Monday, May 09, 2016

Now entering: The Stone Zone (Or: Bernie's Big Secret)

Politico offers a clickbait pictorial of the 16 worst political dirty tricks of all time, and it's definitely worth a look. What Politico doesn't tell you is that several of those "tricks" bear the mark of Roger Stone, the man now seeking to cap off his career by oozing Donald Trump into the Oval Office.

In fact, pretty much all of the other tricks could fit into the Stone playbook.

There are a few good articles about Stone that you can find on the internet. There is also a quasi-legendary piece by Jacob Weisberg which seems to have disappeared completely. If you can find it, you're a God Among Researchers. Until it turns up, I direct your attention to work of Toobin and Labash.

Even if you've already read all of that, the real truth about Stone goes far deeper than you know.

If you feel brave enough to take a course in Advanced Stone Studies, you should look at a long investigation published on a little-known blog called I Talk You Bored. The unknown author of this site offers the equivalent of a book-length biography of Stone -- replete with copious footnotes and documentation.

For me, at least, that piece is anything but boring.

(The author is also a Twin Peaks fan. I like this guy.)

This investigation contains a gruesome recounting of the work done by Stone's associates on Carl Paladino's 2010 NY gubernatorial campaign. Interestingly, that election has given rise to a lawsuit in which Stone is named...
Even by the detestable norms of New York politics, the election mailer that arrived in thousands of area mailboxes back in 2010 was grotesque.

Disguised as a "sexual predator alert," it described Warren Redlich, then a Libertarian Party candidate for governor, as "a sick twisted pervert" who "defends sex with children."

"If you encounter this man, proceed with caution," the mailer said. "If you see this man near a public school, call the police."

The claims had no basis in truth and, as you might imagine, they didn't go over well in the Redlich home.

In fact, it wasn't long before Redlich, a former Guilderland Town Board member, filed a defamation lawsuit against three notable names in New York GOP politics: Roger Stone, Michael Caputo and Carl Paladino.

Ancient history? Not quite.

Last month, a New York City judge ruled the lawsuit could go to trial, while observing that "politics is too often a dirty business" and that, if true, the action by Stone, Caputo and Paladino was "reprehensible."
Stone is ... well, how exactly do I describe Roger Stone? A book wouldn't do the subject justice.

He's a self-described political dirty trickster who's been doing just that since the Nixon administration. He typically works for conservative candidates, but not always. He advised Al Sharpton's brief presidential run, for example.
Ah, but why did Stone push Sharpton into that race?

We've known for a while that Al Sharpton is quite compromised. Larry Kolb's book Overworld offers some interesting insights into the man. (See here.)

The book-length Stone expose written by the unnamed "Twin Peaks freak" offers further details of the Stone/Sharpton relationship...
Wayne Barrett would also document a second prominent time when Stone would use a candidate for divisive purposes, and this would be Al Sharpton in the 2004 Democratic primaries. “Sleeping With the GOP: A Bush Covert Operative Takes Over Al Sharpton’s Campaign” would detail how Stone would provide loans and staff for Sharpton’s campaign, with the intent to divide the democrats in 2004 as they had been in 1972. While the Club for Growth bought ads against Howard Dean in Iowa, Sharpton would attack Dean for the lack of black men and women in his Vermont cabinet. It was just like in 1972, when black protesters had suddenly shown up outside Edmund Muskie’s hotel room, demanding why he had ruled out the possibility of a black vice president. A member of the Nixon CREEP committee, Donald Segretti, would later take credit for that. “Top level consideration should be given to ways and means to promote, assist, and fund a Fourth Party candidacy of the Left Democrats and/or the Black Democrats,” wrote a Nixon strategist and speechwriter in 1972. “There is nothing that can so advance the President’s chances for reelection – not a trip to China, not four and a half per cent unemployment – as a realistic black…campaign.” That Nixon strategist was Pat Buchanan, before he himself became a third party threat to conservative voter unity213.

The desire to support and fund the creation of a fourth party, one led either by Eugene McCarthy or one with black candidates catering specifically to a black demographic, for the express purpose of splitting the Democratic vote, is made explicit in the tapes of the Nixon White House, a plan approved by the then president himself.
What's past is present.

I have given you just one indication -- one among many -- of why I suspect that Roger Stone is the secret power behind Bernie Sanders. Bernie himself may not be aware of what's going on. But if you read the above-linked bio of Roger Stone, as well as the pieces by Toobin and Labash, you will know.

