Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

Audio Interview: Monica Crowley (With Transcript)

March 5th, 2013 - 12:05 am

MR. DRISCOLL:  Well, closer to home, what are your thoughts on Operation Fast and Furious and how that scandal is being covered, and in some cases — many cases, not covered by the –

MS. CROWLEY:  Not covered, yeah.  Well, you guys are doing a great job covering it.  There are other conservative Web sites that are doing the same thing.  Fox News has been covering it.

The philosophy of the Obama administration is we will do what we want, Constitution be damned.  And we know that nobody’s really going to cover the bad stuff, because they’re all out to protect us.  They’re with us ideologically.  They’re never going to allow the first black president to get into any real trouble.  They will protect us.  So therefore, we will get away with everything.

And they have.  And like I said, with a few exceptions of certain news outlets that have covered Fast and Furious, it really hasn’t gotten covered.  And they believe that when the bad stuff happens, whether it’s Fast and Furious or Benghazi or any of the range of unconstitutional maneuvers this president has done, that they can just wait it out, because it doesn’t get covered.  So they wait it out, they stonewall, they don’t give any explanations.  They continue to smile, and the story blows over.

When people talk about Watergate — and my old boss, President Nixon obviously resigned in the wake of Watergate.  Watergate did not have a body count.  Fast and Furious has two dead Americans, Jaime Zapata, obviously, and Brian Terry.  Benghazi has four dead Americans including the personal representative of the president, the U.S. ambassador.

So these scandals under Barack Obama actually have an American body count.  Watergate, nobody died.  So you tell me which one is the more serious.  They have covered up these scandals.  They go as high as Eric Holder, possibly the President of the United States, and still, no sense of curiosity from the mainstream media, Ed.  It’s astonishing.  And they ought to be ashamed.

MR. DRISCOLL: Monica I wanted to ask you a question that isn’t entirely germane to What the (Bleep) Just Happened…Again, but it’s one that I’d be curious to get your take on. You began your career as a research assistant for Richard Nixon on his last two books. There’s a bit of a reappraisal of Nixon from the left; including both New York Timesmen Paul Krugman and Tom Wicker, and former movie critic turned wannabe pundit and angry Twitter user Roger Ebert. Wicker and Krugman see Nixon as the last of the New Deal-Great Society-era liberals. What’s your take on Richard Nixon’s politics, and where they would fit on the ideological spectrum today?

MS. CROWLEY:  It’s a fascinating turnabout to watch people like Tom Wicker and others who pounded Nixon into the ground when he was in the presidency, and now, all of a sudden they see him as some great progressive savior.

It is amazing to me to watch.  When I worked with President Nixon during the early 1990s, we had long conversations about ideology, conservatism, Republicanism.  And Nixon was — I would say he was a progressive Republican.  He did things like take us off the gold standard, wage and price controls, started the Environmental Protection Agency, expanded the food stamp program, things that, as a conservative, I was up in arms about.  And I became a conservative because when I was coming of age, Ronald Reagan was president.  And everything Reagan was saying in terms of lowering taxes and cutting government and having a muscular national security policy just instinctively struck me as correct.

So I became a conservative.  And by the time I got to President Nixon, he and I would have these long conversations.  And we would get into it sometimes.  We’d have real ideological arguments.

I will say this.  Nixon became far more conservative in his later years than he was as president.  And I like to think that was some of my doing and my influence, although, who knows?

But he did become far more conservative, especially on economic matters.  He was always a hawk when it came to defense and our national security strategy.  But in terms of economics, you know, he said to me — one day we were talking about the Environmental Protection Agency.  And he said, Monica, once you start a government bureaucracy, it runs wild.  We started it with a noble purpose of clean air and water.  That’s it.  End then of course the bureaucracy takes the reins and goes out of control and then takes on a life of its own and you end up not being able to control it.  Even the president can’t control it.

And as far as food stamps goes, he said, you know, once you give away a government program you can never take it back.  And so he had a lot of regrets — Watergate aside, obviously — but he had a lot of regrets about a lot of his economic policies.  And if he had to do it again, I think he would have governed far more conservatively than he did.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I have been waiting for an opportunity to comment about Monica Crowley.
I first heard her on a local Saturday radio program she has. I have listened a few times. I was a almost fan of Sarah Palin, until I researched and now agree with the added up evidence that she may be MK Ultra. Once researching that, I was aware of what to look for to Identify such creatures. Now, I feel Monica Crowley fits that profile. I may be right I may be wrong, only certain things bother me. Monica talks well. When she talks on the radio, I can tell she is not reading from a script, she is repeating views and the views are not always "feminine." Therefore, her views may be remembered from talking with privilege. I will qualify the remembrance and the privilege. Monica remembers well and it shows as she speaks and that is evidence of having a photographic memory which is key to recognizing someone who is MK Ultra. The privilege is revealed by the fact that everytime
I have heard her talk on the radio there will be times when she quotes and refers to her ?friend? Henry Kissinger. Excuse me, but that really bothers me no end because that person is well known as a RINO and worse as a patron of many MK Ultra folks. I am not making this up. This is what I observed and heard. You can make up your own minds. At least I stepped forward and mentioned these facts, which is all one patriotic American can do sometimes. I hope this information helps others to be able to understand how deceptive people can be in this life.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Monica didn't adequately address the question of why Obama wants America to become a European style socialist country. You and I can look across the Atlantic and see the negarive destructive results of socialism. Surely he can see those same results. So why then does he want to bring that pain and misery to the American people? Why does he want to hurt us? Why did Hitler want to oppress and hurt the German people? Why did Stalin starve millions of Ukranians and kill tens of millions more Russians in various ways? Why did Mao have all the grain under lock and key and guarded 24/7 and 76 million Chinese were killed? Why did Pol Pot murder Cambodians? Why do the Cuban people live in oppression and poverty at the hands of the Castro brothers? Why does Chavez and his cronies wreak havoc in Venezuela so that poverty and misery and food shortages are the only consistent things in that country? Why does Obama want to bring pain to the American people? For the same reason that all of these men did it to their people. Power and money. Obama is an evil man who doesn't give a damn about us. Furthering his agenda for his own benefit is what he cares about. Half of the American people voted into office for a second term the most arrogant, narcissistic, and evil man in our history, and we will pay for it at some point. Richard Nixon looks like a choir boy compared to Obama. Remember: nobody died at the Watergate Hotel.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Should be Watergate Office Complex. Sorry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
These dictatorships were formed as yet another way to control "the People" who have always had a bad rap. See http://clarespark.com/2009/08/24/the-people-is-an-ass-or-a-herd/. Since antiquity, we learn to hate ourselves and our paranoia.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Monica is awesome! But I've got to say, I don't think it's Barack who has changed the character of America. The character change has taken place through the educational system and hollywood for a long time now. Barack and company are just making use of that change. Conditions are ripe...........
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

Stunning development in Chicagogate: Publisher of Blagojevich book “Golden” confesses

http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/03/03/stunning-development-in-chicagogate-publisher-of-blagojevich-book-golden-confesses/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Monica Crowley described Barack Obama as a "skinny socialist" several years ago.

I've had a particular fondness for her ever since :)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How has Obama changed the character of Americans we ask? He has convinced white people that they must apologize for being white.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He may have convinced them to apologize, but that is insufficient. Their wealth, their livelihoods, their ambition, their will to continue on, must all be taken.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That movement is well beyond just Obama's efforts, reportedly prevalent in some universities where students are actively taught and encouraged to beat themselves up for having white skin.

(can the planet get any stupider ?)

I've read that a word regularly used throughout most of my life, mulatto, is now deemed by the PC Useful Idiots to be a racial slur.

Our mulatto president is as much white as he is black.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Not only does Monica attest to the fact that Conservatism is "hot", it is also the intelligent solution to Our current problems.
As for Obama; He is nothing but "bush league". He's nothing but a tool for the radical, extreme Left in Our government, who have been there for decades, waiting for a slouch like Obama to gain the right position.
And they now have a real winner.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The fundamental heart of Marxism is to take up the cause of those left behind. The fundamental divide between that cause and those against it is one of whether people are left behind by systemic oppression, or the failure of their own value systems, sub-cultures, and themselves as individuals.

Obama seems to have taken this one step further and made it into a racial Marxism. A question of black-white, colonialism, anti-colonialism. Where he might differ as regards the cause is that he doesn't really care if failure is imposed from without or is innate - he has gone beyond that. The solution is the same: spread success and wealth and opportunity as much as possible.

The problem with doing that is that you can kill success, wealth and opportunity and instead of a rising tide which lifts all boats, politicizing success and failure can bring the whole thing crashing down.

It's called killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Because of racial political correctness, the failure or success of culture has been hopelessly compromised. We have no problem saying Russia is a mess but don't dare say the same thing about Nigeria without the excuse train rolling down the track. Carmel, CA is "frighteningly white" but there is no opposite of this allowed to provide context or balance - it is an intellectual vacuum of delusion and hypocrisy. This means that solutions can never be imposed because there is no problem seen in the first place. In fact, problems are seen where their in fact are none. Modern liberalism isn't a systemic problem, it is a form of childish madness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But it's brilliant electoral politics in a multiple race and mixed cultural country such as ours has become.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All