The biggest test for the modern liberal!

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012

Can you quit E. J. Dionne: For the modern liberal, it’s the biggest test of your ability to resist the tribal imperative.

Here’s the test: Can you quit E. J. Dionne?

He seems so rational, so decent, so good—so well-intentioned, so palpably honest! But here’s what Dionne said again last night, guesting on The Last Word:
DIONNE (4/9/12): You know, if I could just say something about all that stuff you ran before. I think there are Velcro candidates and there are Teflon candidates. Teflon candidates like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, where nothing sticks, and then Velcro candidates like—Al Gore never even said that "I invented the Internet," and yet that stuck to him.

And Romney, from the ease with which you can play those reels, you know, “two Cadillacs,” you know, “the trees are the right height” and all of that, he is looking more and more like a Velcro candidate. And that I think is his core problem.
To gain the full effect of this dog-and-pony show, you have to watch the tape. Listen to the heartfelt concern with which Dionne expresses his point:

Al Gore never said, “I invented the Internet!” And yet, the bullshit stuck!

Of course, Dionne knows why the bullshit stuck. It stuck because people like O’Donnell kept saying such things during Campaign 2000—even as people like Dionne kept refusing to challenge their conduct.

Al Gore said he invented the Internet! The mainstream press corps pimped that tale for twenty months, from March 1999 through November 2000. And according to Nexis, Dionne never spoke up, not even once, to challenge this twenty-month war. The bullshit stuck because the “good people” did nothing while the very bad people—the folk like O’Donnell—conducted their twenty-month war.

We researched this matter in 2010, when Dionne first made this statement about Gore and the Internet in a column (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/27/10). We found no sign that Dionne ever spoke up.

It’s how George Bush reached the White House.

Last night, Dionne seemed so good, so pure, so sincere. He was playing you, right to the core.

To this day, are you able to quit him?

What O'Donnell did: As the conversation continued, O’Donnell played the stupidity card, with Jonathan Capehart serving the crepes. Eventually, O’Donnell pimped some SNL jive concerning Candidate Gore.

Can you spot the flaw with O’Donnell’s story?
O’DONNELL (continuing directly): And, Jonathan Capehart, [Romney] spent Easter weekend at his southern California beach mansion, the place I guess where he’s trying to put in the elevator for the four cars. But he apparently did body surfing, which my guess is, that`s a less politically damaging than wind surfing was for John Kerry.

CAPEHART: Yes, because lots of people do body surfing. I've never done it, but I know people who have done it and I've seen people do it. It looks fun, but it's not for me.

O’DONNELL: And, Jonathan, to the SNL thing, I think E.J. raises an important point in that in 2000, Saturday Night Live did some penetrating stuff on Al Gore that I think gave the electorate a vocabulary in a certain sense for what made them uncomfortable about Al Gore. And it seems like they’ve zeroed in on the essential defect in the Romney candidacy, which is that pandering, which is that willingness to say anything...
When a person like O’Donnell talks about wind versus body surfing, he’s treating you like a low-IQ fool. Which is exactly what you are if you're willing to tolerate this in the name of tribal unity.

Regarding Gore, please understand:

O’Donnell refers to a SNL skit on the first weekend of October 2000, after the first Bush-Gore debate. At that point, Dionne’s colleagues had been pushing the “invented the Internet” tale for nineteen solid months, without a single word of rebuttal from Dionne, who feigns such concern today. And omigod:

That very same weekend, O’Donnell appeared on the McLaughlin Group where he pushed another bogus “lie” by Gore. Sitting in one of the program’s “liberal” chairs, he said the lie—which Gore never told—was “one of his most ridiculous and his most relevant untruths.”

To review O’Donnell’s disgraceful conduct, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/3/05. This is how Bush reached the White House.

Bad people then, awful people today! Dionne was playing you last night.

Lawrence O’Donnell? Much worse!

Regarding that SNL skit: In April 2003, we took part in a panel discussion of political humor at the University of Virginia.

Larry Sabato chaired the event. Also appearing was James Downey, kingpin of SNL.

At one point, Downey aired tape of that very skit, the one which featured the “penetrating stuff” about Candidate Gore. We expressed our views regarding its quality.

In our view, the young college kids got a lively discussion. To see what you think, just click this.

But just for the record:

Dionne had been refusing to speak for nineteen months by the time that worthless skit aired. That is how George Bush reached the White House, despite the things these very bad people tell you on TV today.

