Tomasky review further rebuts Gerth/Van Natta report of long-time plan for Hillary Clinton presidency
In a review of Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007) in the July 19 issue of The New York Review of Books, Michael Tomasky highlighted a May 31 written statement (provided in full below) by historian Taylor Branch that undermines Gerth and Van Natta's public defenses of a disputed allegation contained in their book -- that after President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he and Hillary Clinton updated their alleged "twenty-year project" to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for her."
In the book, Gerth and Van Natta attribute this allegation to a secondhand account by former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband, John Henry, of a conversation they told the authors they had with Branch in Aspen, Colorado, in which Branch purportedly disclosed that Bill Clinton had told him of the updated "plan." On the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, in response to Branch's description of the allegation as "preposterous," Van Natta suggested that Branch, when interviewed by the authors during the writing of the book, said he "couldn't remember" the allegation regarding the Clintons. However, in his May 31 statement, Branch asserted that what he had been unable to recall was seeing Crittenden and Henry "in Aspen years ago." As for the alleged conversation between the three of them, Branch stated that the authors "never told" him what he was "supposed to have said" to Crittenden and Henry and asserted that it was not until receiving advanced "proofs" of Her Way that he become aware of the substance of "a story attributed to me therein from the summer of 1993." Branch further stated he had "never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Gerth and Van Natta allege in Her Way that, in the 1970s, the Clintons agreed to a "twenty-year project," which initially consisted of "a political partnership with two staggering goals: revolutionize the Democratic Party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill." Gerth and Van Natta also claim that the alleged "pact" was expanded after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 to include "eight years as president for him, then eight years for" Hillary Clinton. Following is the passage from Her Way (Pages 128-129) in which Gerth and Van Natta source this allegation to a secondhand account of a purported conversation between Bill Clinton and Branch:
By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington, sometimes called Potomac fever, had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.
Branch described the plan to two Washington friends, John Henry and Ann Crittenden, over a barbeque dinner at a rodeo in Aspen, Colorado, that summer. 71 The president would frequently talk with Branch, a well-respected historian and author, about his place in history, and shortly after he was elected president, Branch said, Bill asked him to begin recording "diary sessions" as part of an oral-history project.
Branch had just come from one of those sessions, a marathon late-night chat with Bill at the White House, where the two men had talked as they stood on the back balcony, looking toward the Washington Monument. Now in the cool mountains of Colorado, Branch told his friends about the Clintons' presidential plans. The bold goal of sixteen years in the White House took Henry's breath away. "I was shocked," he said.
The endnote this passage referred to reads:
71. Author interviews with John Henry and Ann Crittenden in 2007. Branch, in an interview with one of the authors in 2007, said, "I don't remember" the conversation but "I'm not denying it." He acknowledged that he knows Henry and Crittenden and that he has been to Aspen many times. But Branch declined to discuss Hillary or Bill, saying it was "stupid" to do so in light of the fact that he was doing his own book on Bill's presidency.
In a May 25 article on the book, the Post reported that "Branch said that 'the story is preposterous' and that 'I never heard either Clinton talk about a 'plan' for them both to become president.' " In his May 31 statement on the "story attributed to me" in Her Way, Branch called it "disingenuous" for the authors to imply in the above endnote that he was " 'not denying' the substance of the story," and he stated that Gerth "never told me what I am supposed to have said in the summer of 1993." Following is Branch's full statement:
On May 24, 2007, I received by email copies of pages 128, 129, and 372 from the book Her Way, by Jeff Gerth, along with press inquiries about a story attributed to me therein from the summer of 1993.
The story is preposterous in several respects. First, I never heard either Clinton talk about a "plan" for them both to become president. Late in his second term, she and I did have a few glancing conversations about whether she might run for the Senate.
Second, my "diary sessions" with President Clinton did not begin until October of 1993. Before that, I did not see him for the twenty years between 1972 and the end of 1992. We began to get reacquainted in a handful of encounters during 1993, mostly in large groups. He was not disclosing long-term family ambitions to me then, and he never subsequently mentioned anything remotely like those described here.
Third, Mr. Gerth never told me what I am supposed to have said in the summer of 1993. I learned that only last week from the proofs of his book. It is disingenuous for him to imply that I am "not denying" the substance of his story. What I didn't deny is that I saw Ann Crittenden and John Henry in Aspen years ago. When Mr. Gerth called, I declined his request for an interview and asked him not to start discussing Clinton stories with me on the telephone. He was kind enough to comply.
