W.H. pushes back hard at Suskind

[ProSense]

W.H. pushes back hard at Suskind

By: Mike Allen

The White House launched an aggressive response to a forthcoming book that chronicles internal dissent and second-guessing of President Barack Obama by his own staff and presents Obama as a conflicted, sometimes wavering leader.

Administration officials assert that “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President” by Ron Suskind is infested with errors, both big (what they characterize as misquotations and distorted narratives) and small (several names, a birth date, a publication date, an employer, an unemployment rate, etc.) and gives a distorted and inaccurate picture of the White House under Obama.

But the book’s highly-publicized launch was more bad news for a White House reeling this week from declining poll numbers and a call from a prominent Democrat - former Clinton aide James Carville - for Obama to shake up his staff because “It’s not going to work with the same team, the same strategy, and the same excuses.”

<...>

Dunn told POLITICO: “This is not what I told the author, this is not what I believe and anyone who knows me and my history of supporting this President as a candidate and in office knows this isn’t true” - a flat denial that will put pressure on Suskind to publicly document what she told him.

more

Suskind, Carville and the rest of the saboteurs evidently believe that the President, on top of trying to fend off Republican attacks and trying to pass a jobs bill, need to spend time debunking bullshit innuendo and rumors from people who claim to be on the left.

[grasswire]

1. this reporter is a tool

I wouldn't trust him. He used to like W. quite a bit.

[SteppingRazor]

3. He did? He wrote fairly anti-Bush articles for Esquire as far back as 2002...

Also, he has two books that put the Bush administration in a truthful light -- The Price of Loyalty and the One Percent Doctrine. In fact, I don't think there's a single, solitary article the guy has written that could be construed as pro-Bush. Objective, maybe, but never pro-Bush. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?

[grasswire]

13. Mike Allen, not Ron Suskind!

The article quoted in the OP was written by Mike Allen.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. Not Ron Suskind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Loyalty

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, is a 2004 book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Suskind. The book was the first to provide critical insight into the events that led up to the Iraq War. The Price of Loyalty was met with both commercial and critical success, and was the first book by Suskind to be a #1 New York Times best-seller.

[grasswire]

14. I'm talking about Mike Allen, not Ron Suskind. nt

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lsewpershad]

23. Carnival carville

is also a tool and one man freak show.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Isn't this what you always profess, it's not his fault.

Isn't this what the book is saying. His staff isn't with him but yet he doesn't shitcan their asses.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arctic Dave]

15. Reminds me of the people who fawned all over bush. The backwash of the voting public.

Yep, we have them too.

[tularetom]

4. I think it's a crock too, but you know what

This is 21st century America, where perception is reality.

And the WH allowed the perception of Obama as spineless and wimpy to get out there and take hold in the public consciousness.

This Administration has been completely passive in pushing its message. Even in his excellent Jobs Bill speech, the President couldn't or wouldn't point fingers at those responsible for our current economic predicament. It gives the impression that he is either very naive or complicit.

Sure, Suskind and Carville are hacks with their own agendas. Suskind wants to sell books and Carville is a Bill Clinton butt boy who wants to keep fighting the 2008 primary and prove to us that we would have been better off with Hillary Clinton.

But that doesn't mean they are 100% wrong. It is time for Obama to take some dramatic steps to get the momentum back on his side.

[ProSense]

5. Yeah,

"This is 21st century America, where perception is reality.

And the WH allowed the perception of Obama as spineless and wimpy to get out there and take hold in the public consciousness.

This Administration has been completely passive in pushing its message. Even in his excellent Jobs Bill speech, the President couldn't or wouldn't point fingers at those responsible for our current economic predicament. It gives the impression that he is either very naive or complicit."

...it's Obama's fault that assholes have been trying to undermine his Presidency since day one.

Like I said here, it doesn't matter how many times the President calls out Republicans. The meme that he doesn't will never die.

[tularetom]

10. It's not his fault that assholes have been trying to undermine his presidency

But it is his fault if he doesn't point out that fact in the same graphic terms as you used (Well, maybe he has to tone it down a little but he needs to name names and point fingers. Because that's what they are doing to him, and it seems to be working.)