63 comments:

  1. I have a quick question for you--please contact me at bobrien@mesothelioma.com when you can.

    ReplyDelete
  2. O'Donnell has it coming, and the War on Gore should never be forgotten. But, The Daily Howler has a little Rachel Maddow problem this week: Seems She has written a book, it's on a hugely important topic, and IT'S NOT BAD AT ALL.
    It's not without it's flaws too....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless it has a long chapter about why the media said that Al Gore wore earth tones, it can only be a massive failure of a book and a blight on The American Discourse. Try t believe it, dear readers!

      Delete
  3. So, in other words E.J. Dionne did actually address the media mistreatment of the Gore campaign, the thing you constantly dispense tirades about, but that still doesn't count, because it's too late. Will you just admit that you can never be satisfied, and that the Somerby fatwa will never be lifted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dionne, et alia, did not perform his/their responsibility as a journalist(s) WHEN IT MATTERED, in the 20 months leading up to the election.

      Horace Feathers

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
    3. I think Bob just wants Dionne to acknowledge his own complicity in what happened, instead of pretending he had nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    4. 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.

      Delete
    5. That was a ridiculous analogy.

      Why doesn't Dionne just acknowledge his role?

      Delete
    6. 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_.

      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!"

      Delete
    7. 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.

      Delete
    8. 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.

      Delete
    9. 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.

      Delete
    10. 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.

      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?

      Delete
    11. [flipyrwhig:] I doubt that you believe what you're saying.

      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.

      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.

      Delete
    12. [Edit of the last comment:] If so many others had not also stayed silent...

      [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.]

      Delete
    13. 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.

      Delete
    14. 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?

      Delete
    15. 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.

      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.

      Delete
    16. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, you're right about Bob. How does this keep him from advancing his goals?

      And what should he write about instead?

      Delete
    17. [Regarding your comment at 3:27 yesterday:]

      You say that no one has ever done that. That's Bob's point.

      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."

      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.

      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.

      (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.)

      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.

      Delete
  4. "That is how George Bush reached the White House . . ."

    And this is where you flunk Poli Sci 101, Bob. It is a freshman mistake to attribute the outcome of a national election to one, single factor.

    Yes, "invented the Internet" and other oft-repeated fables about Al Gore that fit the narrative WAS one factor that led to his defeat. But don't forget Gore also won the national popular vote and the election boiled down to 600 votes in Florida, and 7,000 votes in New Hampshire.

    Among other factors at least as important as "Gore invented the Internet":

    1. George W. Bush's appeal, and get-out-the-vote efforts among evangelicals and conservative Catholics. This was very key in Missouri, to name one state, where every single statewide Democratic candidate on the ballot won with one exception -- Al Gore. In fact, a dead Democratic candidate beat an incumbent U.S. senator that year in Missouri.

    2. Clinton fatigue. Even though a majority of the country did NOT want him impeached, a good portion also wanted to wring his neck for being so damned dumb. They couldn't vote against him, so many of them they voted against his VP -- the very next Democrat to run for president.

    3. The selection of Joe Lieberman as VP. This really took the wind out of the sails of progressives, as well as feed the fable that Gore "would do anything to be president." A choice that boiled down to nothing but pure politics in an effort to distance himself from the Lewinsky scandal.

    4. Ralph Nader. Big, big factor. Nader pulled 22,000 votes in New Hampshire and over 100,000 in Florida. Now it is quite arguable that Nader voters might have stayed home had they not been compelled to vote for a down-ticket race. But it is also quite arguable that especially in Florida, no Nader pulling away progressive and environmentalist votes, Gore wins. And the choice of Lieberman fed Nader's "tweedledum, tweedledee" mantra.

    5. Bush's message. Tip your hat to the guy, even if it turned out to be BS. But "compassionate conservatism" and "Uniter, not a divider," had a lot of legs with people in the middle. Remember also that the budget was in surplus at that time. As Clinton himself noted, Bush was promising everything the Clinton administration did PLUS a tax cut. Tough message to beat.

    In short, Bob, not all of the 50+ million people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 did so because the media lied about "I invented the Internet" and E.J. Dionne wouldn't rush to Al Gore's defense.

