IMITATIONS OF LIFE: Your chance to see what the RNC said!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022

Goofus and Gallant meet Kafka: Long ago and far away, Franz Kafka stood out from the rest of the herd.

Along literary types, he best understood the revolution Mr. Darwin had fashioned when he told the world, in revolutionary fashion, that we humans are just an animal too, just like the animals are.

Kafka took it in. He was even able to picture Gregor Samsa, and possibly even himself, as a rather low species of animal, rather than as a celestial figure who had been "made in God's image." 

We humans weren't really all that celestial! We might not even be the world-famous "rational animal!"

We thought of Kafka, and of Gregor Samsa himself, as we watched Morning Joe this morning. We also thought of a misconception we ourselves held in the past.

Long ago and far away, we miscalculated the amount of analytical skill possessed by our mainstream press corps. We assumed that these people were far more skilled that they have turned out to be.

As it turns out, they aren't very skilled at all—and they seem to be unaware of this basic fact. We thought of Kafka, and of this unfortunate state of affairs, when we watched Peter Baker, Gene Robinson and Willie Geist Junior serially selling the new Storyline on Morning Joe this morning.

Eventually, Jackie Alemany even joined in, despite her Harvard degree! The analysts sobbed and tore at their hair as visions of Kafka, a mere creature, forced their way into our heads.

Right there on our TV screen, the children were offering script in support of the tribe's Storyline. We refer to the Storyline about the way the RNC once typed these words:

"Legitimate political discourse"

Deeply useful words!

Last night, John Berman, subbing for Anderson Cooper, compounded his conduct of the previous night in a truly remarkable way. Within our segregated news environment, in which the tribes only hear their own Storylines, the children have been pushing this Storyline very hard, much as everyone once rushed out to push this magical script:

Al Gore said he invented the Internet!

There's nothing too dumb for these creatures to say, just so long as it comes out of script. For ourselves, we'll tackle only one task today:

We'll show you what the RNC actually said. This is a service our own news orgs will never, ever provide.

Readers, "the power to paraphrase is the power to spin." We told you that long, long ago.

The national committee's tale:

Long ago and far away, the RNC was pushing endless claims under the direction of its chairman, Jim Nicholson. At the 2000 Democratic Convention, we actually got to interview Nicholson for MSNBC.com—and we failed to pull the trigger as planned when the big moment arrived.

That's a story for some other time. Today, the RNC is headed by Ronna McDaniel. She has been an absolute mess ever since attaining the post.

Ronna McDaniel has been a mess—but then too, there's the basic question of what she and the rest of the RNC actually meant and said. In the main, the announcement which launched a thousand scripts was designed to censure Cheney and Kinzinger, a pair of renegade Republicans.

The resolution appeared at the end of last week. All-caps headline included, it started exactly like this:

RESOLUTION TO FORMALLY CENSURE LIZ CHENEY AND ADAM KINZINGER AND TO NO LONGER SUPPORT THEM AS MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

WHEREAS, The primary mission of the Republican Party is to elect Republicans who support the United States Constitution and share our values;

WHEREAS, The Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress have embarked on a systematic effort to replace liberty with socialism; eliminate border security in favor of lawless, open borders; create record inflation designed to steal the American dream from our children and grandchildren; neuter our national defense and a peace through strength foreign policy; replace President Trump's “ Operation Warp Speed” with incompetence and illegal mandates; and destroy America's economy with the Green New Deal;

WHEREAS, Winning back the majority in Congress, including the United States House of Representatives, in 2022 must be the primary goal of the House Republican Conference (“ Conference”) and requires all Republicans working together to accomplish the same;

WHEREAS, The Conference must design the strategy to stop the radical Biden agenda and retire Nancy Pelosi, tasks which require that all Republicans pull in the same direction;

WHEREAS, The Conference must not be sabotaged by Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who have demonstrated, with actions and words, that they support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022...

That's how the brilliance began. 

The all-caps headline announced the resolution's main idea. A pair of renegades were being formally censured. 

We've highlighted one part of the brilliance—the segment in which we're told that the Biden Administration has "embarked on a systematic effort to...create record inflation," but also to "destroy America's economy with the Green New Deal."

Do those claims seem to make sense? Given the way public opinion works, why would a sitting president seek to create record inflation? Beyond that, why would a sitting president "embark on a systematic effort to...destroy America's economy?"

Does any of that make sense? Sadly, there are probably answers to those questions, and the RNC could provide them! 

That said, we're asking you to notice the fact that pronouncements by this group may not always make perfect crisp, clear sense. Also, we'll ask you to notice this:

So far, the RNC hasn't said a single word about any of the conduct in which people engaged on January 6. 2021, at the Capitol Building. In fact, the RNC hasn't mentioned January 6 at all!

At this point, one part of that forbearance would end. As they continued, the RNC extended their list of complaints about the censured parties. At issue was their membership on the January 6 Select Committee, as is described below:

WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger have engaged in actions in their positions as members of the January 6th Select Committee not befitting Republican members of Congress, which include the Committee's disregard for minority rights, traditional checks and balances, due process, and adherence to other precedent and rules of the U.S. House and which seem intent on advancing a political agenda to buoy the Democrat Party's bleak prospects in the upcoming midterm elections;

WHEREAS, Congressional Republicans bear ultimate responsibility for their own success or failure and the RNC supports their efforts by denouncing those who deliberately jeopardize victory in November on which the future of our constitutional republic depends at this critical moment in history...