More to come.
I always suspected some GOP operatives were behind Burney. The money was a big clue. His continuing operation despite the math reeks with all possibilities all of them dirty. Funny thing during the nineties whenever I saw Stone talking I always had the impression that he an idiot.
Bernie has popular support, which explains the myriad small donations from millions of donors. Hillary has corporate support because she's a sellout who's positions are dictated by the bribes - er, contributions she gets.

Honestly, you're such a tool Joe.

Anon, normally I would not have passed your comment. I let your words go through to make a point: WATCH THIS SPACE.

I've done my research -- talked to a guy at the FEC and all of that. And very soon I will prove that the Kool-Aid you've drunk contains a hidden poison.

Beware of the candidate (not just Bernie: ANY candidate) who brags about being entirely funded by small donations. Such campaigns are far MORE likely to be fueled by dirty money.

As I said: Watch this space.

Michael: The polls are indeed worrying and I of course am predicting an eventual Trump win. But the notion that Bernie stands a better chance is inane. Bernie Sanders has had NO negative coverage; Hillary has had nothing but. So far, all that the public has heard about Sanders is that he is that nice old man on Colbert's show who wants to give away free ice cream to everyone.

That situation will change if Sanders gets the nomination, or if he is named as Veep. The change has already started: Look at how the news is labeling the disaster in Venezuela as an example of what happens when you let socialism take power.

That's just a taste of what is to come. Forget current polls. If Sanders were to get the nomination, he would suffer a 50 state loss. A socialist simply is NOT NOT NOT going to win the presidency in a country where more people identify themselves as conservative than as liberal (by a pretty wide margin, to boot).

I know you like Bernie, but if you can't be more realistic, then I must presume that you are a paid troll.
An outfit called claims to have pdf copies of "State-of-the-Art Sleazeball", by Jacob Weisberg, The New Republic, December 9, 1985, pp. 20-23 (, but says that they’re copyright protected, and therefore not available.

If you have the original link, the Wayback Machine ( may have a copy.

It's amusing when a cult member accused you of being a "tool." Do they think Hillary also doesn't have millions of supporters when she has millions more votes?

Strange bedfellows, btw, Joseph. Have you seen the dailykos article on how the system is rigged against....Hillary?

Joe, I believe that most voters don't know what "socialism" really is -- and DO NOT CARE. The ones who might have cared - your age and mine, products of the cold-war era - have mostly died off. The ones who might be manipulated into caring, still not knowing what it is, will vote for Trump anyway, or stay home. (Remember, there's always that 30% of america who are mostly nuts and crackers - we call them the "GOP base.")

So basically I am saying your fears about the word socialism are overblown. A year or two ago I might have agreed with you. But not now.

I won't waste your time telling you the substantive reasons why Hillary Clinton is wrong for America. You'll just call me a troll and dispatch my comment to the bit bucket. But if Hillary no longer has the "Do you want Donald Trump?" argument in her favor, then that's all she wrote. It's over. We're f---ed.
Michael, you're an idiot. Young people will think about socialism the way the media tells them to think. Don't you KNOW that? At any rate, only Bernie-brained dolts like you operate under the delusion that young voters are the only voters, or that Democratic-leaning young voters are the only voters who happen to be young. You are taking a miniscule percentage of the electorate and convincing yourself that EVERYONE thinks like that. You might as well argue that the Zodiac killer and Charlie Manson proves that all Californians were psychopaths.

What a numbskull you are!

If you think that the word no longer holds any negative connotations, then why does EVERY FUCKING POLL say otherwise? 59 percent say that "socialism" is a no-go -- and that's BEFORE the media agit-prop campaign starts.

This post is just the beginning, asshole. I'm going to prove that Bernie Sanders is 100% the creation of Roger Stone.

Moreover, it is my belief that most of the nonsense about the Clintons that you've bought into is pure StoneShit. That guys is the Master of Evil -- worse than Angleton.

You're just another dimwit who can't see beyond your programming, who doesn't even realize that you've BEEN programmed. Come back when you are capable of original thought. Until then, get the fuck out and STAY out.
What baffles me about the white-hot Hillary-hate is the complete amnesia about the Nineties. Hillary would be politically different from the Big Dog in what way? A little more feminist, maybe, but otherwise it's a replay of the Nineties.

And what, exactly, is so wrong with that? The Nineties were a time of extraordinary peace and prosperity. Minorities, after the dog-whistling demonization of the Reagan/Bush years, were finally able to make a little headway into White America. And I really don't get all this Hillary-is-a-warmonger talk. The only war Bill got into was Kosovo, which was pretty small change compared to what followed after the 2000 election theft.

Joseph, it's even worse than you've just outlined for Michael.

Consider the mobius strip logic of the True Ber-liever's mind.

