No Sacred Cows

While I am not sure I completely agree with Bowers's critique of Tomasky, I do love that he is not afraid to deliver it. No sacred cows. Not Obama. And not fellow "progressives." If we disagree, we disagree - and we shoud say so.

Greenwald took on Atrios the other day. More of this please. We can not be afraid to disagree with each other.

Speaking for me only

< When Will Sexism Matter? | Cooperators in Blagojevich Probe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In total agreement (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Another example:

    Jane Hamsher took on the sacred cow of the Kennedy's the other day in her post opposing Caroline Kennedy's appointment as Senator. It was very satisfying to read. The perfect example of speaking truth to power.

    No more sacred cows. Call 'em as we see 'em.

    Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    Nice woman, but a Senator?  If certain people were up in arms at Hillary Clinton using her husband's considerable political leverage to help her run for the Senate, then they should be hoarse with outrage over someone being given a Senate seat.  Hillary had to win the nomination and the election.  I'd prefer someone who had at least won an election and served.

    (I never had a problem with Hillary cashing in on Bill's connections.  It was smart, savvy, shrewd and besides, I think he owed her.)


    I share Jane's distaste for Caroline (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    Kennedy to be appointed to Hillary's senate seat. Is it payback because uncle Ted came to Obama's side very early on? When we look at the coarse way the crooked governor of Illinois tried to curry favor for Obama's seat, we should be able to see a parallel here. Of course, Caroline's interest was much more nuanced and we don't think the NY governor acted like Rod Blagojevich, but some of the sentiments are no doubt similar.  It is after all," a valuable seat, and what can we get for it?"

    but i tremble in fear (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Turkana on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM EST
    at the thought of criticizing prominent bloggers. not to mention obama.

    i only want to be loved.

    I'll take Arianna Huffington for $500, Alex (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:51:29 PM EST

    take arianna, (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by cpinva on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST

    Yeah - I'll give you the $500 (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 07:32:08 PM EST
    if you can make her go away.

    Count me in...... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    on paying to see Arianna no long have a voice in progressive politics.  The former Reagan loving, Newt loving, Clinton hating phony is as sanctimonious and hypocritical as it gets.

    i wonder (none / 0) (#13)
    by boredmpa on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 02:57:06 AM EST
    who is investing in the VCs that are paying her to set up shop in san francisco?

    is this just a new strategy to drag discourse to the right?  News networks--check.  Think tanks--check. Law schools--check.  San Francisco Bloggers...check.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#16)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 06:05:56 PM EST
    To be one party, we must have one voice. If we speak with two voices, we are divided. If we speak with four voices, we are merely a rabble. If we speak with millions of voices, we are nothing more than a confused mob. If we cannot tow the party line, we are not of the party. If we cannot stand with our fellow Democrats, we stand against them. We must announce, full throated endorsement of the principle that there must be no criticism of the President-Elect,
    but moreover that we must stand by the President-elect, right or wrong, and to suggest otherwise is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

    My apologies to Theodore Roosevelt for bastardizing his quote. (all else in SarcasticFont(tm)).


    Shorter BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    "The importance of vigorous disagreement cannot be overemphasized.  That said, I cannot be bothered to figure out if I disagree!"

    All kidding aside, Bowers is clearly correct on the merits.  The extent to which any politician needs to move to the center or throw a bone to the other side is a matter of judgment.  Barack Obama is surely an exceptional politician, but his judgment is not perfect.  Yet every time he makes a move to the center, a chorus of sycophants proclaims that this was something he absolutely, positively needed to do, and only a fool can't see it.  In reality, Obama is unlikely to score 100% on these judgment calls, and everyone has the right to disagree.

    There are plenty of good arguments in favor of Gates, but if Obama had chosen to appoint someone else, I very much doubt the world would have come crashing down.  Yet Tomasky professes to know, clairvoyantly I assume, that if Obama hadn't stuck with Gates then whammo, failed administration.

    Even Tweety (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 12:38:55 AM EST
    "thrill up my leg" Matthews has been going on and on for a couple weeks now about how Obama is only appointing centrist types as cover so he can go left once he gets in office. (Tweety likes this a lot.)

    Also, public criticisms of Obama, (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:38:35 PM EST
    or anyone else for that matter, do not fall only on their ears.  Even if you think that Obama will eventually do what you want him to do once he has a chance, he can't do anything by himself. There are congress-people and opinion-makers to be persuaded along the way.

    There is no reason to hold back.

    Anything (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    Lost my 'y'.

    Also, I'll add, there are voters to persuade as well.


    Does anyone know? (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 09:53:10 PM EST
    Is HuffPo #1?

    "Cow" has certain demeaning (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    implications which can be avoided if we instead, in the future, refer to "sacredotal quadraped ruminants". And of course, avoid at all costs cardboard facsimiles.