What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***THE MOOCH: Mooch receives unprecedented "cease and desist" letter from Springsteen to stop listening to "Backstreets" on loop. Mooch too sad to rep (1 Viewer)

Like, who knew the guy was gonna print it? I was ####### blowing off steam!
I love Mooch's "I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter. It won't happen again" declaration so much.  Mooch felt betrayed by these quotes getting printed when the purpose of his call was to harass a reporter to reveal a source.  If he thought the call was off the record, then he was leaking a bunch of information to a reporter.  

It's like Mooch sees the iceberg, and thinks the proper course of action is to floor it and hope the Titanic builds up enough speed to jump over it.

 

 
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors or other positions over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this for someone in such a prominent WH position? Anyone remotely close? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this? Anyone remotely close? 
White House history?

Think bigger. At the state and municipal level, he would be gone.

He doesn't even have the job yet. 

 
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this? Anyone remotely close? 
I'd say the closest is probably Rahm Emmanuel, but he was Chief of Staff, not Communications. And Mooch is about 10x crazier so far. 

 
I'd say the closest is probably Rahm Emmanuel, but he was Chief of Staff, not Communications. And Mooch is about 10x crazier so far. 
Rahm is smart enough to do his profanity-laced tirades behind closed doors.  There's a long history of people like that -- I think LBJ is a prominent example. But those guys were generally effective at getting what they wanted with those strategies.

Mooch is a whole new breed of insanity.  His mission seems to be to publicly humiliate people.  There doesn't seem to be an overarching plan at work here.

 
Seen a lot of good pop culture comparisons, but to me the runaway winner is 80s guy from that episode of Futurama.

Even the quotes match up:
 

Steve Castle: There are two kinds of people: sheep and sharks. Anyone who is a sheep is fired. Who is a sheep?

Dr. Zoidberg: Errr, excuse me... which is the one people like to hug?

Steve Castle: Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners, and they don't look back because they have no necks. Necks are for sheep.
Steve Castle: Package delivery? Oh, God! [He covers his face.] Fantastic! Now, the first order of business is to blame everything on the guy before me. Professor?
Steve Castle: OK, let's work on your execu-speak. I'm worried about "blank".

Fry: Don't you worry about "blank". Let me worry about "blank".

Steve Castle: Good. I also would have accepted, "Blank? Blank? You're not looking at the big picture!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say the closest is probably Rahm Emmanuel, but he was Chief of Staff, not Communications. And Mooch is about 10x crazier so far. 
Thanks. I edited my post to include other positions. 

Where I'm going with this is I'm asking my conservative friends what they make of it. And I don't know enough about WH Staff history to know there. 

 
am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there?
No, no one is close.

Mooch speaks for the President, he is communications director for the White House, the nerve center of United States government. What he says is US policy. No president has ever attacked his own AG, his own chief of staff, his ow cabinet. It's like someone stabbing themselves in the arm and leg, so no we have never had this.

Actually there was Andrew Johnson, who got impeached for it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, no one is close.

Mooch speaks for the President, he is communications director for the White House, the nerve center of United States government. What he says is US policy. No president has ever attacked his own AG, his own chief of staff, his ow cabinet. It's like someone stabbing themselves in the arm and leg, so no we have never had this.

Actually there was Andrew Johnson, who got impeached for it.
My kind of mental gymnastics.

I think you can make a pretty good argument that Thomas Jefferson might be up there.  As Secretary of State he openly rebelled against the sitting President and bankrolled a newspaper behind the scenes to attack the administration that he was a part of.  Jefferson wrote to Madison basically outlining his plan to do it in 19th century parlance.

As Vice President he openly feuded with John Adams when John was President.  We basically didn't have an effective Vice President during that time, not that the office meant much back then.  And John Adams as President ignored his cabinet and openly warred with them, but that was his own fault for keeping Washington's allies and not getting his own.

You could add Secretary Edwin Stanton during Lincoln's term, but only in a very small period of time, from when Lincoln was shot until Booth and his co-conspirators were killed.  Stanton took control of the country at the moment and basically, though not formally, declared martial law without the power to do it and ran the government.  But, in his defense, there was no functioning government in that moment as Lincoln was dying, Johnson was drunk, Sewerd was feared dead and Grant wasn't in Washington.  Looking back through history, Stanton is admired for how he handled everything and it's hard to attack him for it.

