tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5557041894477219836..comments2024-03-28T04:12:17.506-04:00Comments on the daily howler: The biggest test for the modern liberal!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67593776706286891342012-04-13T18:36:15.220-04:002012-04-13T18:36:15.220-04:00[Regarding your comment at 3:27 yesterday:]
You s...[Regarding your comment at 3:27 yesterday:]<br /><br />You say that no one has ever done that. That's Bob's point.<br /><br />And I agree with him. The more I read his blog, the more I wonder why E.J. Dionne won't say, "I could have spoken up at the time, but I didn't. Here's why."<br /><br />Of course, Bob will tell you that Dionne's more interested in his career than in telling the truth. He was during the Gore campaign, and he still is. I agree.<br /><br />I can't speak for Bob, but I'd be satisfied if Dionne simply stopped pretending and discussed things openly. After all, he's paid to discuss matters that affect us all, and this one certainly qualifies.<br /><br />(By the way, I thought Dionne was weak and of very little use as a major "liberal" pundit years before I first read this blog.)<br /><br />Dionne's silence raises important issues about the media--such as the difference in strength between liberal voices and conservative voices-- that deserve much more attention. Thank you for helping me see this.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10747875925262680042012-04-13T18:16:48.561-04:002012-04-13T18:16:48.561-04:00Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, you&...Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, you're right about Bob. How does this keep him from advancing his goals?<br /><br />And what should he write about instead?JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9936337660392863732012-04-12T18:36:03.744-04:002012-04-12T18:36:03.744-04:00And what bothers me is that this used to be an exc...And what bothers me is that this used to be an exceptional blog that kept track of how nonsense spread outwards from mainstream pundits. I remember a great piece about how Bush-favoring pundits trained each other to use the word "bold." I remember great stuff about "looting" in the health care system. The material about Naomi Wolf, earth tones, all the anti-Gore smears, the derision the press had for the candidate, is excellent. <br /><br />But then Bob has this other thing he always does where he can't even enjoy it _when people agree with him_. Kevin Drum sounds like Bob, and that's awful, because he should've done it sooner. Here E.J. Dionne sounds like Bob, and that's awful, because he should've done it sooner. Why does he make it impossible for anyone to satisfy him? It just makes it clear that he'd rather nurse his grudges than advance his actual goals. I half expect that when someone actually buys the book on the Gore campaign, Bob will send him a personal note railing about how he really should have bought the book sooner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47337951859484088052012-04-12T18:27:43.160-04:002012-04-12T18:27:43.160-04:00This "refused to stay silent" standard i...This "refused to stay silent" standard is impossible to meet, though. You have to monitor every other pundit's bullshit and then spend your time talking about that instead of what you want to talk about. No one will ever do that. No one has ever done that. The one exception is Bob Somerby, who is monomaniacal and keeps close track of second- and third-tier pundits so that he can leap to bash them 13 years later. It's like arguing with an ex who remembers every one of your old arguments. Like I said, if Bob's aspiration is to remain pissed off at the world of pundits for his remaining life, he's well on his way to doing that -- because he gets pissed off once when they do something wrong, then he gets pissed off all over again even when they do something right, because they should have done that before. What he seems to want is for everyone who has been wrong, or negligent, or ignorant, about the Al Gore campaign in 1999-2000... to have been right the first time. Well, he can't have that, mostly because, you know, time runs forwards. There is no satisfying him _now_. So, I mean, why bother trying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8750915154743086802012-04-12T16:22:28.022-04:002012-04-12T16:22:28.022-04:00Thank you, JT. I don't often weigh in here, an...Thank you, JT. I don't often weigh in here, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but once in a while I get quixotic.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1420392470207193142012-04-12T16:03:43.845-04:002012-04-12T16:03:43.845-04:00[Edit of the last comment:] If so many others had...[Edit of the last comment:] If so many others had not also stayed silent...<br /><br />[Note to Gary: flipyrwhig obviously has some personal reasons for resisting reality. You're doing a great job of explaining things, but that horse just won't drink.]JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8500450200872411362012-04-12T15:57:57.081-04:002012-04-12T15:57:57.081-04:00[flipyrwhig:] I doubt that you believe what you&#...[flipyrwhig:] I doubt that you believe what you're saying.<br /><br />All Bob wants is for Dionne to stop pretending that he has no voice. He's one of the most prominent pundits in the nation, and he makes a very good living by speaking out on topics that affect us all.<br /><br />But for some reason he stayed almost completely silent when lies were repeatedly told. By the way, he was part of a much larger pattern of media silence. If so many others had not spoken up also, there would be no discussion about Dionne now.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24730333883357492872012-04-12T14:43:00.845-04:002012-04-12T14:43:00.845-04:00Well, yes. Pundits should name-check other pundits...Well, yes. Pundits should name-check other pundits who sully our discourse. Almost none of them do, because their careers depend on playing dumb. Bob apparently doesn't care about jumping to a high-paying cable job, which is why he virtually stands alone.<br /><br />This doesn't sound like madness to me. Bob is relentless because the forces of misinformation are relentless. They've been at it for 30 or 40 years; why does one lone voice in the wilderness bother you so?Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49315304156413185452012-04-12T14:07:36.472-04:002012-04-12T14:07:36.472-04:00But look at what you're saying here. Pundit X...But look at what you're saying here. Pundit X says something false and obnoxious about, in this case, Al Gore. Pundit Y isn't simply supposed to say something true about Gore, not participating in the smear. He also must specifically challenge Pundit X, by name, and not just once, repeatedly, or else he has failed the Somerby Test for how to participate in "public discourse." By that standard, the only person who has ever been the right kind of pundit is... Bob Somerby, because only he absolutely never, ever lets go of a perceived slight conducted in 1999 and relentlessly brings back every conversation to that. Even when the slight isn't something that the pundit said, but something he didn't say to Bob's precise standards. It's madness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19017740262500123682012-04-12T09:21:42.238-04:002012-04-12T09:21:42.238-04:00The way I see it, you and other posters here are s...The way I see it, you and other posters here are systematically trying to obscure Bob's quite logical arguments with a blizzard of blather. The more blather the better, as it makes it harder and harder for people to perceive the point that was originally made. You guys do a good job of it, too. But it's really all piffle.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6966360298798019642012-04-12T09:16:19.122-04:002012-04-12T09:16:19.122-04:00This is a lot of silly, hysterical blather. Bob...This is a lot of silly, hysterical blather. Bob's point is simple: People with powerful positions in the media have a responsibility to call out lies and liars when they see them. It would have been courageous and useful for Dionne to do it in real time; now that the damage is done, he's finally ready to be outraged. This might still be useful if he was willing to examine the reasons for his own inaction, but he hasn't done that.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74619504430211987222012-04-12T01:53:27.960-04:002012-04-12T01:53:27.960-04:00Dionne didn't have a role, unless you define &...Dionne didn't have a role, unless you define "played a role" as "did not play a very narrowly tailored role Bob Somerby thinks all good pundits must play, and consequently there are no good pundits, which is to rebut other pundits' claims without at the same time appearing 'tribal.'" Did Dionne savage Gore? Bob doesn't say he did. Bob only says that he didn't sufficiently stand up when other people savaged Gore. And that is a nonsensical standard that only serves to justify why Bob Somerby can't even be happy when a well-known pundit uses his platform _to sound like Bob Somerby_. <br /><br />That's what I mean about how Bob doesn't know how to take yes for an answer. It's like having an argument with someone, and years later they say, "you know what, come to think of it, you were right about that," and instead of saying, "About time you came around!" you say "up yours, jackwad!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65853745382126769022012-04-11T19:58:26.119-04:002012-04-11T19:58:26.119-04:00I will grant you, Somerby hasn't come up with ...I will grant you, Somerby hasn't come up with much new thinking lately.<br /><br />But over the years his blog has been way better than most.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65695930877644924832012-04-11T19:54:20.574-04:002012-04-11T19:54:20.574-04:00[Anonymous 5:13 AM] Are you claiming all Somerby ...[Anonymous 5:13 AM] Are you claiming all Somerby has ever said is that some pundits are good, some bad, and some in between?<br /><br />I envision an Anonymous book review series. Moby Dick? "Man hunts whale." The Odyssey? "Man goes on trip." Huckleberry Finn? "Boy goes on trip."JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64186100872986827792012-04-11T19:04:22.682-04:002012-04-11T19:04:22.682-04:00Bob has a valid point about Dionne's public st...Bob has a valid point about Dionne's public statements.<br />The Daily Howler is ultimately about the media--not about Catholics, or the antebellum South, or anything else along those lines.<br /><br />Bob has made some very good points about the media over the years. That's what I focus on when I read his blog.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20148198413632768942012-04-11T18:42:19.611-04:002012-04-11T18:42:19.611-04:00That was a ridiculous analogy.
Why doesn't Di...That was a ridiculous analogy.<br /><br />Why doesn't Dionne just acknowledge his role?JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02709612238720639115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3585837691888755162012-04-11T15:21:44.767-04:002012-04-11T15:21:44.767-04:00That's like wanting Bob to acknowledge his com...That's like wanting Bob to acknowledge his complicity in why black kids in Baltimore still haven't caught up to their white counterparts in testing, because, after all, he taught there, and yet he failed to fix the problem. It's a ridiculous standard. It's ALWAYS a ridiculous standard. Like the jihad against Joe Wlson Bob waged for months.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-57256551878322798092012-04-11T14:59:18.659-04:002012-04-11T14:59:18.659-04:00Exactly the way I want?? You've shown nothing,...Exactly the way I want?? You've shown nothing, nothing at all, nevermind "exactly" anything!<br /><br />"I've tried to find an archive of Dionne's columns from the 2000 campaign, but failed, since he was working primarily for the Brookings Institution while writing for the Washington Post." In other words, you've surrendered on the print front. In E.J. Dionne's primary public face, you're admitting you can't find anything that refutes Somerby?<br /><br />So you're moving on, to untranscripted video appearances?<br /><br />Now I just sat through one hour of Charlie Rose (Feb 1, 2000) and saw Dionne say Gore in NH "seemed more natural than we expected him to." That is some mighty thin gruel, Anonymous. <br /><br />In another segment (Oct 3,2000), I heard Dionne say, of the first debate against Bush, that "Gore seemed to have a better command of the facts."<br /><br />Under what interpretation could these possibly be seen as pushing back against the lies against Gore? I didn't hear E.J. address "the lies" at all.<br /><br />I ask hopefully, but I assume it will also turn out, rhetorically. You are wasting my time. You got nothing, as always.<br /><br />Wait, you got "poor, defenseless Al Gore" as if that characterization had something do to with the question at hand: Did E.J. Dionne ever push back against, rebut or call out the lies about Al Gore?<br /><br />"Oooh, you Somerby acolytes think Al Gore is so poor and defenseless?" That's pretty much nothing, Anonymous.<br /><br />In all seriousness, please, we all see Charlie Rose has video of his segments up -- there's a few hours of stuff there. <br /><br />On what you've done so far you've given no reason for anyone to simply take you at your word and waste their time viewing it all -- Where did you see E.J. Dionne rebutting the lies about Al Gore. We'll be happy to scroll to the point where it happens, if you can point it out!<br /><br />Otherwise, we're done with your nonsense.Swannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64718741312698858742012-04-11T14:52:23.571-04:002012-04-11T14:52:23.571-04:00I think Bob just wants Dionne to acknowledge his o...I think Bob just wants Dionne to acknowledge his own complicity in what happened, instead of pretending he had nothing to do with it.Garynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49309592967580613212012-04-11T13:33:10.726-04:002012-04-11T13:33:10.726-04:00Well, E.J. Dionne can't invent a damn time mac...Well, E.J. Dionne can't invent a damn time machine, so that part can't be fixed. On the other hand, he's talking about Bob's indispensable topic now. And, for Bob, that's still A Bad Thing somehow. He doesn't know how to take Yes for an answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85483113719188656872012-04-11T13:32:08.051-04:002012-04-11T13:32:08.051-04:00Yes, Swan you learned the Bob Somerby Game very we...Yes, Swan you learned the Bob Somerby Game very well. Unless E.J. Dionne says it in EXACTLY the way your guru wants, it doesn't count.<br /><br />Now I've given you your homework to go see what Dionne was saying about Campaign 2000, and especially about the three debates, as they were unfolding.<br /><br />And how dare he discuss issues when the REAL story was how the likes of mean and nasty Maureen Dowd and Kit Seelye were treating poor, defenseless Al Gore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91137214532888077472012-04-11T13:28:50.966-04:002012-04-11T13:28:50.966-04:00Nice myth, Alex. If you want to know why Dionne pr...Nice myth, Alex. If you want to know why Dionne praised the compromise that the church didn't like, could it possibly, perhaps be because he does NOT oppose universal access to birth control?<br /><br />Of course not. Somerby has told you that Dionne is not to be trusted. So you get to jump to all sorts of conclusions that you want to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34135485413427230762012-04-11T13:22:24.198-04:002012-04-11T13:22:24.198-04:00Well, lo and behold, those are the ONLY two mentio...Well, lo and behold, those are the ONLY two mentions of the horrible, awful E.J. Dionne in the Daily Howler in the entire two years that his crimes of ommission began.<br /><br />Then long about 2004 comes the myth that Dionne was "silent" in those two years, even after Somerby quoted Dionne himself in Oct. 1999 about how terribly certain corners of the media were treating Al Gore,<br /><br />And so the myth of the Silent E.J. Dionne continues to grow and grown in the Daily Howler, until finally, Somerby instructs his cattle to "quit" him.<br /><br />I've tried to find an archive of Dionne's columns from the 2000 campaign, but failed, since he was working primarily for the Brookings Institution while writing for the Washington Post.<br /><br />But I did run across several appearances he made on the Charlie Rose Show in Sept-Oct 2000, which are quite revealing.<br /><br />You can access them yourself and see and hear what E.J. Dionne was actually saying, in real time, about the 2000 campaign:<br /><br />http://www.charlierose.com/search/?text=E.J.+Dionne<br /><br />But I kinda doubt you're going to do that. After all, Bob Somerby has already told you what the "truth" is. Why would you need anything more than that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17468999850718893182012-04-11T12:35:46.678-04:002012-04-11T12:35:46.678-04:00"Gore asked legitimate questions."
That..."Gore asked legitimate questions."<br /><br />That's your best? We wanted Dionne really doing something "in the face of all those lies."<br /><br />And you think THAT does it???<br /><br />Sorry, passing out from lack of nutrition.Swannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22939598252355118522012-04-11T12:32:22.381-04:002012-04-11T12:32:22.381-04:00It would be even better if you could find Dionne p...It would be even better if you could find Dionne pushing back against the liars, something like:<br /><br />DIONNE: So-and-so is saying "Al Gore claims X," which is an outright lie.<br /><br />But we know, we're asking a lot from you. <br /><br />Maybe you will at least be able to find Dionne contradicting *some* lie?Swannoreply@blogger.com