According to the resolution, the censured parties were helping "the Democrat Party" as it tried to buoy its prospects! 

We mention that passage because it shows how childish these people can be. Issuing a proclamation on behalf of a major political party, the RNC joined the decades of clowning in which partisans aren't even willing to state the correct name of the Democratic Party.

You can't get much more childish than that, though our own tribe's stars will try. That said, we'll call your attention to this additional fact:

The resolution still hasn't said a word about the violent behavior which occurred at the Capitol Building on January 6. In fact, none of that day's conduct has been mentioned, and we're already nearing the end of the RNC's text.

What has been mentioned in the RNC's text? According to the RNC, Cheney and Kinzinger have misbehaved in various ways in their roles on the January 6 Commission. In particular, they've shown a "disregard for minority rights, traditional checks and balances, due process, and adherence to other precedent and rules of the U.S. House." 

What did the committee mean by those complaints? Pretty much everyone knows. Those are complaints about the way the current form of the commission was adopted and about some of the procedures the commission has adopted as it has conducted its task. 

At any rate, in behaving in these enumerated ways, the pair of renegades "seem intent on advancing a political agenda to buoy the Democrat Party's bleak prospects in the upcoming midterm elections." In fairness, if they actually believe those premises, the RNC can hardly be blamed for kicking this pair to the curb!

That said, the RNC's resolution was almost completely done—and the specific events of January 6 hadn't been mentioned at all.  Below, you see the way the resolution concludes—and you see a fuzzy clause which was quickly paraphrased by the journalists who tumbled out of our own tribe's well-stocked clown car:

WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger purport to be members of the Republican Party; and

WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee hereby formally censures Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and shall immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.

That's the way the resolution ended. Also, that's the way a remarkable wave of propagandization began.

Question:

What the heck did the RNC mean when it said that Cheney and Kinzinger are "participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse?"  

Which "ordinary citizens" did the RNC have in mind? Who was the RNC talking about? What did the RNC mean?

It seemed that this alleged "persecution" was somehow connected to a "Democrat [sic] abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes." But what did the RNC actually mean by this overall statement?

The RNC had included an extremely fuzzy clause near the end of its declaration. As you can see, there was no specific reference to any of the behaviors exhibited on January 6. Indeed, no such behaviors, violent or otherwise, were ever explicitly mentioned in the resolution at all.

The RNC had included an extremely fuzzy clause near the end of its declaration. Traditional norms would direct a scrupulous journalist to ask them what they meant.

The children of our own news orgs skipped right past this task. They'd done the same thing long ago, when they creatively "paraphrased" a wide array of crackpot things Gore had allegedly said.

As for the RNC, it hadn't explicitly mentioned the behaviors of January 6 at all. Normal courtesy—normal human intelligence—would suggest that they should have been asked what the heck they had meant.

That's where Kafka enters the scene. He understood that animals of our particular species don't run on "rationality," or on journalistic norms, or on Enlightenment values.

He understood that creatures of our particular type are perhaps strongly inclined to do what our tribe's "journalists" and politicians stampeded off to next:

Our tribals invented a pleasing version of what the RNC meant. When McDaniel and many others gave a vastly different account of what their fuzzy clause actually meant, the "journalists" of our own failing tribe disappeared those statements.

Late last night, we were visited by Goofus and by Gallant. What do Goofus and Gallant do when they encounter fuzzy statements? We'll paraphrase what we were told:

What Goofus and Gallant do when they encounter a fuzzy statement:

Gallant asks the person or the organization to explain what they meant. When he discusses the statement in question, he remembers to include their response.

Goofus simply creates his own account of what the fuzzy statement meant. He proceeds to bruit his own self-serving account all through the streets of his town.

When challenged about this conduct, Goofus behaves just like Trump. He insists that everything he said and did was completely and totally right.

Tomorrow: What have they done with John Berman?


124 comments:

  1. "Do those claims seem to make sense? Given the way public opinion works, why would a sitting president seek to create record inflation? Beyond that, why would a sitting president "embark on a systematic effort to...destroy America's economy?""

    To please his sponsors, dear Bob; why else.

    If it benefits international finance, major hedge funds and global investment companies, then that's what their minions will do.

    ...and will be rewarded for doing it. There're plenty of lucrative corporate boards for their relatives to sit on, and plenty of generous lovers of abstract paintings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kafka may have been influenced by Darwin, but there is only a tenuous link between Kafka and modern journalists. That whole part of Somerby's essay has nothing to do with what the RNC chose to write into their resolution.

    Later Somerby says:

    "That's where Kafka enters the scene. He understood that animals of our particular species don't run on "rationality," or on journalistic norms, or on Enlightenment values."

    Aside from the fact that Somerby has no idea what Kafka understood, it seems pretty obvious that both journalistic norms and Enlightenment values don't grow on trees, are not part of nature, and thus were man-made, created by human beings, and yes, our culture has run on both sets of constructs, journalistic norms and Englightenment values. Unless you believe these to be God-given, in which case there is nothing to be said about Kafka or Darwin at all.

    People created norms and values. People govern their behavior using norms and values. That is what norms and values exist for. Are people perfect in their attempts to do so? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that norms and values do not have a distint existence independent of the behavior they were created to govern.

    Somerby makes no sense at all these days. And Kafka was not talking about journalists, much less Republicans and Democrats, when he wrote his books and stories. But Somerby just loves to hitch his own statements to innocent bystanders, perhaps hoping some of their success will rub off on him.

    Meanwhile, I agree that the entire Resolution is ridiculous, but that doesn't negate that Republicans said those being investigated by the 1/6 committee were engaging in legitimate political discourse, for which they were being persecuted by Democrats, for partisan reasons. Nothing Kafka ever said can change the outrageousness of that accusation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The resolution doesn't say those being investigated by the 1/6 committee were engaging in legitimate political discourse.

      Delete
    2. 10:38
      Would you care to explain who is being persecuted by the Jan 6 committee? Or to put it another way, what else are they investigating other than the violent and illegal attack?

      Delete
    3. I see, we are back to playing the narrow reading, excessively literal focus game, are we?

      Somerby doesn't believe in implication, except when it suits his own purposes. Here, he wants to say that the lack of an explicit statement denies all meaning inherent in context too. Language and meaning don't work that way (except for attorneys in strictly limited legal contexts).

      Somerby fails to acknowledge that Republicans are still pretending there was no violence on 1/6. He won't say that because this was a widespread Republican-aided coup (not simply Trump's fiasco) to overturn a legitimate election result, any efforts to investigate those involved are by definition against the interests of the Republican party and not just those who participated in violence.

      The worst part of today's essay is that Somerby expects Democrats (liberals) to play along in the game of pretend in which there is no Republican culpability in 1/6 and thus the Democrats are just playing politics, not attempting to protect our democracy by rooting out and punishing wrongdoers.

      In Somerby's world, there are no wrongdoers and no one should ever be locked up (no matter what they did or how many unarmed men they killed), and anything Democrats do only causes more people to vote for Trump and liberals are incredibly dumb (even though this Resolution has to be the dumbest document ever written).

      Somerby hopes that if he manages to write enough confusing garbage, people will walk away with just the parts that are left -- conclusions about the venality of the press and dumbed of liberals. None of the rest of what Somerby writes matters to him -- just the phrases he expects to stick about how awful we are and how much the right has been victimized (today, by baseless accusations about their own resolution).

      Remember this -- word play is not intended to be used for evil purposes.

      Delete
    4. He is not saying that the lack of an explicit statement denies all meaning inherent in context. Where does he say that?

      Delete
    5. Here: "The resolution doesn't say those being investigated by the 1/6 committee were engaging in legitimate political discourse."

      Delete
    6. What, just being 'investigated' by a bunch of tricksters makes one illegitimate?

      Delete
    7. Damn! People! They meant this: “ It seemed that this alleged "persecution" was somehow connected to a "Democrat [sic] abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes."‘

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/us/politics/january-6-committee.amp.html

      Delete
    8. Damn! Cecelia, Of course that’s what they say they mean. It is apparently now “partisan” to want to find out who attacked the Capitol, who wanted to find and kill Pence and others, who damaged the building, who rummaged through private papers, who killed and injured police officers, and who organized it, and why. Although I can’t imagine how Cheney and Kinzinger would feel about that accusation. I find it patriotic to oppose attacks on our Capitol, but you do you.

      Delete
    9. How is it that the only counter the left has against dissent from any of their policies, practices, or ascribed prerogatives (from investigative processes to school curriculum) are the epithets of “white supremacist” or “traitor”?

      How have you gotten so dumb?

      Delete
    10. Cecelia,
      We used to call them dissenters who may be concerned about the rigged economy. Then they went all in with a bigot with a history of using his financial leverage to stiff his contractors and gave a standing ovation to the same bigot when he gave the elites a HUGE tax break.

      Will be glad to call them something other than "white supremacists", when they care about something other than bigotry and white grievance.
      Think you could put in a word to them?

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 4:57pm, they already know that if they agree with you on every single thing that you’ll stop calling them names.

      They don’t find that compelling, just childish and dumb.

      Delete
    12. Cecelia, in fact, most of the time leftists talk just as much about class.

      But is that any better than talking about racism? What's the difference to right wingers? What you are really expressing is that accusations of racism are more effective than accusations of classism. What you are really expressing is that racism is a more powerful weapon than classism, gives right wingers more power to wield.

      Concerning the RNC doc:

      WHEREAS Republicans embrace the principles of CRT, seemingly with no irony

      WHEREAS The American Dream has never been to become economically secure, but about securing a position in society higher than people of color



      Delete
    13. Cecelia,
      I'll never agree with their stance on bigotry and white grievance.
      Again, if you want me to agree or disagree with them about something else they care about that isn't bigotry and white grievance, they'll have to care about something other than bigotry and white grievance first.
      Alas...