A poor economy is always the fault of the president who happens to be in office. Whether it really is or isn't. This is popular opinion now and it has been for years. It's up to the president to do his best to debunk that opinion and this is where this president could do a lot more.

[ProSense]

16. Are

"A poor economy is always the fault of the president who happens to be in office. Whether it really is or isn't. This is popular opinion now and it has been for years. It's up to the president to do his best to debunk that opinion and this is where this president could do a lot more."

...you confusing the President's approval rating with who is blamed for the economy. All the polls show that Bush, by margins up to 20 points, is still blamed for the economy.

<...>

And more Americans still blame former President George W. Bush rather than Obama for the economic distress. Some 31 percent put the bulk of the blame on Obama, while 51 percent point to his Republican predecessor.

<...>

Just 51 percent consider Obama a strong leader, down from 60 percent in June and 65 percent following the capture and death of Osama bin Laden in May. In June, 85 percent of Democrats in the poll called him a strong leader. Now, the number is down to 76 percent.

See the polls say one thing, but the barkers and pundits always say something else.

[tularetom]

17. OK fine, I'll shut up

It isn't much comfort to me that people blame Bush more than Obama. Bush is already gone, they can't do anything about him. Obama is still around, he becomes the scapegoat by process of elimination.

But you say it isn't like that. Everybody loves the President and supports him 100%. Great, I'll quit being concerned about it.

I guess it's all a multi dimensional chess game and far beyond my meager powers of comprehension.

[ProSense]

18. Well

"OK fine, I'll shut up"

...that's up to you.

"But you say it isn't like that. Everybody loves the President and supports him 100%. Great, I'll quit being concerned about it."

Where did I say that?

"I guess it's all a multi dimensional chess game and far beyond my meager powers of comprehension."

This leads me to question the motivation behind the first response.

[frazzled]

19. So everything would be okay with you if he just said ...

"assholes" (as in the Republicans are being assholes)? That's what it takes to get your support?

[Lionessa]

7. a flat denial that will put pressure on Suskind to publicly document what she told him....

I'm going to wait to choose sides as it were till he has a chance to produce the documentation. If he pops up with an audio or something, which I doubt, but if he does... it will be hard to just write the book off. If he doesn't then no problem, he's a fraud like so many others.

[bemildred]

20. I agree.

I think the Suskind book is likely largely horseshit. God knows that is one thing Washington still mass produces. But it will get interesting if he has anything besides hearsay and "interpretation".` Doonesbury did a good series this week on "interpretation" WRT the Palin book.

[Whisp]

8. that's why I despise these lieing cowards.

there is real work to do and all Obama needs is more feet stuck out to trip him. fucking stupid morons

[roguevalley]

12. and when she does put her data out there, the interviews, etc.

then what will everyone say? This is a man with real strengths and weaknesses not a god.

[and-justice-for-all]

21. I work for a major bookstore and there is a major need for

books from the left. The politics section is infested with reichwing bullshit.

Some jack ass today bought three gingrich books (from the bargin bin mind you) and ask me if I like gingrich, I quickly said 'Im not a fan' and he proceed to tell me just how great he thought gingrich is....not to mention the other trite shit books he bought, it took a lot to not hurl all over the fucking counter.

[vroomvroom]

22. Let's Face It...The facts in the Book seem to match the pattern of this President.

From what i have heard about this book it seems to match and explain why Obama has been so fetishly interested in going right.

[ProSense]

24. Complete

"From what i have heard about this book it seems to match and explain why Obama has been so fetishly interested in going right."

...nonsense that doesn't match reality.

"fetishly interested in going right"?

The statement above is typical of the negative memes have been constantly repeated since the first months of this Presidency.

It's a deliberate attempt to denigrate the President's achievements by ignoring them and supplanting acknowledgment of progress with talk of sell out! In fact, when attempts to denigrate the President's achievements fall flat, his detractors attack his character.

It's disgusting, and reminds me of the RW attempts to attack Democrats on their strengths.

