home

"Stupid Attacks"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:48:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Al Giordano writes about why he is criticizing President Obama's online town hall answer to a "legalizing marijuana" question:

Day in, day out, I defend the President from stupid attacks, so often that it's common that they respond by calling me an apologist for him. But, excuse me, while the substance of what he said was certainly informed by what he's heard in his cross-country journey, the mocking and mean-spirited tone of it is what I take issue with.

Some think critiques like Al's are "stupid attacks." More . . .

And therein lies the problem - judging what other people care about. I try not to do that. I support everyone, from Paul Krugman to Al Giordano to anonymous commenters, offering their views on issues they care about. I also support folks critiquing the substance of such critiques.

What I do object to is the critiquing of actually critiquing. The STFU mentality is what I object to. If you want a "fair trade" policy (Obama is a free trader like me, but a lot of folks do not agree with that approach), you are right to critique Obama's policy, even though the actual critiques may be wrong on the substance, imo.

Many are unhappy with President Obama's Afghanistan policy. I support it. They are right to offer their critiques. I'll critique the substance of the critiques.

Most Republicans oppose the right to choose. They are right to express this view. I strongly disagree with that view and will express my substantive critique of it.

And so it should go. Debate about issues is healthy and necessary. We should never tell anyone to STFU about the issues they care about. Enough with the demonizing of people who are expressing their views about issues.

Speaking for me only

< DeLong's False Choice | Legalization: Now a Question of When, Not If >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    "Stupid Attacks" | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Don't you get it? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    That's boring.  And it certainly doesn't fit in soundbites or wouldn't play well to Keith Olbermann's audience.  It's easier to say that someone is mean and picking on Obama (or the Republicans or whomever) than to actually engage in debate or, heaven forbid, listen to the critiques and find that there may be some valid points.

    Or completely wrongheaded points (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Address the points and disprove them.

    This is what debate is supposed to be about.

    I am a lawyer by profession and training. And for all its faults, the idea that you have to address the substance of your opponents views and arguments is one of the very good things about our profession.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    But news directors want "exciting" television. And many blogs just want to present one position and naysay anyone who dares disagree.

    Engaging in actual debate is not exciting to those who want immediate put-downs of the opponent. Which is exactly the reason none of the presidential debates are actual debates.  Winners are not chosen on substance (who has time to answer with substance?), but who answers audience questions like "diamonds or pearls,"  or "boxers or briefs" - in reality, who is the "cooler" candidate.  Then, after a candidate wins, it's all about the winning party defending the POTUS, as opposed to debating on the merits. Got to follow the talking points and get the right soundbite out there, doncha know?

    Unfortunately, many of the lawyers on TV, radio, Congress, etc. have long abandoned engaging in civil debate and instead play to 4 minute tv and radio segments and playing "gotcha". Many of them are there to outscream their opponents and to maybe get their TV contract on Tru-Tv.

    Pols are pols . . . (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    But we are NOT pols. therein SHOULD lie the difference.

    Parent
    Well...some of us are... (none / 0) (#6)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    or have been.  Pols, that is.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    If and when you were or are a pol, you know how to serve your interests (get elected.) We non-pols have other interests to serve.

    Parent
    Indeed. And sometimes (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    we/they make common cause. (See Greenwald on Sat re Jim Webb's 'crusade' re criminal justice reform?)

    Some pols serve, resign/retire when goals are met...or can't be!  Not all get 'the fever,' though most seem to.  Hmmm...that reminds me of Fred Harris and "Potomac Fever."

    Parent

    I love the line of thinking (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    ... (from people like John Cole) that if Seth Rogan says it, it's okay for the Prez of the United States to say it....as if the same social rules apply in all contexts.

    Do people like him get naked in public?  After all, it's all right to get naked in the bathroom, so it should be all right to get naked in public, right -- if the same social rules apply in all contexts?

    Its hard (none / 0) (#9)
    by glennmcgahee on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:13:49 PM EST
    to debate and offer critiques when you don't really know what people ara talking about so its just easier to attack them for disagreeing. Its the simplest and laziest way to go. Why have to bother with so many little details.

    i'm still trying to figure out (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 03:25:17 PM EST
    exactly what pres. obama's reasons for not supporting legalization of pot, aside from some mumbled nonsense, that sounded amazingly like the shouted nonsense we've all heard in the past.

    i'm kind of a jeffersonian by nature: prove my postition wrong by virtue of well reasoned argument. that said, argument, purely for the sake of playing some kind of "devil's advocate" role, absent substance, is just white noise.

    "Stupid Attacks" | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment