Greenwald’s latest post is a love song for Dennis Kucinich. Essentially, Greenwald argues that Kucinich has been a staunch advocate against executive power, drones, and secret wars, and that “establishment Democrats” ignore these principled stances in favor of mockery, derision and scorn for Kucinich’s New Age/alien talk.
I suppose that’s one way to look at it. But here’s another way: Kucinich’s voting record stinks and he’s a terrible Democrat.
Personally, I don’t care about the alien/New Age talk (except to the extent that such talk made him unelectable by the public at large). What I care about is his record on reproductive rights — it’s terrible. Ultimately, Kucinich is a pro-life Catholic who flip-flopped to pro-choice in order to win elections, and I’m simply not cool with that.
From PBS Newshour:
JUDY WOODRUFF: This is a different subject area. Just this week, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis said that he would deny communion to any presidential candidate who is Catholic who favors abortion rights, as you do. Does this in any way make you rethink your position on abortion or rethink the Catholic Church?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, no. And let me just tell you something. Much of my public policy comes from what I’ve learned as growing up Catholic. My economic policies were deeply informed by Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, by encyclicals of Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio. And so I have a deep respect for the Catholic Church.
On the issue of abortion, I think that we need to do everything we can to make abortion less necessary. And I think you can do that through promoting birth control, through making sure that you have prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, universal health care, a living wage.
I think I’m the one candidate for president who can help heal this nation in this intense divide over abortion by recognizing the concerns that people have, including in the Catholic Church, about abortions, but by creating circumstances where abortions are less likely to occur. So I think it’s time for a president who brings a healing hand to this country on this issue.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Four years ago, you changed your position, is that right, on abortion?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know what? It was long before I ran for president the first time that I came to an understanding of how this issue was tearing America apart and how it’s possible to simultaneously stand for a woman’s right to choose and, at the same time, work to make abortions less likely. I think it’s possible to do both.
We’re called upon, those of us who run for president, to have a kind of wisdom which comes from understanding what people go through, not that I’m smarter than anyone else, but I understand the kind of difficulties that people have, how complicated life can be for people.
So when you come with the intention of not rejecting the teachings of the church, but of trying to create a society where the concerns of the church are given full effect and, at the same time, make sure that women have this right to choose so that they can — and create a society where women can choose what is best not only for themselves, but for the society, as well.
I think a president who takes that approach is someone who can heal this great divide which the issue of abortion has created.
Greenwald’s article, of course, focuses only on the differences between the Assassinator-in-Chief and the lovable quirky Kucinich that Greenwald finds important: Kucinich’s opposition to the Iraq War (an opposition that Greenwald himself grew into after he finally “abandoned his trust in the Bush administration“) and efforts to bring to justice those responsible for prosecuting it. For these principled civil liberties stance, Greenwald lauds Kucinich for being “one of those rare people in Washington whose committment to his beliefs outweighed both his loyalty to his Party and his desperation to cling to office.”
Uh… ok. I suppose.
If civil liberties is your bailiwick, then Kucinich seems like a great guy. But Kucinich was shit on women’s issues and women’s health, and only flip-flopped to being pro-choice when he decided to run for president — that is of paramount importance to me. Indeed, Kucinich was so desperate to grab the brass presidential ring that he ignored his Catholic upbringing and began spouting the sorts of platitudes that are the main staple of the closeted pro-lifer diet: No more abortions than are necessary. I understand the concerns of the Catholic Church. Pick me.
From Katha Pollitt in a 2002 article entitled “Regressive Progressive”:
One thing you won’t find on Kucinich’s website […] is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush’s reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers–a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised–the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart–Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked–freedom of speech for foreign health organizations–he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.
Kucinich attempted to undo his damaging and anti-progressives views on women’s reproductive justice with a pithy “I believe life begins at conception and that it doesn’t end at birth.” (Whatever the hell that means.)
Sorry. That’s not good enough.
Do you know who has never stated that he doesn’t “believe in the substance of Roe v. Wade”? President Obama.
Do you know who said “nope, zero” when the GOP wanted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood? President Obama.
Do you know whose administration stepped in when the New Hampshire GOP defunded Planned Parenthood and provided funding so that underprivileged New Hampshire women could continue to obtain contraception? President Obama’s.
Or what about when President Obama promised to veto the GOP’s “Let Women Die” bill? Need I go on?
You see, at a this point in time when Republicans are trying to travel back in time to the glory days when gals just put an aspirin between their knees; when Republicans are trying to force foreign objects into a woman’s vagina under the guise of “Right to Know and See” or “Informed Consent” while simultaneously permitting doctors to withhold prenatal medical information because such information might lead to abortion; when Republicans are trying to pass bills that allow women’s health decisions to be subject to the religious whims of employers and health insurers; when the “no taxes increases ever” Norquist-boot-lickers turn around and attempt to levy a sales tax on women who seek abortions, I only have one response: Screw you.
I don’t care whether Kucinich was against the Iraq War or not. I was, too. I don’t care that he doesn’t like Obama’s policy of “targeted assassinations of American citizens without due process far from any battlefield.” I don’t either. So why should I miss Kucinich? Why would I want more Kuciniches?
Greenwald’s accolades which attempt to shame “party loyalists” —
In sum, Kucinich was one of the those rare people in Washington whose commitment to his beliefs outweighed both his loyalty to his Party and his desperation to cling to political office. He thus often highlighted the severe flaws, deceit and cowardice of his fellow Democrats and their Party as well as the broader political class. That’s why he has to be vilified as crazy and wacky. He’s long been delivering an unpleasant message about the Democratic Party and Washington generally, and like all unwanted messengers, has to be dismissed and marginalized so that this criticism disappears. Thus, those who brought us the Iraq War, Endless War in general, citizen assassinations, the systematic incineration of the Constitution known as the War on Terror, the financial collapse, the destruction of the middle class, and the financial and political supremacy of banker-criminals are sane and respectable. Those who most vehemently opposed those assaults, like Dennis Kucinich, are the “wackiest.”
Such self-affirming pronouncements will make those who passively acquiesced to all those policies and who support the politicians who brought them to us feel much better: sure, Kucinich stood stalwartly against them all and warned us of their dangers while I cheer for politicians who bring us these things, but he believes in UFOs and impeachment and a Department of Peace. What a wackjob. That’s what the “crazy” insult enables and why it’s so popular in the halls of political and media Seriousness.
— ultimately amount to bupkis. Greenwald is simply tsk-tsking the reviled party loyalists and cultists for not adhering to his view of how good progressives should behave, and, yet again, he prioritizes his pet issue. In so doing, Greenwald dresses up Kucinich as a courageous leader while ignoring the many ways in which Kucinich was not only a failure, but also kind of a douche.
Finally, Greenwald’s swipe at President Obama’s faith wildly misses the mark. Had he done a whit of research into the president’s personal beliefs, Greenwald would have realized that President Obama’s faith and turn to Christianity was grounded in community, black history, and the Civil Rights Movement, and not in a belief that “Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead and will soon welcome him to heaven,” as Greenwald claims.
As President Obama explained in 2004:
OBAMA: The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn’t have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community.
So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. The princely sum. And I drove out here and I didn’t know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or after school programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to under served communities.
This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities.
And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I’d be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around.
I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.
And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply.
So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.
FALSANI: Did you actually go up for an altar call?
OBAMA: Yes. Absolutely. ?It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.
FALSANI: How long ago?
OBAMA: Sixteen, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88.
FALSANI: So you got yourself born again?
OBAMA: Yeah, although I don’t — I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up, a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.
I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.
FALSANI: Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA: Yep. Every week. Eleven o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.
So there you have it. One can laud Dennis Kucinich in an honest way, and Greenwald simply hasn’t done that. If you want to be honest while criticizing people for not liking your guy, it’s a good idea to be honest about exactly who your guy is, and to not spout unsourced falsehoods about who the other guy is. Your guy is an opportunist who after damaging the cause of reproductive justice for eight years because of his Catholic beliefs, pivoted to the more women-friendly position to garner votes. As Zandar aptly put it, he’s a useful idiot.
(h/t Fred Clarke at slacktivisthttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/21/a-personal-testimony-cathleen-falsani-interviews-state-sen-barack-obama-in-2004/ for Obama interview)
[cross-posted at ABLC]
Daaling
You didn’t even hit on the most important point of all ABL v3.01beta2.
In his whole time in office I don’t think he has successfully passed a single bill. Not one. In fact I don’t think he has even had one come out of conference or whatever they call it where a smaller group first decides if it has a snowballs chance before releasing it to congress.
I don’t follow all the statistics but I believe he is actually one of the least productive Congressmen in history.
But…he says war is bad so Greenwald and Not Republican Cole and the rest of the firebaggers think he’s the bestests congressman ever……sigh. The stupid it burns.
Amanda in the South Bay
Greenwald specializes in framing things a certain way (I’m sure one of the benefits of having a fancy legal education) that results in a “pox on both your houses/both sides do it” with respect to the Democrats and Republicans.
Anyways, as you said, his votes on reproductive rights have been horrible (though for male civil libertarians that doesn’t matter) and his wackjob new age views make (by association) the Dems seem like crazy whackjobs.
boss bitch
I knew nothing about this. Wow!
Corner Stone
Yes, Kucinich is History’s Greatest Monster(tm).
Thanks
JoyousMN
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
Sorry to shout, but as a staunch liberal I have never been on the Kucinich band wagon. I think he has taken some positions that I like, but in general been pretty ineffectual. Hearing someone talk about his record on women’s right just helped cement my feelings.
I’m glad he’s gone.
boss bitch
@Daaling:
He’s passed a few fluffy bills or resolutions but nothing that represents his principles or worth remembering.
DougJarvus Green-Ellis
He was never an effective legislator. End of story.
gwangung
I think this is quite important. I don’t think outsiders are really cognizant of the role the church plays in the black community, just as they are not cognizant of how race itself plays out in the black community. It’s not exactly white privilege; anybody who spends ANY time in or around the black community gets it. It’s an insularity that just doesn’t get there are some parallels but they are not identical across the subcultures in America.
Greenwald is an outsider to the black community. I’m not sure he quite gets how far off he is on some of the suppositions he makes (which are not very well informed).
Tommybones
My God, did ABL HAVE to go after Greenwald again? Really? Over this? Fuck.
She simply can’t help herself. Absolutely obsessed with GG.
YAWN.
gwangung
@Tommybones: Didn’t read it, did you?
TFinSF
If Leni Riefenstahl were pro-choice, against the Iraq war, and in favor of effective legislation, this is exactly what she would write.
Thymezone
Kucinich is an attention-seeking horse’s ass.
No wonder Greenwald admires him.
Tommybones
Classic:
“Greenwald is simply tsk-tsking the reviled party loyalists and cultists for not adhering to his view of how good progressives should behave, and, yet again, he prioritizes his pet issue. In so doing, Greenwald dresses up Kucinich as a courageous leader while ignoring the many ways in which Kucinich was not only a failure, but also kind of a douche.”
Let’s just change a few words, for fun:
Spiffy McBang
I thought Kaptur was still worse on women’s issues. 30% from NARAL? I don’t think those group scores mean much in general, but that’s really bad for anyone tagged (D).
Yutsano
@gwangung: Call me crazy, but I’m gonna go with no. And the Glennbots defend their Dear Leader with all the fibres of their being.
dporpentine
Try asking Obama whether he believes “Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead and will soon welcome him to heaven.” Try it. If he says he doesn’t believe in either of the first two, he won’t be president the next day.
He’s said repeatedly that he’s a Christian. Belief in those things are fundamental to Christianity. You basically can’t have the one without the other.
What you’re saying is essentially what Franklin Graham was saying: Obama’s a fake Christian.
Seems to me that Greenwald’s take is considerably more respectful of Obama.
mothra
I had not heard that Obama quote about the church before. It’s an excellent description of liberal Christian theology…so different from the Santorum/700 Club version of the Gospel!
Corner Stone
If you believe a word ProgressivePunch says, then Kucinich may have just been History’s Second Greatest Monster(tm).
Lynn Dee
Hear, hear. Agree, agree and agree some more.
eemom
ah, a Sunday afternoon in early springtime…..an ABL post smashing Greenwald over Kucinich…..a thousand comment flame war sure to ensue….
[reclines on pillows, glass in hand, nibbling bonbons]
This is the life.
Spectre
Another incoherent diatribe from the resident Authoritarian. Her argument basically comes down to this:
1. ABL claims Greenwald is wrong because he defends Kucinich’s stated positions.
2. ABL claims what really matters is Kucinich’s voting record.
3. ABL claims that his voting record doesn’t follow the current Democrat line, so it’s bad.
4. ABL claims that Kucinich’s current voting record on abortion (which does follow the DNC line) doesn’t count, because of his previously stated position.
Premise 4 contradicts premises 2 and 3, and leaves premise 1 unsupportable. Thus, ABL’s “argument” collapses into absurdity.
As usual, it’s a mistake to expect a logical argument from the person who accused this website of being racist, and accused the site owner of laughing at rape victims. Only to come write here again in defense of the authoritarian president.
Digusting.
Frankensteinbeck
All you have to read to know GG is full of it here is the passage where he says the Dems wanted to kick out Kucinich because Kucinich opposed the financial collapse. Libertarian ‘everyone in goverment is evil’ in action, right there.
Mary
You are right Spiffy McBang. Kaptur was part of the Stupak gang. And that was when I lost all respect for my congress critter. Had I still lived in the district I would have voted for Kucinich.
Tommybones
ABL rips Greenwald for focusing on his “pet issues” by, in turn, focusing on her “pet issues.”
Brilliant.
mothra
dporpentine: the key word in your post is “fundamental”. There is more to Christianity than fundamentalist theology.
Spectre
@DougJarvus Green-Ellis:
Not an effective legislator? Are you one of those people that thinks congress is about persuasion? What wonderful, child like, bewilderment you must live in.
Kucinich didn’t get bills passed, not because of a lack of trying, but rather because your part, and the republican party, are both bought and paid for vehicles for corporate power.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
But but he saw a UFO.
On the congress front, I can see where Kucinich is derided by most mainstream dems and liberals. He is more entertainer than serious legislator. I just think Dennis is and has been mostly irrelevant in a body with 435 members. And is largely full of shit but a character you can’t easily ignore when he really wants to get your attention. And thereby, I can see why Greenwald likes him, having those same characteristics. Neither registers much on my daily radar until they stick their asses far enough into the national and center left dialogue. Or get themselves on teevee, or on this blog. Clowns, what you gonna do with them? Except point and laugh, mostly.
Omnes Omnibus
Kucinich was a very good opposition Congressman. He is a great gadfly. As a member of a majority coalition, he was less effective.
Spectre
@gwangung:
That was actually the stupidest part of ABL’s rant. Greenwald described what Christians believe. Her saying “he doesn’t understand how Obama came to this belief!”
is a non-sequitur.Ridiculous Christian beliefs about the cosmic zombie, are as silly as UFOs and New Age stuff.
Probably sillier, in fact. Her cynicism in invoking “GREENWALD DOESNT KNOW THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT!1!!”, is breath taking.
Shawn in ShowMe
@dporpentine:
According to modern scholarship, there’s scant evidence for a historical Jesus and he was most likely a metaphorical construct. So I guess the earliest Christians weren’t real Christians eiteher.
Corner Stone
@DougJarvus Green-Ellis:
Who’s the most effective legislator in the House currently not in a leadership role?
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus:
Based on what? He has an overall lifetime Progressive score of over 90%.
He did all that in the opposition?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Though it is always entertaining when one of the emoprog royalty gets slammed on BJ, feathers fly, and this one is a two fer. Sunday afternoons,
portlander
So, full disclosure, I like Kucinich though I don’t see him as a hero or saint. And maybe someone has tackled this point but:
See, I am cool with that. I am cool with a politician stating “this is my belief but I don’t think it’s right for me as a politician to force that belief on a population that doesn’t share it.” Personally I wish we had more of that, not less.
I also think Kucinich makes democrats feel bad because he’s continued to oppose expansion of the police/military state while many democrats have not, and thus must be made a figure of ridicule.
fasteddie9318
Can we agree that Dennis was a shit legislator, bad Democrat, ineffective purity troll, etc., with regressive views on women’s health, while still acknowledging that civil liberties are, you know, kind of important and ought not be so easily dismissed as somebody’s ”bailiwick”?
gwangung
@Spectre:
That was an EXTREMELY stupid and culture deaf thing for YOU to say, sir/madam.
I would think you might want to re-think that. And be less ethnocentric.
FlipYrWhig
Greenwald is dressing up Kucinich as… Greenwald. The principled guy who’s always right but establishment quislings want to silence him because he’s so courageous and insightful that they have to try to ridicule him instead.