    Which is probably why you couldn't sell your oversimplistic analysis as a book, and are still having having a tough time writing it, 12 years later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob's analysis is about the means used to undermine a candidate when the vested interests preferred that he not be elected. The same means were used against Hillary Clinton. The point is not whether Gore won or lost but whether our media millionaires who are supposedly journalists should be carrying water for vested interests instead of doing their jobs. You may not care whether we have a working press but I consider it an important contributor to democratic process, missing now because it has been co-opted by the corporations who own the media. We got Bush because corporate powers did not want Gore, not because of voter preferences. You only have to look at the Supreme Court decision that put Bush into office to know that.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes. The old "Gore the enemy of corporate interests" meme.

      Except, of course, that Gore wrote some of the most corporate-friendly legislation in the history of Congress, including his "initiative in Congress in creating the Internet."

      And since you missed the point the first time, allow me to repeat it. I did NOT say that there weren't reporters writing out of a narrative about Gore.

      I am saying, contrary to Somerby, this was NOT the sole reason that Bush won the White House.

      In fact, we might add another factor: The U.S. Supreme Court's completely bizarre decision in Bush v. Gore.

      Delete
    3. By the way, can you explain to me why "corporate interests" would prefer Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton? Or Bill Bradley over Al Gore? Or John McCain over George Bush?

      Delete
    4. Yes, corporate interests preferred Obama because he was tied into Wall Street. His time in Chicago showed that he knew how to go along to get along. Once elected, he appointed people like Summers and Geithner guaranteed not to go after regulating Wall Street & banks. Notice that Obama kept all of Bush's defense and anti-terrorism policies in place or strengthened them. They also preferred him because Obama was not going to do anything rash like ending any wars. I don't believe media preferred Bill Bradley --they preferred Bush. And why are you suggesting they preferred McCain over Bush? They went easy on Bush from the start and Obama was the shoe-in when he ran against McCain. McCain was the sacrificial lamb against Obama.

      Delete
    5. Because Somerby has written extensively, for the past 12 years, how the "media" fawned all over McCain. And Bradley.

      Scroll down and read his "tribute" to Mike Wallace. The only thing Somerby can think of to write about a man who just died was how he was a part of the "St. John McCain" movement.

      "They also preferred him because Obama was not going to do anything rash like ending any wars."

      Excuse me? Have you been paying any attention at all?

      Delete
    6. Love this! Nothing about the Supreme Court stealing the election for Bush - it's such an unpretty part of American history that we're just going to wish it away!

      Americans fundamentally don't believe in democracy, folks. If you think otherwise, notice how little they care that the highest office in the land was occupied by someone who lost the election.

      Delete
    7. First, I would suggest all our lives would be made easier if regular, serious posters would come up with a handle. But my response to this Anonymous, or series of Anonmi, is, yes and to a large degree no.

      It's acceptable logic in a very, very close election (close enough to steal, in Eric Alterman's phrase) to say one major factor (and the "War on Gore" was a very big one) was the deciding factor. OTHERS might also be called the deciding factor too, but it's still a true statement.

      The fact that Bush's message was effective can also be related to Somerby's argument, as he has shown by comparing Tim Russart's interviews with the candidates, that message went largely unchallenged,
      which also goes to the "War on Gore" file, as, arguably can "Clinton Fatigue", a phrase coined by the Press Corp after they failed to unseat him.

      The strongest part of your argument is regarding Leiberman, and the cynical choice of Gore in this matter. Indeed, doesn't this show that Gore himself was ready to buy into the Media narrative if it served his purposes?

      But to answer the griping about the Daily Howler here, I would say: just because one person keeps repeating the same thing doesn't mean it isn't true. The media in general have a vested interest in not publishing "How He Got There."

      Delete
  5. “The biggest test for the modern liberal!
    TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012

    Can you quit E. J. Dionne: For the modern liberal, it’s the biggest test of your ability to resist the tribal imperative.” - b. somerby
    ---------

    >>>first, somerby uses the gops and the nativists most valuable propaganda technique: the false implied premise, namely that there even is a *unified* anti-nativist, anti-gop tribe. the problem is that there isnt one – and somerby seems to be desperate to keep it that way. [there is a significantly unified anti-non-'realamerican' “tribe”.]

    second, somerby is using the amiable dionne as the subject of his analysis to induce guilt into you continuing to like him by associating him with people who do or at least appear to have irish-catholic heritage: mclaughlin, odonnell, downey (despite name change). he presumes, i think correctly, that you are appropriately and patriotically bigoted against them. . . . further, by choosing dionne, who is well known to be catholic, he is making it implicitly understood that he is not going after catholics generally, which would be counter productive for his purpose as there are just too many non-irish-americans who are catholic to effectively use catholics as the scapegoat, and many of them are not disliked the way americans with irish-catholic heritage are.

