Letters to the Editor
-
To Rob H.
Normally I’d let Glenn Greenwald fight his own fights since he’s more than capable himself. But I feel some of your comments were unfair, especially since you are accusing Glenn of being unfair. You read many things into his posts that I, for one, didn’t see. Here are some examples:
“This statement makes my point exactly, Glenn. You've just admitted that you criticize the Democratic Party as a whole. I didn't write that, you just did.”
Jeez, Rob, where did THAT come from? He admitted nothing of the sort. He was speaking generally, and you chose a specific take which I doubt he ever intended.
“Was Social Security privatized, Glenn? Are they drilling in ANWR, Glenn? Was tort-reform driven through while Dems rolled over and played dead? Is Miguel Estrada sitting on the US Court of Appeals, Glenn? Has the estate tax been repealed, Glenn? Did the 9-11 Commission never meet?”
Sure, the Democratic leadership deserves some credit on these points. But with Social Security for example, it died because enough REPUBLICANS saw it for what it really was. At the moment, I have a Republican U.S. Congressman. I went to one of his town hall meetings at the height of the Social Security fight, and I sat with a roomful of Republicans and watched them tear Lamar Smith a new asshole. I’m quite sure this had nothing to do with any sort of Democratic leadership. They were looking out for their own self-interest in this case, and they weren’t fooled. On another note, I’m curious what your take is on that fabulous Bankruptcy bill that Joe Biden and too many other Democrats were so fond of.
“This is quite funny, Glenn. I notice here how you start to use the term "Party Leaders," instead of just attacking Democrats as an entire, mindless entity. My guess is you've been successfully called out and are trying to backtrack. What's even funnier is that you attack party leaders on the torture bill. Why is that so funny? Because here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi on Bush's torture bill: "This bill does violence to the Constitution." Does that sound like Nancy Pelosi is helping "to legalize torture," as you put it?”
Now you’re REALLY being unfair. Any objective person who read his reply could tell he was speaking to the SENATE Democratic leadership. Got any inspiring quotes from any of them?
“And the tone of some of your writing tends to be so virulent as to make average voters buy into some kind of myth that Democrats have gone along meekly with everything Bush and Cheney have ever proposed.”
Trust me. The “average voter” isn’t reading Glenn Greenwald on his blog or at Salon. These sorts of discussions are relatively wonky stuff. Right now, the “average voter” is doing laundry, eating dinner, running errands, working a second job, or watching tv (Hopefully not Bill O’Reily!!). If you think Karl Rove or Ken Mehlman are scanning Glenn Greenwald’s posts to use any of it against the Democrats in their next mailer to Republican voters, you’re delusional.
Lastly, given the fact that you fail to mention any of the high profile Democratic failures over the last five or six years, yet bring up examples of successes that weren’t as big a deal, I sense you aren’t really interested in “balance.” You obviously took his comments personally, and seem quite disappointed that Glenn isn’t a full-time cheerleader for the Democratic Party.
I would gladly hand ANWR over to the Republicans in exchange for my right to privacy and for the U.S. Government to stop sanctioning the torture of innocent detainees.
-
I can't wait for the primaries in two years when we get to say "He's a pro-torture democrat. End of career.
I can't wait for the primaries in two years when we get to say "He's a pro-torture Democrat. End of career.
-
no guts no "balls"
What a shame that Democrats have no guts and apparently have lost their balls.
Maybe they did not have them in the first place. A great pity, and they think that this way, they will win additional seats in the mid-term elections. Honestly I don't think so, why change when you have the original shameless Congress already at hand?
-
To Orbitboy
Please tell me, Orbitboy, where in Greenwald’s response does he make it clear he’s referring to Senate leaders? Geez, he doesn’t even use the word “Senate,” once in his letter. All he says is “Party Leaders,” over and over. Maybe I’m missing something, but in my experiences, the term “Party,” does not refer to the leader of a particular congressional house, but rather to a political party. If he’s referring to Senate leaders, why doesn’t Greenwald simply attack Harry Reid in that letter and be done with it? I’ll tell you why, he was trying to backtrack from his usual broad criticisms by using the term ‘Party Leaders’ instead of attacking everyone in the party. So you’re defense of Greenwald here is pretty weak.
And really, Orbitboy, do you seriously think ANWR isn’t that big a deal, as you put it? I think it’s incredibly funny that someone who defends Greenwald would admit that he’d trade an environmental nightmare for a civil liberties nightmare. Isn’t this exactly the type of behavior that Greenwald is criticizing? My lord, Orbitboy, you’ve made a political decision that maybe one thing is more important to you than another. Can I now call you spineless?
As to high profile Democratic failures over the last six years, last time I checked, the Democrats have not been in any meaningful position of power for those six years. Yes, they had a short stint as the majority in the Senate, but Bush was still the president and the Republicans still controlled the house. So it’s not really about Democratic failures, as you put it, but more about Republican excesses. And you can scream all you want about Democratic failures, but considering your stance on ANWR, you’d have to put yourself in the failure category as well. I mean really, you sold out the earth and condemned millions of innocents to the ravages of global warming just to defend a few terrorists! How could you, Orbitboy?
And I don’t expect anyone to be a full-time cheerleader for any political party. What I do expect, though, is reporting in Salon that isn’t so overwrought. And I certainly expect criticism when it’s warranted. But I also expect to hear that there are people who are fighting the good fight. I expect balance, and not in a FOX news kind of way. However, what we often get are second-rate rants that do substantial damage to meaningful discourse. I mean really, Orbitboy, what else should someone take from Glenn’s headline, “Battling Democrats’ Indifference,” other than the broad picture that Democrats don’t give a crap? Why use that headline? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s easy. And isn’t that part of the overall problem? Dumbing everything down?
And don’t tell me that isn’t Greenwald’s point. I know that. But it’s a by-product of his slash and burn style of writing in the War Room. And I happen to think that it’s feeding a fire that is destroying critical thinking here in this country. Obviously not as much as Republican attempts to destroy discourse, but it makes its own little contribution, nonetheless. If I tell you that you want to cut and run from Iraq, what’s your response? Will you actually have to talk about complex issues? I think you will. And a lot of these issues are complex. To think otherwise is simply foolish. Which is why I criticize pieces that paint broad and misleading pictures.
As I said before, some of Greenwald’s pieces have about as much nuance as a bunker-buster. They mow everything down in their path. And judging by your stance on ANWR, Orbitboy, welcome to the zone of destruction.