In more recent times you have the idiocy of Secretary Alexander Haig after Reagan was shot.  What he said and did in the 48 hours after the shots were fired were as close to criminal treason as a cabinet member could get without just declaring himself king.

I can't think of any press directors though.  It's a relatively new position and a creation of the media establishment of the 20th century.  Most of them aren't and haven't been insane.  Of course, this administration takes the cake.  But for members of an administration that rise to the level of Mooch and his current 21st century version of craziness, I'd be willing to argue that Thomas Jefferson was just as bad, and potentially worse.

 
Thanks. I edited my post to include other positions. 

Where I'm going with this is I'm asking my conservative friends what they make of it. And I don't know enough about WH Staff history to know there. 
It's an abomination of everything that is great about our political history.  

But look, I don't think you can call me naïve.  I have no doubt in my mind, and fully expect, that cursing tirades of I'm going to kill he or she happens all the time in the confines of closed door meetings in the West Wing.  There are too many alpha dogs in closed quarters for it to not happen.  And in that context it's perfectly fine.  Hell, it's democracy in its most bloody rhetorical form.  But this is different.  And the context matters.

If this was President Obama's staffer, or Bush's or Clinton's or anyone going back to Ford, you could make an argument that there is a plan underneath it and someone is purposely taking the shrapnel for the President because it's necessary for something else.  It's not a strong argument, but it's not impossible.  President's do it all the time, though not in this grandiose way.  But there is nothing about this administration that leads to believe they know what the hell they are doing.  And without some kind of political context to what is going on we are left with........ abomination.  Of the worst kind.

There is no 4D chess.  Frankly, I find people that use those kinds of statements have never played chess or if they have they aren't any good.  My toddler plays 4D chess.  4D chess is when you move the piece its correct path, then move another one out of turn not in the correct path, take your dads piece for no reason but laugh while you are doing it because it's cute, and then drop a Paw Patrol toy on the board that has super powers that wins the game.  That is 4D chess.

I stand corrected, this administration is playing 4D chess.  The only question is if they are using Marshall or Chase.

 
I don't know why this thought came up but I remember an old Monty Python skit on the "village idiot"  Where he says "I may be an idiot but I'm no fool"  Mooch is an idiot and a fool

 
My kind of mental gymnastics.

I think you can make a pretty good argument that Thomas Jefferson might be up there.  As Secretary of State he openly rebelled against the sitting President and bankrolled a newspaper behind the scenes to attack the administration that he was a part of.  Jefferson wrote to Madison basically outlining his plan to do it in 19th century parlance.

As Vice President he openly feuded with John Adams when John was President.  We basically didn't have an effective Vice President during that time, not that the office meant much back then.  And John Adams as President ignored his cabinet and openly warred with them, but that was his own fault for keeping Washington's allies and not getting his own.

You could add Secretary Edwin Stanton during Lincoln's term, but only in a very small period of time, from when Lincoln was shot until Booth and his co-conspirators were killed.  Stanton took control of the country at the moment and basically, though not formally, declared martial law without the power to do it and ran the government.  But, in his defense, there was no functioning government in that moment as Lincoln was dying, Johnson was drunk, Sewerd was feared dead and Grant wasn't in Washington.  Looking back through history, Stanton is admired for how he handled everything and it's hard to attack him for it.

In more recent times you have the idiocy of Secretary Alexander Haig after Reagan was shot.  What he said and did in the 48 hours after the shots were fired were as close to criminal treason as a cabinet member could get without just declaring himself king.

I can't think of any press directors though.  It's a relatively new position and a creation of the media establishment of the 20th century.  Most of them aren't and haven't been insane.  Of course, this administration takes the cake.  But for members of an administration that rise to the level of Mooch and his current 21st century version of craziness, I'd be willing to argue that Thomas Jefferson was just as bad, and potentially worse.
I only know this because we saw Hamilton and have been listening to the soundtrack nonstop for the past month ;)

the difference with Jefferson as VP is that he wasn't "chosen" for that position by the president. He came in 2nd and was therefore named VP. So he absolutely was a rival of John Adams through the election and thereafter. 

and that's what I learned from a musical about the man who invented the Treasury Dept. ;)