This is a very small episode in fact, but fiction can readily impugn motives. Reporters who wish to clarify details on my role may contact me here in Baltimore.
Nonetheless, on the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, while defending the allegation regarding the Clintons' plan that both of them would become president, Van Natta suggested that what Branch "couldn't remember" was the allegation itself -- even though, according to Branch, Gerth never informed him what he was "supposed to have said" to Crittenden and Henry. During his appearance with Gerth, Van Natta said of the alleged updated plan: "Bill Clinton said that to Taylor Branch. Taylor Branch said it to two people, who told us on the record about it. ... Taylor Branch wouldn't comment about it for us. And now he says he definitely did not say it. But he couldn't remember it when we asked him about."
Furthermore, in his defenses of the allegation, Gerth has misleadingly suggested that Branch has contradicted himself on the issue, while omitting that he never informed Branch of the "substance" of the disputed conversation in Aspen:
- During the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Gerth claimed that he "interviewed Taylor Branch before the book and he didn't remember the conversation. He now says that he doesn't remember saying this."
- On the June 10 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Gerth claimed that after interviewing Crittenden and Henry he "later contacted Taylor Branch, asked him if he remembered the dinner in Aspen. He said he didn't, but he said he wouldn't deny it. Then he later, when the book came out, said it was preposterous."
- During the June 12 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Gerth claimed, "I called Taylor Branch and he didn't remember the dinner. Now he says he remembers not saying this particular conversation."
From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's go to some real controversy here. In your book, Her Way, you say that Bill and Hillary Clinton had a "twenty-year project" to -- for both of them to be president.
"More than three decades ago," you quoted, "in the earliest days of their romance, Bill and Hillary struck a plan, one that would become both the foundation and the engine of their relationship. They agreed to work together to revolutionize the Democratic Party and, ultimately, make the White House their home. Once their 'twenty-year project' was realized, with Bill's victory in 1992, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her."
To what extent can you prove that they had such a plan, Don?
VAN NATTA: Well, Leon Panetta, who was White House chief of staff in 1996, heard Bill Clinton say it. The words "twenty-year project" came out of Bill Clinton's mouth in a conversation with Leon Panetta on Air Force One. We have Leon Panetta on the record saying it.
We have a second source who heard Bill Clinton say it during the '90s while he was president.
MATTHEWS: Was that "twenty-year" -- did that 20 years refer to the period 1980 through 2000, when he went from being governor to president? Or do you suggest or argue that that refers to his presidency, followed by Hillary's presidency?
VAN NATTA: No, no, I'm only talking about the "twenty-year project," Chris. That's from the mid-70s --
MATTHEWS: Right.
VAN NATTA: -- before they even exchanged their marriage vows --
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN NATTA: -- they exchanged their political vows. That other issue about the eight years for him followed by eight years for her, Bill Clinton said that to Taylor Branch. Taylor Branch said it to two people, who told us on the record about it.
MATTHEWS: And then denied it?
VAN NATTA: Well, Taylor Branch -- we actually contacted Taylor Branch. Taylor Branch didn't -- wouldn't comment about it for us. And now he says he definitely didn't say it, but he couldn't remember it when we asked him about it. He's one of Bill Clinton's best friends.
MATTHEWS: Oh, I know that. I know that very well. Look, here's Senator Clinton's office. Here's what she had to say in her statement that came out today on Her Way, "There may debate about whether Tony Soprano died -- but one thing is clear: This book is dead on arrival."
Well, that was -- you know, that's Capitol Hill sort of trash talk. I don't know what to make of it. Let me go to Ed Schultz. What do you make of the charges that Clintons had this thing planned from day one; that they were going to share -- sort of like William and Mary back in England -- they were going to be dual monarchs, with one following the other in power?
SCHULTZ: Chris, I think it's a sad day in America when this is the best critique we can give of a couple that has got a record of public service and wanting to help people, that they would actually have a goal in life. Look at the lack of participation of young people in this country, and here you have the Clintons making an example. There's nothing wrong with setting a goal to be president of the United States.