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 6:06pm, put down your weapons. They’re not effective. They cause of more eye rolling than Carrot Top.

      Delete
    15. What's with the empty and unsubstantial comebacks from right wingers, are they really that pathetic?

      Delete
  3. Somerby is saying that the political statements in the RNC document don’t make sense, such as the Democrats’ purported attempts to “destroy America's economy with the Green New Deal." He frames the wording of “legitimate political discourse” as simply further evidence that the RNC is just stupid or incompetent.

    However, the political statements, such as the one about the Green New Deal, are standard GOP views. They are nothing new. They have been deliberately cultivated over years.

    Secondly, there is reporting that the final version of the RNC statement was not the first draft:

    “an early draft had referred to the investigation as "a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in nonviolent and legal political discourse."

    In the course of editing the language, a person involved in the process said, the words "nonviolent and legal" were ultimately replaced by "legitimate" throughout various drafts.

    The New York Times and The Washington Post both reported Tuesday on the language in early drafts of the RNC resolution”
    (https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/cheney-kinzinger-republican-firestorm-legitimate-political-discourse-rnc-resolution/index.html)

    The omission seems to have been deliberate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Traditional norms would direct a scrupulous journalist to ask them what they meant.”

    That is why McDaniel issued her “clarification”, which clarifies nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone shouldn't have to ask what was meant by an official resolution. If that arises as a question, the document hasn't been drafted properly.

      Delete
  5. I forget who represents Kafka in this drama -- is it Cheney or Kinzinger?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd like to stand up for the RNC, but IMO their statement was foolish at best. One reason is that the Jan 6 narrative focuses entirely on the rioters. For people like my liberal wife, the much larger number of peaceful demonstrators don't exist.

    Furthermore, the vagueness of the statement invites the interpretation that the RNC is defending the rioters. Even though the RNC says after the fact that that's not what they meant, that denial doesn't erase the original statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, you seem to be missing the point. The 1/6 investigative committee is not investigating the peaceful demonstration. It is investigating the violent breach of the Capitol and disruption of Congressional proceedings. It has been uncovering a widespread conspiracy to engage in such violence, in likely furtherance of an attempt to keep Trump in power, and that has led to investigation of circumstances beyond the 1/6 violence itself, such as the slates of fake electors submitted to the National Archives. The narrative doesn't focus on the peaceful demonstration because it was irrelevant to the crimes committed by other people on 1/6. There is a long list of other events that took place on 1/6 too, that were similarly irrelevant to the violence and the attempted coup.

      If you think that the existence of peaceful demonstrators in some way negates the rest of the criminal activities that took place in full public view, you are very wrong.

      Delete
    2. As a thought experiment: do you think there would be an investigation if no one had broken into the Capitol?

      Delete
    3. Probably no. Which excuses President Trump and his supporters not in the least.

      Delete
  7. "We'll show you what the RNC actually said. This is a service our own news orgs will never, ever provide."

    Somerby most likely got the full text from one of the many news organizations that ran it when the resolution was first passed. These include the Washington Post and NY Times, NBC News, and various other sources, such as gop.com.

    It is dishonest for Somerby to pretend that the full text was not made available by news organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Idiotic trolls: This column is about powerful liberal media not directly asking the RNC what they meant by the extremely fuzzy clause near the end of its declaration.

    "Traditional norms would direct a scrupulous journalist to do so."

    It's pretty clear they don't ask for this clarification because it would ruin a good story that idiots like yourselves eat up.

    It is not an advocacy of what was said or in any way a subjective judgement of or support of what they wrote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McDaniel was asked. Why do you think she felt the need to issue a non-clarification clarification?

      Delete
    2. If it was asked, then the answer wasn't explained by the people who asked. And the answer was not further iterated in these numerous reports about what was said. That's what this column is about. It's not an advocacy of or support of anything that was said. It's quite completely clear that this she was never asked for clarification or if she was it was not reported and further iterated because it's too good of a story, too good of a phrase to bat around in front of the rubes like yourself.

      Delete
    3. The “answer” that she gave (which by the way she issued on the same day the resolution passed) was widely reported. It was no actual clarification, but has served as further evidence of the RNC’s double talk. Or are you of the opinion that her “answer” makes any more sense than the original “childish”document that makes no sense (Somerby’s characterization)?

      Delete
    4. The complaint here is that it is wrong to report the GOP statement was meant to characterize all of the Jan. 6 riot as “legitimate political discourse”. If you feel like media outlets are not doing that or if you feel like there is nothing wrong if they do that, it's your business. It's completely acceptable for you to disagree. Wherw you come across as an idiot is when you conflate the complaint with an advocacy of the statement.

      Delete
    5. "powerful liberal media"

      Next time, try to make a good faith argument.

      Delete
    6. “If it was asked, the answer wasn’t explained by the people who asked.”

      Let that sink in. Then contemplate the psychological hell of being a Trump voter.

      Delete
    7. I voted for Clinton and Biden.

      Delete
    8. Good for you, 12:11. Are you also Captain of the Enterprise?

      Your statement is irrelevant and shows that you completely missed Greg’s point.

      Delete
    9. You don't believe me about voting for Clinton and Biden? That's fair. How would you know? But it is true.

      Delete
    10. I could not God damn wait to vote for Biden. I did it on the first hour of the first day I could.

      Delete
    11. All of that is completely and totally beside the point though. The point is that media organizations are continuing to characterize the original statement as a legitimate description of the whole of the events of 1/6 and that this is disingenuous propaganda. It doesn't take a Trump voter or any special genius to see that Somerby is completely correct in that assertion.

      Delete
    12. Politicians have a history of being fuzzy with inconvenient facts, journalists have no mandate to merely be a mouthpiece for politicians.

      Somerby's complaint whitewashes all context, historical and otherwise.

      Delete
  9. Kafka suggested that people are animals too, subject to Darwin's ideas about species, therefore there is no such thing as culture or even rationality?

    An assertion that ridiculous, obviously contradicted by human history, requires extraordinary evidence, but Somerby offers us only a self-serving Republican stunt. The point of this resolution is to punish Cheney and Kinzinger in order to keep other Republicans in line. It doesn't matter what the wording of the text was.

    Is Somerby suggesting that party discipline somehow relates to human rationality? As a tactic, it seems entirely rational, and even Kafka might agree that people engage in conflicts using their weapons of choice (words, not tooth and claw).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isn't it possible that the very ambiguity of their "legitimate political discourse" statement, and the fact that it could be taken more than one way, might be deliberate on their part?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Careful Bob. Someone will call the Gazpacho Police on you!

    ReplyDelete
  12. “We mention that passage because it shows how childish these people can be.”

    But other liberals can never point that out without being called condescending by Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bob, crazy as he is, tips his sneaky but obvious hand when he mentions Gore/Internet. He doesn’t show Gore’s actual quote because he never said anything vaguely resembling “I invented the internet.”
    In the case of “legitimate political discourse” as we see if we read a long time, that’s exactly what they said.

    And of course Republicans WERE asked what they meant, as Bob knows, because he noted them walking it back.
    Pointing out the statement was placed amid a lot more typical Republican nonsense does not change it.
    Bob Somerby is truly, deeply, full of crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you feel like that statement that it was legitimate political discourse was meant to describe the whole of the events of 1/6? The New York Times article mentioned yesterday describes it as such.

      Delete
    2. The statement refers to the Jan 6 commission, accusing them of “persecuting” people. Who are they persecuting? They are investigating the violent attack on the US Capitol . What do you or McDaniel believe they are investigating?

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter what I think. This is not about subjectivity. It's about objectivity. If you think the GOP statement is a claim that the whole of the events of that day were legitimate political discourse and if you feel like it is accurate to report it as such without mentioning the further clarification denying that was what was meant by the statement, it's your business. The claim being made in this post is that it is poor journalism to do so.

      Delete
    4. As mh nicely covers your hair splitting attempt, I will add that the statement is consistent with everything President Trump has said about the riot he incited, if less openly false. And most of the Party, in most instances, have followed his shoddy lead.

      Delete
    5. Let me say this one more time, and slowly, 12:34.

      The RNC resolution accuses the Jan 6 commission of persecuting people engaged in “legitimate political discourse”, but the purpose of the commission is to investigate the violent attack on the US Capitol, which is not generally considered “legitimate political discourse”. They are not investigating “legitimate political discourse.”

      The clarification was widely reported (just Google it). The clarification does not make any more sense than the original statement, because it implies that the commission is investigating/persecuting “legitimate political discourse”, which they are not. The only way her statements make sense is if you assume that the RNC believes that what the committee is investigating, the violent attack on the Capitol, is “legitimate political discourse.”

      Delete
    6. "The only way her statements make sense..."

      Meh. Another way the statements make sense is if you assume that the committee isn't investigating anything, but instead running a show trial, attempting to de-legitimize their political opponents.

      Which is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

      Delete
    7. If you feel like the statement was meant to accurately characterize the events of 1/6 and it is proper for journalists to continue to describe it as such, it's your business. This series of posts is arguing that it was not and is not.

      Delete
    8. 12:55
      Do you “feel like” the clarification makes any more sense than the original as a description either of Jan 6 or the commission?

      Do you “feel like” pointing out the logical implications of official statements by a major political organization and its spokesperson should be held in abeyance because Somerby has made the assumption that they’re so childish?

      Delete
    9. This series of posts is about journalists continuing to interpret the original statement as a characterization of the events of 1/6 as legitimate political discourse. If that is something you agree with, that is your business.

      Delete
    10. I feel like this series of posts is about journalists inaccurately characterizing the original statement by the GOP for propaganda reasons.

      Delete
    11. 1:36 I hate to break it to you brother, but that makes you the ignorant one. A mark for cons, if you feel me.

      Journalists are actually doing their job; Somerby's complaint is with pundits, fairly unpopular pundits, but they too were doing their job, providing context for ignorant people such as yourself to avoid getting conned. Yet, as you claim, you still got conned.

      Delete
    12. Okay great. Thanks 6:39 for clearing that up. I got conned. Being ignorant, I got conned. It's true. It's right there in black and white. Period. End of sentence. What part don't you ...

