Prestigious liberal media critic joins Glenn Greenwald, criticizes Paul-haters on our side

[Weisbergkevin]

Bob Somerby's work as media critic has been praised and cited by Media Matters' Vice-President Jamison Foser: http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908090011 .
His name is Bob Somerby, Al Gore's long-time friend and university roommate. A few days ago, Somerby says he will vote for Obama, but called those on our side who do not give Ron Paul enough credit for his views as "the tribe," for their habit of trashing others for the sole reason of being on the other party. Link: http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2012/01/glenn-greenwald-call-of-tribe.html

[cthulu2016]

1. Just because he will vote for Obama doesn't mean he isn't a Paul supporter

Near as I can tell, being a Paul supporter means you have not personally kicked Ron Paul's ass in a 7/11 parking lot within the last thirty days.

Sometimes saying, "I am not advocating the election of Ron Paul" is a dead give away that a person is a Ron Paul supporter.

Another clear danger-sign of Ron Paul support is, "I am in no way endorsing Ron Paul."

[Luminous Animal]

8. Ha!

[whatchamacallit]

10. Lol!

[sabrina 1]

13. Lol, if I had known that I would have sought him out and punched him in a parking lot.

But wait, couldn't that mean that you are just trying to deceive people into thinking you do not support him?

[ProSense]

14. Yup

"Another clear danger-sign of Ron Paul support is, 'I am in no way endorsing Ron Paul.'"

..."he's a racist, but at least he's not"

That's pretty much the logic when claiming he's against the "racist drug wars."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

[Luminous Animal]

36. So, you agree that the only way to establish that one is not a Paul

supporter is to physically assault him?

And you also agree that those who say, "I am in no way endorsing Ron Paul," are actually endorsing him? If that is the case, then I believe that every time YOU call Paul a racist, I will actually believe that you mean Paul is MLK Jr. re-incarnate.

I do not think you understand the OP to which you are endorsing.

[ProSense]

40. Um

"So, you agree that the only way to establish that one is not a Paul supporter is to physically assault him?"

...criticism is not a "physical assault."

"I do not think you understand the OP to which you are endorsing."

Who said I endorsed it? My comment was pure snark to illustrate the absurdity of "I know he's a horrible/racist/cretin who distorts, but some of his views are 'progressive.'"

[Luminous Animal]

58. Um. Hmm. Yup. No.

Snark!

[AtomicKitten]

19. +

[great white snark]

20. +1

Very good.

[Whisp]

2. and Greenwald belongs to the tribe of EBO

eternally bashing Obama.

so if a basher has more good to say about Ron 'the fuck Paul than he does for a Democratic President that has done amazingly well considering the opposition that he has, well that basher can go fuck himself too.

[MineralMan]

3. More crap.

Those who find things for which to praise Ron Paul have simply not done their homework. There is nothing whatsoever praiseworthy about the man. Nothing.

All one has to do is to examine the claims that he is anti-war, pro civil liberties, and the others, by looking at more than just the statements, to see that those simplistic statements about him have some really serious catches to them.

Fuck Ron Paul!

[sabrina 1]

15. There are an awful lot of Democrats on your list, starting with Alan Grayson, Bernie Frank,

Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich among others. Were they all secret Republicans all along? And I see this talking point making the rounds now that people who point out that he and he alone among the Presidential candidates on both sides, is the only one talking about issues that are super important to the electorate, are too stupid to 'read more than just the statements'. Another incredible leap of logic.

This repetition of false assumptions over and over again simply tells me that those making them simply cannot grasp the facts that have been so clearly pointed out so many times. To go off the rails to make some point that isn't even related the Paul campaign's significance, mostly from a Republican perspective since he is after all, running in the Republican Primary, is instructive about people in general. The points are simple, and so glaringly obvious. Although I will say I do think most people, like the above mentioned do understand, thankfully.

[MineralMan]

17. You know, I think what I said is pretty clear.

I'm talking about people right now, talking about this election, and about Ron Paul as a candidate for President. Which of those you name have or would have endorsed Ron Paul as a candidate for President? You can play games all day long with my words, and that's fine, if that's how you want to spend your time. I have better things to do than to banter with you. Things like trimming my toenails.