 
Thomas Jefferson
Let's keep in mind that's before there were formally 2 parties and we had split coalition government in the executive branch as a rule. Ultimately the VP was made the same party as the president and  the split executive government model was considered ineffective for just that reason, infighting was inevitable and damaging. Look at Aaron Burr, I think that would be the only example of anything like or worse than this. Again, that's why we changed the system. However this shows how the Republicans did not elect an actual Republican. The people TrumpMooch are attacking are solid, true, party Republicans, not anyone else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I only know this because we saw Hamilton and have been listening to the soundtrack nonstop for the past month ;)

the difference with Jefferson as VP is that he wasn't "chosen" for that position by the president. He came in 2nd and was therefore named VP. So he absolutely was a rival of John Adams through the election and thereafter. 

and that's what I learned from a musical about the man who invented the Treasury Dept. ;)
Very true.  It was definitely one of the failings of the original text of the Article II executive.  However, there were a rather large amount of unwritten gentlemen rules in 18th and 19th century politics in this country.  Jefferson broke them all.  Now, save for his abysmal failures that led to the War of 1812, he isn't exactly judged poorly for it because what he ended up doing was create a political dynasty that stretched to Jackson.

The kind of rivals that Adams and Jefferson were though, at the time, weren't what we consider political rivals today.  They each respected the hell out of each other.  Jefferson would write badly about Adams, but it was always with a tinge of regret; Adams would do the same about Jefferson.  And their letters to each other after the fact show a grand understanding of the greatness they were a part of in their time.  There will be no setting the record straight for all posterity with this current crew.  The sooner they are erased from the history books and talked about as nothing more than a cautionary tale the better.  The Adams Jefferson rivalry, on the other hand, should be required study for everyone wanting to understand American politics because those letters are the very real, on the ground, understanding from the men who lived it as to just what the American revolution was all about.

And this wasn't it.

 
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors or other positions over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this for someone in such a prominent WH position? Anyone remotely close? 
Earl Butz?  His most famous quote cannot be reproduced here under the board moderation policy.  Not the Press Secretary, but in the Administration.

 
While Earl Butz's most famous remark was meant to debase Black America (He at the time used the term "Coloreds" which was then the more politically correct term than what he might have gone with) I more or less took it to heart for myself.  I wanted the three factors he listed for me.

 
Rahm is smart enough to do his profanity-laced tirades behind closed doors.  There's a long history of people like that -- I think LBJ is a prominent example. But those guys were generally effective at getting what they wanted with those strategies.
This is John McCain's style. Over the top with vulgarities. Part of the reason McCain hated Mitt was because Romney never swore and of course never drank alcohol.  

 
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors or other positions over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this for someone in such a prominent WH position? Anyone remotely close? 
Nixon had a really bad mouth but he didn't speak this way to the press or public. 

 
My understanding is that both the Nixon and LBJ tapes were filthy, but that's private deliberations. 
I've heard the same. In fact I recall literally hearing some of the Nixon stuff. Definitely would get him a timeout here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Serious question. You guys are WAY more versed in political history than I am. Is there anyone in White House history that remotely approaches this level of the stuff Scaramucci said there? I'm fully aware my style of running a business or life is far from the rough and tumble Long Island business style. Fully get that. Donald Trump dislike aside, how far out of the norm was this?

My first thought is this was off the charts. But I don't know. i honestly can't name that many WH Communications Directors or other positions over the last 50 years. 

So I'm asking how far out of the norm is this for someone in such a prominent WH position? Anyone remotely close? 
There is a time-honored tradition of politicos going off on foul-mouthed tirades to a reporter. Usually those tirades are not reported because they are off-the-record. This tirade was NOT off-the-record, likely because Scaramucci was not savvy enough to tell the reporter to keep it off the record.

 
If Trump comes out officially in support of Scaramucci like his son did, I think that might finally tip the scales for some people. "Sources say" are one thing. But when it's clear for the world to see like https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/890900449422974976 is something else.
I doubt it, the scales weren't tipped after the Access Hollywood video was released and it was dismissed as "locker room talk" - and there are people in this forum still cheering the selection of Scaramucci. I don't know where the tipping point is for some, but I don't think that would be it.

 
I doubt it, the scales weren't tipped after the Access Hollywood video was released and it was dismissed as "locker room talk" - and there are people in this forum still cheering the selection of Scaramucci. I don't know where the tipping point is for some, but I don't think that would be it.
Probably right. But I do think it's a little different now as the Access Hollywood thing did have some reacting like our Governor Bill Haslam who said Trump should drop out the race. But most I saw were more on the "stay the course" we have to defeat Hillary angle. This feels a little different as it's not a contest anymore. They can pull back support and there guy has still won. But that's probably thinking too simply on my part. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top