On 2013-05-29, at 5:19 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Marv Gandall writes:
>
>> I couldn't find a single statement - not one - in which
>> Greenwald acts as an "attorney" for Obama ...
>
> I think you missed the joke. Greenwald *is an attorney* …
On 2013-05-29, at 7:55 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> His polemics are, to my taste, a little narrowly and artificially
> framed in terms of (more or less imaginary) legal and constitutional
> norms. Which is not to detract from their value, but simply to
> observe that he doesn't seem to have much interest in the
> underlying dynamics: it's enough for him that the acts he
> excoriates are scandalous, wicked, illegal and so on,
> which of course they are.
>
> So admirable as he is, he's approaching all this stuff from
> an angle quite different from my own.
>
> That was the point of the 'attorney' quote -- a point which
> Marv seems to have missed, by a country mile, in his usual
> endearing way.
Uh huh. In schoolboy debating clubs, I believe they call this "squirreling"… :)