    he is cynically attempting to use your patriotic bigotry to persuade you against unifying against the fascist forces behind and within the gop – because only in unity is there political strength. but any bigotry he himself has or you have towards americans with irish-catholic heritage is only secondary to my larger point. it plays a useful function in keeping order. just be aware that somerby is using it similarly to how the moneyed interests of the antebellum south played off of the bigotry against african americans to keep whites from unifying against them and even fight and die for them. it is very powerful.


    --- “The bullshit stuck because the “good people” did nothing while the very bad people—the folk like O’Donnell—conducted their twenty-month war.” - b. somerby

    --- “It stuck because people like O’Donnell kept saying such things during Campaign 2000—even as people like Dionne kept refusing to challenge their conduct.” - b. somerby

    --- ”When a person like O’Donnell talks about wind versus body surfing, he’s treating you like a low-IQ fool. Which is exactly what you are if you're willing to tolerate this in the name of tribal unity. ” - b. somerby

    --- “Bad people then, awful people today! Dionne was playing you last night. Lawrence O’Donnell? Much worse!

    --- “That is how George Bush reached the White House, despite the things these very bad people tell you on TV today.” b. somerby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to clarify:

      i said: "further, by choosing dionne, who is well known to be catholic, he is making it implicitly understood that he is not going after catholics generally,..."

      >>>somerby, in this column, is using the very likeable dionne as the representive of the everyman of the left, as indicated when he praises the dionne image:

      "He seems so rational, so decent, so good—so well-intentioned, so palpably honest!" b. somerby

      ...i.e. he is of the non-others (non-irish-catholic) within somerbys liberal tribe construct. . . . and also importantly, to my knowledge, and to all appearances he very likely has no irish-catholic heritage.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it amazing, grrrowler? Somerby thinks he can now tell "true liberals" who they can and cannot read. And if they don't quit reading E.J. Dionne, well, they flunked his "test."

      The hubris is beyond stunning. It's jaw-dropping.

      Delete
    3. i wouldnt under estimate him though, as odd as his sermons may seem to you or me. ive seen flashes of propaganda genius and he seems determined. he has his target audience and a liberal guise with which to reach them.

      Delete
    4. In the latest Dionne column he implores liberals to stand up and "not be wimps". He was mum in the past, today, heartbroken, confused, lacking self awareness, but inspired to add some historical context to the Teflon-v-Velcro school of thought. Ineffectual, no?

      Delete
    5. Grrrowler, I'm sure the choir he preaches to hangs on to every word. But he's pretty much been delivering the same sermon for quite some time now. And that is the worst thing you can be on the Internet -- boring.

      Delete
    6. i said: “he presumes, i think correctly, that you are appropriately and patriotically bigoted against them [americans with irish-catholic heritage]. “

      after re-reading this, it occurs to me people may not understand why i put it just that way, i.e. why “patriotic”? . . . and why include a religion as a part of the “heritage”?

      first, anti-irish-catholic bigotry did not start in this country. it came from britain where not being irish-catholic helped to define your british-ness. the institutional denigration of the irish was thought acceptable because the english (and the english-irish and the english-scots etc.) came to believe (wrongly as the latest gene based research now shows, i think only 6% germanic and only 2% roman) that they were mostly of the same stock as the germanic tribes (angles, saxons, jutes, etc.) which took over after the romans pulled out in the 5th century ad. and by being of germanic stock they were more copacetic with germanic parts of europe. also by being germanic in a great wipeout of the native (so-called)“celts” I imagine it made it easier to believe that they werent of roman stock.

      second, english-americans in the main created the usa. so to be patriotic you kinda have to be pro-english-american. part of being pro-english is to be anti-irish-catholic, even if you are catholic, especially if you are catholic.

      third, many people of irish and scottish people thru history were “planted” there by displacing the native “celts” with englishman and they, not knowing any better, thought they were different and better than them. after the protestant reformation one clue as to ones ancestry was whether you were catholic or protestant.

      ironically the latest gene based research shows that england, ireland, scotland and wales are all the same lot with only minor variations between them.

      “Saxons, Vikings and Celts: the Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland” by Bryan Sykes or “Origins of the British” by Stephen Oppenheimer.

