Letters to the Editor
-
You're right, Electro...
People come here to GLENN GREENWALD'S blog because of Joan Walsh.
-
True, But
What if he had said, "I can't recall a single instance where a candidate lost by so big a margin so late in the primary season, in a state that wasn't his opponent's home state or one-time home state [that takes care of Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas] and went on to be the nominee"?
-
Bill Kristol's Right, unfortunately
While I don't particularly enjoy defending anything Bill Kristol says, Greenwald is wrong here, and did not read very well the comments that he claims to refute. Kristol cleasrly states that he can't "find a single recent instance of a candidate WHO ULTIMATELY BECAME HIS PARTY'S NOMINEE losing a primary by this kind of margin." None of the counter-examples that are cited contradict this statement. John McCain is *not* the nominee until after the party's convention: he is currently the *presumptive* nominee. Even less appropriate to cite Barack Obama's margins over Clinton in any contest.
-
Primaries don't usually go on this long
So states like West Virginia don't usually get a chance to vote until after there's already a presumptive nominee.
-
@Mike Sulzer
Maybe that was the price of getting him on the show, or maybe not. Feith has a book to sell and needs publicity.
I have seen this tendency in Stewart more and more of late. I guess when the ratings get high enough, a selling-out is inevitable in order to keep those ratings and/or making them better. That would be sad if true, but more and more, I'm seeing it in his interviews. He has become less and less "tough" with guests like McCain, Lynne Cheney, etc.
If Stewart continues down this path, his show will suffer tremendously.
-
The "balance" of what?
If the the question (or validity) in this case is 'can Obama possibly pull it off' agains't McCain - well Now, I think I've already offered 2 to 1 odds on. (*tell Kristol to put up or shut up.$money$)
{So, the NYT is like a family dynasty now. wow. Well, i reckon the ol' grey mare ain't what she used to be, but maybe I can still get something out of her!..., son.}
Otoh, if the question(s) re. NYT/Kristol, are about Iraq's WMDs, Immenient Mushroom clouds, 9/11 terrorists connections ... the reasons for war. Well, those are different questions. Millions have suffered and died because of these questions... and many lives still hang in the balance.
bah.
ps. bop. if it's windy, make me a wind meal, plz.
pps. William. Thank you for the generous words day last. I like you too. Fear not I shain't be joining any Cabals anytime soon - no matter how well versed they are in the fine arts of war ... or love.
...I am, of course, still clinging to cocktailhag. She has my gun. :)
-
Propaganda Semantics
While I don't particularly enjoy defending anything Bill Kristol says, Greenwald is wrong here, and did not read very well the comments that he claims to refute. Kristol cleasrly states that he can't "find a single recent instance of a candidate WHO ULTIMATELY BECAME HIS PARTY'S NOMINEE losing a primary by this kind of margin." None of the counter-examples that are cited contradict this statement. John McCain is *not* the nominee until after the party's convention: he is currently the *presumptive* nominee. Even less appropriate to cite Barack Obama's margins over Clinton in any contest.
Semantics matter when it comes to War Party Propaganda, and matter even more when telling lies. Almost as much as context matters.
Besides, every opinion columnist on the New York Times (with the possible exception of Nicholas Kristof) is terrible, a fact which you seem to recognize.
Everyone else is doing it and they are all equally bad, so that makes it ok?
Their hiring of crappy columnists is less to do with nepotism and far more to do with the fact that New York Times readers (albeit in dwindling numbers) continue to live with and even venerate this balloon juice.
Doesn't this:
"dwindling numbers"
Kind of contradict this?
"continue to live with and even venerate this balloon juice"
Don't dwindling numbers mean that they aren't tolerating it? Although I hear that it is difficult to generate the leverage needed to uproot a mansion using a shovel or throwing rocks at it.
It's also a symptom of the fact that their just aren't that many good opinion journalists in the U.S. Professional opining is a lazy pursuit, as you should recognize.
So when is GG going to get offered a spot on the NYT Op-Ed page? Could it be that Kristol is willing to "Carry the Water"? Doesn't that seem to be what the propaganda professionals desire when it comes to analysis and opinion? According to their own memos? Or does that only apply to propaganda disseminated by top military brass? Or does GG just hate his country and his heritage so much that it puts him beyond the limits of accepted establishment propagandists?
-
Of course, at 48, my whipper is still snapping ---- Pedinska
Just a lass, barely out of her youth.
:-)
-
@forsemonly
Because Kristol has no history of fact free op-eds in his short history at the NYT and elsewhere, right? It is all about semantics and context, a simple misunderstanding really, an isolated incident, and NOT about Kristol exhibiting the EXACT same behavior, ALWAYS. Right?
-
Kristol: Most efficient liar in world history
It never ceases to amaze me how many lies, both explicit and implicit, Kristol can work into a short paragraph of a column. I'm able to count no less than four such lies in one paragraph of his May 19 column. Here's Kristol's fifth paragraph:
2. On Thursday, the California Supreme Court did precisely what much of the American public doesn’t want judges doing: it made social policy from the bench. With a 4-to-3 majority, the judges chose not to defer to a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of California voters eight years ago, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.
Now, gang, let's count the lies!
Lie #1. Implicit lie: using the phrase "much of the American people" to imply a broad majority; no proof of said majority is offered, and in fact, it's mainly Republicans who are up in arms about judicial "activism", and of course only the kind of activism that just happens to favor the left.
Lie #2. The Court did not, in fact, "make social policy" from the bench; as Glenn notes, the CA Sup Ct decision does not mandate that gay marriage be performed. It simply says that if the state offers the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples, it must do the same for same-sex couples.
Lie #3. Mr. Kristol notes the 2000 referendum in CA on gay marriage, claiming now that the CA court decision somehow overrides the will of the voters, but somehow forgets to mention that the CA legislature (elected by voters, of course) has twice weighed in on this issue since, passing laws to allow gay marriage. Both times, said laws were vetoed by the Republican governor of CA (Kristol somehow forgets to mention this, also). So in fact, the court decision in fact is perfectly in line with the most recently-expressed will of the voters.
Lie #4. Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Kristol was apparently so pressed for time that his keenly-honed mind forgot to mention the current composition of the CA Supreme Court: 6 out of 7 Republican appointees. I'm sure this was merely an accident, just like all the other lies of omission Kristol makes. I'm also certain that it's purely coincidence that Kristol only seems to make these errors when his side of the argument is favored by them.