Tommybones
@fasteddie9318:
Caring about civil liberties is so 2008….
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: How much of his congressional career was spent in the majority? Hint: not much.
I don’t have a problem with him. I just happen to think he was a more effective in the gadfly role while in opposition than he was as a legislator in the majority. He was not a guy who sponsored legislation and/or shepherded through the House to ultimate passage. Those folks exist; Kucinich wasn’t one of them.
gwangung
This is an exceedingly ill-informed statement, treating all sects of Christianity, as Graham did, as essentially the same.
That doesn’t match up with the reality that I see.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ok, who are they then?
Clime Acts
@Thymezone:
So much tribal stupid.
Please name a Senator or Congressperson who is NOT the same.
Please name a president who is not the same.
Please name a blogger named Cole or ABL who is not the same.
Oh, I’m sorry…I forgot that ABL blogs purely for humanitarian reasons, and in no way seeks attention while doing so.
ABL 2.0
@Spectre:
except that’s not what i said. not even close. i don’t think greenwald understands the connection between black churches and the civil rights movement, and such a claim is neither breathtaking nor worthy of all-caps. then again, your summation of what i said is pretty absurd, so there’s that, too.
existential fish
Greenwald’s critique is sort of academically interesting, but it means absolutely nothing to anyone in either of Kucinich’s past districts. And for his part, Greenwald doesn’t even try to make his critique relevant.
Which is, uh, why he lost.
And I say that as someone who was represented by Kucinich for ten years.
Tommybones
What irritates me the most is how ABL feels she must always rip GG for having at one time, no doubt through ignorance, backed Bush in the initial build-up to the Iraq war. Once he educated himself on the issue, he changed his opinion.
Why is that worthy of criticism? We aren’t all born with ultimate knowledge. I would think someone educating himself and realizing his erroneous opinion would be commendable, not something to ridicule.
It’s just silly….
Unless ABL wants us to believe she has never been wrong about an issue at first, only to discover information which changed her mind? Is she that arrogant?
FlipYrWhig
@Omnes Omnibus: Leaving aside the parts about religion and wackiness, Greenwald’s praise for him really does amount to saying that it is as good, if not better, to be a gadfly on issues than to legislate new policies on them. I don’t buy that.
ABL 2.0
@portlander:
that might make sense if kucinich’s voting record on women’s issues wasn’t shit:
he apparently walked back those positions for his presidential run. I don’t see why i’m supposed to think he’s so principled.
eco2geek
So I go to Salon.com and skim over a post by GG, whose point is to defend Dennis Kucinich (an Ohio Dem!) against those in the Democratic party establishment calling him a nut job for his anti-war views. Then it’s over to Balloon Juice to, yes indeedy, find a post by ABL trashing GG for his defence of Kucinich, and trashing Kucinich for his anti-abortion views.
And once again, beneath the whole argument, there’s this “she’s pro-Obama, he’s anti-Obama” undercurrent.
This is getting predictable.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Mitt Romney of the left?
FlipYrWhig
@existential fish: That’s also a good point. The point of being a member of the House of Representatives is to represent the people of your district. If they don’t like the way you do that, expect to be shown the door. Regardless of your “principles” on deeper, ideological matters. Being mocked doesn’t end political careers. Look at Louie Gohmert.
If Kucinich is a great spokesperson for civil liberties issues, maybe he should be with a think tank instead of representing a single district in Ohio.
Spectre
@ABL 2.0:
Such a claim is stupid, and irrelevant. Greenwald argued that both beliefs are absurd. How one came to these beliefs is irrelevant to the absurdity of these beliefs. Do you get it now? Do I need to draw it out in crayon?
Also pretty telling how you didn’t respond to that part of my post, nor the post where I outlined how your “argument” breaks down in self contradiction.
I guess I’d be ignoring things too if I had to defend the same nonsense.
Zandar
But hey, I notice while a lot of mofos have opinions up in here, nobody’s really disputing the fact that Kucinich’s voting record stinks and he’s a terrible Democrat, only whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
Get a friggin clue, “principled progressives”. There’s the Dems, and there’s the GOP. If you’re not with the Dems…
Omnes Omnibus
@FlipYrWhig: That’s why I pointed out that Kucinich was most effective while in opposition. Opposition party members don’t get to do much legislating. Generally, they are pointing out what the majority is doing wrong and saying how it should be done differently. Kucinich did this well.
@Corner Stone: Pelosi and Hoyer for starters.
Chuck Butcher
You can obsess over voting records and miss the actual point if you don’t check the outcome regarding pass/fail and margins. My own congresscritter Walden R-OR2 has voted on (D) measures that were good for OR, but they also were going to pass/fail without his participation – he is a line (R) voter down to the most RW bullshit. Walden would never cast an opposing vote that counted in a pass/fail situation. That is politics, the Parties let it go for visuals. Kucinich got to make his stand and the Party got to look like it pays some attention to that stand.
None of that makes me a Kucinich fanboi, it is simply a matter of accuracy regarding him. Having your name as author of legislation doesn’t mean you’ve done all the grunt work or written by yourself and Kucinich has a reputation as a hard worker. I have had serious issues with Kucinich stands – but I will be accurate about it.
Tommybones
@ABL 2.0:
In other words, GG focused on Kucinich’s positions on topics he finds most important, while you focused on Kucinich’s positions on topics you find most important.
Meanwhile, GG’s main argument was based on supposed liberals and Democrats ripping him for his positions on the FORMER, not the LATTER, thus making your response a strawman.
Democrat A: “Kucinich is a whackjob because he was against Obama’s position on murdering U.S. citizens without due process.”
GG: This criticism is absurd and wrong
ABL: GG is wrong because Kucinich has a bad history in regard to women’s issues.
Strawman 101.
FlipYrWhig
@ABL 2.0: Because “civil liberties” is THE “principle.” Everything else is just politics. That’s pretty clearly how Greenwald sees it.
Daaling
Typical firebaggers. They love him for what he says and ignore the fact he has done NOTHING! Zero!
Just like Greenwald who loves to talk passionately about Americana bread and butter stuff from undisclosed locations in Switzerland and Brazil. All talk.
For all his big talk is Greenwald walking the streets protesting war? Did he camp out at occupy wall street? He seems so concerned with the poor but has he ever volunteered to help out at a United Way?
Name ONE thing Greenwald has done to show he walks the talk? Just like Kucinich…there is none!
FlipYrWhig
@Chuck Butcher:
I don’t follow these things as closely as I should, admittedly, but I don’t think I’ve heard that before. The only Congressperson I feel like I have heard consistently described as a hard worker is Henry Waxman. Maybe Jim Clyburn. But I don’t even really know what kinds of things a hard-working Congressperson would do. Be on a lot of committees? Wrangle votes from holdouts? What are we talking about here? I truly don’t know. You’ve been a lot closer to the action than I ever have.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Omnes Omnibus:
After we’ve ushered in massive Democratic majorities in both houses, we can afford the luxuries of gadflies like Kucinich and Feingold. But when the neighborhood is on fire, we need put people who will help put it out. Instead these guys think it’s more important to sit on the sidelines until there’s been a full investigation into the cause of the fire, secure in the knowledge that their homes are surrounded by force fields.
Tommybones
I can’t believe Cole let ABL back in here. She brings this entire site down.
ABL 2.0
@Spectre: it’s not irrelevant or stupid as a response to your point which was itself stupid and irrelevant.
as for the rest of it, i did respond. i said it was absurd. i’m not going to rewrite my post to demonstrate the absurdity of your comment. i suggest you learn to read for meaning.
ABL 2.0
ETA: deleted my comment. i’m not feeding this troll.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus:
Someone who is not in party leadership please.
FlipYrWhig
@Tommybones:
This isn’t even close:
It’s more like:
Democrat A: “Dennis Kucinich seems kind of out there, with his Department of Peace and his UFO encounter stories.”
GG: Democrat A is an Establishment Democrat tearing down Kucinich because of his brave stances on civil liberties. He only talks about Kucinich being weird in order to dismiss his views on everything else. Also, Christians are no less weird than he is.
ABL: Maybe Democrat A doesn’t like Kucinich because he’s lousy on other issues, such as reproductive rights.
Omnes Omnibus
@Shawn in ShowMe: Both Feingold and Kucinich had pretty good records for voting with the party. I am not a fan of demanding lockstep ideological conformity. That being said, I would have voted for Kaptur over Kucinich were I in that district.
eemom
Another inconvenient fact about Kucinich that the purity trolls are loathe to address is his defense of mass slaughterer Bashar when the Syrian uprising began last year.
Yep. Real civil rights hero ya got there, fuckwits.
ABL 2.0
@FlipYrWhig: you broke it down like a fraction!
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Is there a point you are looking to make? If so, please make it.
Tommybones
@ABL 2.0:
Golly, now that you mention it, yes, it sucks to be me because where you post has such an enormous effect on my life. You are truly THAT important.
Seriously… “sucks to be you”? What are you, three years old?
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: Obvious to everyone but you. Please indicate who is an effective House legislator for the D party who is not in the #1 or #2 position in party leadership. It’s not hard to whip votes when you’ve got goodies to trade for them.
You’re making a claim, I’m asking you to back it up.
Clime Acts
@Tommybones:
He has an emo/codependent/self destructive streak a mile wide. ABL is the perfect enabler for him.
What I can’t believe is that ABL, the queen of integrity, is posting on a blog run by someone she herself called a racist and a pro-rape.
Wait a minute…thinking back…oh, wait, yes I CAN believe it. Never mind.
FlipYrWhig
@Shawn in ShowMe: Come to think of it, I’m not sure Kucinich IS much of a gadfly. He just seems like a guy who does his own thing. I can’t think of many Democratic or liberal gadflies on par with, say, Peter King, a go-to media presence for right-wing views on issues related to terrorism. OK, Barney Frank is one. Others?
Kucinich strikes me as more unpredictable and sui generis.
Tommybones
For those of you wondering what post ABL just deleted and why… she said John Cole “begged her to return,” before closing with “sucks to be you.”
You think maybe, just maybe she thought embarrassing Cole like that was a mistake? Or did she delete it because she “doesn’t want to feed this troll”?
lol. Classic.
“JOHN COLE BEGGED ME TO COME BACK”
ABL 2.0
@Tommybones: realizing the childishness of my comment, i deleted it.
i’ll simply say this: you are free to continue keening about how i’m bringing the site down, but a more intelligent person would simply scroll past my posts. your choice.
Clime Acts
@Tommybones:
Quoting for posterity. Tommybones, did you get a screen capture by any chance?
Clime Acts
@ABL 2.0:
So ABL, did JC beg you to come back or not?
Whether you lied or told the truth, the fact that you posted that comment here on Cole’s blog tells us a lot about the core level of disrespect with which you regard him…
…which is useful to know.
FlipYrWhig
@Omnes Omnibus: I feel like Kaptur is getting a bad rap in this discussion. Somewhere I saw her get tagged as a DINO. Isn’t she a fairly typical Rust Belt Democrat, pro-life but also pro-labor? A DINO in my book is more like Evan Bayh.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: I offered my opinion that Kucinich was a more effective opposition gadfly than mover of legislation. It is a comparative opinion not a criticism of Kucinich.
Corner Stone
@Tommybones:
Is that even possible anymore? I mean, embarrassing Cole?
Tommybones
@Clime Acts:
Nope. Didn’t think she would actually delete it. Wish I had….
ABL 2.0
@Tommybones: HA! because surely that would have embarrassed Cole. You’re hilarious.
ABL 2.0
@Clime Acts: ask him. shocking though it may seem to you, cole and i are friends. we talk on the phone fairly regularly and everything.
stop being silly.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: Not to speak for OO, but Barney Frank and Henry Waxman came to my mind in a parallel discussion about hardworking Democrats, whether in the majority or in the opposition.
Clime Acts
@Corner Stone:
Wow. Even I am shocked that she revealed herself by writing that comment to Tommybones.
Full stop. End of story (and any other appropriate ABL/DougJ argument-ending profundity).
Tommybones
@ABL 2.0:
Whether embarrassed or not, he would know you disrespected him on his own blog in a childish way. Own it.
ABL 2.0
@Clime Acts: silly it is, then!
i’ve got nothing more to add. i’m too busy laughing at you.
Clime Acts
@ABL 2.0:
oooh, aaah…how impressive.
Do you call ALL your friends racist and pro-rape in public forums?
Sly
@ABL 2.0:
Sean Penn gives him money!
That, I think, was his downfall. Kucinich eschewed serving his constituency and became dependent on outside sources of campaign revenue. The upside was he could outspend a Republican challenger five to one. The downside is that he had very little in terms of a domestic base of support. People want their representatives to actually represent them. People can be funny that way.
@FlipYrWhig:
Constituent services, committee work, writing/co-writing amendments, etc. A lot of this stuff is delegated to staff, while the Congressperson essentially sets the priorities and the schedule through his or her Chief of Staff.
Wrangling votes is done by the Majority/Minority Whips, and they’re probably the hardest working elected officials in Congress. The hardest working people in Congress are probably on their respective staffs. Barney Frank once remarked that politics entails working with people you would much rather smack. I imagine that Steny Hoyer’s Chief of Staff would like to smack a lot of people.
For the rank-and-file, Joe Sestak developed a reputation while in the House for putting people on his staff through the meat-grinder. As just a small taste of what working for him was like, he required that everyone applying for a job on his staff read a book by Guy Kawasaki that posits the surest way to success is through an 80 hour work week. And his office has the among the smallest of budgets for staff salaries.
Not a guy I would want to work for, personally, but it did earn him recognition as the most productive freshman representative of his class. And he’d still be better than the Junior Senator from the Club for Growth, Pat Toomey.
ABL 2.0
@Tommybones: sure, ok. i’ll call him and apologize at which point he will laugh at me.
move on to another post. you’re making yourself look foolish.
Clime Acts
@ABL 2.0:
Oh good. Then I look forward to your absence here.
Clime Acts
@ABL 2.0:
Yeah, Tommybones, move along…nothing to see here…
David Koch
@eemom: Quite the opposite. Kucinich blamed the slaughter on the protesters and exonerated Assad.
http://mediakit.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/dennis-kucinich-syria-problem
Tommybones
Did Cole actually drop to his knees when he begged ABL to return? Did he plead, fingers crossed, hands raised to the skies? Did he kiss her feet? I’m curious as to what form this begging actually took.
Bruce S
I’m not a Kucinich fan, and I’m glad Kaptur (who is STILL more anti-choice than “100% Naral” Kucinich is, incidentally, if we want to live in the real world here, rather than self-satisfied rhetoric) won the district. But the failure to mention Kaptur’s very mixed record as an opponent of abortion and a lukewarm supporter of choice in certain cases makes this post at least as dishonest and suspect as Greenwald’s rant. (But that’s the deal with the ABL vs. The Firebaggers bullshit. They deserve each other IMHO and are equally disingenuous, obsessed and ultimately trivial.)
“Kucinich may be good liberal, but he’s literally the worst Democrat” (Zandar link)
More to the point that formulation quoted above rather starkly outs one as a partisan hack who doesn’t give a shit about liberal principles. That a balance needs to be struck is Politics 101. But God forbid that the Democratic Party devolve into partisan centralism that demonizes the outspoken critic who chooses to play the role of gadfly rather than march in lockstep. Politics is too fucked up structurally to just dismiss such folks as worthless is creepy, at best. And hinging this on Kucinich’s past rather than present record on choice is calculated bullshit, since Kaptur is still pretty bad. Of course, not being some kind of insane purist, I would have voted for Kaptur. Sounds like ABL would have had to sit that one out, rather than be a “good Democrat” since she seems to draw such a hard line on “what she’s cool with.”
As I punch submit, I’m sorry I wasted my time with this thread. Greenwald vs. ABL is about as deep into circular hysterics and half-truths as it gets…
Omnes Omnibus
@FlipYrWhig: They are ranking members/committee chairs in waiting are therefore part of the leadership. CS wants me to name a non-leadership effective legislator. It is actually hard to do since the two (leadership and legislating) go hand in hand in a chicken/egg sort of way.
The fact is that I don’t think shepherding legislation is the only valid role for a member of congress. In a thread last night, I noted that, while John Kerry is not known for legislation, he has used the investigative powers he has a committee chair quite effectively to affect policy. Similarly, I think Kucinich was good at what he did.
Clime Acts
@Tommybones:
Sadly, I don’t doubt that in some form ABL’s claim is true. I bet Cole DID beg her to come back.
He needs the abuse in some twisted, desperate way.
Chuck Butcher
@FlipYrWhig:
What Kucinich’s votes have meant is quantifiable, but it is easier to just bullshit. His rep is not quantifiable, it is my understanding that he did a great deal of grunt work that doesn’t get acknowledgement for any of those that do it. Yes, all of the above.
