[lbo-talk] TNR

C. G. Estabrook galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Jan 9 14:00:49 PST 2008


Counterpunch has always shown a catholic (so to speak) willingness to publish a wide range of opinion, including those with which the editors don't agree (and they don't always agree with one another). I don't always agree with them (e.g., on aspects of the Green party) when they do agree, but their unwillingness to be bound by the liberal limits of allowable debate seems to me a strength.

Paul, remarkably, has been the occasion of an unlooked-for outbreak of the antiwar sentiment in this country, which Hillary/Obama et al. are trying to traduce because they support the common policy behind the war.

Both political parties are substantially to the right of the US populace, and the Democrat establishment has worked strenuously and hypocritically since the 2006 election to neutralize the majority anti-war sentiment. Do you have a blind-spot when it comes to the Democratic party's faves? --CGE

P.s. -- "Leave the Zionist issue aside"...?

Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 3:46 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> It does seem however that Paul's refusal to do the ritual obeisance to
>> Israel (as Obama, Edwards and Clinton did) is TNR's motive for a hit
>> piece by its editor. The piece is based on material from a newsletter
>> about which Paul has been pilloried for a while. (See note 2 below)
>>
>> Paul's second sin -- and the vulnerability that TNR wants to use
>> against
>> a presumed enemy of Israel -- may be a failure to repeat liberal
>> shibboleths on race.
>
> Leave the Zionist issue aside; the quoted critiques of Israel aren't
> over the top. But racist and homophobic things went out in his name.
> Ugly stuff. That's a lot worse than failing to "repeat liberal
> shibboleths on race." Do you have a blind spot when it comes to
> Counterpunch faves?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list