[sabrina 1]

22. Stating facts is not a game.

Which Democrats can you name who have endorsed Paul as a candidate? None of the Democrats I named would ever have endorsed Paul as a candidate for the WH, yet they worked with him on issues where they found common ground. By your logic because they did that, acknowledged that they could find common ground with him on certain issues, that leads to them endorsing him.

That is extremely faulty logic. By that logic, Obama was endorsing Republican policies when he nominated Republicans to eg, ambassadorships. I am trying to make sense of the claims being made that anyone who suggests he is right on any issue, must be endorsing him for President. It makes zero sense so far, so if you can prove that giant leap of logic is not so giant after all, I am willing to consider it.

[MineralMan]

23. Consider whatever you wish to consider.

I won't mind at all. While you're considering, I'll continue to post what I wish. How's that for a bargain?

[TransitJohn]

34. It just sucks that what you wish to post is so often

willful, deliberate, circumlocutious obfuscation (like insisting that people who can see a couple of things that Paul did that was right are endorsing him for president); that's her point.

[xocet]

31. With which part of the linked article do you strongly disagree?

Is it bad that Republicans hear an antiwar message?

Glenn Greenwald: The call of the tribe!
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2012

Well worth reading: For what it’s worth, we think it’s a positive thing when Republican voters hear Ron Paul talking about the war/empire machine.

We wouldn’t vote for Paul ourselves. But as Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out, citizens rarely get to hear anyone talk about such topics. For whatever reason, Paul is more respected this time around than he was in 2008. This time, he isn’t a figure of ridicule within the Republican party. On balance, we would guess that it’s a good thing when people who don’t assume he’s a fool hear him discuss these topics.

...

(http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2012/01/glenn-greenwald-call-of-tribe.html)

[MineralMan]

55. Greenwald is now using the Imperial We?

Never mind.

[xocet]

59. Is that what you got out of reading that excerpt? What a pathetic joke! n/t

[Bandit]

62. He seems to drive Republicans crazy.. I like that about him...

I hope he gets a lot of support, and in fact actually gets the nomination....I don't think anything better could happen for the Democratic Party...

[frazzled]

4. Is Somerby saying we shouldn't criticize

Ron Paul for:

* Wanting to trash Social Security and Medicare?--he calls them "unconstitutional"
* For his homophobic and racist writings and statements?
* For his crackpot Austrian economic theories and his vow to abolish the Fed?
* For his extreme views on wanting to make the federal government almost non-existent?

I would hardly call Bob Somerby a "prestigious media critic." He's a crank much of the time, and I stopped reading him in about 2001. But how dare he accuse us of tribalism for our sincere belief in thinking Ron Paul is a dangerous and half-crazy extreme right-wing libertarian.

Throw this Somerby trash in the trash.

[ProSense]

5. Well,

...the first couple of comments at the Daily Howler link seem to indicate a Bush = Gore mentality, which is strange considering the mention of Somerby's link to Gore.

Still, any excuse to justify using a lunatic and propagandist as a messenger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

[Ikonoklast]

6. Fuck Ron Paul and anyone that considers him for anything.

Racist Homophobic Corporate Tool Ron Paul.


But he likes dogs and little kids, you say!

FUCK RON PAUL.

[quinnox]

7. Well, looks like the Tribe has spoken

and Somerby has been voted off the island.

Sorry, that joke was begging to be said.

[boxman15]

9. Fuck Ron Paul.

He has a few liberal positions, but the rest are far-right. If this racist homophobe becomes president and Congress endorses his policies, this country is royally fucked.

[ohheckyeah]

11. Somerby shows his ignorance

when he says it's about "the tribe". I don't care whose friend Somerby is - his opinion really doesn't mean shit to me.

Ron Paul invalidated anything else he had to say with his racism, bigotry and homophobia.

[sabrina 1]

16. Can you respond to the claim that no other Candidate on the national stage on either side

is raising the issues Paul has raised?