      Delete
    13. 8:49 I hate to break it to you brother, but that is a rather empty and unconvincing comeback. A bit of a self own, if you feel me.

      Delete
  14. As part of his “media criticism”, Somerby judges the RNC resolution.

    He says it is full of childish statements, many of which make no sense, one of which being the line about “legitimate political discourse.”

    Does he feel McDaniel’s clarification is any less childish or makes any more sense than the original?

    Is he saying that standard GOP views, about the Green New Deal for example, are “childish?”

    Is the press supposed to pass this same sort of judgment about the resolution, and if they did, would they escape censure from Somerby?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Traditional norms would direct a scrupulous journalist to ask them what they meant."

    Journalists did ask what they meant. And received no response, until the RNC finally issued their clarification. Everyone knows what they meant by ordinary citizens, it can only mean one thing.

    Their clarification was B.S. - they tried to backpedal and claim they meant party members who weren’t at the Capitol that day, yet were caught up in the Jan. 6 committee’s broader investigation.

    Are those "ordinary citizens"?

    Somerby needs to get back on track. You can't criticize clowning by clowning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How often need a journalistic ask “what do you mean by that?” To a perfectly understandable statement?

      Delete
    2. What was meant by the statement?

      Delete
    3. 12:52
      At some point, you might find it worthwhile to hold the one making the unclear, childish, nonsensical statements responsible for their utterances. The press can’t get blood from a turnip, and it’s difficult to get straight talk from Republicans.

      Delete
    4. In “1984” the torturer holds up five digits demanding the prisoner say he’s holding four, until he is broken and complies. How sad you’ve made the choice to treat other people in that fashion.

      Delete
    5. If it's a perfectly understandable statement, what was meant by it? Please explain.

      Delete
    6. In the broader sense mh, it’s the same old thing, Republicans have done something idiotic now we find a way to blame everyone but them. A generation of this produced President Trump.

      Delete
    7. If it's a perfectly understandable statement, what was meant by it?

      Delete
    8. 12:56
      That the Jan 6 commission is persecuting ordinary Americans engaged in legitimate political discourse.

      Delete
    9. Rationalist, so in a non-criminal investigation, it’s okay for a congressional committee to gain access to the private text messages between politicians, rally organizers, attenders and all the aides, friends, family members, journos, etc that they may have spoken with on 1/6/22?

      This is stuff that the NYT used to endlessly portend about after the expanded surveillance practices after 9/11.

      No wonder Liz Cheney is on board with it.

      You can argue all day long that this approach by Congress was wholly justified, but it’s quite another argument to say that a politician’s 1/6/22 text messages with his/her best friend, spouse, aide, or Sean Hannity, somehow renders the congress critters AND anyone who is picked up via texting with them as not being “ordinary “ U.S. citizens.

      We used to want judges and FISA courts to determine such things.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia I made no statements for or against the commission and its process or practices.

      I simply criticized Somerby's weak defense of the RNC when it was obvious what they were trying to do... have their cake and eat it.

      Delete
    11. It wasn't a defense. Truly, what is wrong with you idiots?

      Delete
    12. When someone is advocating that someone be properly quoted, it is not an advocacy of the quote in question.

      Delete
    13. Normally I would absolutely agree. But when it is obvious what the RNC was trying to do, how else can we interpret Bob's misguided criticism of the media coverage? He is not a dumb guy. But maybe he is just being dumb. Either way, not a good look for him.

      Delete
    14. "Obvious" is subjective. All he is asking for his journalistic objectivity.

      Delete
    15. Rationalist, you have made what is by all appearances an intractable decision about what the Republicans meant by “legitimate discourse” and also about “the processes and practices of the commission”.

      That’s okay, but your arguing otherwise is the essence of having your cake and eating it too.






      Delete
    16. Cecelia, I’m sure you loudly complained when the Congressional Whitewater committee issued subpoenas for phone records in that case of grave danger to the US, in which the Clintons lost money in a real estate deal while he was still governor.

      Is there no sense in which you view an assault on the US Capitol as a grave danger to our country and that it is reasonable in this case for Congress to get to the bottom of it? If these so-called ordinary citizens cared about that, they could hand over their documents willingly, without subpoena. Unless, you know, they have something to hide.

      Delete
    17. mh, wouldn’t it depend upon whose phone records and the context?

      You can’t do a fishing expedition on the communications of citizens because you think they might be up to something.

      That generally requires a warrant, not just a subpoena. The telecoms are headed for some lawsuits.

      Delete
    18. Crimes were committed on Jan. 6, Cecelia.
      Instigated by the orange abomination who sat on his fat ass watching and enjoying the show and not lifting a finger to stop it. The crimes were committed in furtherance of the abomination's plot to overturn a free and fair and duly certified national election, aided and abetted by "citizens" inside the government appointed by Donald J Chickenshit, and other anti-democratic persons working for him. It was a plot, Cecelia, to overturn the election and crown prince dumb-fuck the winner, thereby wiping his ass with our US Constitution and fucking over 80 + million American citizens.

