript of the LBJ-King phone call. LBJ was talking about finding examples of voting rights discrimination in the South that were obviously egregious and unfair, and publicizing them to get public opinion in favor of a voting rights act. LBJ was talking about publicizing illiterately written literacy tests like a commenter posted here last night I don’t see anything where LBJ even hinted at anything about how Selma unfolded. I certainly did not see LBJ saying “now you folks get yourself up a march and get the crap beat out of some your people for no damn reason at all, and that’ll be on the TV all over the country, and then I can…”
geg6
@jl:
Wasn’t a mean or pointless portrayal. It just wasn’t quite accurate. But it’s a movie, not a history book, so c’est la vie. Taking that out and taking out the complete erasure of the women, it’s a great film.
sm*t cl*de
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, himself a former legal U.S. resident who has been linked to the crypto-Satanic Church of Scientology.
Rhetoric like that is the sure sign of a reliable source. But I wonder about “crypto-Satanic”. Am I to understand that cryptology is Satanic, or that Satan is encoded via steganography so “the devil is in the details”?
geg6
@jl:
Well, if you stretch it a bit, he’s saying to show them in all their racist glory. And Selma certainly did the job, you must admit.
Southern Beale
Unrelated, but funny:
Heh.
sharl
@Bob In Portland: Have you read this, and if so, do you have any opinion about it?:
It’s a link to Politico (boo!), but it’s to their Magazine unit (qualified/reserved ‘yaay’).
AxelFoley
@Steeplejack (tablet): Which is still a comparison that doesn’t fly. Rev. Wright doesn’t compare to a Klan rally.
JPL
Selise’s office said he spoke to several groups, including that liberal League of Women Voters. If he thinks the League of Women Voters is a liberal group, there is a problem. Without the right to vote, we would have no democracy. I know the repubs don’t believe in the right to vote but geez.
I do wish that statement would be worthy of mention by the MSM.
Cervantes
@jl:
Well, how do you read that line in context? What do you think it means?
Bill Arnold
@sharl:
From the third page: “The aim is to confuse rather than convince, to trash the information space so the audience gives up looking for any truth amid the chaos.”
Steeplejack (tablet)
@AxelFoley:
And nobody here is saying that. Jesus.
jl
@Cervantes: I read the transcript, and as I pointed out in a comment above, I think think Califano’s statement that Selma was LBJ’s idea is such a huge exaggeration that it can be called simply false. At least the Selma that unfolded in history. The vague idea of finding outrageously discriminatory literacy tests and publicizing them, and the outrageous discrimination that resulted to galvanize public opinion might have been LBJ’s idea, but that is different from the Selma that actually happened.
Shana
@jl: I’d love to hear Robert Caro’s take on all this.
lol
@AxelFoley:
Svensker isn’t but the right-wing nutjobs are. The basic retort is either “BUT BUT REV WRIGHT” or “BUT BUT ROBERT BYRD”.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The people who care about Rev Wright are not persuadable, and “their” election cycle is past. Steve Scalise is in Congress now, and even McConnell sort indirectly/accidentally admitted the GOP has a problem with voters.
If even McConnell acknowledges implicitly that their first job is to prove they’re not nuts, they know they have a problem. Scalise, and King, and Farenthold, and Goehmert are parts of that problem.
Cervantes
@jl:
Well, needless to say, I am certain that your interpretation of Califano’s article is a good-faith interpretation. I guess I disagree with it somewhat but I’ll have to leave it at that for now.
(About LBJ’s record on civil rights in general, I did offer in a subsequent thread a short comment, not stemming from Califano’s opinion.)
jl
@Cervantes: I can see how opinions could differ.