Letters to the Editor
-
"I know you are but what am I?"
I've been writing opinion for publication for years and the Weekly Standard's critique of Glenn is so old-hat I can hardly believe anyone paid to write and think still articulates it.
Glenn accurately depicts the illogic of the critique. I've always cited an example I've encountered continually. If I describe someone's racism, I always get a handful of mail saying that it's "racist" or "intolerant" to call someone a "racist."
This doesn't even pass for sophistry. To say that describing an unflattering truth is the same thing as ad hominem invective is just dumb. The most distressing thing Glenn reports is that Democratic leaders are still easily manipulated with this stupidity.
Still, I'm optimistic. I think Americans have begun to see through this game, if the polls are any indication.
Meanwhile, I'm grateful Glenn keeps at this theme. He's as close to a hero as I have in journalism these days.
-
Insects Do Not Have A Sense Of Humor
Nor do Wingnuts, it would appear. Now, the handle Elephantman is a tad offense to me (I like Elephants very much, thank you -- and you demean the pachyderm's name as much as you demean the male gender), but I digress.
"Just to be clear, since your letter seemed to stem from some serious hysteria" -- strange words from a prissy little stuffed shirt (brown, I'm sure). Hysteria?? Moi?? I'm not loosing sleep about some big swarthy Islamofacist (a very strange term concocted by real deal facists) out to git me. But I digress.
"The choice of the words "effete pansies" for Gore and Kerry and "protective warriors" for Bush and Cheney weren't my chosen words. I was echoing what Glenn Greenwald wrote, and turning it around because in fact I think he got it all exactly wrong."
You folks sure do spin -- perhaps you were a Dervish in a previous life?
"Interesting that you went out of your way to claim that Cheney "gets his kicks from killing little furry & feathered creatures." (Google hits -- 19,500 for "cheney canned hunts")
For me, what makes that so funny is picturing John Kerry, all dolled up like Elmer Fudd, trying to make a bunch of Iowans or Pennsylvanians or Ohioans believe that he too likes killing feathered creatures. Except that everyone knew he was faking it."
Well, politicians do what politicians do -- lie. Kerry was out to reach out & feel for all those bitter folks in the belly of the beast, so to speak. Cheney doesn't give a flying fernando -- as has been pointed out plenty of times, he's not into hunting. He just likes to kill things -- big time. BTW -- Kerry looks like Elmer Fudd?? Jaysus, take off Dick's glasses, put on a plaid hat & coat and you've got Elmer Fudd . . .
Ohh, I'm gonna bwast you wrascally Iwanians . . . "
"And that he'd (that'd be effete Kerry) be happier sipping Chardonnay in Martha's Vineyard, chatting about the next fundraiser at David Geffen's place." No shit, Sherlock. Most normal, well-adjusted and secure-in-their-own sexuality folks are like that. Sipping wine in civilized comfort. Good wine, good talk, good friends, good conversation . . .
Yikes, those elitist effete eggheads.
"What's even funnier to me is that the more we talk about this subject, the more pathetic all of those guys seem: Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Dean and now Obama."
I repeat, strange talk from a fussy little man.
"Hell, if all that was required was to be an honest-to-God war hero, George McGovern would have been President. I think McGovern was a good man and an honest politician. With some particularly fucked up ideas about governing that seem to get worse with his advancing age."
Can you say Ronnie Reagan? Here's a guy so addled that he actually believed he was in the war -- liberating death camps and stuff. And his bad governing policies were already fucked up -- advancing age just accelerated things. But I digress.
"And of course if war heroes beat draft-dodgers in every election, Bob Dole would have prevented a second Clinton term.
Anyway, I come back to policy. And yeah, I think Obama's pretty much of a policy-pussy."
Whatever, and your Bush-hating-blarney is a little stale already. I don't discriminate, I don't hate -- it's an automatic reflex . . .
-
So many questions and so little time
Is it true that the naive' perceive criminal consciousness as intelligence and actual genius as effete?
-
Silash
-Let's even the playing field-
Good one. Well done.
-
--Pedinksa
Elephantman reminds me a lot of my second wife.
-
It's not the Right
Oh, yes, they animate the nonsense that passes for politics, and political dialogue in this country. But don't ever forget the "liberal" media for their part. The new Tonya Harding media that came of age just in time for OJ is a deepy diseased and troubled world. There's nothing that animates their tiny brains more than stupidity. One offhand remark is pimped and cossetted, until the ghastly phrase "Bittergate" is spoken as though it makes sense. Helpful boys on the bus listen to entire speeches, watch entire events, and plot the way they can bait Bill to say something that, if not controversial, then apparently controversial. And, I'll say it again, the Obama campaign has been a depressingly negative thing. It's borne fruit, of course, in that Hillary now has very high negatives. It's almost as though Rove has been consulting, but he needn't, with Axelrod and the others in the game. The Huffington Post has a whole staff of "political reporters" who are oppo researchers, not reporters. They've been unmerciful on Hillary. Hillary, on the other hand, has been rather restrained until quite recently. (I hear bitter exclamations of disbelief, but revisit this in five years, and you'll see.) With her reluctance to silence Ferraro and the "Bitterness" comments, she's gone over the edge too.
In case anybody's surprised by the ABC debate, read your Somerby. The mainstream press has been a bunch of meddling, useless fools for a long time now. It doesn't matter that they're boycotting FOX. Fox has come to us all.
-
My question tonight about blogger neutrality
Glenn -- It was great to hear you talk tonight at 17th Street Cafe in Washington DC. I asked you a question that I would have loved to follow up on and didn't have a chance, so I'll do so here and really hope you'll respond.
You were talking about the Republican/MSM's script on democratic candidates -- how the character assasination remains consistent, regardless of the particular democratic candidate, and how they're enabled by the MSM. I asked what you think about blogger neutrality in the primary race, particularly with regard to democratic candidates employing the same Republic narratives and tactics that you're talking about.
You said you were surprised, actually, to see progressive bloggers taking sides, and feel that there best role would be to hold the campaigns accountable for tearing each other down using Republican talking points. You were concerned that bloggers have started to approve of these tactics so long as they're employed against the candidate they don't support.
Fair enough.
But here's what gets me. Your answer suggested that you see a moral equivalence between the campaigns that just doesn't seem genuine. I think it is an objective reality that Clinton is taking a page from the GOP playbook to try to stay alive in this campaign. I agree the MSM directs its dysfunction toward Clinton too. But Clinton's campaign is fomenting and counting on the very dynamics you're denouncing here, while Obama's campaign is at least trying to rise above it, even if he's hit a few lows.
For some reason, the bloggers who so eloquently call out the republicans and the MSM won't call this one. The same bloggers who not only called out Lieberman but who elevated Ned Lamont are silent on Clinton -- or acting like both campaigns are equally as bad.
This really wrankles me because one of the big false narratives the MSM pushes is "both sides do it." Pushing a belief in a moral equivalence between how republicans and democrats campaign enables the republicans to keep doing what they do. Same with a progressive blogosphere that acts like the two democratic campaigns are equally destructive.
This is why I don't see bloggers' silence or "neutrality" at this point as admirable restraint. I get why you all started out with a neutral stance. But it no longer jibes with reality, and it seems -- dare I say it -- out of touch. Out of touch with what we've grown to count on you for. It's disappointing.
But, like I said tonight, I'm curious what you think. I feel like you sort of punted on the question.
But hey -- keep up the stellar work. You're absolutely right that MSM journalists need to be shamed, and your meticulous deconstructions are completely on point.