      Delete
    19. Welll, since you put it so rationally, mm…

      Delete
    20. Do you disagree with anything above, Cecelia? Of course, you are incapable of giving a serious and sincere reply. That's not what you're here for.

      Delete
    21. Anonymouse 6:37pm, no, this is exactly what you think I’m here for.

      You don’t have to search the archives. Go back to Jan. 2022.

      Delete
    22. You can't blame the RNC just because every Republican voter is a traitor to the United States of America. You're just trying to rope the party in with the traitors, when they barely have anything to do with each other.

      Delete
  16. I doubt you will find an unreliable dictionary, look up “legitimate” then “political” and finally “discourse.” Then you may proceed straight to hell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you feel like the statement was meant to accurately characterize the events of 1/6 and it is proper for journalists to continue to describe it as such, it's your business. This series of posts is arguing that it was not and is not.

      Delete
    2. Okay so you're maintaining that when they said "ordinary citizens" it was a sloppy way of saying "party members under investigation that were not there that day".

      You'll also have to claim that we can't know what they meant to say, and when they were asked for clarification and it took them two days to provide it, they were intensely working on figuring out what they had meant.

      Seems obvious, maybe I'm missing something.

      Delete
    3. I'm maintaining that these posts are arguing that media figures are continuing to characterize the "legitimate political discourse" statement as an official description of the whole of the events of 1/6 by the GOP and that that is sloppy, propagandistic and ultimately bad for the cause of Democrats.

      Delete
    4. That's fine. I think this isn't a great example of sloppy journalism though, and I'm not at all convinced it is bad for the Democrats.

      Delete
    5. Okay good! Now we're in the realm of basic logic. If you disagree, that is your right and you could be 100% correct. It's a great first step to understand what was being claimed and to understand the difference between advocating a position be reported correctly and an acceptance of that position.

      Delete
    6. Well I don't know about this whole "first step" thing. I'll assume you're not trying to be condescending with that remark, because I normally agree with Bob's complaints about the media.

      This one struck me as naive.

      Delete
    7. I was being aggressive and a little condescending. I disagree by the way. I feel like it is a very stupid and lazy characterization by the media. That it is is propaganda and it is a false claim and once again, as usual, Somerby is 100% correct to call it out.

      And you see from the commenters here how easily people are swayed and how little logic they are capable of applying to anything that diverges from what they believe and the stories they are told.

      Delete
    8. “it was a sloppy way of saying "party members under investigation that were not there that day".

      You mean Republican office holders and staff who are under suspicion and any of their professional contacts, colleagues, friends, family, or constituents they were in contact with that day.

      Do you have even a small inkling about this?


      Delete
    9. One logical flaw Somerby may be making is considering MSNBC to be legitimate political journalism. A judge ruled that Maddow’s show was not. That her viewers knew she was advocating opinions and offering hyperbolic exaggerations and therefore her false claims and slander couldn’t be taken as misstatements of objective fact but as kind a comedy routine. Which fits in with the way she has described herself and her show.

      The NYT is another issue.

      Delete
    10. 3:25
      People here aren’t saying Somerby agreed with the RNC statement. Most (I included) are saying he is wrong and that the implications of that statement are clear enough, and are providing argumentation to support that view. That’s “basic logic” for you.

      Delete
    11. Cecelia, you mean Republican office holders who gave the insurrectionist terrorists a tour of the building the day before and gave them maps to find various Democratic office holder's offices? yeah, I want to know what the fuck they were thinking.

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse, who are those office holders? They should be in the hands of the FBI.

      Delete
    13. People have been saying that all week, making that logical fallacy all week. People make that logical fallacy here all the time. Maybe not you. If you truly believe that statement in their memo was meant to reflect their accurate position on the events of 1/6, it's your business. It's the basic logic ... of a fourth grader. Think about how stupid your claim is. They write something fuzzy which is interpreted as one thing, they issue a clarification, the media goes on reporting as objective fact their interpretation! When called on it the media and its defenders, you among them, say the clarification is obviously bullshit, therefore there's no need to include it in context when stating our original interpretation of the fuzzy statement. So you're stuck in a fourth grade he says/she said. They issue a clarification stating what they mean and you say no, I don't believe that is what you mean. It's internecine. There's nowhere to go. I couldn't be more dumb if you're looking for objectivity. But I'm starting to see that you're not. You want, like the judge ruled on the Maddow case, you want hyperbolic exaggeration. You expect it. It's probably all you know at this point.

      Delete
    14. I'm starting to get it. You people don't care about objectivity. The concept has been systematically eliminated from your consciousness. Welcome to the metaverse!

      Delete
    15. 5:12: The clarification is still a false claim about persecution.

      Delete
    16. You now live in a world now where your beliefs will never be challenged. For God's sake, you still think Trump and Russia colluded! And they did - in the glorious spectacle of your subjective metaverse, they did!! Objective facts are not allowed in your metaverse, only subjective confirmations of existing beliefs wrapped up in the language heretofore used for objective truths.

      The future is here now. Truth is gone forever. No one will ever challenge you now that you live in the womb-like spectacle of post-objectivity America.

      That's just how it is.

      The GOP has declared the Jan. 6 attack was ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’. Period. End of sentence. What part don't you get?