There's nothing wrong with couples setting political goals. The fact is the Clinton years were productive for this country and a lot of people, especially in the Midwest, are looking for maybe more of the same if Hillary can win the nomination. I think it's great. What a great example that -- for young people that it's good to have a goal and move forward.
They didn't break any laws doing this. They had a goal. They want to help people.
VAN NATTA: Chris, we don't -- we don't make any judgment that it's a bad thing or a good thing. We simply report this. This is news. This is interesting. It's revealing. In Hillary Clinton's own book, her autobiography Living History, she doesn't signal any impulse at all for ambition. You know, it's incredible. She says that she ran for the Senate basically by popular demand.
From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
GERTH: Sure, it's a fascinating, you know, probably one of the most fascinating relationships, and I think, I've said this before, no person can crawl inside someone else's marriage, so I don't want to pretend that we know, you know, everything about their marriage, but I do think we demonstrate in the book that they took their political vows before their marital vows. And we describe, as described to us by Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff for President Clinton, this audacious plan. Bill Clinton called it their "twenty-year project," which was hatched in the 1970s when they were in their mid-20s, and the goal put together by he and Hillary was to reshape the Democratic Party and capture the presidency, which, of course, they did.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, no doubt about it. Hey, talk about the personal aspect of it where you have people talking about this relationship and so many people have been writing about it since Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. You usually have people close to them saying, despite how tortured it became in later years, that Hillary was deeply, deeply in love with Bill Clinton.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Finally, I was -- John Ridley was just handed me a note talking about this "twenty-year plan." I know even before the book came out you were challenged on the plan. What's the suggestion, that Panetta was just talking about Bill Clinton--
GERTH: No, no, no. The challenge is--
SCARBOROUGH: -- and not Hillary?
GERTH: It's something different. No one's challenged Leon Panetta's account. I mean, Panetta heard it from Bill Clinton himself. What we also write about in the book is that once they got into the White House in 1993 and had achieved the "twenty-year project," we recount an episode at a dinner, at a barbeque dinner in Aspen, Colorado, where two friends of Taylor Branch say he told them that he had just come from the White House and Bill had talked to him about his plan of serving eight years in the White House, hardly a surprise, and that Hillary then would, at some point, have eight years of his [sic] own. Now, Taylor Branch has -- I interviewed Taylor Branch before the book and he didn't remember the conversation. He now says that he doesn't remember saying this, but I should also point out that Taylor Branch has admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can't be objective. So, it's a "he said-she said" versus a "he said."
From the June 10 edition of NBC News' Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Let's go right to it. One of the important parts of this book is this notion of a grand design by Bill and Hillary Clinton to each serve two terms in the White House. This is the way you write about it: "By the summer of 1993, the ways of Washington ... had not dissuaded Bill or Hillary. According to one of their closest friends, Taylor Branch, they still planned two terms in the White House for Bill, and, later, two for Hillary."
You know what's happened now. This is The Washington Post reporting on this: "The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, [former Times reporter] Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them, 'The Clintons still planned two terms in the White House for Bill, later, two for Hillary.' Contacted last night, Branch said that 'the story is preposterous. I never heard either Clinton talk about a plan for them both to become president.' " What do you say?
GERTH: Well, Tim, I interviewed Ann Crittenden and John Henry, and they both separately recalled a barbecue dinner in Aspen, Colorado, in 1993 at a rodeo with Taylor Branch, and they were remembering him saying that he had just come from the White House -- he's a historian, and he had begun talking with President Clinton, and he told them about -- that Bill Clinton was going to serve eight years and then, at some point, Hillary was going to do eight years in the White House.
I later contacted Taylor Branch, asked him if he remembered the dinner in Aspen. He said he didn't, but he said he wouldn't deny it. Then he, later, when the book came out, said it was preposterous. I think I would add, Taylor is a respected historian, but he himself has admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can't be objective. So there are two people -- you know, Ann Crittenden's an award-winning journalist -- two people who say, "Yea," and Taylor Branch says, "Nay."
I mean -- I think more interestingly and more surprisingly, the ambition of the Clintons going back to when they were in their 20s, and the 20-year project that Leon Panetta remembers Bill Clinton describing to him.
RUSSERT: Well, Panetta said Bill Clinton running for president --
GERTH: Correct.
RUSSERT: -- but it was never about Hillary.
