tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post3974576428752255234..comments2024-03-28T08:17:14.194-04:00Comments on the daily howler: THE FAKING OF THE PRESIDENT: What happened next!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46194137880645288802012-06-09T21:03:30.509-04:002012-06-09T21:03:30.509-04:00"Headline: 'When is Mormonism fair game?&..."Headline: 'When is Mormonism fair game?'<br /><br />'Fair game?' We find that headline a trifle strange; presumably, Horowitz didn’t write it. But we thought several aspects of his piece reflected peculiar judgment"<br /><br />I think the headline in itself is fine, and, moreover, proffers a fascinating question. Just when IS a candidate's religion fair game for public discussion, if ever? I think Bob largely leaves the complications of this issue unexplored in this post, but it is by no means an easy question to answer.<br /><br />In this post, Bob never really states, but he seems to imply, that a candidate's religion should generally be off limits, and in particular, that Mitt Romney's mormonism should be off limits. For instance, Bob criticizes a reporter for asking, paraphrased: "What did he think, three decades ago, about his church’s(now-abandoned) ban on blacks in the priesthood?"<br /><br />But is that really an irrelevant or prejudicial question? Romney belongs to a religion that, whatever else may be said about it, implemented a highly racist policy of exclusion against those of african lineage for approximately 150 years, and maintained that racist policy almost to the 1980s. Though not in place now, the church has never stated that the policy was a mistake, let alone issued an apology. Mitt Romney fully participated as an adult in good standing in the church for about thirteen years while this highly racist policy was in effect, and there is no record of any disagreement he had whatsoever.<br /><br />Given the above,is it really so horribly inappropriate that he should have to answer to the public for his apparent acquiescence and participation in such racism?majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87711378406940661072012-06-09T17:11:57.699-04:002012-06-09T17:11:57.699-04:00In case anyone has forgotten, American foreign pol...In case anyone has forgotten, American foreign policy is driven in large part by the religious right, and the last Republican president claimed to be doing God's work and to have the ear of God.<br /><br />Imagine if things were reversed: that instead of excluding atheists from public office, no candidate professing absurd religious beliefs could win a national election.<br /><br />So absolutely: ask Obama if he thinks Mary was a virgin and if Mitt believes in the literal existence of the Angel Moroni.<br /><br />In a decent world, an affirmative in either case would be disqualifying. But of course we don't live in a decent world -- unlike other industrial democracies, the American public is the victim of astonishing levels of superstition. Anybody who thinks this is good for national governance would probably be better off in a theocracy like Iran.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77451313953434199692012-06-09T16:58:09.198-04:002012-06-09T16:58:09.198-04:00It's fascinating to learn, David, that you thi...It's fascinating to learn, David, that you think Obama's race is a potential liability -- assuming as you do that crime or education stats which put African-Americans in a negative light, would be an effective campaign strategy. <br /><br />In other words, you assume that the public, instead of concluding from such stats that there are serious inequalities in society, would be apt to associate Obama with crime and lower standards of education achievement.<br /><br />Here, evidently disagree with Bob Somerby: you, a self-described conservative, believe that there are large number of racist voters, to whom such a campaign would appeal. I'm so glad we can agree on that one.<br /><br />You also appear to believe, or believe others believe, that Obama is responsible for the actions of others, based solely on race affinity or racial theories.<br /><br />Will assume the latter, for the sake of the argument. Again, I'm happy to see we're in the same camp on this one.<br /><br />The alternative, of course, it that you yourself believe these things. But one assumes that couldn't be possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25877740587481783542012-06-09T16:11:07.762-04:002012-06-09T16:11:07.762-04:00Ummm, David? I think in America you pretty much ge...Ummm, David? I think in America you pretty much get to choose your religion, certainly by the time they reach adulthood.<br /><br />Did you choose your race?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29565598306955674492012-06-09T16:09:06.592-04:002012-06-09T16:09:06.592-04:00Quasi, you'd have a good point if Romney could...Quasi, you'd have a good point if Romney could be pinned down as a strong Mormon.<br /><br />However, judging by his political behavior in this and previous campaigns as well as his business behavior, it is hard to say what principles Romney has ever stood firmly on, religious or otherwise, that he wouldn't abandon in a nanosecond for personal gain.<br /><br />In short, Mitt Romney is committed only to Mitt Romney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12955445575931188762012-06-09T16:02:11.005-04:002012-06-09T16:02:11.005-04:005:08, remember when JFK had to convince voters he ...5:08, remember when JFK had to convince voters he wouldn't be taking orders from the Vatican? That question has be legitimized all over again because of the actions of some Catholic bishops, led by St. Louis' Archbishop Burke, toward Kerry in the 2004 campaign. In that year, Kerry was hurt badly among a rather large segment of his fellow Catholics because he WOULDN'T take orders from the hierarchy, and that hurt him bad in Ohio.<br /><br />You also remember the Rev. Wright issue during the 2008 campaign and how deftly Obama handled it himself, without any help from the press?<br /><br />Granted, there should be no religous test for president, but at the same time to take the counter-argument to an absurd extreme to make a point, if a candidate belonged to a sect that sacrificed cocker spaniel puppies to the Moon God ever Friday night, I think voters might be interested to know that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12981586877309595812012-06-09T12:13:16.568-04:002012-06-09T12:13:16.568-04:00I forgot to add--
I suspect that Chomsky himself ...I forgot to add--<br /><br />I suspect that Chomsky himself wouldn't find Bob's work that interesting, but probably because he'd consider it a trivial consequence of his theory of the press. But just because Chomsky would take this for granted doesn't mean that everyone else would. I personally know people who don't read Chomsky and do read the NYT and watch MSNBC or other branches of the MSM and they don't realize just how bad a job the press does. I've heard people repeat the stories about Gore as though they were true. Hell, I believed some of them myself. The point is that people can say in the abstract that they suspect the press is biased or incompetent and still have no idea just how bad it really is, or how many things they think they know which really were journalistic fabrications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3590767144462458032012-06-09T12:06:12.640-04:002012-06-09T12:06:12.640-04:0010:40 anonymous replying to 9:42 anonymous
I thin...10:40 anonymous replying to 9:42 anonymous<br /><br />I think that what Bob writes about is a combination of press incompetence and outright bias. But they're not unrelated. If you have a press corps which really functions as a propaganda arm for powerful interests, you'd expect them to hire a large number of bubbleheads who in turn will churn out both mindless idiotic drivel with no ideological content, along with stories that are ideologically slanted because all the Serious People think along the same lines. And if they do slant a story in a progressive direction, chances are it will be done in a mindless stupid way that doesn't advance anyone's understanding. (Which describes much of MSNBC).<br /><br />Repeating myself, what I've seen at the Daily Howler is basically a fleshing out of Chomsky's claim that the press isn't really there to inform us, but to distract us or propagandize us. And that's what Bob's work shows. You've got some stories that are just idiotic--that's the distraction. And you've got some which are blatantly propagandistic. As for the MSNBC clown shows that upset Bob so much (leaving aside Chris Hayes, whose show is anomalously good), they are a way of making a bit of money off the liberals who want their own version of Fox News. The last thing MSNBC wants is thoughtful conversation and/or journalism on a nightly basis that probes deeply into issues. <br /><br />And again, Bob's work is valuable because he gets into the details. Chomsky refuses to do this (except when writing about human rights issues) and I think I understand why, but I also think someone needs to do it. If you want to convince people that the press functions the way Chomsky claims, you need to give evidence that the press really does a horrible job covering the news--not just American-sponsored atrocities, but even the day-to-day political stuff. Which is where Bob comes in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-91924697333202483132012-06-09T10:58:25.603-04:002012-06-09T10:58:25.603-04:00I agree with Quasi3000 that Romney's religion ...I agree with Quasi3000 that Romney's religion is a political weakness. However, I don't agree that his opponents should emphasize his strange religious practices and beliefs. IMHO Romney's religion is analagous to Obama's race.<br /><br />Obama's race is a political weakness. Ruthless opponents could emphasize the fact that black crime rates are far higher than average. That <a href="http://www.subnet.nga.org/educlear/achievement/" rel="nofollow">17 year-old African American students have skills in English, mathematics and science similar to those of 13-year-old white students.</a> <br /><br />But, I don't think that's the way to campaign. I think that approach would be ugly and racist. I feel the same way about emphasizing Romney's unusual religion. Both men should be judged as individuals, not as members of particular groups.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15217124167230406532012-06-09T09:42:19.928-04:002012-06-09T09:42:19.928-04:00@Anonymous 10:40
What you describe isn't nece...@Anonymous 10:40<br /><br />What you describe isn't necessarily ideological bias. As a group, political reporters are probably the least professional and worst informed of their profession -- the modern-day equivalent of gossip columnists. They ran moronic stories on Gore because 1) they apparently hated the guy in a personal sense, and 2) they needed something to write about, because neither candidate in these contests engages in real issues and the reporters don't, in any case, "do policy".<br /><br />Similarly, it isn't necessarily right-wing bias which prevents reporters from pointing out (to take a current example) that the Ryan budget is a sham, and that the job is left to Krugman. Their lack of basic competence, and their embrace of conventional wisdom, is the likelier cause.<br /><br />In other words, you don't need the full force of Chomsky's model, to explain this kind of press coverage.<br /><br />Whether Bob's own media criticism, with its manias, prejudices and admissions of policy ignorance, is an independent of discovery of the underlying dynamics codified by Chomsky and Herman, is different question. <br /><br />Again, Chomsky does not much concern himself with the *personal* conduct of reporters or the vagaries of campaign coverage, because it's Chomsky's larger point that major media simply won't cover real issues. In the absence of real issues, and in the drive for ratings, a lot of the resulting coverage will simply be idiotic. The NYT would seem be non-partisan in this respect. It's coverage of Gore and Clinton was, to date, far worse than it's been on Romney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-179608901370016192012-06-09T08:48:24.689-04:002012-06-09T08:48:24.689-04:00Good post anon 12:59. I think there is more to it ...Good post anon 12:59. I think there is more to it though. Basically, we have a choice btween the lesser and the greater evil. The only rational choice is to choose the lesser evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13153423444166204322012-06-08T22:40:06.595-04:002012-06-08T22:40:06.595-04:00Good post, but as a fellow Chomsky reader what I f...Good post, but as a fellow Chomsky reader what I found fascinating when I discovered the Daily Howler is precisely the fact that Bob seemed to be rediscovering it all pretty much on his own, and by looking at things that Chomsky never wrote about. Reading Chomsky I knew about the bias and dishonesty in the press when writing about human rights issues, but reading Bob made me realize the bias even shows up against mainstream candidates like Gore. It's not that Gore was any sort of progressive hero, but the rightwing bias in the supposedly leftwing media had become so great by 2000 that even a center-left (and more center than left) candidate like Gore was slimed. Krugman was the only one in the press pointing out that Bush's economics made no sense. In fact, that was the period when Krugman himself became somewhat radicalized-he'd been an ivory tower centrist type before he started paying attention to the 2000 Presidential campaign. <br /><br />I think it's immensely helpful for people who are new to the idea of press criticism to have someone like Bob down in the weeds following it day by day--the grand theoretical overviews need to be fleshed out to be really convincing and while Chomsky does a good job covering the atrocity angle, that still leaves plenty of other topics for others to demonstrate that the propaganda model is true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6958343345211326992012-06-08T22:30:10.556-04:002012-06-08T22:30:10.556-04:00I think you mean Odysseus, not Achilles.
That ...I think you mean Odysseus, not Achilles. <br /><br />That aside, the rest of your post was stupid and bigoted. As hardindr pointed out, not all Mormons are conservative. Bob hardly needs to write another word--you only have to look at some of his commenters to see that the liberal world is depressingly close to the Fox News universe when it comes to tribal idiocy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90641562552822639292012-06-08T20:05:28.384-04:002012-06-08T20:05:28.384-04:00Really? A presidential candidate's religion s...Really? A presidential candidate's religion should be off limits even if it openly practices racial discrimination?majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4602384563668325162012-06-08T18:44:38.349-04:002012-06-08T18:44:38.349-04:00Not to mention decidedly "unliberal".Not to mention decidedly "unliberal".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12539491547654654332012-06-08T17:53:26.158-04:002012-06-08T17:53:26.158-04:00You have to ask, what does it MEAN that Romney is ...<i>You have to ask, what does it MEAN that Romney is a Mormon? <br /><br />It means that he embraces REACTIONARY social and political practices, that's what!</i><br /><br />Uhm, not all Mormons are conservatives, some are liberals (both politically and theologically) who do not like their religion's hierarchy, much like many Catholics. Maybe you should get out more? Also, it would be really, really unfortunate if progressives chose to attach Romney's Mormonism. That would be a dangerous road to travel down and a further devolution of our already crappy political discourse.hardindrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05275899305949454964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85998338816850419682012-06-08T17:36:18.286-04:002012-06-08T17:36:18.286-04:00Oh come on, what a waste of time this discussion i...Oh come on, what a waste of time this discussion is.<br /><br />You have to ask, what does it MEAN that Romney is a Mormon? <br /><br />It means that he embraces REACTIONARY social and political practices, that's what!<br /><br />It also means that his neolithic Christian constituency faces a serious CONTRADICTION when it thinks of voting for him.<br /><br />It means, then, that Romney's religion is a WEAKNESS and that progressives should EMPHASIZE Romney's strange religious practices and beliefs.<br /><br />Bob is behaving increasingly like the persecuted heros in dime novels, who succumb to their fates with noble and outspoken defiance, rather than using a little wit and deception (oh, Achilles, where are you when we need you) to come out on top once in a while.Quasi3000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53483814485416666022012-06-08T17:08:51.977-04:002012-06-08T17:08:51.977-04:00How would that shed any light on Romney, any more ...How would that shed any light on Romney, any more than the banning of women from the priesthood of the Catholic Church does on Kerry? Individuals, candidates or not, are not held responsible for the doctrines of their churches because these are not fixable by an individual, and because people acquire their faiths by being born into them (mostly) and not as a matter of reason, responsibility and choice (despite the reaffirmation of faith that occurs in most churches when children are considered able to think rationally). <br /><br />All religions are inherently irrational and hold ridiculous doctrines, practices and have embarrassing pasts. This is largely only obvious to those who are non-religious, but there is a pact among most people to avoid confronting other faiths, lest they be similarly confronted. Extending this from civil discourse to politics is a short step. That's why it is considered biased or wrong to raise such issues in the context of a campaign -- it violates that social norm.<br /><br />Most people consider other people's religious views to be wrong-headed at least to yucky or scandalous or evil at worst. The only correct faith is one's own. Trying to portray a candidate's religion as wrong is too easy to accomplish when that person's beliefs are minority and thus campaigns try to bring them to the forefront without appearing to do so deliberately. That is where the press plays a role -- it gives cover to campaigns to discuss stuff they shouldn't be talking about but gain great advantage from pointing out. <br /><br />Both Romney and Obama espouse minority religious views. If they open that can of worms both campaigns will be hurt. So, Obama talks about his faith but not the content of his religion and Romney tries to do the same. The press helped Obama avoid discussing liberation theology. They are not helping Romney avoid discussing Mormon oddities as much, in my opinion and that is where bias comes into the picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78863927487442268972012-06-08T15:40:54.706-04:002012-06-08T15:40:54.706-04:00Bob is right.
Unless of course you think asking ...Bob is right. <br /><br />Unless of course you think asking "Do you think Mary was a virgin" would have shed any meaningful light on how previous candidates would perform as elected presidents (such as Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, FDR).<br /><br />Numerous acts by Romney as an elected official were contrary to his religious beliefs. We already know he separates the two, which is the only important question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60746595497905826042012-06-08T15:32:01.177-04:002012-06-08T15:32:01.177-04:00Suppose, though, that the Mormon Church's ban ...Suppose, though, that the Mormon Church's ban on blacks in the priesthood was still in effect. Would it not then very much be a relevant issue for a mormon presidential candidate? If Mitt Romney or any other mormon had been running for president in, say, 1976 (2 years before the priesthoof ban was lifted) would it have been legitimate for the press to make an issue of it? If so, then how many years post-1978 must elapse before it becomes inappropriate to bring up?<br /><br />Since I am sympathetic to Bob's argument, these are not easy questions.majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5923933104944803532012-06-08T15:15:54.628-04:002012-06-08T15:15:54.628-04:00"Finally addressed the ownership question&quo..."Finally addressed the ownership question"???<br /><br />You need to hit the archives, my friend.cacambonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85026683006816453222012-06-08T12:59:28.994-04:002012-06-08T12:59:28.994-04:00This is funny as hell. Two of the first four post...This is funny as hell. Two of the first four posts here are pre-emptive sallies by the Bobettes -- attacking their own caricatures of comments which haven't yet appeared. So for much for tribalism....