The key phrase there is "in recent weeks!"

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017

Case studies in liberal failure:
It's amazing to see the kind of crap we liberals receive from our "intellectual leaders."

Consider Josh Marshall's web site, TPM. This morning, it offers us an inspirational news report by Nicole Lafond.

Lafond begins like this:
LAFOND (12/12/17): Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is not backing down from her efforts to hold President Trump accountable for the accusations of sexual misconduct against him.

After Trump tweeted calling the senator names and suggesting that Gillibrand was once willing to “do anything” for campaign contributions from him, Gillibrand responded with a simple message: “You cannot silence me.”

Gillibrand has become a prominent force in combating sexual harassment and assault in Washington in recent weeks.
She, along with Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), introduced legislation last month that would overhaul the way Congress handles sexual harassment complaints. She was the first to call on her colleague, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), to resign after weeks of mounting allegations against him. On Monday, she called on Trump to resign the same day three of his accusers came forward to shed new light on their claims of sexual misconduct against the President.
The report proceeds from there. Already, the post is inspirational, if your IQ is 10:

Gillibrand isn't backing down! Donald J. Trump can't silence her!

This is the kind of drivel we're frequently served on the partisan Net and by liberal cable. It's designed to make us feel tribally strong, to keep us returning for more.

We had a different reaction. In our view, the key phrase there would be "in recent weeks." To wit:

"Gillibrand has become a prominent force in combating sexual harassment and assault in Washington in recent weeks."

In recent weeks? Far from being inspirational, that strikes us as part of the problem!

"In recent weeks," we've all learned about the ridiculous system in place in the Congress for dealing with sexual harassment. The system, such as it is, dates to 1995. Being sensible, we've wondered why fiery leaders like Gillibrand accepted that absurd arrangement all these years.

She's boldly fought back "in recent weeks?" To us, that sounds like an indictment. At TPM, it's supposed to make us feel bold, bright and good, through typical journo-signalling.

By the way, who is Nicole Lafond? She's three years out of Olivet Nazarene University (class of 2014).

To state the obvious, there's nothing wrong with being youngish or even young. Low salaries help Marshall swell his bottom line, an obvious tribal good. But it also raises the likelihood of liberals receiving silly pap from our fiery, play-for-pay web sites.

Gillibrand has emerged "in recent weeks?" Why isn't that part of the problem?

Later today: Teachout gets it right

15 comments:

  1. Ever the tribal loon, Josh Marshall is now claiming that Trump was deeply "sexist" by stating that Gillibrand begged him for money.

    This is why people hate feminism, and why y'all keep losing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You got it backwards.
      We keep losing, because they hate feminism.

      Delete
  2. ''s amazing to see the kind of crap we liberals receive from our "intellectual leaders."


    Bob, you should just admit that you're a Trumptard now

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought the key phrase today is Trump's reference to Gillebrand as someone who asked for donations "...and would do anything for them..." That seemed to me to be just another one of Trump's demeaning insinuations about an opponent that has no known basis in fact. The President's attempt to demean Senator Gillibrand is a much bigger story than your complaints about the work of Nicole LaFond. In fact, the big story today is what Gillibrand is doing now in facing down Trump and fighting sexual harassment, not what she may not have done before.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Gillibrand has emerged "in recent weeks?" Why isn't that part of the problem?"
    Leave it to Somerby to criticize someone for doing the right thing today instead of yesterday. Hey, why didn't blacks march for civil rights in the 1920's or 30's or 40's?
    Would that be his criticism of MLK in 1955: why didn't you do it sooner, you complicit mf?
    Or does Somerby think Gillibrand is doing the right thing? Hard to tell.
    There's a time for everything. A time to every purpose...ah, fuck it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gillibrand has been serving since 2009. I haven’t seen any convincing evidence Obama assaulted any women.

      Delete
    2. MLK turned 26 years old in 1955. The bus boycott began nineteen months after King began his pastorate at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

      [QUOTE] King was elected to lead the boycott because he was young, well-trained with solid family connections and had professional standing. But he was also new to the community and had few enemies, so it was felt he would have strong credibility with the black community.

      In his first speech as the group's president, King declared, "We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice."
      LINK [END QUOTE]

      Delete
  5. "To state the obvious, there's nothing wrong with being youngish or even young. Low salaries help Marshall swell his bottom line, an obvious tribal good. But it also raises the likelihood of liberals receiving silly pap from our fiery, play-for-pay web sites."

    Yep. Sure, Somerby is doing "mainstream press criticism."
    He just wants us liberals to win one, right?
    This passage illustrates everything that's wrong with Somerby's sneering attitude these days. Not content to critique the big guys, like the Times, the Post, MSNBC, and CNN, he also sets his sights on any alternative liberal site that comes along, like Salon a while back, and now TPM. And he doesn't just critique; oh no; he mocks, ridicules, and insults, with the seeming intent to destroy his targets, not reform them. ("Play-for-pay": yes, deride them for trying to maintain a presence in the onslaught of vast corporate cash).
    I ask the defenders if Somerby: is Somerby's influence nowadays overall positive or destructive to alternative liberal media and liberal causes, given his penchant for merciless attacks on any that try to fight the good fight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bueller, Bueller...

      Delete
    2. it's all just anthropology now, young'n.

      Delete
    3. 'I ask the defenders if Somerby: is Somerby's influence nowadays overall positive or destructive to alternative liberal media and liberal causes, '

      If Somerby had any actual influence, then it would be extremely destructive to the liberal effort. But since he doesn't, one can just dismiss him as a would be 'useful idiot' helping Trump

      Delete
  6. Decent post, Bob, my compliments. Obviously, every politician is a whore; begging for money (and then delivering services) is the norm. And people like Marshall, Maddow, and your idol Saletan are whoring for whores; the lowest kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Real whores resent your use of that term to describe journalists and politicians. Show more respect for the oldest profession!

      Delete
    2. Trump will be getting money out of elections any minute now. LOL

      Delete
  7. The journalist got it wrong. Gillibrand has been an advocate for sexual assault victims in the military for instance. Gillibrand is also an advocate for more women running for office which is likely to civilize the congressional work environment.

    ReplyDelete