GERTH: No. But, but Bill Clinton, of course, at that point in the '70s, even before they married, was talking about Hillary Clinton -- that she could be president, but she'd had to subordinate her plans, of course, to his, coming to Arkansas.
RUSSERT: Philippe Reines, the press secretary for Senator Clinton, offered this statement to Meet the Press: "I have an on-the-record, named source extremely familiar with the facts of her life -- and I'm telling you it's absurd, bogus, nonsensical, conjured. Take your pick" -- his source obviously being Senator Clinton.
VAN NATTA: Well, Senator Clinton didn't speak with us for this book, Tim, and --
RUSSERT: Did you ask her?
VAN NATTA: We did. We went to her at the very beginning. In fact, I reached out to Howard Wolfson, her communications person, and when we told him about this book, he sighed audibly and it was as if somebody had punched him in the stomach, and he let us know that she had heartburn, basically, about this book, and so did [Clinton communications director] Lorraine Voles.
And it went beyond just Senator Clinton not cooperating with us. She put out the word not only to her aides and friends not to cooperate, and we were lucky that some did, but she also had -- some of her people on her staff urged some senators not to talk to us, including Harry Reid. So I'm not at all surprised by Philippe's statement.
RUSSERT: Jeff Gerth, also -- supporters of Hillary Clinton say your wife is a foreign policy adviser for Chris Dodd, and that's a conflict of interest, because he's running against Senator Clinton, and you shouldn't be authoring a book against one of Senator Dodd's opponents.
From the June 12 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now:
ZAHN: Yeah, very quickly in closing, Taylor Branch, a famous author, who happens to be a very good friend of Bill Clinton's, says that your notion of this project is nuts -- that he is close to the president, the president has never admitted to anything like that. He thinks you're pretty much making this up.
GERTH: Well, we had two people who told us this story on the record. They heard it from Taylor Branch in Aspen, Colorado, at a barbecue dinner at a rodeo. And I called Taylor Branch, and he didn't remember the dinner. Now he says he remembers not saying this particular conversation. And I'll add he is a respected historian, but he's also admitted that when it comes to Bill Clinton, he can't be objective.
ZAHN: Well, it looks like at least half of the project they talked about was committed to and delivered upon.
GERTH: Maybe more. Maybe more.
ZAHN: Jeff Gerth, Don Van Natta Jr., thank you.
GERTH: Thanks very much.
So I'm supposed to believe the story attributed to Branch about the sinister "20-year plan", because he's a totally trustworthy source. Except of course, when he denies that he ever related the story to the "Her Way" authors -- then I shouldn't believe him because he's not a trustworthy source.
MMFA presumes that if any such plan existed, Bill Clinton would have revealed it to Branch. The fact that Clinton did not, or at leats Branch says Clinton did not, is taken as rebuttal to the claim that the Clintons had such a plan. This is the level of defective logic at MMFA.
I take the fact that Hillary has been executing just such a plan to become President since 1999 as proof that such a plan exists, at the least in Hillary's mind, and is being implemented before our very eyes. MMFA persistently tries to deny this, exposing themselves as a ring full of circus clowns.
Issue of a dynastic, cavalier presumptuous highlights the problem of peerage in the track of the executive branch and probably all of government. Blabbing it up without critical review serves no other purpose than to advertise the absurdity till people come to accept it. And in its own way it is more lubrication of obtuse selection vis a vis icon and celebrity persona idolatry. This is why it's so much easier to think of politicians at the level of how immaturely they are gamed on the public, i.e. the student body officers.
...with the Bushes...or the whole 'boys from Brazil' distribution into governorships in key insurrectory strongholds, the Clintons obediently at their side, it has begun to take on appearances that worry Americans. Something else is subverting electoral franchise by recruitment and monolithic party duopolism. America is not invited, but expected to attend.
Why do I suddenly see myself as the caveman on the talk show - the one, who asked for comment on a talking-head set of zerospeak, comes up with "WHAT?"
Okay, with my Political Science degree (almost there) and a degree in American History, I have used my skills and knowledge to analyze writingincoherence's post.
So in response, Writinginco, WTF?!?! That really was "Incoherent"
Its a good thing your post is electronic and not on paper, or I would be angry that you killed a tree for that.
The incoherence is abundantly clear, none of the wimps will go anywhere near the question of the 20-year-plan of our American nobility. Maybe they work for Clinton's campaign, one of them anyway--Coke or Pepsi, D.C. beltway schnooks on a nepotism internship.