Yes, we all know his reasons for all of these positions are not the right reasons, and how dangerous he is, so with that out of the way, what can Democrats do to stop him from taking their issues away from them?? Because that seems to be the main reason for the out of proportion focus on a candidate who doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming president.

[ProSense]

18. Hmmm?

"Can you respond to the claim that no other Candidate on the national stage on either side is raising the issues Paul has raised?"

President Obama proposed cutting defense, a real proposal. Thus far, nothing from Ron Paul except propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002138632

[sabrina 1]

24. Yes, that is a good thing. And more recently Obama stood up to the obstructionist Republicans

and appointed people he wanted in positions he wanted them in. Which shows he can do it when he wants to despite claims to the contrary. So that is encouraging.

So why the hysteria over Paul? He's not running in the Dem primaries, he's running in the Republican primaries. Republicans are the ones who should be scared of him. This is what is so mind-boggling to Democrats. Paul HELPS Democrats but for some reason they are not using him.

As you pointed out, Obama was able to cut the military budget, something advocated by Paul, but vehemently opposed by Republicans, yet Paul is still getting Republican support. What does that say to REPUBLICANS? Are they losing their grip on the claim that they alone are capable of protecting this country? By all accounts, Paul should not even be in the running in this Repub Primary, IF they are the sole defenders of our National Security.

That is why people are puzzled at the Democrats attacking the one Republican who is forcing Republicans to be challenged on their long held claims regarding National Security. Democrats could lure Paul's supporters to the Dem candidate when Paul is eventually out of the race, by embracing the policies for which he is getting support within the Republican party. Instead of handing those votes to Republicans which is exactly what will happen by attacking HIM rather than attacking the Republican's own policies and letting him the dirty work within the Republican Party for them.

[ProSense]

26. Right

"That is why people are puzzled at the Democrats attacking the one Republican who is forcing Republicans to be challenged on their long held claims regarding National Security."

...because the point is that some progressives are hyping Paul's positions to contrast them to Republicans?

The problem, if it isn't clear by now, is continually hyping a a racist lunatic and claiming his propaganda genuinely reflects positions that progressives should hold.

It's absurd.

On edit: This is what Ron Paul's supporters *really* look like
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/08/1052443/-This-is-what-Ron-Pauls-supporters-

[sabrina 1]

29. You're not looking at the big picture. You are looking at the small snapshot that most people will

not even see. All they see is someone articulating what they want to hear from national candidates. You can rail all you want about how 'stupid they are', but that is like throwing a pebble at an elephant.

Moderate Republicans and Independents have voted for Democrats in the past, but they sure won't like being called 'crazy' and when Paul is no longer in the race, which will be sooner rather than later where will they go?

The goal of anyone in politics should be to win over votes and this tactic of focusing so narrowly on things the average voter doesn't care about, has never worked. See Clinton and Rand Paul who is now sadly, a Senator after being subjected to the same tactics.

Better tactics would be to shout louder than Paul about these issues and complement his supporters for their support of what are Democratic principles, and give them somewhere to go.

But if getting votes is not the goal, then I suppose these tactics make sense.

[ProSense]

33. What?

"You're not looking at the big picture. You are looking at the small snapshot that most people will not even see."

The big picture is that Ron Paul is a racist, anti-gay, anti-civil rights lunatic.

"Moderate Republicans and Independents have voted for Democrats in the past, but they sure won't like being called 'crazy' and when Paul is no longer in the race, which will be sooner rather than later where will they go?"

What are you proposing: sweet talking Paul so that they'll miss him when he's gone?

Here's the deal: I'm in hyping anyone's propaganda. I'm certainly not interested in making a martyr out of a racist, coddling a bunch of people who will believe falsely that the only reason he lost was because the "establishment" wants to preserve the MIC.

[sabrina 1]

41. And you prove my point, I was hoping you would

get it.

I'm certainly not interested in making a martyr out of a racist, coddling a bunch of people who will believe falsely that the only reason he lost was because the "establishment" wants to preserve the MIC.