Like attacking the President who appointed women to head the State, Homeland Security and Health departments, who elevated the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to a cabinet-level position and appointed Susan Rice to fill it, who has nominated more women to the courts and who created the Council on Women and Girls for creating a "hostile environment for women."

First lady urges Congress to act on school meals

The First Lady's Trip to Africa

Dr. Jill Biden Arrives in Kenya

Advancing Women’s Rights Is Progressive Foreign Policy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is spearheading a quiet revolution in progressive foreign policy by making the empowerment of women and advancement of their rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. While overshadowed by other foreign policy issues—the global financial crisis; wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya; nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea; terrorism; and the Arab Spring to name a few—the Obama administration has embarked on the most concerted effort to advance women’s rights in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

<…>

Action was swift: On his third day in office, President Obama rescinded the “Global Gag Rule” and restored U.S. funding to international family planning organizations that fund abortion. Less than two months later, the Obama administration restored U.S. funding to the U.N. Population Fund after a seven-year hiatus. What’s more, the administration created the Office of Global Women’s Issues in the State Department, reporting directly to Secretary Clinton, and appointed Melanne Verveer as the first ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues.

The administration has incorporated women into its two major development initiatives: the Feed the Future Initiative and the Global Health Initiative. The $3.5 billion Food Security Initiative acknowledges that women produce between 60 percent and 80 percent of the food in developing countries and estimates that providing women with agricultural “inputs” such as land, fertilizer, and seed varieties equal to those of men increases economic output by 10 percent in developing countries. Accordingly, the Feed the Future Initiative will target interventions such as access to financial services, agricultural inputs, and extension services at women, as well as focusing on legal reforms that will allow women farmers to own the land they work.

<…>

The Obama administration has also pledged money to reduce gender-based violence in war, including $17 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo and almost $44 million toward a National Action Plan to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 on the role of women in conflict resolution. Finally, the United States worked toward the creation of a unified U.N. agency—U.N. Women—dedicated to women’s rights and empowerment.

<…>

[frazzled]

25. The people he's quoting to make his point say it's a lie

Larry Summers, re his supposed quote: "“There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.’”

Summers, now a Harvard professor, was traveling in Europe but said in a comment supplied to POLITICO: “The hearsay attributed to me is a combination of fiction, distortion and words taken out of context. I can’t speak to what others have told Mr. Suskind, but I have always believed that the president has led this country with determined, steady and practical leadership in the economic area.”

Anita Dunn, re her supposed quote: "“his place would be in court for a hostile workplace … Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

Dunn told POLITICO: “This is not what I told the author, this is not what I believe and anyone who knows me and my history of supporting this president as a candidate and in office knows this isn’t true”

SO: It's time for Susskind to release his 746 hours of interviews so that we can judge the statements and contexts.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Mr. Suskind smells like shit based on my own investigation.....

Thus far I see Two women appointed to the Supreme Court for life, and women high in the administration's cabinet like Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebilius, Hilda L. Solis, and Lisa P. Jackson. As well, I believe that additionally there have been appointments made for (very partial list) Nicole Yvette Lamb-Hale, of Michigan, assistant secretary of Commerce; Marisa Lago, of New York, assistant Treasury secretary; Ellen Gloninger Murray, of Virginia, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services; Mary John Miller, of Maryland, assistant secretary at Treasury; Mary Sally Matiella, of Arizona, assistant secretary of the Army; Cynthia L. Attwood, of Virginia, member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; Sharon Y. Bowen, of New York, director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and Valerie Jarrett as one of his closest advisers, many others.....

In addition I note that of the 98 Obama judge nominees confirmed to date, 47% were women....which beats Clinton who had a 29% confirmation record on female judges. Of the total he has nominated (but not confirmed), the ratio is 58% women.

In addition, making Birth Control Free to women by insurance providers, establishing a Council for Women and Girls via an executive order, literally saving Planned Parenthood from going into extinction in some states, and the fact that NO Women's groups have had any comments beyond my understanding that the women in the book are saying they were misquoted.

I believe that is a lot of evidence on the President's side as one would have to
at least believe the mantra here at DU; actions speak louder than words. Guess that still holds true, no? :shrug: