Norman Soloman vs. Sidney Blumenthal

[paulk]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/1340214#transcipt

This got posted yesterday in GD Land, but only got a few responses. I know this isn't really about Kerry (although Goodman and Soloman do manage a tag team trashing of not only the Senator from Mass., but also Dean and Clark along the way).

I found this interview fascinating, not just for it's content, but in my reaction to it. It made me very angry. I have increasingly come to despise the Norman Solomans of this world (and to a large degree the Amy Goodmans), which is not how I felt three, even two years ago. I'm trying to understand why I feel this way - what has changed in my view of the political landscape.

Anyway - I've posted this in the Kerry forum because I think it would be of interest to the members here, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the interview...

[whometense]

1. A 5-second opinion

Just glanced through and saw this:

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, just this point, which is what the whole conversation has revolved around: Did the Democrats enable the Republicans to do this in Iraq? The issue of weapons of mass destruction; the Presidential election of 2004, where the leading Democratic candidate, the Presidential Democratic candidate, John Kerry, even after it was exposed there were no WMDs, said if he knew then what he knew now, he would still vote to authorize the invasion.

NORMAN SOLOMON: Well, it goes to the point of that you can’t be against militarism effectively on Tuesdays, Thursday and alternate Saturdays or depending on the way the polls run. And I want to note that a few years ago it was considered and proclaimed to be speculative – we were told that it was speculative that there might be an attack on Iraq, and we see what happened.

Lefties who quote right wing talking points. I mean, my GOD, there is no earthly excuse why Amy Goodman should not understand Kerry's IWR vote. Either she's uninformed or she's stupid. And this makes me furious. With friends like these...This is, in a nutshell, the help Kerry got in his campaign from the left. The disinformation, the shrug of the shoulders, the complete abandonment of any attempt to understand, and to explain what the average Iowa democrat completely understood. And they blame him for "running a bad campaign."

That makes me just furious. Thanks for nothing, a**holes.

By the way, I've read a lot of Sidney Blumenthal stuff in Salon. My impression has been that he's not as bad as these other two.

[paulk]

2. I like Blumenthal

I was really surprised at the level of acrimony between him and Solomon. It's almost like they're not on the same side - which I guess is the case. I've sure come to feel that way about that particular segment of the left that he (and Goodman) represent. They call themselves "leftists", anyway - I prefer to think of them as reactionaries.

I've come to feel that way - that these people are not just not on my side, but in some regard are just as much the enemy as the right, since the run up to the election. And I feel that way about a lot of the posters here at DU... :(

"The disinformation, the shrug of the shoulders, the complete abandonment of any attempt to understand, and to explain what the average Iowa democrat completely understood."

That pretty well captures it.

And the thing is - like I mentioned above - I didn't feel that way before this election.

[whometense]

3. I admit

I did feel this way about Amy Goodman, who was constantly nagging at Kerry from the left about the way he expressed (or failed to express) his religious beliefs during the campaign. She had a column on the Gadflyer that had me pretty pissed off almost every time I read it.

So I guess I felt that way a lot during this past campaign, but not before. I guess part of the problem for me is that I was so excited to get a chance to vote for someone I just plain admire, and who was the most liberal candidate at least since McGovern, and probablt since RFK. I didn't understand - and I still don't understand - how these people failed to discern that about Kerry. I figured the right would try to grind him into powder, but I never imagined the left would be so blind about him.

[TayTay]

4. Ahm, I disagree, courteously

Amy Goodman, Greg Palast and even Michael Moore are not on 'our side.' They have never been on 'our side.' (Well, Michael Moore sort of was last year, but is destined to not last.)

They are reporters, who report with obvious left wing points of view. But they are NOT now, and NEVER have been Democrats. It is not their job to shill for any Democrat. It is their job to dig dirt and report what they find. This is what investigative reporters are supposed to do. And it is a endeavor that tends to upset people.

Good reporting in the US is in such a shitty state that we forget what it looks like when it comes along. Amy Goodman pisses me off. That's her friggin job. She's supposed to dig into people I like and support and tell me the stuff that they would rather not have known. (And every candidate who has ever run for public office has things they would rather not talk about.) We have a 'free press' in this country for just the reason; to keep politicians honest and on their toes.

In a more perfect union this kind of reporter is actually your friend. (No, wait, hear me out.) Reporters help to 'vet' a candidate. They get bad stuff out and force a candidate to adapt to it and learn how to explain themselves to the media. Left wing media vets left wing candidates and can actually make them better candidates. (In a process that is despised. Who would like this kind of scrutiny. But it is how the system is supposed to work.)

Faux News has really screwed up things in America. Their alleged reporters are so deeply in bed with the Rethug Party that it has contaminated the the whole idea of reporting. Reporters are not supposed to rubber stamp the powerful. They are supposed to friggin dig and find when people are right and when they are wrong and why they are wrong.

Again, my opinion on this came up before and I think the vote was 45-1 aganst my point of view. I accept that.

[paulk]

5. betrayal

that, of course, is the reason for my anger - the feeling that these people on the left - who I at one time felt I was one of - have betrayed me.

Looking at it your way - that they are just doing their job - well, I'll have to try it out.

But, it's hard to give them a pass. I truly feel that the Republic is in danger - and it wouldn't have hurt to keep their knives out of Kerry's back for a little while.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Calling them "investigative reporters" gives them too much credit

If these lefty freeper "reporters" were worth their weight in dirt, they wouldn't repeat Rove talking points - ROVE TALKING POINTS - about a man that we all can plainly see fights for the greater good. Greg Palast is a glory whore who wants his own name in spotlights and who hates Democrats just a little bit less than he hates Republicans. Guardian of democracy my ass. He doesn't have to "rubber stamp" Kerry, but he doesn't have to insinuate that the SWIFT BOAT ASSHOLES of all people might have a point, either.

I have no idea why you continue to defend the deplorable "journalism" spewed by these wannabe muckrakers. Honestly, Upton Sinclair and Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell they ain't. No offense, but I loathe asshats like these only a little less than the sham "journalists" on the right.

[TayTay]

7. I knew I could count on you kiddo

Nice to see ya again. (And we did have this argument before, didn't we.) Okay, phase two in which we thrash it out again, probably to a draw.

IMHO, the cure for this is to directly confront the accusers by going on their TV and radio shows and defending yourself. In the case of Sen. Kerry, well, he really is quite bright and has skills in debate and public speaking and is rather good at thinking on his feet. (He is really and truly outstanding in a one on one interview, btw.) Kerry has mucho experience at dealing with the lefty press. (Remember this piece: http://truthout.org/docs_03/printer_121003A.shtml Please tell me who came out looking pretty good in this 18-1 confrontation.)

Amy Goodman and Greg Palast are the only journalists covering a lot of really outrageous but politically difficult stories. I can put up with some snarkyness in exchange for some genuine reporting.

From an interview with Palast:
http://dks.thing.net/Floridiazation.html

HUSTLER: What kind of material do you have in the book?

PALAST: How about this for an example: After Daddy Bush left the White House, he went to work for a company called Barrick Gold Corporation in Canada, something you haven't read in the United States. The first thing he does is pick up a big, fat check and stock options from Barrick Gold Corporation for, essentially, selling them the presidential seal and the presidential Rolodex. And he writes letters to dictators like Suharto, saying, "Give these nice guys gold-mining concessions."

HUSTLER: What is Barrick Gold?

PALAST: It was founded with money from Adnan Khashoggi, the arms dealer. You may remember that Adnan was the bagman in the guns-for-hostages, Iran-Contra scandal. The sheikh got out, then Bush got in. You have to ask yourself a question: What would a Canadian gold-mining company do with a used president? Well, it turns out that before he left office, Daddy Bush put in motion an expedited process for laying claims to gold in the United States. It allowed Barrick Gold Corporation and a couple of other operators to lay claim to the largest gold mines in America. To stake a claim on $10 billion worth of gold ore, Barrick paid the U.S. Treasury less than $10,000.

HUSTLER: I would have gone for that, myself. I could have scraped together $10,000.

PALAST: All I can say is that Barrick was very, very grateful for the gold mine. But the public got the shaft, and Daddy Bush got the job. And George W. got the donations. That's the other thing that has been unreported here: People don't realize how much easy squeezy is flowing in. That includes things like parallel spending and soft money and hard money, which, by the way, hasn't ended. You know that our Congress has passed campaign-finance reform, so-called. What they did was eliminate soft money, but they doubled the amount of hard money. It's just Viagra for campaign donations. Our big problem is that we held something closer to an auction than an election in America. A lot of the reason Bush raised all that cash-that easy squeezy-is because of his father's business connections. You're never quite sure where the Bush family's bank account ends, and the campaigns and our American policy begins.

HUSTLER: Did Barrick get anything else from Bush Sr.?

PALAST: He helped Barrick secure a gold-mining concession in Tanzania. Now the gold-mining concession was owned by another Canadian company, named Sutton, which Barrick hoped to get the rights from. But there was a problem: The land was worthless, because there were Tanzanian miners already on it who had the rights to the mine. That's why, in the first week of August 1996, Sutton bulldozers ran across that property with military police firing guns to chase off the miners. In the process, they sealed up the mine pits and, unfortunately, there were 50 miners still in the mines, buried alive, say witnesses. That's information that has not been reported in the United States. You can't get that word out for nothing, because Bush's gold-mining company terrorizes journalists who dare breathe a word about it. They terrorize newspapers; they've been terrorizing wire services, and so you don't get the story.

They know who the BFEE is and they know, quite literally where the bodies are buried. And Kerry knows this as well. Despite the snarky comments, they are working towards a similar goal.

[karynnj]

8. Thanks, Tay Tay

They are doing good investigative journalism and it's a measure of how far our own view of what's normal has crept. In an odd way, it almost that we want journalist of our persuasion to report with as much bias as their RW counterparts.

I think the Amy Goodman comment re: the Grand Canyon quote simply hits a raw nerve. The Globe explanation makes sense to me because what Kerry said was almost verbatim what he said a million times to the question phrased simply "Would you still vote as you did?" It makes sense that he didn't hear the first part - BUT it does not make sense that when it became a story that he didn't immediately correct the misimpression. So, much as I hate people referring to this - it is not really unfair - Kerry and his campaign really did handle this poorly. It would be fairer though, if put into context by many Kerry comments that he would not have gone to war.

However, given the hours of campaigning Kerry did, he really made very few gaffes - and was hit for each - by the LW, the MSM, and the RW. Bush, in fewer highly controlled appearances made far more gaffes that were excused, ignored or explained by the the RW and MSM. The LW considered Bush misspeaking to be a source of entertainment which in some ways diminished the impact. (such as when he said he was for a National Sales tax and it was allowed to be taken back.)

So, I guess your right. The LW press should not have been the Kerry fan club. I also think that Kerry has been very good when on talk shows answering any questions. I think that it's not just his intelligence or eloquence, but the fact that he really does seem to try to always do what he thinks is right - so the sincerity that he projects is real.

[paulk]

9. for me, it's not that the LW press didn't have to be the Kerry Fan Club

it's that they were just as guilty as the right in willfully misstating Kerry's positions. So, when it comes right down to it, they weren't doing their jobs.

These people don't set themselves up as impartial journalists - they have an admitted bias. And they're just as guilty as the right in letting that bias color their reporting.

[TayTay]

10. Everybody is.

And WEL and everyone else who is pissed at the lefty press has a point. I can see that.

They are snarky as hell. (Personally, I think they are semi-sane. This happens when you know things that are truly awful and you try and scream real loud and jump up and down and point to these awful things and nobody hears you. It unsettles your mental state and they get snarky and insulting and pissy and talk to themselves a lot in public.)

Ahm, I never said I would invite these people over to my house to play with my dog, but they serve a purpose. And I am not afraid of them. In fact, the best defense on any reporting is to confront it head-on.

[karynnj]

11. I agree with you on that

The LW reporters and columnists who for some unknown reason misstated positions and repeated the RW lies are inexcusable. I am endlessly annoyed with Frank Rich and his constant need to repeat the RW's stupid characterizations of Kerry as somehow effeminate.

I think the problem may be the same as Kerry's "problem" with the MSM - he really doesn't pander to the press and he genuinely has a core set of beliefs. Both of these SHOULD be pluses. I also think that because of his history, the LW press held his IWR vote against him more than they did against others.

I was talking about the fact that I find even the fairer negative comments hard to take - I think because there is still pain in losing - that I didn't feel after Gore or McGovern lost.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Well, then they need to choose between serious journalism and snark

You can't be a serious journalist with all these snarky asides. Jon Stewart pulls it off - because he has a show on Comedy Central and has never, ever purported to be a journalist. Do Palast and Goodman want to be muckrakers, or do they want to be Jon Stewart, replete with his popularity (and profitable booksales)?

You know why no one takes Palast and Goodman and Moore and their lot seriously? Because in their strain to be oh-so-clever, they marginalize themselves. If they weren't so obsessed with maintaining this "too hip for DC" facade and snarking incessantly about anyone remotely connected with DC politics (because, you know, everyone who works within the beltway is automatically one of "them", a corrupt corporate swine :eyes: ), they might get taken seriously for the real, credible truths they DO uncover.

Fahrenheit 9/11 would've gone over so much better if Michael Moore hadn't been at the helm, just because his very presence, and his insistence on doing stupid shit like riding around in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act out loud, instantly reduces him to a joke in the eyes of all but the most partisan Democrats and left wingers (ie, us).

Greg Palast sold this ridiculous deck of cards a couple of years ago, featuring Bush's face on the jokers and other various neocon ne'er do wells throughout (oh, and Al Gore and the DNC, too - there's that infuriating tendency to equate Dems and Repukes). There were some interesting tidbits about various Repukes on these cards, but who's gonna take a deck of cards with Bush's face as the joker as serious journalism? No one.

If there's one thing ordinary Americans hate, it's wackos, lunatics, and fringe extremists. This is, by the by, a very moderate country, at least in terms of how it views itself. Now, the MSM has convinced people that Bushco is not extreme, and so the uproar against them isn't as deafening as it should be. But the people who have the facts that could conceivably prove to people just how wicked and evil Bushco is are too busy making themselves look like lunatic fringe wackjobs. What a winning strategy :eyes:

Truth is nice, and it's nice when even lunatics like Palast and Moore manage to uncover it. But no one takes the Fool seriously, and as long as Moore and co. continue to act like ridiculous court jesters with their too-cool snark and their stupid decks of Bush cards, the truth they tell will keep on being ignored by all but the most partisan.

[TayTay]

13. Good points

And I think we have arrived, again, at a draw. (Ahm, I have the Greg Palast set of cards. I like them. Ah, different tastes for different people.)

So, how ya been? (I'm not posting any more on this. I made my points, you made yours and it's subjective from here on out.) What ya been up to? How come we don't hear from you. (You've activated my maternal side dearie.)

I'm sorry that Kerry was not in DC when you visited. That sucks.

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. I've been fine

I've cut way down on my internet surfing, so DU posting has decreased accordingly. I do try to check into the group every day, to see what's going on with my favorite hottie, but I don't post a lot any more. Maybe when school starts again and I once again spend every night ensconced in front of my computer, I'll post more. (Unless my actual, you know, school gets in the way.)

And due to my contrary nature, I can't resist one final comment: of course the Palast cards appeal to you - hell, part of them appeals to me. But they're not going to appeal to Joe American, who, unlike us, DOESN'T know what lying sacks of shit the neocons are. And that's exactly who NEEDS to know. Preaching to the choir, while satisfying on several levels, doesn't accomplish much.

There, I'm done :P