If it was only about you, or me, and not about getting Democrats elected, this might make sense.

Because the truth is, neither you nor I can control how people perceive things no matter how we try to control it. People, some people, will do exactly what you just said you do not want. It happened with Clinton, thankfully, and it happened more recently with Rand Paul and lost us an extremely important Senate seat.

We will have to agree to disagree on what are and what are not successful political tactics. I want Progressive Democrats to take over Congress next Fall. And to accomplish that every single vote is going to count. Paul, whether you see it or not, is providing Democrats with a ready made voter block who will have nowhere to go when he is out of the race. I would like Democrats, not Republicans, to get as many of those votes as they can. And I do not think painting every voter with the broad brush that they must be racist, loony morons is a successful political tactic.

[ProSense]

45. Really?

"If it was only about you, or me, and not about getting Democrats elected, this might make sense.

Because the truth is, neither you nor I can control how people perceive things no matter how we try to control it. People, some people, will do exactly what you just said you do not want. It happened with Clinton, thankfully, and it happened more recently with Rand Paul and lost us an extremely important Senate seat."

So the solution to is to pretend that a racist isn't really a racist and his views are "progressive"?

You seem to be missing the point of the criticism, which is that there is no reason for prominent progressives to create the impression that Ron Paul's views are genuine.

We will have to agree to disagree on what are and what are not successful political tactics. I want Progressive Democrats to take over Congress next Fall. And to accomplish that every single vote is going to count. Paul, whether you see it or not, is providing Democrats with a ready made voter block who will have nowhere to go when he is out of the race. I would like Democrats, not Republicans, to get as many of those votes as they can. And I do not think painting every voter with the broad brush that they must be racist, loony morons is a successful political tactic.

Paul supporters are not going to support Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

48. And you know this, how?

This is Paul with Barney Frank who joined forces with him on two major issues, cutting military spending and ending the war on drugs.

Are you saying that not one of Paul's anti-Drug war supporters and/or not one of his anti-budget breaking Military spending supporters would not vote for Democrats who agree with Paul on these issues? He has like it or not, millions of supporters.

You can't speak for millions of people. I will be working to GET some of those up-for-grabs votes after he leaves the race. You do as you wish, but for me, it's all about votes. And a Progressive Congress filled with members who represent Democratic Party principles, is my goal.

[ProSense]

51. Wait

And you know this, how?

This is Paul with Barney Frank who joined forces with him on two major issues, cutting military spending and ending the war on drugs.

Are you saying that not one of Paul's anti-Drug war supporters and/or not one of his anti-budget breaking Military spending supporters would not vote for Democrats who agree with Paul on these issues? He has like it or not, millions of supporters.

You can't speak for millions of people. I will be working to GET some of those up-for-grabs votes after he leaves the race. You do as you wish, but for me, it's all about votes. And a Progressive Congress filled with members who represent Democratic Party principles, is my goal.

...are you suggesting that Barney Frank is going around saying "I know he's a racist, but..."

Are you suggesting that Barney Frank is a Paul supporter who the Democrats can win over? I mean, what's your point?

Also, it doesn't take me speaking for millions to know that millions of Paul supporters will never vote for Democrats. They're attracted to Paul for a reason, his propaganda and conspiracies.

People outside of that category who learn about Paul's atrocious views, will have no trouble distancing themselves from him.

[Luminous Animal]

60. No. She is suggesting (or flat out saying) that there are progressives who have

worked with Paul on common goals. That the best course of action may not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now Frank could have said, "Fuck you Paul, you lunatic!" Or, he could have chosen a path to work with his ideological opposite in order to achieve a common goal.

[sabrina 1]

61. Lol, you can do better than that! n/t

[FarLeftFist]

27. Yeah but no one on the Left is attacking Paul for his "lefty" views, just his ultra-RW views

Paul supporters WON'T vote D anyway.

[ohheckyeah]

21. I don't know where you get

that Paul is "taking their issues away from them". It's not real complicated - if Democrats want to talk about those issues they can. They don't belong to Paul and the only reason he is talking about them is he knows he has no chance in hell of being elected. But, by talking about them he is getting people who will write stuff like the article in the OP which, frankly, is rather silly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. No, actually he is showing a level of political sophistication

Found in poli sci departments. Yes, american politics are tribal...

[ohheckyeah]

37. I don't agree. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. You may not, but they are

And parties at the most basic of levels are not teams, but proto tribal groups. Outside of poli sci papers people rarely deal with this aspect of political parties.

Now Ron Paul has a lot of issues since he does not neatly take values of his party either.

Oh and no, I am not endorsing that proto fascist before you say it.

[ohheckyeah]

46. My dislike has nothing to do with tribal politics...

it has to do with his racism and bigotry. I don't believe that everyone who is opposed to his racism is engaging in tribal politics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. What the guy said is that it is partly tribal

And given we have reached the point that hard core partisans can't talk to each other anymore. And party he is correct...

[Odin2005]

12. Fuck Ron Paul.

[FarLeftFist]

30. <---- Proud member of that "Tribe"

Like we're supposed to be happy that a racist homophobe has 1 sane viewpoint. Fuck that, even Charles Manson had one or two good viewpoints on world issues, but Manson can also go fuck himself.

[Fumesucker]

32. Ron Paul = Charles Manson?

Why not Hitler?

Hitler at least was a politician.

ETA: Hitler also loved dogs.

[FarLeftFist]

35. What was Hitler's 1 good idea?!

[Fumesucker]

50. Volkswagen of course..

The people's car was produced for decades relatively unchanged.

[cthulu2016]

52. He was a vegetarian

[DevonRex]

39. And it's not even sane when you know the reason behind it.

He's an isolationist.

[DevonRex]

38. Fuck Ron Paul - homophobe, racist, anti-Semite, misogynist.

[DevonRex]

42. Fuck this "prestigious media" ass too. Calling people "tribes"??

He uses that word as a perjorative.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. That's a bad mispresentation of what Somerby said

You claimed this was about "their habit of trashing others for the sole reason of being on the other party." He said nothing like that at all. He said "we think it’s a positive thing when Republican voters hear Ron Paul talking about the war/empire machine". Nothing there about needing to give Paul more credit; just that it's good for Republicans to hear some of his views, because he is in their party so they will listen to him when they won't listen to a non-Republican.

Also, "trashing ... for the sole reason of being on the other party" is a huge strawman. Paul is criticised for pandering to racists, being an extreme fiscal libertarian who would nevertheless allow states to outlaw abortion, and being an apparent homophobe, among many things he's wrong about. Look at any of the liberal criticisms of him, and they will point out specific policy reasons to hate him.

[Weisbergkevin]

49. You cherrypick

You pretended that your quote was the whole article. Somerby also said, "We’ve been amazed by the way our side seems to love the call of the tribe."

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. I've pointed out your interpretation was made up

Show me where Somerby says this is about "the sole reason of being on the other party", if you think I'm cherry-picking. You can't.

And you have ignored the fact that this being 'the sole reason' is a complete strawman (Somerby would know that; that's why Somerby never says this is about 'the sole reason' ).

On edit: "call of the tribe" does not have to mean "unfairly criticise those outside". It just means "the desire to stick together".

[Weisbergkevin]

57. you don't read Somerby

When he speaks about tribes he always refers to partisan bias. Your crticism makes no sense no matter how many times you used the word "strawman." Read the site every day.

[elana i am]

54. i'm at a loss to understand why

anyone, liberal or progressive, hell, even the least bit left leaning, could find any common cause, any opportunity for comparison, any impetus to say that dems should be emulating any of his positions.

he's a homophobic, racist, misogynistic cretin. period. seeing any liberal or progressive going "yeah, but..." smells like an attempt to give him some kind of legitimacy he doesn't deserve. eeeewwww!

[One of the 99]

56. Somerby went off the deep end years ago

He was a PUMA who couldn't accept that Hillary Clinton had lost. He has spent most of the last three years, not going after FAUX but after Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. He even went after David Letterman in support of Sarah Palin. Somerby is not someone who can be trusted anymore.