I’m all about the atrocity that was “Bush v. Gore” this week. My Think Again column focuses on press and the manner in which the politics of that period presages the crazy political moment in which we live today, and that’s here.
My Daily Beast column over the weekend was about the “Bush v. Gore” decision itself. That’s here.
And I did another Beast column this morning one the Barack/Bubba meeting scheduled for today and that’s here.
Now here’s the mail:
Fort Collins, CO
As a self admitted news junkie, I try very hard to read critically, even when reading The Nation and other media and pundits with whom I generally agree. I must say your analysis in this blog was a real breath of fresh air and one of the best articulations of something I have long felt and known but lacked the skill to put forward as you did here. One of the best articles I have read in a long time. Congratulations. Of course, I reserve the right to criticize the hell out of your position in the future if I think you are wrong.
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. A., in the world I want to live in, Barack Obama would have told repubicants (as I prefer to call them) to stick it. In the world I live in, I think this deal helps unemployed people and the middle class, which strikes me as … liberal? But we see liberals saying, who cares about them, we can’t help the wealthy. Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble following that.
I share your disdain, if I am choosing the right word, for Mr. Broder all the time, Mr. Milbank some of the time (he writes the occasional good column; his percentage may even be better than the infamous MoDo of The Times), and for the mainstream media in general. But I was struck by something. Like Keith Olbermann, I disagreed with Jon Stewart using the same false equivalency doctrine that you so brilliantly outlined. Then I put on Olbermann the other night and had to turn down the volume because he was screaming so loud in a 10-minute "special comment" excoriating Obama. Uh, Earth (to promote Stewart’s new book) to Keith: you just proved Stewart more correct than you may have intended.
Because, in the end, you do not dispute how Obama concluded his press conference, and I do not believe it is possible for anyone with a respect for the facts to dispute him. This is indeed similar to the public option debate, but Obama could have gone further–much further. Last year, the left merrily concerned itself with demanding a public option and excoriating (I like the word, so I return to it) anyone, especially Obama, for not fighting enough for it. Ultimately, Congress barely passed a bill that will do a lot of good, though not enough–but note the barely, and someday I think Harry Reid may just get the credit he deserves for getting his entire caucus on board after convincing Obama that no member of the opposition would help (including Olympia Snowe, of whom Reid said that she will negotiate and negotiate, vote for a bill when her vote doesn’t matter, and fold in the long run, if I recall correctly how it was depicted). As this went on, what did the other side talk about? Death panels. Socialism. And the Tea Party formed. Why wasn’t the left concentrating on a message?
So, we can criticize the Obama administration, and should. But when we do so, we really should start making sure we are looking in the mirror, because we have demonstrated, on the left, an incredible ability to fail at everything but disgracing ourselves
Kansas City, MO
Not that it really affects the point you were trying to make but if the original statement is "If A then B", the contrapositive is not "If not A then not B" as you said but rather "If not B then not A"
Eric, Now what are we supposed to do? I can’t see how I can go on supporting the president. Compromise, shrompromise. And then he yells at us. I’ll be looking at your articles this week. This is the final straw.
New York, New York
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM
Editor’s Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.