In my review of Culture of Corruption I argue that there are two chapters that don’t support Michelle Malkin’s thesis of the book:
The chapter on the Clintons:
The Chapter on Chris Dodd:
Today Michelle Malkin answers me on Dodd in her column:
But Dodd’s cratering numbers and mounting ethics scandal aren’t just about Dodd. Damaged birds of a feather flock together. Even before these latest disclosures, Dodd’s approval ratings had dropped to their lowest levels ever. Yet, President Obama – agent of the “new politics,” erstwhile Breath of Fresh Air, guarantor of all that is good and clean in Washington — declared his support for Dodd’s 2010 re-election campaign bid.
“I can’t say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help,” President Obama announced in April. “He just has an extraordinary record of accomplishment, and I think the people of Connecticut will come to recognize that.”
The problem with this argument is that I can’t think of any president that has rejected a member of his party up for re-election in the senate due to ethics issues, particularly one with power and seniority of Dodd. The president’s endorsement has everything to do with his legislative agenda and nothing to do with Dodd’s corruption.
The second point comes from a S.D. Hoyt who left this comment at my Amazon review:
In case you did not know, Hillary Clinton was born in Chicago and did her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky, the original Chicago community organizer. Access to that thesis was limited when Bill Clinton became President. So there is some connection between the Clintons and the Chicago clan. Not nearly as much as the Obama’s thorough indoctrination.
It is a good point, I reply as follows:
That is true but the Clintons where not included in the administration due to their Chicago connections or their knowledge on how to play ball. The Clinton concessions were necessary to unite the party and avoid the risk embarrassment on the convention floor before the election and to make political peace afterwards. This would have been the case even if the Clintons were as clean as Paul Tsongas.
One might make the argument that if the Clintons were clean they would not have been in that position but that’s not the books thesis.
When you get past the 1 star reviews from non readers the discussion is actually quite interesting.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 