[lbo-talk] TNR

[C. G. Estabrook]

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