God o mighty...wait until brabantio shows up...you two will have great fun.
One of the misinterpretations of synoptic reflection, taking in the distractions and runaround, the meaningless hubbub that's supposed to intrigue the dissoriented American public day to day, is that it draws the dimensions of a flap in from more neutral observation and more significant, invariant and lasting key points. It isn't what lofty goals were once scrivened in a diary or letter, or the arbitrary verbatim content. It's what's implied by those communicating them and what it tells us about them, the way they size it up and picture themselves--like on the throne for 16 years take it or leave it, King and Queen, of the hop.
It's called Critical Theory, or just 'theory', and it isn't intested so much in who said what or what was said as is interested in the hermaneutics seen on the whole or what anyone can see for themselves. Writers, also have the lease to flourish, and postpone the mundane or blunt, pedestrian diatribe through what is called allusion, even metaphor. Through it, the art of writing, we are able to gather holistic senses that make us less prone to being led by the nose down any production of news media's garden path. It's also called x-ray vision and the sixth sense. Don't be jealous, just get into it or stick to your own groove. Be cool...or you'll get a beat'n.
And he smells good too!
Please, please read carefully because we use 10 words where three would suffice.
..say 'pretty please'.
On the subject of detractors for oafish, autocratic statements that turn up from time to time to haunt the candidates (such as the '20-year' prerogative), every day, their job is to find a set of media presentation to torment expectations and delay all cognition. If you nail it, the issue, they'll cry "incoherent", among the few words they're leaning on for all-purpose denunciation of rational analysis--like it were a peevish little brat's, flunkie reflexes from an education only substantiated on paper; and if from Yale, written in Latin to afford more obstruction. Their minimal trained reflexes betray a political track, party animal's disassociation from pragmatic exposition. Bought by the bushel they are stuffed into the headquarters of front line defense for the bastion of effete snob, has-been politicos where they man their battle stations to attack and exnominate the public at large for describing their racket and what they are or who employs them to a 't', ("writingincoherence" as an example of one such juvenile exnominating tactic).
In lieu of JulieJayne coming up with a limerick to explain WritingIndepence's meaning in the above posts over that author's name, I thought I would try a little blank verse (first try so bear with me on this).
Now does that help?
..Oscar has a desperate need to fit in with the gang.
Are you Tex on valium?
Bravo, Oscar! Bravo!
Perhaps a bit overstated, but for a first try, magnificent!
Operatic sycophancy!
Ganging up on someone is the recluse internet addicts false sense of security and reinforcement for that which they cannot find in real life. This describes the constant harranguing politicians of the 'weaker bully' party have had to endure to extreme over the past twenty years.
Take Senator Clinton's personal writing for example, why does the 'wacko violent-revolutionary other-left' need to go scounging something like that up? An early hatchet job written by rude Edward Klein went sniffing through her drawers in boarding school.
The 'gang' seems to like to seperate non-issues and uninvolved individuals from the subject, then apply their effort to attack that object. They remain very faithful to staying off the subject and don't really belong up here--it's for grown ups, the nitwits are flagged as being of an indecipherable or inconsistent rant. This posting at least raises the ante by looking at other witch-hunts the press has manufactured regarding the subject.
I'll give you credit on that one, WI. It was easy to understand, and made it's point succinctly.
I differ with you on your opinion of the criticism you've received here. It was not a "ganging up" for the purpose of exclusion. It was independent responses to your previous posts with a common complaint. Try to be objective when you go back and re-read the threads, and you'll find that your wordiness and your hard-to-grasp metaphors clouded any ideas you meant to convey.
That said, I agree with you that the press is on a 24/7 witch hunt. Not for personal or political reasons, but because that's how they sell advertising. It's the almighty dollar that drives journalism today, especially so regarding tv. The press is sure to follow, as competition for the audience falls across media borders.
I guess it's even difficult to put across to you when a conversation is over. Now I'm not trying to really tax the language in any way just to suggest it.
