Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (55442)	7/21/2004 8:28:37 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793899

Did the Dems leak it? Jonah makes a case for it. MARSHALL, BERGER, LANNY [Jonah Goldberg ] I see (Via Andrew Sullivan) that Josh Marshall really has the Dem's talking points. He writes: The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes. Now, it's certainly defensible to say that this is the "most obvious" explanation. But it is flatly ludicrous to say that this is probably the "only" explanation. Berger is a Clinton alum. So are his chief spinners, including Lockhart and Lanny Davis. Davis's rule -- he even wrote a book on this -- is to dump damaging info at the best moment possible. I know several Republicans who think this Berger leak is a classic Lanny Davis move. Berger's in trouble. The news is going to come out eventually, perhaps during a much worse moment during the presidential campaign. Why not leak it now and say that the Republicans leaked it in order to distract from the 9/11 report? The Clintonites were brilliant at this sort of pre-emptive spinning. Now, I don't think this is the most probable explanation either. But Marshall has a remarkably annoying habit of thinking that the only explanations for anything are rooted in the evilness of Republicans. What's annoying isn't that instinct, mind you, it's the way he makes it seem like he's not being partisan so much as high-minded and sophisticated. Also, can we please get a little less haughtiness about the White House using its powers for partisan advantage from defenders of the Clinton administration -- which filed criminal charges against the travel office and routed immigrants straight off the boats and into the voting booths?