<br /><br />But since Bob finally addressed the ownership question, and has offered a rejoinder of sorts, let's look at how the matter is studied by people who actually do study it -- and who have far less interest than Bob, in recreationally venting spleen against one media personality or another. <br /><br />The classic work here is Chomsky/Herman's "Manufacturing Consent". Chomsky, you'll notice, while constantly pointing to the venality and malfeasance of the American press, never specifically takes on campaign coverage, because there's no need to: his propaganda model already predicts that any candidate who challenges collective corporate values will be either ignored or ridiculed (score one for Noam!). Second, the particular sins of American campaign coverage (share-a-beerism, debate sighism, comfortable-in-skinism, inhaleism, earth toneism, etc.) won't be of great interest to the student of American press propaganda, the view being that the campaigns themselves are already vacuous, part of the larger deception engaged in by both the press and the candidates. In this model, both candidates avoid, by common consent, discussion of the real issues, and anyone who violates this consent agreement is either ignored or ridiculed by his opponent, the corporate press and opinion culture generally.<br /><br />So, in this light, the debate is over before American campaigns even begin, and Bob's personality-focused examination would seem peculiar and rather beside the point. If NYT was really willing to take on the Bain Capital story, it would have taken on hundred of other stories which put American capitalism in a predatory light. But of course NYT is part of that world as a corporate entity and is staffed by people from that world (Bill Keller is the son of which CEO?).<br /><br />Of course, NYT mentions Bain Capital, or Enron or JPMorgan Chase, when it has to. It's not quite Pravda. But that's about it.<br /><br />So did we clear all that all up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81102835437938550322012-06-08T12:41:09.118-04:002012-06-08T12:41:09.118-04:00Ah, something I disagree with. Bob is most certai...Ah, something I disagree with. Bob is most certainly wrong when he states that "[v]ery few candidates ever do that [talk about religion.]" Our last president talked about his religious beliefs a lot, even though when you looked at them, they got a bit murky. Our current president has talked about his conservative religious beliefs ad nauseum, and would probably talk about them more if not for that pesky Rev. Wright. All of the serious candidates for the Republican nomination (with the exception of Romney) have talked about their religious beliefs and convictions, because it is a selling point to their largest constituency, the Christian Right.<br /><br />Now, if Bob wants to say that many Democratic candidates for president have been reluctant to talk about their religious beliefs, then that would be fair. Certainly, Romney would like to avoid the subject since he is a Mormon, and that carries a lot of unfair baggage for him. But to say that most recent candidates don't want to talk about religious matters is untrue.hardindrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05275899305949454964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58739679133634297922012-06-08T11:16:16.383-04:002012-06-08T11:16:16.383-04:00Here we get a long, qualified piece about some inj...Here we get a long, qualified piece about some injustices that MAY have appeared in a piece on Mitt Romney. Then we switch to another piece about Mitt Romney, which we are told but not shown was really terrible, and is used as another stick to whip Joan Walsh with. As a poster illustrated very well yesterday, TDH doesn't always shoot straight when it comes to Walsh. <br /> Can we talk? The idea that religion is off limits is wrong. Wrong for Romney, wrong for Obama. Questions of faith SHOULD be raised in an respectful and fair minded context, and extra care should be applied to avoid cheap shots. But this is, without a doubt, a central part of the make up of these men's lives. When George W Bush told us the philosopher who influenced him the most was Jesus Christ, I think we are entitled to a little how and why. How would Jesus, we are still entitled to ask, have viewed Shock and Awe? This is the opposite of the kind of frivolous exchange the Daily Howler would have us disparage. <br /> I guess it would be embarrassing(and possibly damaging) for Obama to state that (and I'm assuming here in perhaps a big way) that he views the stories of The Bible as metaphors on which he tries to build a just and good life. But that is no doubt how many people view the Bible and it might win him points for honesty. Mormonism has some very strange aspects, or strange to the outsider. Is it really positive that we simply ignore (and then, perhaps, silently distrust) Romney's faith?Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-71514373639214120862012-06-08T10:57:11.330-04:002012-06-08T10:57:11.330-04:00"We liberals say that the corporate press cor..."We liberals say that the corporate press corps lies in the grip of Big Money and Power. If we really believe that, we ought to be working to build a press culture which operates on solid restrictions and rules.<br /><br />We ought to be working to restrict the press corps’ ability to flounce all about the countryside, writing about various wayward topics (at great length) while assuring us that the readers will sort the whole mess out."<br /><br />Well, well, well.<br /><br />Now we know.<br /><br />Somerby reads his comments.<br /><br />He's talking to you. <br /><br />You know which Anonymous Idiot you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com