A. Only Bernie can beat Trump

B. Millennials know that Trump is better for them than war-mongering Killary...Ipso facto, only Bernie can beat Trump!

One of MANY actual threats/tantrums I've read --- this last one from a comment under Medium's article by Cenk Ungar, who cynically knows who's buttering his bread.

You can't have it both ways, Ber-lievers: if Trump is so important to beat, then you would stay that course, and vote against him, whoever the Dem candidate is....especially since Hillary and Bernie align in votes about 97%.

Regardless of that fatal flaw of Berniac logic and HEART, Joseph is right:

Bernie would not last a day in the general. Howard Dean was swatted down in one audio-manipulated scream. Poof, he was over! Bernie is right now being audited for misuse of funds. In modern slang, that story is "trending." It doesn't matter what issue the media chooses, they will swat him dead in a heartbeat, as needed. Imagine the skyrocketing value of tinfoil hats were it BERNIE instead of Hillary, who "got indicted!"

Hillary has been battle tested for years. She would stand. Will stand.

Millennials think they're SO smart and SO ethical, but they are brats at best. Calling older, wiser, voters including women and people of color, too stupid to know what's "best" is a laugh riot, considering the source.

Go ahead, Michael, and pride yourself on being BUTTHURT over being called a your own mind. As if you were capable of rising to troll stature. A troll is cognizant of what he's doing, at least, so the evil have that much over the stupid. If you had anything "substantive" to say, you'd have said it. There really IS nothing but butthurt. "If Hillary no longer has the 'Do you want Donald Trump?' argument..."

WTF are you saying? Why would the Hillary voters ever vote Trump? The point is, she's won and it's the Bernie babies wailing in their poopy pants and claiming LET Trump win if Bernie can't try what Hillary's already proven she can do: Get More Votes.

You can't have it both ways. If Trump is that important, you'll do the right thing.

It never ends with these mobius-minded go-nowheres. The other shining proof is all their shrieking and screaming that Hillary's "reaching out" to disaffected Republicans proves she IS one!!! Meanwhile, Bernie isn't even a Dem!

Joseph, I'm glad you showcased one of the delusionals, and I fully understand why you protect your space, because you can not reason with such zealots, one after another.

Did you know that there is a secret group on FB where Hillary supporters can talk without being bullied and browbeaten by these snow white mansplainers? Sad but necessary.

I find really good articles through them, articles that the Berniacs label "Hillary hit pieces." I recommend reading anything by Marcus H. Johnson
(over at Medium) who explains why black voters are NOT "feeling the Bern." Michael, since you are such a fan of...substantive (allegedly) should go and learn something substantive! Who knew that black voters know exactly what they're doing when they vote for Hillary? Mindblowing! The Clintons cared about the black community way before it was an internet thing. And those who were there and benefited remember this! Astonishing!



I am immensely sympathetic to this point of view. My gut is that if it is true, Bernie isn't aware of it. But that's based on nothing other than he seems like a nice guy. I can see that Bernie is potentially very useful to the Republicans or whoever is HRCs opponent. But it is only potentially so.

Bruce Dixon over at black agenda report argues almost the opposite. He suggests that Bernie is a "sheepdog" - a candidate whose job is to shepherd the left of the party away from a third party run and back to the Dems, so as to avoid splintering the vote. I think the proof is in the pudding. If Bernie stands as an independent he might kill HRC and put Trump in much like Nader. If he doesn't he will have headed off the risk of that splintering and any other viable candidate like Webb (who seemed a bit dim to me but what do I know). Surely that's the big prize for Stone and his ilk. Just giving HRC a scare is irrelevant. She doesn't even have to deal with the left one she had the nomination, which is 95% certain.

I think either scenario is possible. But the Nader trick is much more valuable. So I won't really believe in Mephisto until I see them get what they really want, and not just the pointless second prize.

@ColoradoGuy: What you wrote is the truth, and yep, Kosovo was mild compared to the clusterf^@k we got under the Dim Son. The problem is that some--and I include the most rabid Sanders supporters--have forgotten or deliberately choose not to remember the 1990s. And since the media doesn't want to remember the true details either, they can smear Hillary with a bunch of bull-pucky in the hope that some sticks.

Of course, one can decide to go and read The Hunting Of The President by Conason and Lyons or look up the real truth about the 90s--that Clinton was a solid President, that things improved for many Americans, that the economy was running well and we had a surplus, and Hillary was a progressive First Lady. Oh, and the GOP were a bunch of hypocrites.

That all ended in the aftermath of the 2000 imbroglio. Sadly, it seems that some are choosing to forget what happened between 2001 and 2009. Thankfully Joseph isn't one of those.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?