bustardblog

Racism at T.N.R.

So Dr. Black sent me to Mr. Digby who led me to Mr. Greenwald, Esq, to find clearly written, undeniable proof of the despicable, pervasive anti-Arab bigotry of Marty Peretz. It's pretty disgusting stuff.

Unfortunately, I recently received a print subscription to The New Republic as a gift, and the anti-black bigotry displayed in it may be more subtle than what Peretz shows at his blog,  but it is also undeniable.

After receiving the first issue, I wrote about a racist article by Jason Lee Steorts. Steorts was essentially writing about Ronald Reagan's black, Cadillac driving, welfare queen, but this time with a Spanish accent. He had sublet a room in an apartment in a part of the city dominated by immigrants from the Dominican Republic. (In all probability it was an illegal sublet.) He happily assisted the legal tenant in a scam against a program to proved milk to the poor. And then his "whole soul rebels" when he finds out that his landlord is also gaming the Home Energy Assistance Program.  But the piece is not just garden variety Republican hypocrisy about abusing the welfare system. Here's how he chose to describe the milieu where this abuse was happening:

I doubt there is any Manhattan neighborhood where you can find more trash on the street of a Monday morning, or where you must endure louder blasting's of reggaeton "music" in those nigrescent hours before the cock crows."

The picture he's trying to paint couldn't be much clearer.

In the next edition, January's, Mr. Jonah Goldberg demonstrates his own talent for stereotyping. His young daughter received a Barbie Doll for Christmas. It was from their "My Scene" collection, and Goldberg was outraged that the Doll was wearing clothes  he thought more appropriate for a prostitute than for a three year old. His description follows:

In short, this slattern effigy my daughter opened on Christmas morning, was a gum-snapping, six-inch-heeled, F*me-pump-wearing  ho. Fo sho.

"Ho. Fo Sho." -does any one doubt what race he's suggesting?

Racism is simply a significant part of what the TNR is.

Glenn V. Rahm, Part Deux

In retrospect, my post on Glenn Greenwald's attack on Rahm Emanuel was a little too flip. Part of a comment that I received yesterday on my post says

I thought Rahm was an oily operative before Greenwald repeated what I already knew to be the truth about Foley.

What Greenwald did in order to attack Emanuel was to muddy the facts - both about what was known "to be the truth about Foley,"" and about the definition of a lie. 

Greenwald is proud to be an accomplished lawyer, yet in his post he wants us to believe, as Talk Left so aptly put it, that he is an "ingenue."

In his post Greenwald points to an interview Emanuel had with Stephanopolous back when the Foley story just broke. In it Emanuel was repeatedly quizzed about his knowledge of the e-mails Foley sent to pages. Emanuel carefully replies that he never saw them.

Greenwald concludes that  "Emanuel was clearly and deliberately misleading," and so is "guilty of the same thing, Exactly the same thing" as Hastert's Chief of Staff who has been "telling" "blatant lies" "ever since this scandal began."

In fact it is Greewald's post which is "deliberately misleading." Here's why:

1. As Talk Left put it "In every meaningful sense of the word, Emanuel ducked the question in order not to lie.  Ducking the question is not lying .... In any meaningful sense Glenn has misstated the meaning of lying."

2. Greenwald is sure that Emanuel lied, because of a CNN report which was based on the word of an un-named campaign committee aide.  Greenwald writes that the report stated that the

"Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said that Emanuel took no action because his knowledge was "cursory" and little more than 'rumor.'"

This is Greenwald's own description of the report.  In order to conclude that Emanuel is lying, Greenwald has to cherry pick from this uncorroborated report from an un-named source. Greenwald embraces the aide's conclusion that Emanuel was "informed in 2005" but rejects the aide's characterization of the information as "cursory and little more than rumor." And there was plenty of rumor.

3. Greenwald again tries to play the ingenue when he writes that "Any reasonable person would have come away from the interview (as I know I did) with the strong impression that Emanuel... had no reason to know anything was amiss with Foley until ABC broke the story." Accusations had started to float around Washington in 2003 and 2004 about Foley's behavior. Greenwald is far too smart not to know that such rumors fly around Washington at the speed of light.  There is no way any sentient Congressman had no suspicion that there might be something "amiss with Foley." In March 2005 one D.C. Blogger warned about Foley "If he cruises you in the bathrooms of Congress, Ignore him!". He also wrote in a headline:  "Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican Convention." In another post; "A source has confirmed with blogACTIVE that Foley lives a practically out lifestyle at his Florida residence, often seen entertaining gay men, some of who the source described as "close to underage." This is not some obscure blogger: GQ magazine has done a piece on him, and Glenn Greenwald himself  has written extensively about him on his own blog. Even my commenter, with whose quote I started this piece, 'already knew the truth about Foley.' Somehow, Greenwald didn't, and neither, he implies, did the rest of Congress.

