Kevin McCarthy’s silver-plated gift to Hillary Clinton

[DemocratSinceBirth]

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is, at this moment, the Democrats’ best pal. He went on Fox News last night to talk up his campaign to replace outgoing House Speaker John Boehner, and he ended up saying out loud and on television the one thing Republicans aren’t supposed to say about the House Select Committee on Benghazi: it’s all about taking down Hillary Clinton


This is an archetypal example of the Kinsley Gaffe: a politician accidentally uttering a truthful statement. Anyone who’s paid even cursory attention to the GOP’s treatment of the Benghazi attacks will likely have already concluded that the party’s interest in the matter is linked to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. But it’s still bracing to see one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington come right out and brag about how he and his colleagues set up a taxpayer-funded investigation to damage the political prospects of the opposition party’s leading presidential candidate. It’s downright scandalous, and precisely the sort of political corruption that Republicans argue is at the heart of the Obama administration’s response to Benghazi.

No less remarkable is the fact that McCarthy offered up the politicized Benghazi investigation as an “example” of how he would conduct business as Speaker of the House. He just put it right out there and told Sean Hannity that the McCarthy Congress will be a series of investigations aimed at hurting the Democrats’ chances of electoral success.


http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/kevin_mccarthys_silver_plated_gift_to_hillary_clinton_what_his_benghazi_blunder_reveals_about_the_gops_warped_priorities/

[enid602]

1. technique

I think it's called McCarthyism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. It was only a matter of time before they overplayed their hand.

eom

[forest444]

6. And we all know how that worked out for the Rethugs:

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Maybe now segments of DU will, either ...

1) Acknowledge they have been played by the gop; or,

2) Stop with the daily EMAIL-GATE!!!!!!!! Ops ... and wait patiently, for the next OMG SCANDAL!!!!!!; or,

[Jim Lane]

4. Just who should acknowledge that?

All the DUers who've opposed Clinton's candidacy on the grounds that she was complicit in some kind of Benghazi-related wrongdoing?

I think just about the only people who've posted on DU to that effect got shown the door by MIRT in short order.

The link to emails doesn't hold up. Republicans ginned up a scandal about Benghazi, hoping to hurt Clinton -- true. Republicans have also talked up emails hoping to hurt Clinton -- true. Therefore, anything related to emails is also a phony scandal -- may well turn out to be true but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Republican scandal-mongers do not possess reverse infallibility.

ETA: Besides, I doubt that anyone on DU learned anything from McCarthy's admission. All of us, even those who think Clinton is too conservative, already knew that the latest Benghazi panel was a purely political exercise. The only surprising thing is that McCarthy incautiously admitted it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Okay; but ...

The link to emails doesn't hold up. Republicans , and a segment of DU, ginned up a scandal about Benghazi, hoping to hurt Clinton -- true. Republicans, and a segment of DU, have also talked up emails hoping to hurt Clinton -- true. Therefore, anything related to emails is also a phony scandal -- may well turn out to be true but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

[NBachers]

7. nice insertions

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Thank you ... I was pretty certain a corner of DU still valued truth ...

Yes ... I know you were being sarcastic; but, that doesn't detract from the fact that it isn't just "republicans" doing the ginning.

[a2liberal]

10. I would love links to this truth

Honestly.

Like Jim Lane in post 4, I don't think I've seen anyone on DU pushing or supporting the bullshit Benghazi scandal in any way

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Really? You don't see the daily email-gate updates? n/t

[Jim Lane]

21. I'm glad to see you back but this is just sloppy thinking.

Benghazi played a role in drawing attention to Clinton's use of an email server, but the two are logically distinct.

I personally haven't paid much attention to "email-gate" but DUers who think it's serious seem to believe:
1) Clinton did nothing wrong in connection with Benghazi, a trumped-up phony scandal.
2) Clinton did do something wrong in her handling of emails, with practices that were ill-advised even if legal.

There is nothing inconsistent in those two assertions.

Your insertions in #5 don't get you around the problem. First, I dispute your implication that any significant segment of DUers has pointed to Benghazi as indicating bad conduct by Clinton. People have mentioned it as a possible general-election liability, but that's a legitimate argument, akin to the Clinton supporters who say that the word "socialist" would be devastating to a Sanders candidacy. Those Clinton supporters aren't red-baiting, and Clinton opponents who worry about the Benghazi impact aren't ginning up a phony scandal.

Second, even if there were a bunch of DUers who were saying Clinton did something awful re Benghazi and also did something awful re emails, the weakness of the former argument wouldn't disprove the latter. I said before that Republicans don't possess reverse infallibility. Let me expand that: No one possesses reverse infallibility. You don't disprove any argument just by pointing out that stupid people are making it.

My own thought for the general election, if Clinton is the nominee, is that Benghazi will have no effect. With or without McCarthy's admission, anyone who gave any credence to Republican attacks concerning Benghazi wasn't going to vote for Clinton anyway. The email thing might have some legs. There'll be people who form the vague impression that Clinton was a little sloppy with classified information. A few of them will probably be swayed by that, to Clinton's detriment. That loss will be partially offset by a sympathy vote from people who conclude that there really is a VRWC going after her.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Okay. I, particularly agree with the last paragraph ...

and would far rather, DU's focus be on the McCarthy admission.

[a2liberal]

25. I wasn't talking about the emails

You specifically added "and a segment of DU" to "ginned up a scandal about Benghazi" in your edits.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Yes ... There is a particular DUer, providing near daily email-gate updates ...

who also was hopped up on Benghazi, as well. And, his posts got plenty of recs from a number of folks that are posting and recing the email-gate updates.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. this goes all the way back to Whitewater, and the dog and pony show that followed...

all the way to impeachment, was what brought us GWB, as Gore was tarnished with the Clinton brush (by association), just enough to make the election stealable.

Then there were the Swiftboaters. Again, the media played right along with the RW maniac liars, ignoring the facts long enough to destroy Kerry's reputation.

They tried the same thing in 08, with one fake Obama scandal after another, but Palin was just too much to swallow

Benghazi, email, then what? 'Scandal' du jour, faux outrage of the day. That's all they've ever had: throw stuff against the wall til it plays out, then on to the next bucket of BS.

And I'm not for Hillary in the primary process.

not by a long shot

BTW the 7PM MSNBC show is leading with Benghazi....can't wait to see how this plays out. I won't be surprised if this inquisition's latest turn will be largely ignored by most of the media.

[NBachers]

13. There was a weak undercurrent of semi-humor, but I was truly honest in my approval.

I'm supporting your exposure of one of the primary agendas around here; you've exposed this agenda with your bold insertions.

This statement is based on my own perceptions. If anyone wants a link, I will self-link to the statement I've made in this post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Sorry ... I guess I have to get back my sea legs, after my recent time out ...

but notice, the denial above.

[NBachers]

16. That's why I made the statement below: slight undercurrent of humor yet referring to any appropriate

"link link" posters -

"This statement is based on my own perceptions. If anyone wants a link, I will self-link to the statement I've made in this post."

[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[cui bono]

15. You mean like the corners who say things like...

"it's not racism, it's economics" and "when do the minorities get to play"?

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Well ... Yes ...

I claim that truth of "when do the minorities get to play" (context: cheering crowds of whiteness, in 95+% white states, in the face of a lack of Black support and a message completely devoid of a racial platform ... except his marching with Martin).

But I have consistently argued against the economic primacy message of "it's not racism, it's economics", as that has never been the truth for Black folks.

[cui bono]

18. The minorities get to play in that context - showing up to rallies - whenever they like.

Bernie's not keeping anyone away. Other than the people who can't get in because he's always got SRO and thousands more people showing up than the venue can hold. You know there is black support for Bernie and it's growing every day. You and those corners of DU just liked pointing it out and making a big deal out of the first few crowds in order to try to make him bad. Fact of the matter, the more people get to know about him, the more people support him. We can all see that happening. And you said it in a way as to attempt to disparage Bernie. Again, nothing from you against Hillary for that, was there? And no concern over her being so dismissive about BLM? If you are going to make racism and social justice your main issue, you should be concerned about it across the board with all candidates. Otherwise you just make yourself look like you are exploiting it and using it as a political football. Especially when you viciously attack other PoC because they support Sanders.

Okay, I *may* have mistaken the context of your quote of "it's not racism, it's economics" but I do remember it being in an exchange where people were being snarky and ridiculing Bernie and it seemed clear at the time that you were saying it as if it were a Sanders supporter saying it or even Bernie himself. Sarcastically, and with a *wink wink* attitude. It is clear as bell in my memory that that's how you said it, but I'll give you that one since I may have misinterpreted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. I NEVER saud Bernie was keeping anyone away from his events ...

I did say, Bernie was holding his events in very white spaces.

[Bonobo]

19. No one EVER said "It's not racism".

The pretense that the two are somehow mutually exclusive is one of the silliest and disingenuous memes ever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Okay. n/t

[bagimin]

9. k&r

friggin douchebags.

[hrmjustin]

20. He is not ready for prime time.

[AtomicKitten]

22. This doesn't change the fact that she used an unsecured private server for classified gov't business

[Cali_Democrat]

24. There is no such thing as a secure server.

Government servers, including state dept servers, get hacked all the time.

[oasis]

23. GOP exposed. This will have legs.

[riversedge]

26. 1+

[Vinca]

27. She'd be wise to milk this for all it's worth.

She'd also be wise to not be as polite about it as she was during the Sharpton interview.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. As a political tactic aggrieved victim is just fine.

eom

[Gothmog]

33. The GOP need to reimburse the taxpayers for this fraudulent investigation