      Delete
    17. Trump isn't off the hook yet for his collusion with Russia. First things first.

      Delete
    18. You don't have think anymore. What to think is dictated by the spectacle you have chosen and the spectacle will constantly confirm the beliefs it has imposed on you. You don't live and think, you live a representation of life and thought. Values and beliefs are never felt deeply because they are never tested or challenged. It's been happening for a while now so it's no wonder you idiots freak on Somerby. Criticism and objective investigations are not allowed, they are not done. Somerby deviates from the programming language of the your metaverse spectacle so of course you react like the confused sheep you are - bah-bah-ing away as you wonder back to the comfort of your post-objective metaverse.

      "Trump isn't off the hook yet for his collusion with Russia. First things first."

      Utter delusion - in the old world where we had objectivity. In the new world of subjective "truth" - Yes! he's on the hook alright, very scary, very serious!

      Delete
    19. Keep going, 8:23. Your views are highly interesting and I would like to know more. I especially liked the part where you brought up Trump/Russia without anyone mentioning it. Also the part where you declare Somerby unchallengeable. Do you have a newsletter that we can subscribe to?

      Delete
    20. I totally get it now. I used to think you idiots were genuinely responding to the criticisms here. But I can see now that you don't have any thoughts or beliefs. The tail is wagging the dog. You've left that part of humanity far behind. Your thoughts and beliefs have been dictated by a third party. Your metaverse is dictating what you believe. The completely illogical delusional reactions to the criticism here serve only to maintain the false, post objective "reality" in which you live. I GET IT! I GET MADDOW NOW! It is a representation of belief.

      Delete
    21. Yes of course I did. I declared Somerby unchallengeable. It's right there in black and white. Period. End of sentence. What part don't you get? That is absolutely one hundred percent objectively true that I made that "declaration".

      I GET IT!

      Delete
    22. To the idiot Greg, anyone who questions the orthodoxy of the chosen metaverse is a Trump voter. Any other suggestion just is impossible. Period. End of sentence. What part didn't you get?

      That's how it works in the black and white representation of belief and values that is the modern day spectacle in which he dwells and pretends to think and pretends to "live".

      It all makes sense now. You people turn to a representation of belief in which there is safety in numbers and you are never challenged.

      Delete
    23. The never ending illogical responses here are not arguments, they're not attempts to get to a basic understanding or truth, they are instinctual gambits designed to maintain and reinforce the artificial representation of beliefs. The issue is not right or wrong, it's 100% about maintaining the illusory spectacle of represented beliefs. There is no right and wrong. There is only adherence to the spectacle. So of course the idiotic comments here can't be taken on an objective rational level. It's so so so far beyond that. Objective rationality is gone. You idiots left that so far behind, so long ago. You're plugged into a belief system that exists outside of rationality. I get it man. ROCK ON BROTHERS!!!

      Delete
    24. (and sista Cissy - still living outside the spectacle, go girl!)

      Delete
  17. When Al Gore talked about how he “invented the internet,” he was speaking extemporaneously in an interview. The RNC statement is a written document that appears to have gone through multiple drafts, and had input from many top level staffers and officials at the RNC. It is very odd for Bob to compare these two statements and think they are similar. If the people who wrote it were rational and thoughtful, one would think that the document would be a distillation of the RNC’s complaints about the Democraticly led January 6th committee. At best, the people who drafted this document are incompetent and stupid; at worst, they are malevolent and approve of the actions of the January 6th rioters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn’t odd; it’s ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. "At best, the people who drafted this document are incompetent and stupid; at worst, they are malevolent and approve of the actions of the January 6th rioters."

      You've captured the essence of it in that one sentence.

      Delete
    3. 8:01,
      If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.

      Delete
  18. Yes, gentlemen, why would one entire political body (or anyone) be so paranoid as to think that it stifled normal political speech to have texts messages subpoenaed and leaked?

    Sheer malevolence on THEIR part. They must be guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you seriously trying to defend the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys?

      Delete
    2. Are you seriously suggesting that you aren’t one of them?

      Delete
    3. Our Cecelia went to the Peewee Herman School of Debate. She says "I know you are, but what am I?"

      No girls allowed in the Proud Boys, so I must be one of the Oath Breakers.

      Delete
    4. Not only am I supposed to take the Anonymouse 5:29pm comment seriously, I’m suppose to know she’s a girl.

      By this logic, I know you’re an anonymouse. Period.

      Delete
    5. We're supposed to know Republican voters are concerned about something other than bigotry and white grievance, even though they can't put those concerns into words.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 4:58pm, no one expects you to know anything and you never will.

      Delete
    7. Cecelia,
      Thanks for insulting me for disagreeing with you.
      Do you think Cecelia will point out how much of a lowlife you are for insulting people just because they don't agree with you, or do you think the claim she made about that was just her typical bullshit?

      Delete
    8. I didn’t insult “people”, I insulted you.

      Delete
  19. Learn how the new features in QuickBooks Desktop Pro and Premier 2020 and Enterprise 20.0 can benefit you and your business.To run your growing business QuickBooks 2020 desktop accounting software.

    QB online login

    ReplyDelete