Near the conclusion of his piece, Greenwald writes about Emanuel:

"he sat there on ABC and adopted this melodramatically concerned, earnest voice, as he expressed righteous outrage."

If you substitute "he sat there on ABC..." with "he opined on his blog..." you've done a pretty good job of describing the sanctimonious Glenn Greenwald.

 

Glenn Greenwald

Is there anyway to get Glenn to tone it down a notch? Clearly brilliant, and a great writer, it would be great if one could characterize  Glenn as "shrill", like Paul Krugman - but I'm afraid you have to describe him as over-the-top. His tendency to exaggeration and gross generalization will eventually lessen the effectiveness of his voice, which would really be a shame.

Eschaton linked to Greenwald's piece on D.C. Pundits, and called it a "well deserved spanking."  It's not.

Glenn's post condemns the inside-the Beltway pundit class in pretty strong terms, calling them "corrupt to their core and always wrong." He said that they had "no core convictions and no passion." Their worldview is "as inaccurate as it is "bereft of integrity and principle." The immediate prompt for this outrage was Russ Feingold's recent announcement that he would not run for President in 2008, which proved conclusively that anyone who wondered if his call for the censure of Bush was possibly the result of a careful political calculation, was both corrupt and stupid.

Glenn was outraged on this AP coverage of Feingold's call for Bush's censure:

While only two Democrats in the Senate have embraced Sen. Russ Feingold's call for censuring President Bush, the idea is increasing his standing among many Democratic voters as he ponders a bid for the party's presidential nomination in 2008.

That sentence is entirely accurate. But Glenn uses a slightly deceptive gambit to make his point: "Feingold obviously hadn't decided to run for President and apparently wasn't planning on it."

But he sure was considering it. He set up a PAC. If you check out Google you'll find at least 15 different sites that were promoting Russ for 2008. He traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa. That famed Washington insider Joel McNally, writing for the Madison [WI] Capital Times and quoted by Common Dreams asked "Of course, if Feingold weren't already leaning toward becoming a candidate, why would a Wisconsin senator be campaigning in Florida?"  Another leading paper in the punditocracy, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that "In the aftermath of his re-election, [Feingold] "maintained a campaign of five in Wisconsin, including two fund-raisers." In it's cover story on Feingold, who it named  Man of the Year, The Madison Magazine quoted the Senator as saying "Being president, running for president, I am very mixed about whether that's the right thing for me."

It is not outrageous for any observer, be they from D.C., or from Madison, or commuting between Brazil and Manhattan, to wonder about the Presidential aspirations of someone behaving as Feingold did.  If Feingold was the entirely uncalculating, American-heartland naif that Greenwald wishes to convince us he is; we'd be in big trouble.

Commenting on the request for Censure, Firedoglake approvingly noted a comment from Pachacutec who had written "I think this is very smart work on Feingold's part. I'm impressed with his ability to mix principle and aggression with canny politics."

Greenwald has the aggression part down pat, and he believes in his principles, although I am concerned that he let's his anger take him over the line. I see no signs of the canny politics part.

Isn't there A Cow Needing a Milking in Wisconsin??

I was concerned that Feingold's calling for Bush's censure, without consulting any of his Senatorial colleagues, was simply grandstanding on his part. It seemed to me that had he been in earnest, he would have had the courage and the leadership ability to both consult and convince some of his fellow Democrats. And of course censure is without legal meaning - it is merely an attempt to gain public attention. But if it actually increased public awareness and understanding of the scandal itself, and of the illegality of the administration's acts, it would be a great thing.

Based on today's hearings, it's pretty clear that it was just a ploy on Feingold's part to get attention for his nascent 2008 run for the Presidency. Shame.

Why else would he bring out John Dean, convicted felon? He's infamous, likely to get headlines, and utterly unbelievable. It's true that Dean was the White House Counsel to Richard Nixon.  True, he's the one who paid the hush money to E. Howard Hunt and the other burglars; he was so essential to the crimes involved that the FBI called him the "master manipulator."  When he thought Nixon was going to make him the scapegoat, he jumped ship and testified against him.  Just the kind of guy Americans trust.