This is, in fact, a well-known tactic to anyone who watched the trashing of Al Gore in 2000. It works just like this. Al had something to be very proud of when it came to the Internet, because he was, in fact, one of the first leaders to recognize its potential, and he helped from the Senate to bring it from the DARPA project and the limited university network to full international potential. So he gave an interview where he said, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Clumsy, but basically true. This was changed by the RNC with a news release: "Al Gore says he invented the Internet, haw haw." And the shocking part is, idiots like Matthews and Dowd and Sue Schmidt and so on ran with what the RNC said, not what Gore said, and even less what two minutes of research would have shown. So Gore was painted as a delusional man who made crazy claims, instead of a man of vision who had made great contributions to the newest marvel in 1999.
It's clear that this book in particular was a shot along the bow: how to characterize Hillary and Bill as power-hungry manipulators making a blood oath complete with vampires and howling wolves. I think this one failed to make much impact. But there will be more in the future.
The vampire comparison is good. What that might in fact be is the industry that supports a politician's image and career, their publicity and the interest stake in their recruitment to be ombudsmen.
Nevertheless, Al Gore did not "initiate the internet".
This was his quote to Wolf Blitzer in a CNN interview: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Al Gore sure as H*** did not create the internet.
Yawn.
For the last time, jackass: Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the Internet." He was part of a group in Congress who were involved in passing the legislation that made the Internet what it is today. This is what he was referring to. Got it?
You need a new set of Republicant talking points.
So what? Someone thought she might want to be president and began preparing well in advance. I prefer that to someone who sobered up (apparently temporarily) in midlife and found himself installed into the office.
Going on the continuity of discussion so far (purple prose being more a pulp romance fiction derogatory), it is possible to outlay the tacit antilogism or inconsistent triad of elements thus far;
..that were an individual that challenged to the point of “incoherency”, and certainly not deserving of abuse for their effort to participate–no one would say anything about their defects of forming speech or trying to communicate it through the computer on the web and its easier access for the handicapped. Thus instead what we see is the more capable and practiced raconteur assailed for perhaps ‘showing off’, ergo contradiction. Continue pouring on the compliment.
And what with the strides to overwrite intelligent discussion about politics or political figures and the stories of the day finding them under new and interesting examination, there is a noticeable deficit in the story itself, or a plausible doubt it may be conspiratorial speculation whipped up from scratch and again as argued before, bandied about for the sole purpose of floating the idea of early career intentions taking on the magnitude of blueprints individuals in our democratic system should abhor for want of greater and more diverse citizen participation in government, shorter terms and a more robustly representative government eschewing gross nepotism going to seed the direction of monarchy. Thus were the antecedent pro, as in an advertisement to promote the politician under the dynastic ruse, they default by appearing to posture it as a foible, revealing that they are no better alternative and perhaps in league for the far worse (being cabalism); and converse, the opponent would be doing nothing to expand their mud slinging by lolling around trying to shoo the public away with trained and organized harassment off substantive comment. Thus containment of this system of sentential variables stabilizes in the logical argument (by functional gated AND tautology) the government is indeed boosted up on blocks with the wheels off by the coordinated hand of both ‘parties’ under a publicity management intermediary, likely from abroad..or a broad.–is that a conjunct preposition?
Reviewing what this means per logic, after all no longer a core curriculum discipline like it was for most people’s parents, and I’m in my 40's. It got downsized in American public education to elite high school clubs who only wanted to practice it to imitate the rhetoric of their professional heros, and then in college if ever encountered it was in the form of public speaking courses with textbooks that did outline the working toolkit of ‘fallacious logic’or b.s. detection; and we know who takes public speaking classes, the communications majors who are duped into conceiving of the language as their arena and on their own terms, it being either in news production or a political career. Far from the truth they can’t even understand, logic is part of mathematics and a vast subject of considerable scientific development–a whole field of professional work. The con artists work together to abbreviate language and any erudition, that way they can get away with their deliberate charades for as long as they want, having lobotomized (or leukotomized as they say in the U.K....in Austria it’s named after two of their pediatricians Asperger and Kanner) the processes of objective discovery or any distillation through categorical filters, boiling off the nonsense which obtrudes in order to get down to brass tacks. It isn’t interesting anymore, and no one has to put up with it. We demand an open public discussion of our democratic system’s engineering and we’re going to take it whether you like it or not or cry ‘doowah-ditties’ all day. Go on and try to ‘cohere’ that a while why don’t you, until it really resonates? I can write recipes for sugar and starch too, but that is beneath my dignity and utterly inexcusable here at mediamatters.org.