      Delete
    7. Bob has a valid point about Dionne's public statements.
      The Daily Howler is ultimately about the media--not about Catholics, or the antebellum South, or anything else along those lines.

      Bob has made some very good points about the media over the years. That's what I focus on when I read his blog.

      Delete
  6. The butthurt MSNBC tribalists are as tiresome as they are odious. Thank god for Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, somebody has to do your thinking for you.

      Delete
  7. I always wondered what happened to that fatuous POS blogger called the Bullmoose. Last I heard he was running flack for that POS senator from Connecticut who never met a false equivalency he didn't like. Now I know: he's exiled the REAL Bob Somerby to the far side of Neptune and fraudulently claimed Howlership.

    Next thing we'll hear is how "W" wished the 2001 tax cuts for the rich weren't named after him.

    What WILL we tell the children?

    ReplyDelete
  8. O'Donnell 2000:

    "[Al Gore's] most ridiculous and his most relevant untruths are his claims of legislative achievement. He told Time magazine last year that he enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit, which of course went into law before he was ever in Congress."

    O'Donnell, remembering 2000:

    "In 2000, Saturday Night Live did some penetrating stuff on Al Gore that I think gave the electorate a vocabulary in a certain sense for what made them uncomfortable about Al Gore."

    Bringing religion in muddies the water, which is I'm sure the reason why some do it. The bottom line: O'Donnell is awful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bottom line: So is Somerby.

      There are good, thoughtful pundits across the political spectrum, there are awful pundits across the political spectrum, and there are those who fall somewhere in between good, thoughtful all the time and awful all the time.

      Now that we have resolved the obvious, how does that advance the "american discourse"?

      Delete
    2. So there's good, bad, and in between. Well, I'm glad that's settled.

      Delete
    3. Yep. Always has been and always will be.

      So why are we so afraid of the First Amendment?

      Delete
    4. [Anonymous 5:13 AM] Are you claiming all Somerby has ever said is that some pundits are good, some bad, and some in between?

      I envision an Anonymous book review series. Moby Dick? "Man hunts whale." The Odyssey? "Man goes on trip." Huckleberry Finn? "Boy goes on trip."

      Delete
    5. I will grant you, Somerby hasn't come up with much new thinking lately.

      But over the years his blog has been way better than most.

      Delete
  9. Dionne 2000: [crickets]

    Dionne 2012: "And yet that stuck to him."

    Yes, it is a mystery, Mr. Dionne.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By all means, follow your guru's orders and quit reading him. It will make you a "true liberal."

      Delete
    2. You are really tiresome.

      Thankfully, your impact is minimal since you've got nothing to add to the conversation outside of epithets and suppositions.

      You know what people read? Of course you don't.

      You think accepting the facts about O'Donnell or Dionne means Somerby is one's guru? Of course you don't.

      You, as usual, got nuthin'.

      Delete
    3. Except for one inconvenient truth. Way back when the whole "invented the Internet" baloney first started, Dionne started pointing out all the crapola that was being written about Gore.

      From the Howler's own "incomparable archives" dated Oct. 12, 1999, a Dionne column dated Sept. 24 is quoted:

      "The Gore camp also has reason to complain that national political commentary treats the vice president with about as much respect as the Russian economy. If he wears a suit, he's a stiff guy in a suit. If he wears an open shirt, he's a stiff guy in a suit faking it...To paraphrase an old Chicago political joke, if Gore walked on water, the headlines the next day would read: 'Gore can't swim.'"

      But don't let the truth get in your way. You got your own "facts" spoonfed to you by Somerby, who tells you that Dionne remained absolutely and perfectly silent in the face of all those lies told about Gore.

      And now, your guru instructs you to "quit" E.J. Dionne if you want to be a "true liberal" since Somerby obviously thinks so little of his own readers that they can't possibly be exposed to an unfavored pundit and still think for themselves.

      Oh, and by the way, I never made any claim about knowing what people read, so you can quit lying about that as well.

      Delete
    4. You now say you don't claim to know what I read, but you say I should follow my "guru's orders and quit reading [Dionne.]" You're a wimp. Stand by what you wrote. You know nothing.

      If the quote you've given represents the extent of Dionne's pushback against "all those lies," then it's quite fair to say Dionne did nothing.

      I can't find even one lie about Gore there that Dionne contradicts.

      I repeat myself, with little pleasure, but you have indeed got nothing.

      Delete
    5. Oh, excuse me. I presumed you knew what you were talking about and were using personal knowledge when you said that Dionne remained silent throughout 2000.

      Turns out you were just taking your guru's word for it and didn't even bother to check it out for yourself.

      So since you can't "quit" Dionne because you don't read him, then you don't know what Dionne did or didn't say during Campaign 2000. Except that you think you do because Somerby told you not only what he didn't write, but what to think about it.

      Incidentally, as far as being man enough to stand by what you write, one single quote pretty much knocks down the lie you told about "crickets."

      You want more? I will be glad to supply them from the Howler's own "incomparable archives" from 1999 and 2000.

      It all depends on how big a fool you want to make of yourself.

      Delete
    6. You have yet to show us Dionne contradicting "all those lies."

      You have yet to show us him contradicting one.

      You're free to begin any time you like.

      Delete
    7. Somerby: Dionne had been refusing to speak for nineteen months by the time that worthless skit aired.

      Dionne, Sept. 24, 1999, as quoted in the Daily Howler, Oct. 12, 1999: "The Gore camp also has reason to complain that national political commentary treats the vice president with about as much respect as the Russian economy. If he wears a suit, he's a stiff guy in a suit. If he wears an open shirt, he's a stiff guy in a suit faking it...To paraphrase an old Chicago political joke, if Gore walked on water, the headlines the next day would read: 'Gore can't swim."

      That ALONE tells you that your guru is spinning fables. But give me a few more mintues on google and I'll be glad to make an even bigger fool out of you.

      Delete
    8. Still got nothing?

      Dionne contradicting ONE lie? Anything?

      We're getting sleepy, loudmouth. This diet of empty assertions you provide is not very nutritious.

      Delete
    9. Here is E.J. Dionne following the Gore-Bradley debate in December 1999, in which the "Gore the Vicious" myth began:

      DIONNE: "Even some Bradley sympathizers concede that Gore asked legitimate questions. Many who respect Bradley's reach for universal coverage worry that his repeal of Medicaid could leave some among the poor worse off. And Bradley's claim in Friday's debate that little need be done about Medicare's finances in the short term will give Gore a new opening."

      Somerby himself quoted that and praised the now-silent Dionne for swimming against the tide.

      Delete
    10. It would be even better if you could find Dionne pushing back against the liars, something like:

      DIONNE: So-and-so is saying "Al Gore claims X," which is an outright lie.

      But we know, we're asking a lot from you.

      Maybe you will at least be able to find Dionne contradicting *some* lie?

      Delete
    11. "Gore asked legitimate questions."

      That's your best? We wanted Dionne really doing something "in the face of all those lies."

      And you think THAT does it???

      Sorry, passing out from lack of nutrition.

      Delete
    12. 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.

      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,

      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.

      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.

      But I did run across several appearances he made on the Charlie Rose Show in Sept-Oct 2000, which are quite revealing.

      You can access them yourself and see and hear what E.J. Dionne was actually saying, in real time, about the 2000 campaign:

      http://www.charlierose.com/search/?text=E.J.+Dionne

      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?

      Delete
    13. 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.

      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.

      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.

      Delete
    14. Exactly the way I want?? You've shown nothing, nothing at all, nevermind "exactly" anything!

      "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?

      So you're moving on, to untranscripted video appearances?

      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.

      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."

      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.

      I ask hopefully, but I assume it will also turn out, rhetorically. You are wasting my time. You got nothing, as always.

      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?

      "Oooh, you Somerby acolytes think Al Gore is so poor and defenseless?" That's pretty much nothing, Anonymous.

      In all seriousness, please, we all see Charlie Rose has video of his segments up -- there's a few hours of stuff there.

      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!

      Otherwise, we're done with your nonsense.

      Delete
  10. Dionne, who is alive and cognizant in 2012, opposes universal access to birth control because some dudes in robes told him they don't want to let slutty slut sluts have sex without being punished with babies. When a "compromise" that the Church didn't like or agree to, he declared it all good and well because... well, who knows why.

    BC isn't a little issue - it's a fundamental building block of living in the developed world. If you don't get that then you don't get to pretend to be smarter than the rest of us.

    Moreover, if your idea of "negotiation" is to reach compromises that no one likes and that oppress people - but make for a nice narrative - then you're a fake who should stop publicly pontificating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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?

      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.

      Delete