He then "wrote" (a la Ben Domenech) his memoir, "Blind Ambition" except he forgot to tell people that he didn't really write all of it.  In a  later libel suit, he testified that he had not even read all of it.

Dean testified today that Bush is worse than Nixon. I would agree to this. My problem is why pick someone to elucidate a current scandal who has already reached the conclusion based on earlier evidence?  During "Monicagate" Rep. Bob Barr was one of the loudest screaming for Clinton's impeachment. The fact that he had been screaming for impeachment long before Clinton had ever met Ms Lewinsky, and for all kinds of different reasons, only diminished his credibility.

I would not trust John Dean enough to buy a used car from the guy.  Today, the possibility of my buying one from Feingold got a lot less likely.

The problem isn't just that he wanted some extra press attention and some early positioning on '08. He is a politician.

James Carville may not be so respected in Progressive circles these days, but there is not doubt in my mind that "It's the Economy Stupid" was the right way to go. He did not focus on G.H.W. Bush's ties to Iran/Contra which were of course criminal. It's the Economy.

The focus next week needs to be on Immigration and Iraq -  (Sen Sessions speaking today of the former issue: "Let the Prisoners pick the fruit!) Not on John Dean. Let the candidates for 2008 wait until after this fall's elections.

Mar 27,2006: The New Yorker

Sorry, but this week you should really buy three copies of the New Yorker. It's that good. In reality, I can link you to two of the reasons, but I can't link you to the third - so you really will have to buy one.

Since he starts the magazine, I'll start with Hendrik Hertzberg. His brilliant "Disarray This" points out that the Democratic Part is in fact in an array. He also makes the argument that calling Democrats spineless and weak in the face of Feingold's  publicity stunt last week, can only help the Republicans. (I tried, clearly unsuccessfully, to make this point with Glenn Greenwald last week. To see proof of my failure read the venom here.) He makes it clear that the problem is not that Bush doesn't deserve censure, for a wide variety of his actions, but that attacking other Democrats does not help the cause.

Nicholas Lemann, poor guy, actually understands Bill O'Reilly.  "O'Reilly has been playing O'Reilly so successfully for so long, and has developed such a substantial libray of hooks, tics, and subplots, that he seems to be parodying himself, or parodying Colbert's parody of him." My pity for Mr Lemann is particularly intense as he is forced to delve into O'Reilly's fiction. After his career at CBS stalled over an incident in The Falkland Islands War, O'Reilly wrote a novel about a reporter who is fired after an incident in The Falkland Islands War. One by one, the fictional O'Reilly viciously, gruesomely, murders those he blames for his ill treatment. Lemann mentions that "Once, when Howard Stern was asked to explain his success, he said that he owed it to lesbians. O'Reilly owes his to child molesters." You have to read the whole article.

The reason that you have to go out and buy a copy is a piece that I cannot link to: Calvin Trillin writes of his late wife Alice, and it's a honest-to-god love story. Amazing

Criticism

Glenn Greenwald is a great blogger whose work I greatly admire and who runs Unclaimed Territory. Yesterday he  asked  if I did not find it ironic that I had criticized him for two days about his being critical of democrats. And in fact I don't. So I'll do it again.

Democrats will always criticize other Democrats - it's in our nature and it's a necessity for a healthy party.  What I would like is for Glenn (and many others) to save his impassioned outrage for Republicans, and to try for civil disagreements with Democrats.

During the past week Glenn has expressed his fury at the lack of support Feingold has received from his fellow Democrats over his censure resolution. He includes Dems in "this morass of dishonesty and principle-free corruption that permeates every single component of our national political life" which Feingold disrupted. He uses words like "weak and spineless."

His passion threatens to overwhelm his logic. He sees no inconsistency in lauding Feingold for "the single most important and courageous act I can recall from a Senator in a long time," and painting those who don't jump on the bandwagon with him as abject cowards.  And then he goes on to argue that attacking such a failed President takes no courage at all. Praise is offered for the two years of tenacious digging by politicians and journalists that enabled the Watergate robbery to bring down Richard Nixon. Yet Glenn  heaps scorn on those who question Feingold's rush to the Constitutionally meaningless censure.