I just prefer that people get kicked/lauded on the basis of actuality. In a Marcy v Dennis I’d have had to think about it pretty hard because both have what I consider rank stupidity as stands.
ABL 2.0
@Clime Acts: oh it’s Tim/Kola. I had my suspicions.
Boring.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus:
I asked DougJ the same question.
My larger point is it’s easy to slag someone who doesn’t have a lot of bills named after them for not being an “effective legislator” as DougJ put it.
And it’s even easier to point at Pelosi and Hoyer as being effective, but I think that’s not entirely accurate.
It sounds a lot like the whole “Kthug is teh smart at teh econ but teh stoopid at teh politics” meme that runs so rampant here at BJ.
The easy knock on DK is that he’s kooky. Well, why is that exactly? It reminds me of when people say that Hillary was “so divisive”, yeah, I wonder why they felt that is?
Mainly because we’ve heard the same tropes again and again and now people rely on them as starting points for easy criticism.
I’m just asking for some balance on someone who has a 90% score as a progressive legislator.
And contra to what Drone Boy likes to posit, I don’t think we should so easily discount “liberal no votes” on only 10 pieces of legislation in 2009 as a way to judge an entire career in the House.
I don’t hold a brief for DK but I find this whole series to be specious and shit’s fucked up and bullshit.
Thymezone
@Clime Acts:
The only way I can understand your post is to assume that you are saying “Everyone is a horse’s ass.”
I’m sorry, but I think George Carlin already made that point when he said that the problem with pretty much everything is other people.
Of course, his version was funny, and yours is just dumb.
gwangung
Fair comment.
Also, fair, I think is that if a candidate has a few “rank stupidities” among their stands, that probably would provide ample grounds for some people for not supporting them as ABL has.
PNW Warrior Woman
Superb analysis. There’s a reason why he couldn’t get a single iota of traction here in Western Washington…this is it. Washington State is debating the Reproductive Parity Act in the state legislature. K doesn’t fit WA State core values. Didn’t then, doesn’t now. Buh-bye Dennis!
PNW Warrior Woman
Superb analysis. There’s a reason why he couldn’t get a single iota of traction here in Western Washington…this is it. Washington State is debating the Reproductive Parity Act in the state legislature. K doesn’t fit WA State core values. Didn’t then, doesn’t now. Buh-bye Dennis!
PNW Warrior Woman
Superb analysis. There’s a reason why he couldn’t get a single iota of traction here in Western Washington…this is it. Washington State is debating the Reproductive Parity Act in the state legislature. K doesn’t fit WA State core values. Didn’t then, doesn’t now. Buh-bye Dennis!
David Koch
If Kucinich had spent most of his life opposing gay rights, only to conveniently flip-flop to make a self aggrandizing presidential run, no one, especially greenwald, would forgive him.
But it was only women’s rights that Kucinich opposed, which is something gay yuppie nerds could care less about. True progressives, indeed.
Robert Green
being a christian means you believe some absolutely insane shit. period. that’s part of the gig. you may also believe some lovely things, and i learned all sorts of protest from quakers, unitarians, and catholics for free choice as a child. but even as a child, all i could think was “so you say jesus was a liberal, and they say he was a conservative, in both cases using him to prop up your pre-existing beliefs.” what a fucking crock of shit.
there is not sky fairy. there is no “blood of christ”. to believe these things is to believe nonsense.
obama is an exceptionally intelligent human being. it is EXTREMELY difficult for me to believe that he thinks there’s a sky fairy running around omnipotentally making sure haiti is still poor or whatever the focus is.
here’s something i do know, having worked in politics all my life: to be able to get elected in certain places in the US, there are certain religious institutions filled with voters who will go to bat for you if you are a member. the south side of chicago is one of those places. the church that obama just happened to join as his political career was becoming something of importance to him just happened to be where a power base HAD to be built in that part of town. no choice. and obama joined. and grew a power base.
now, i’m for all of that–obama is great in many ways and speaks very well to the best of this country. BUT unlike ABL, i am able to keep TWO thoughts in my head at the same time, so i can believe that a) obama is a good person and b) obama is only a member of ANY church for reasons of politics, not faith.
b) is a supposition based on guesswork and not some insider knowledge, but it’s certainly not a crazy thing to think. i’ve known plenty of atheists in DC who had to pretend to be a member of some congregation to survive (and let’s not forget that GWB the lesser NEVER went to church and doesn’t now apparently either) and get re-elected, or elected in the first place.
to support b), i say that it is CLEAR to any of us that obama is a hyper-rationalist, and hyper-rationalists tend not to be religious.
Tommybones
@ABL 2.0:
What irritates me the most is how you feel you must always rip GG for having at one time, no doubt through ignorance, backed Bush in the initial build-up to the Iraq war. Once he educated himself on the issue, he changed his opinion.
Why is that worthy of criticism? We aren’t all born with ultimate knowledge. I would think someone educating himself and realizing his erroneous opinion would be commendable, not something to ridicule. Can you explain why it is you think he should be criticized for admitting he was wrong and changing his mind?
Bruce S
Spectre – March 11, 2012 | 4:58 pm · Link
@gwangung:
Sorry, but the fact is that Glenn Greenwald doesn’t have a fucking clue what Christians who are in the theological terrain of President Obama believe. This is just childish bullshit based on ignorance. It’s worthy of Christopher Hitchens’ describing contemporary “mainline” Christians in the theolotical tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King, which means it isn’t worth shit. Watch Rev. Al’s debate with Hitchens (you’ll have to google because I don’t have the link handy) wherein Hitchens describes a bunch of stuff he doesn’t believe in and Rev. Al says I don’t believe in this stuff you’ve just described either. Most of the “new atheists” have their heads up their asses and are jousting with fundamentalists who a large segment of Christians also consider ridiculous and, from my perspective, engaged in a “literalist” heresy that demeans religious faith. (I use the word “heresy” only because I feel obligated to meet these assholes on the only turf they are capable of understanding. Ricky S can kiss my ass in attempting to define the faith that he himself has degraded and reduced to mindless, self-serving babble.)
“robert green” above just proved my point, as I was typing, about the idiocy of so many anti-religious ranters. Totally ignorant. It’s pretty funny if you have anything resembling a clue about the contentious “diversity” of contemporary Christian theology.
Shawn in ShowMe
Omnes Omnibus:
If he’s not representing the interests of his people in his district and he’s too pure for sausage making and he isn’t influencing policy through committee investigations, then who exactly does he serve? He’s supposed to be a public servant. At least Kaptur will look out for the people in her district.
Thymezone
The easy knock on DK is that he’s kooky.
That’s because he is a nutty, narrow-minded jackass who stands out in a room full of nutty, narrow-minded jackasses, and does jackass things. Although I will say his wife is hot. But she is married to a nutty, narrow-minded jackass. So she has that mistake to live with. Imagine what her life must be like. Dennis doesn’t strike me as a fun guy to invite to your party. Can you imagine smoking a joint with the guy, or even having a beer? Watching a March Madness game? Come on.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Since I wasn’t slagging him for being ineffective or for any other reason, you may want to point your weaponry elsewhere. As far as a balanced view goes, I think I offered one. Plenty of people are kicking Kucinich while he is down, but I am not one of them. I am also pro-Feingold. So there.
dporpentine
mothra and gwanung: The issue is Obama’s Christianity. Show me any bit of evidence whatsoever that Obama is part of a Christian sect so far from the theological mainstream that it rejects Christ’s divinity as evidenced by his resurrection and a miracle as fundamental as turning water into wine. Open to evidence, but I’ve never seen it.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Tommybones:
I’m sure it’s all in your head.
gwangung
@Bruce S: Just responding to clarify that you were responding to Spectre’s response to me.
Oh, what the hell, I’ll add that being part of the church in many ethnic communities means much more than being spiritual on an individual basis. There are sociological reasons and functions on a community level that “being a Christian” serves.
ABL 2.0
@Tommybones: I explain why here.
it has everything to do with his rhetoric and nothing to do with the fact that he changed his mind.
David Koch
Osama bin LadenMohmar KhaddafyiHosni Mubarak
Ben AliAnwar al-AwlakiKim Jong-il
David BroderChristopher HitchensBob NovakAndrew BreitbartAnthony WeinerDennis KuinichObama is one bad muther. Think twice before crossing him.
Bruce S
dporptine – I’m a member of the same “sect” as Obama and I have heard the story of physical resurrection as literal fact questioned from the pulpit, no less. Most mainline Christians don’t concern themselves with dogmatics or textual literalism. That’s not the core or foundation of their faith. I know lots of folks like Obama who are very rationalistic in temporal matters who also have a profound spiritual faith and practice, rooted in the Christian tradition and a Christian community that prioritizes the Sermon on the Mount over tales of water turning into wine. The Religious Right – that makes major hoopla of feality to texts and drawing deliberately divisive lines between “believers and unbelievers”, while ignoring the moral substance of the New Testament – is an embodiment of Imperial Christianity, which has bedeviled the church since Constantine. As I said above, most people who try to talk about this stuff are speaking, literally, out of near total ignorance.
Corner Stone
@Clime Acts:
What should be noted is at ABLC there are 7 comments on this same post.
Someone realized very quickly that posting on a blog run by a racist, pro-rape white boy was the only platform she had to punch up at Greenwald.
No mystery there. Or integrity.
Omnes Omnibus
@Shawn in ShowMe: For one thing, he votes on legislation. Also, as I noted, the gadfly role can have value. The people of his district made their choice and I can’t say it was the wrong one.
Bruce S
gwangung – sorry if I didn’t pull that apart.
“There are sociological reasons and functions on a community level that ‘being a Christian’ serves.” Which is true not just in ethnic communities. While I believe that religion has enormous positive potential in making the consept of “community” meaningful in substantive and supportive ways, unfortunately, this “social function” aspect also applies in some negative ways – like Newt’s opportunistic Catholicism.
gwangung
Yes, I should have been clear on that. And you’re right that it’s a force for good and for bad.
Hm. I should mention that I seem to recall there are historic reasons for civil rights and the church to be so intertwined (i.e., one of the few places that African Americans could gather and actually be a community was the church; similarly, for Asian Americans, a church, particularly a Christian church, was accepted by the mainstream community as a legitimate place for Asian Americans to gather and be recognized as a legitimate community).
IM
@Zandar:
That is nonsense, at least according to objective measures. And on everything regarding reproductive rights Kaptur is much, much worse.
Bruce S
122. gwangung – sorry to get off on ranting about religion, but I’m often struck by just how glib and ill-informed so many supposedly intelligent liberals can be when it comes to discussing religion, which is a very fraught and complex bundle of issues. The truth is that when liberalism has been at its most successful, socially-oriented religious liberals have always played a huge role. Given that, the lampooning or studied ignorance of, say, Obama’s faith tradition gets on my nerves. The suggestions that “he couldn’t really be a Christian and is just saying that for political reasons” is an assertion worthy of Sean Hannity. Let’s leave that crap to the haters. If for no other reason that it makes no sense to suggest that a highly intelligent person with excellent reasoning capabilities couldn’t possibly be religious. That’s just dumb.
Bruce S
Just read Zandar at #53. Is there a possibility of our being issued uniforms? That would be so cool.
gwangung
@Bruce S: Yes, quite.
There’s liberation theology and the huge social justice component you find in a lot of churches. That the conservatives were at all successful in paining Rev. Wright as out of the ordinary just shows how out of touch some liberals and progressives are with both their roots and much of what they’d like to think is their constituency.
Spectre
@Tommybones:
Wow…this just about says all you need to know about ABL. I really hopes she gets the help she desperately needs.
Marc
@Robert Green:
Let’s say that someone told you that being an atheist means that you have no morals and serve the devil. Would you view that as an accurate description of your own beliefs? Do you think it’s appropriate to let other people hostile to what you think define your opinions for you? If not, you shouldn’t be subjecting other people to things that you don’t want to see yourself subjected to. (No, I don’t think that atheists believe these things. But I know that Christians don’t conform to your misunderstandings of what they think either.)
You don’t understand what motivates Christians, especially liberal ones. You don’t understand the difference between things that you can prove and things that you can’t (free hint: you can’t prove the absence or presence of the supernatural; you can just define it away). You might therefore resist dispensing religious advice.
Marc
@Spectre:
I find there to be something very ugly about the way you and your buddies are behaving. You attack her personally instead of dealing with what she says, and I’m seeing some nasty undercurrents here.
Greenwald attracts some really slavish and uncritical defenders. What he wrote is insulting to a lot of people on a lot of levels, and doubling down (as opposed to listening) makes him and his defenders look out of touch, not strong. He has a blind spot on racial issues, he has a serious blind spot on gender issues, and a lot of us see both as central issues in real civil rights.
NobodySpecial
@Thymezone: Agreed. She should have found a real party type guy like GWB.
And to the thread: If we’re going to ding Democrats for voting pro-life on legislation, we should also be willing to throw folks like Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Kaptur, and a host of others for the same thing. As I’ve noted, the bile is very selective, and always to the left.
IM
@Marc:
But couldn’t you just cross out Greenwald and put in ABL?
And what are real civil rights?
Spectre
@Marc:
I responded to everything ABL said. Multiple times. She ignored.
This issue has nothing to dow ith race or gender. He defended Kucinich from the “he’s kooky because he claims he saw a UFO!” attack, by pointing out that belief in UFOs is no more whacky than belief in Christianity. That can’t be disputed. ABL’s “GLENN DOESNT UNDERSTAND BLACK PEOPLE!!” is not only a cheap smear, but also deeply offensive.
She is trying to claim that Obama had no agency in making his belief. Not only is that irrelevant in the comparison of beliefs, but it also plays on deep racial stereotype. ABL has a lot of explaining to do.
Spectre
@Bruce S:
“Guys I showed how Kucinich doesn’t always vote with Teh Parteh!! What are we still talking about!?!?!”
Maybe he can hand out flag pins and little armbands too.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Spectre:
You are one sick little freak. That is all.
kay
IM, you’re wrong about Kaptur.
She’s a progressive. She opposed Clinton on trade, Bush on war, and Obama on the bank bailouts.
She was the lead Democrat on NAFTA opposition.
The arrogance on display here is incredible to me.
You’re going to lecture rust belt Democrats on a race you know NOTHING about?
Jesus Christ.
It isn’t a hypothetical, and it isn’t some imaginary narrative of Kucinich versus Power.
She has a long record. Work matters. Substance matters. This district does not exist so you can “send a message” with THEIR representative.
Do you know why Kaptur inspires such a devoted base?
Because she busts ass for working people, and she’s been doing that for years, thru GOP administrations and Dem administrations.
Robert Green
sorry marc. no. i have spent an enormous amount of time in liberal churches synagogues and so on. i have sat, due to my work, in rooms with bradley whitford where he told me how very much jesus loved the poor and was anti-capital punishment etc. etc.
i sat in a unitarian church in 1983 and helped craft the nuclear freeze movement. i am indeed quite capable of understanding the UNDERLYING FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGY at play here. either the word “Christian” has meaning or it doesn’t. and it does. it refers to a book, and a set of beliefs, which are at their core magical and unprovable. and the idea that your “free hint” is some kind of equivalent is absurd: since there is no reason for their to BE a supernatural thing, there’s no need to prove its absence. that’s pretty much standard logic at its most basic. if you want to make me think that things happen in a way that is different than ANY of our human experiences, i’m going to have to insist on some sort of observable facts. until then, the existence of christian or jewish sky fairy is the same as the existence of hobbits or unicorns. there is nothing controversial about this.
so when like minded liberals come to me with a theological reason for our agreement on ethics or morals, i’m always finding myself in the same place that i found myself in amherst mass, at first unitarian, in 1983: wondering what the hell sky fairy has to do with any of it.
ShadeTail
The best part about ABL posts is that they draw out the trolls and racists like magnets, which lets me update my “shitheads only worthy of ridicule” list. I already knew about Corner Stone The White Supremacist, of course, but I hadn’t noticed this tommybones piker or that Specter thing before.
Onto the list they go.
Spectre
@ShadeTail:
I wonder how many times you’re going to post the same smear from different usernames ABL. You’re arguments have already been destroyed, and your credibility is long since gone.
Have some dignity at least.
Cacti
Greenwald loves Kucinich because they are the same guy.
Equal parts bombastic, smug, and ineffectual.
Corner Stone
@ShadeTail: Get a new schtick please. You’re boring.
gwangung
Heh. Privileged white people get to say this.
Blind spot, indeed.
Corner Stone
@Cacti: Except one lives in sunny and fantastic Brazil!
ABL 2.0
they have nothing else. it’s the same group of people saying the same dumb shit ad nauseum.
another ridiculous attempt to rewrite what i wrote so you can continue to act silly and feign offense.
“JOHN COLE BEGGED ME TO COME BACK.” that’s not what i said. it’s like a game of telephone up in here.
stop being silly.
ABL 2.0
@Spectre:
hahaha what?! first of all, it’s “you’re.” second of all, i don’t post under multiple screen names. third of all, stop being so damn silly.
ABL 2.0
@gwangung: amazing, isn’t it. i keep forgetting i have to wait to be told when i’m allowed to talk about race and gender.
oh yeah — no i don’t.
kay
Kaptur and Kucinich were a wash on reproductive rights because they both suck.
It comes down to trade, labor and pocketbook issues in that district and on those, she’s better.
That she also opposes most of our nation building overseas is wonderful, because her base are the people we need to reach on that.
Spectre
The questions that control in this thread:
1. Why did ABL inject race, into Greenwalds argument of “Belief X is no sillier than belief Y”? What possible relevance could that have to his line of thought?
2. Why did ABL ignore all attacks on the internal inconsistency of her main article?
3. Why did ABL accuse Cole of “begging”, after having accused him of laughing at rape victims, and running a racist site?
4. Why does she accuse others of feigning outrage, when she herself invokes negative stereotypes, and cheapens charges of racial insensitivity?
Peter
@RobertGreen
What on earth makes you think they want you to be convinced of the existence of ‘sky fairies’? I don’t think any of us care what your religious position is, just that you’re shitting on ours.
dporpentine
gwangung: That a leader of your sect (and that’s the word–no scare quotes will stop it) allegedly once put a question mark to the end of a sentence or two about the literalness of the resurrection says absolutely nothing about the subject: Obama’s religious beliefs. Is it the sect’s official position on the matter? Unless you’re both Christian Scientists, I’m pretty sure the answer is no.
As I said the first time around: let’s ask Obama what he believes on these points. He’s asserted that he’s a Christian–and he’s talked about it as a faith, not a social convenience. So he must have opinions on things this basic. So let’s ask. And if he says he doesn’t believe it, that’s the end of his presidency–we both know that.
Spectre
Pretty please, can one of ABL’s fellow authoritarians defend this. Glenn said:
“and he once (according to McLaine) claimed to have an encounter with a UFO. Is any of that really any more strange than the litany of beliefs which the world’s major religions require? Is Barack Obama “wacky” because he claims to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, rose from the dead and will soon welcome him to heaven?”
In his defense of Kucinich not being whacky, he explicitly compares him to Obama, stating that neither is whacky on the grounds of their religious/UFO views.
ABL then says: “President Obama’s faith and turn to Christianity was grounded in community, black history, and the Civil Rights Movement”
What POSSIBLE RELEVANCE could that have? What is this other than an illogical smear.
Someone actually engage here.
gwangung
Typical white privilege, thinking there couldn’t POSSIBLY be any racial dimension to his argument.
And too damn lazy to think about his own assumptions, ignoring all attempts to bring this to YOUR attention.
Spectre
Interesting that she avoided providing the full quote as I just did. I presume the sane ABL defenders (contradiction?) didn’t bother checking the claim Greenwald was actually making.
Exposed.
gwangung
@Spectre: Dude, we keep explaining this. And you keep ignoring the answers.
Pay attention.
Spectre
@gwangung:
Cite from what Greenwald actually said. Greenwald was saying that neither Obama nor Kucinich were “whacky” for those particular beliefs. Your turn. Quote him.
Cacti
@Corner Stone:
Heh, indeedy. The progressive paradise* of Brazil.
*child labor force 7 million strong
kay
Kaptur’s moat recent opposition to Obama was on the Korea trade deal.
She also recently reintroduced Glass-Steagal.
Portraying her as the lockstep partisan moderate in contrast to Kucinich’s brave maverick is factually incorrect.
If you’re looking for a reason why Kucinich was marginalized, you’ll have to look elsewhere than opposing bipartisan consensus on trade and middle class issues, because Kaptur isn’t marginalized, by anyone, ever, and she opposed consensus on those issues to.
Corner Stone
@Cacti: Damn. I didn’t know he had that many employees.
No wonder he has so many updates to his articles.
IM
@kay:
I am lecturing nobody. And since then is ABL a rustbelt democrat? She is worse on reproductive rights and her voting record is (slightly) worse then Kucinich. At least by some measures. That is all I said. Kucinich had considerable support in his district too. Do you want to deny this? Do you really want to argue that he had the worst voting record of all democrats in congress?
KNNJ
Obama is a very religious Christian. 2004 interview excerpt below, from http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html
——————————————-
FALSANI:
Checking for altruism?
OBAMA:
Yeah. I mean, something like it.
Looking for, … It’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.
FALSANI:
What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?
OBAMA:
Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.
That’s something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they’re preaching, right? Not to try to intellectualize it but what I see is there are moments that happen within a sermon where the minister gets out of his ego and is speaking from a deeper source. And it’s powerful.
There are also times when you can see the ego getting in the way. Where the minister is performing and clearly straining for applause or an Amen. And those are distinct moments. I think those former moments are sacred.
FALSANI:
Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
OBAMA:
Right.
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
FALSANI:
Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?
OBAMA:
Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a religious Christian, this is a man who believe in “ends justify means.” There is a reason that the Oval office is mostly men, and the President takes a patriarchal stand on many issues.
John
@Shawn in ShowMe: The vast majority of modern scholarship accepts that there was a historical Jesus on whom the Jesus of the gospels is based. The extent to which that historical person resembled the Jesus of the Gospels is widely disputed – and many scholars argue that there is very little overlap – but the idea that Jesus was just a “metaphorical construct” is a deeply fringe one that very few actual scholars support.
The only actual scholars I’m aware of who argue that Jesus was not a real person, but a “metaphorical construct” or something similar are G.A. Wells, who was a specialist on eighteenth century German literature; Alvar Ellegard, a Swedish profess or English literature whose primary scholarly work was on medieval and Victorian English literature; and Robert Price, who is the only actual Biblical scholar of the bunch. There’s also some non-scholarly autodidacts. But Price is basically the only actual scholar of the Bible to hold that Jesus didn’t exist. He is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which is a collection of people who hold the most minimalistic views of the historicity of the Gospels, and he’s basically the only one of them to actually reject the historicity of Jesus. And the Jesus Seminar only a represents the most radical end of the spectrum of scholarship on the historical Jesus.
Does this mean Jesus was a real historical person? No, of course not. But it does mean that we shouldn’t describe the state of the scholarly debate as being that most scholars view Jesus as a “metaphorical construct.”
On a completely different note…
No doubt through ignorance? Why on earth should anyone trust the political judgment of a constitutional lawyer who at 36 was so ignorant of politics that he trusted George W. Bush and supported the Iraq war out of not really paying attention?
What counts as a leadership role? Are we talking party leadership, or do committee chairs count as leadership? If you’re only excluding the former, I’d suggest Barney Frank, George Miller, Henry Waxman, etc. etc. Of course, these guys were committee chairs, but they got to be committee chairs in part because they were effective legislators (certainly this is true of Waxman, who was put at Energy and Commerce ahead of long time chair Dingell because of his greater credibility on environmental issues). Obviously junior members have less opportunity on this stuff, but even so Kucinich was a distinctly unaccomplished legislator.
Even beyond that, he’s never shown any skill at any aspect of being a congressman. He basically has no friends in Congress – so far as I know he doesn’t even have particularly good relations with the other members of the House Progressive Caucus. And whatever one may say about the Democrats being sell outs, it’s impossible to be effective as a legislator if you have no relationships with any of your colleagues. He’s terrible at constituent service, which is one reason he was so vulnerable to a primary challenge recently. He wasn’t noted for any particular investigative prowess on committees. He’s not an effective advocate for any of the issues he cares about, because everybody who doesn’t already agree with him thinks he’s a joke. And he neglected both his congressional responsibilities and his constituents for much of the last decade through running a long and utterly narcissistic and futile, campaign for president.
Thymezone
@ABL 2.0:
it’s the same group of people saying the same dumb shit ad nauseum.
You have just described 77% of the posts here going back to early 2005 (when I first saw the place).
The chyron for BJ is “hot air.” That’s not by mistake.
edit: Sorry, I meant 97%
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: Still choking that straw chicken, I see.
Thymezone
@Spectre:
The UFO thing is not what makes Kucinich wacky. What makes Kucinich wacky is the jackass shit that comes out of his mouth half the time. Like let’s impeach Obama for his actions in Libya. Really? Let’s impeach every congress since 1943 for failing to have the guts to declare wars while demanding bellicose and expensive “protection” for every shitty policy and position this country has taken in those years. Let’s impeach Kucinich for being a shitty little asshole who acted like a petulant teenager the entire time he was in congress. Just saying.
different-church-lady
@Tommybones:
Now I’m starting to get confused about who has pet issues.
kay
IM, I wasn’t talking about ABL.
Democrats just elected Kaptur.
And, I’m done if you’re going to claim I said “worst record in Congress” because I didn’t say that.
I once lived in Kapturs district.
Given the 2 candidates, the best representative won.
different-church-lady
@ShadeTail:
It’s the same damn four people, over and over again, just with different names.
I mean, hell, if I were to believe rumors it’s probably all the same one person.
@Corner Stone:
Fixin’ things never ends.
The prophet Nostradumbass
One of the interesting things about posts like this is the people who never appear in the comments except to trash ABL.
different-church-lady
@Thymezone: You sure it’s not 27%?
Marc
@Robert Green:
I’m a scientist, and it’s important to recognize the existence of assumptions (or axioms, if you want to talk mathematically.) You’ve defined things like God out of existence by definition, and that’s your right. But you did this by assumption, not by way of some sort of mathematical proof. So when you write “since there is no reason for their to BE a supernatural thing, there’s no need to prove its absence. that’s pretty much standard logic at its most basic” you demonstrate that you don’t understand logic or the actual basis of a logical system (if A, then B.)
A lot of religion works on the level of metaphor. Atheists who think that they’re getting somewhere when they attack religious literalism don’t impress religious people who also don’t accept literalism.
David Koch
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
The drones always fly from the hive furiously trying to defend the queen bee.
sharl
@kay:
Well, Kay, I for one appreciate your on-the-ground perspective.
Regards,
Long time departed Dayton native (OH-3, back in the day)
David Koch
@IM:
Huh? He only got 53% of the vote against a nobody in a district Obama carried with 59% of the vote.
IM
@kay:
Yes, but I wasn’t originally responding to a comment from you. And the comment I reacted to said indeed worst democrat in congress. So do you concur? And his own old district did elect him again and again. So he had to have a local base
I do understand, mostly because I read your posts, why Kaptur was chosen. I would probably have done the same.
But it still dubious to attack Kucinich on reproductive rights when the record of Kaptur is even worse. And that happened in this ABL post.
IM
@David Koch:
He did win his primaries again and again didn’t he?
Recall
@Marc:
We’re not going it to impress you.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: Indeed. Indeed.
Bruce S
Robert Green – “i’m always finding myself in the same place that i found myself in amherst mass, at first unitarian, in 1983: wondering what the hell sky fairy has to do with any of it”
How appropriate. Since “wondering what the hell sky fairy has to do with any of it” is something, albeit less crudely put, of a first principle for most unitarians.
More evidence you’re talking to the mirror.
kay
IM, I think it’s strange to discuss a House race in the abstract.
It isn’t my approach, media narrative or large forces “marginalizing” people.
To me, it was a House primary.
I knew she’d win because she has an absolutely devoted base, and I think she’s earned it.
She works hard, and she’s going to be powerful in the House, and she didn’t get there by kowtowing to Clinton or Bush OR Obama.
Anyway, have a good night, because I’m done w/ this House primary analysis :)
The Tragically Flip
@Daaling:
Of all the cliche criticisms lobbed at GG by his detractors, this is the most ignorant, offensive and right-wing nationalistic. Greenwald lives in Brazil because America has a dark ages set of bigoted laws that don’t allow him to bring his same-sex partner to the US as a spouse.
Since when did liberals start requiring that people commenting on US politics have to live full time within the US? So I guess Democrats had better shut down “Democrats Abroad” and tell the 1M or so ex-pat Democrats to go fuck themselves, their foreigner opinions on how America governs itself aren’t welcome.
Actually I don’t know that Greenwald cares that much about the poor. I mean, I expect he cares somewhat, but it really isn’t a focus of his writing. What are you talking about here?
But as far as Greenwald “walking” the talk he’s obviously had numerous measurable effects from his writing, which far exceed what effect he could have by attending rallies or getting arrested at Occupations (which are noble acts and I’m not knocking them). There’s a reason enemies of Anonymous were targeting him. He is effective. Aside from that one could look at his effects on the treatment of Bradley Manning, the FISA debate and the Anthrax investigation.
Oh there was also “Accountability Now” which, whatever one thinks of it as a PAC, represents “real” activism outside of writing for online publications or appearing on TV.
AxelFoley
@Tommybones:
See what I did there?
Corner Stone
@AxelFoley:
Something completely irrelevant to this thread?
AxelFoley
@Clime Acts @Tommybones
Could both of you whiny little bitches shut the fuck up?
AxelFoley
@Corner Stone:
No, my friend. That’s your modus operandi.
Gemina13
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Pretty much. He talks a lot, and yet managed to get little or nothing done. I have a feeling one of the reasons Glenn Greenwald likes him so much is that he has a hot wife, but other than his wife’s good looks, the only thing that gets Kucinich noticed is his mouth.
I have a great deal of respect for people who have ideals and get shit done. In that light, I have more respect for Nader than Kucinich. Nader’s a self-made man who worships his creator, but the work he’s done on behalf of average Americans through consumer protections will be his legacy. Kucinich will go down as little more than a footnote in Oddball American Politicians.
Yutsano
@The Tragically Flip:
This statement is especially ironic considering you’re debating a Canadian.
Corner Stone
@AxelFoley: Bringing Obama in as a key player is irrelevant. I know that’s tough for you. But how bout you deal with it.
Or you can keep telling “whiny little bitches” to shut up.
Clime Acts
@AxelFoley:
I’m holding my breath, waiting to see if ABL will ban you for your misogynistic language.
I suppose it’s unlikely since you kiss her ass.
Oh, and BTW, excellent argumentation there. Really effective.
Cacti
@The Tragically Flip:
Greenwald’s concerns are those of a doctrinaire, upper middle class, white, American male.
Hence his ability to dismiss Ron Paul’s abominable positions on women’s rights, and racial minority rights, with a hand wave.
CaliCat
So not surprised that the hate-monger Greenwald is in mourning over Alien Autopsy. Kucinich was a first class poser and a politician in the most negative sense of the word. I couldn’t be happier that the worthless little shit got the boot. He’ll no doubt spend the rest of his days doing “analysis” on FOX News where he belongs.
David Koch
It’s unfair to call Kucinich wacky.
The accurate term would be kooky.
David Koch
@Cacti:
/fixed
David Koch
@CaliCat:
This.
You just know he’ll end up as a “fox news contributor”. In Obama’s 2nd term, Fox will change their focus to demonizing potential 2016 nominees. And they’ll trot Kucinich out to attack Hillary and Warren from the left.
SectarianSofa
@Tommybones:
Jesus Fucking Christ. Frantically, repetitively announcing your own stupidity never gets old, I guess?
Meh. Same for ‘Spectre’ and ‘Clime’ but what’s the point? I didn’t read much of those once the troll circle jerk started. Inexhaustible supply of gas in the lot of them.
CaliCat
@David Koch: and you’ll be paying his salary, David. Lol;)
Provider_UppityNegroEmbigulator™
When you are a white gay male, Women’s rights are not necessarily going to be a central focus…Not to suggest that there are no gay male feminists or that Greenwald has a particular animus towards women…I think this is a case where Glen’s privilege is showing.
.
beatty
I think ABL put her finger on something I’d not been able to articulate about Kucinich. I never took to the guy. I don’t hate the guy. And I give him props for putting voice to many liberal ideals. But Bernie Sanders is a politician I love and have given money to even though I don’t live in VT. Maybe someone should do a post discussing the differences between Bernie and Dennis.
vernon
@Tommybones:
Exactly.
The worst part is, ABL’s ripping Kucinich for his stance on abortion, when Kucinich just lost to … Marcy Kaptur. My God, the contortions idiots like her will go through to continue sucking on POTUS’s butthole.
Teejay
Greenwald didn’t include irrelevant
arguments? Only ones he thought were
important? Outrageous!
Jon
So his thoughts have evolved. That’s great, isn’t it? Would you rather have had him refuse to be open to new ideas?
vernon
BTW, maybe someone should point out that GG’s thoughts on Iraq “evolved” a hell of a lot quicker than those of the vast majority of congressional Dems.