Glenn and his co-blogger  Anonymous Liberal recognize the strength that Republicans have gained by speaking with one voice, "in "unison."  But they defend Feingold's unilateral action. I agree that the proposed censure of Clinton in the Senate was ridiculous - but I don't share his moral outrage in calling his behavior inappropriate.
(Getting a blow job from an intern less than half your age would get you in trouble in most offices I've ever worked in.) Furthermore, trying to duck voting on the censure resolution now is not the same as voting against it.

I hope that it is clear that I am not trying to pick on Glenn; obviously a really bright, passionate guy. I do think such strong, almost over-the-top, criticism of Democrats does not help the cause. (OK, I'll make an exception for Lieberman) But Rep. Murtha, who had a far higher rating from the American Conservative Union(33) and Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum (31) than Sen Lieberman (17 and 8, respectively), was a real asset to the cause this year. The party is simply not strong enough right now to afford internecine battles. We have to take back the House before we should plan how to clean it.

And I hereby promise not to criticize Glenn again (on this issue), even though I agree with the N.Y Times editorial today, and I imagine Glenn didn't.

Disciplined Democrats?

Glenn Greenwald is announcing that new polling shows that the American public is in favor of censure.  I certainly hope he is correct, and that other polls confirm this.

He also is quite pleased that Digby "decimates" those who are concerned that "Feingold's censure resolution might be politically harmful."

What neither of them manage to demolish is how this incident sheds light on the poor judgment and arrogance of Russ Feingold.  The Senator seems to have successfully learned his coaliton building skills from George W. Bush - go ahead and toss the bomb: who cares if you put potential allies in really awkward positions?

They both intimate that Feingold's failure to advise his colleagues before dropping his little bombshell was because he did not think they were brave enough to support him. Yesterday Glenn was very vocal on the need to act whether victory was assured or not. Todays he seems to approve of  Feingold's failure to caucus with his fellow Democrats - fearful that his effort might fail.

Digby can "see why they (fellow Dems) are angry about it.  They were caught short... Planning is great, but you can't always control events." But this wasn't an act of God; It wasn't one of those myriad of events Bush was unable to predict. Feingold carefully plotted out this scheme, and there was no excuse for treating his fellow Dem this way.

Whether or not the censure tactic is ultimately successful, we have learned another lesson in how we lose elections.  When the only strength the Republicans still seem to have in the perception of voters is their 'courage'; it's really helpful to have Democrats attacking Democrats, calling them spineless and cowardly.  The utter lack of discipline that allows Glenn to attack and defame fellow Democrats does not bode well for the mid-term elections.

Atrios Finds a Fight.

Atrios led me to it with his one word title "Fight."

I had become an admirer of Glenn Greenwald. I need that verb tense because today's over the top attack on Kevin Drum changed my opinion somewhat. The fight concerns Feingold's censure motion and the Democrats response to it.

Greenwald purports to be concerned with the "core principles of our constitutional republic', and thus is outraged that Drum might not support censure, which of course is not a constitutional remedy. The only such remedy is impeachment.

He uses one of his trademarked "to describe that argument is to illustrate its absurdity" arguments against  Drum.  This signature line of Greenwald's gives him the advantage of not having to actually confront the position that Drum was taking. ("That conduct mocks itself.")  In fact, Feingold's not giving his colleagues advance warning on his plan to ask for censure is not some minor break with "some Senatorial courtesy." It's not a "so what." If Feingold were serious about something other than getting headlines for his 2008 Presidential run, he would have consulted with other Democrats.  Should they go for censure or impeachment? Is this the right time for this move? What other headlines might this be replacing?

The Republicans may use this strategy of throwing a bomb and then accusing those not leaping to the attack of being cowards in a military context. But they would never be so dumb to it as to do it in a political battle.

Greenwald is fond of comparing this situation to Watergate, and says that Drum's position would have meant that Nixon would have completed his second term. The reverse is true. If, instead of waiting two years to have reporters and politicians ferret out the whole story, Democrats had screamed for censure two months after the robbery, the motion would have lost.  (I have disagreed with Glenn on this one before. I do not think we have developed a coherent narrative that will persuade the public that Bush's crime matters.)

Lastly Greenwald himself borders on incoherence. He condemns Drum for wanting to fight only winnable battles, and at the same time argues that we should be fighting this one because it is winnable. In fact, Drum makes it very clear that he has no problem fighting losing battles, but he does want to have a clear objective in so doing.

I do agree with both Greenwald and Drum that our politicians are often spineless. But the way to develop strength is not by the Greenwald/Feingold course of abusing fellow Democrats. Republicans win in part because they slander us; not fellow Republicans.