home

Greenwald On ABC's This Week

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:50:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our good friend Glenn Greenwald was on ABC's This Week talking Kagan and other things:

Given the forum, Glenn did good. I wish he would not have characterized Kagan's career path in pejorative terms and instead had just focused on her views, or the lack of a public record of her views on a number of subjects. Also Greg Craig was astoundingly bad in defense of Kagan, and the Administration will need to find better surrogates for her.

Speaking for me only

< The Death Throes Of The Traditional Media | AQAP Pledges Support for al-Awlaki, Threatens U.S. >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Greenwald On ABC's This Week | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "she is largely a progressive..." (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by sj on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    "... in the mold of Obama himself."  

    Does any liberal find that encouraging?

    It was a strange comment IMO (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    Identity politics. It was a terrible way to defend her, BTD is right, they need to find someone better.

    What really strikes me about this (in agreement with GG) is that Obama really just does not care what "his base" thinks - he does not want to "be lobbied" about a SC nomination. He does not seem to view the democratic party as his base, or value the party ideology. Surprising, really.

    Parent

    Kagan Does Not Need a Better Defender (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    She can handle herself, imo.

    If Obama truly did not care what his fellow Democrats think, as you opine, he would not have bothered speaking at this Democratic fundraiser.


    Parent

    You should watch the clip (none / 0) (#11)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:50:53 PM EST
    Kagan wasn't on that panel.

    I think GG (and BTD) are doing something really interesting in challenging the nomination from a democratic pov. Meyers got nixed from republicans who demanded a sure-thing conservative and that is just what they got. We'll see if identity politics is what will prevail over party ideology.

    Parent

    Not My Point (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    Idiots are all over the air waves, that is one reason I do not have a teevee. To hear that "they" need to find someone better to defend Kagan, makes little sense to me.

    Kagan can defend herself. She doesn't need a big strong man or woman to defend her.

    She is a nominee, she will likely be confirmed. Right now the more interesting argument for me is how candid she will be.

    Parent

    OK, but this post is about (none / 0) (#18)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:47:45 PM EST
    a specific TV clip which you can watch by clicking on the link above. It is about how this nominee is being shopped. GG challenged the nominee and at that point she was being defended. You should watch it - it is actually very interesting and GG is impressive. She is going to need support from the administration which nominated her. No need for a "big strong" anyone. The administration nominates a candidate and supports the nomination - and promotes it, and defends it. It is in the administration's interest to shop and defend her well.

    I agree that there are "idiots" on the air waves. And I agree that she will probably be confirmed.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 11:56:49 PM EST
    I like Greenwald. And I understand that many on the blogosphere are saying that this was a weak support of Kagan, by someone who lost his position at the WH.

    I have read everything available on Kagan, and take yours and everyone else's word for it that Greenwald was great and whatever his name was less than mediocre.

    Not particularly interested, in first hand experience on this one though.

    I will save my attention for the hearings themselves.

    Parent

    Hasn't the BO campaign (none / 0) (#5)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 16, 2010 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    become the Dem Party

    Parent
    Not exactly... (none / 0) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:43:50 PM EST
    It was a real downer.

    Parent
    Encouraging - No (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 16, 2010 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    I do think that Kagan is very much "... in the mold of Obama himself."  

    It is precisely why I did not want Kagan to get the nod.

    2 sleights o' hand in (vetting) 3-card Monte (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ellie on Sun May 16, 2010 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    1. Greg Craig's personal assurance of Obama's personal guarantee -- in the abscence of any scintilla of neutrally demonstrable, empirical data -- that Kagan is

    (a) a liberal balance to the likes of the blatantly, overtly, unapologetically HARD RIGHT ACTIVIST appointees and

    (b) possessed of the towering intellect and awesome magnetism to sway them to or fro.

    Is this like the oft-cited, now legendary Greatest Anti-War Speech Evah by Obama, yet which left no traces of A/V nor text, and from which the most fervently inspired can't even quote a broad theme, much less a catchy phrase? C'mon, people, a loaf, a fish, a chip even -- something.

    Personally, I wouldn't trust Obama to get my trash to the curb if he offered, rather than dump it in my foyer. (Sadly, of all three personal exhortations, mine is the most genuine and as likely to mean anything in the long run.)

    2. George Will's shift of the goalposts in saying that Kagan can't, as Corporate Toady Roberts did, decline to state a view on the commerce clause* because (paraphrasing) it was being litigated at the time. (Really, George? Really?)

    *IANAL, so whatever the landmark case is re: that toad on the highway crossing state lines (with or without a minor depending on whether FOX News is covering it for outrage value.) Too nice a day to google it.

    I'm not sure better surrogates (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:28:58 PM EST
    can overcome what is, as Glenn says, glaringly absent: much of anything that reveals the answer to the question, "what does Elena Kagan think about ____?"

    As an aside, watching that clip, I was struck by how the others on the panel just sat there like bumps on a log - even Tapper looked like he was struggling to remember what it meant to be a journalist, while Glenn just ate their lunch.

    I have no doubt that without Glenn on that panel, Greg Craig would have completely gotten away with what he said about Kagan - no one would have called him on how weak he was.

    Yes, they were actually (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sun May 16, 2010 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    listening to him. It struck me that they are very unaccustomed to hearing unpredictable, thoughtful reasoning on that panel, instead of the same old talking points. They had to pay attention. Well done GG.

    Parent
    Wow, you weren't exaggerating (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by observed on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    about Craig. Greenwald couples great lung power with brain power.. nobody is his match.
    Holy Mackerel... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:41:50 PM EST
    If she is a "progressive in the mold of Obama"... we're in for a center-right wing next 30 years.

    Tapper ought to donate (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun May 16, 2010 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    his paycheck this week to charity.  Greenwald did all the work.

    Tapper had one good moment (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sun May 16, 2010 at 07:20:49 PM EST
    After a video mahout of Arlen's greatest hits: "why would a Democrat vote for Arlen Specter?"

    Excellent question.

    Parent

    Mahout = mashup (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun May 16, 2010 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    I have to talk to Jobs about that auto-complete

    Parent
    If you want to drop the mahout... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by EL seattle on Sun May 16, 2010 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    ...maybe Joan Armatrading will be the easy rider?

    Ref: :40 seconds in ...Drop the Pilot

    Wise words to consider from time to time: ...Don't use your army to fight a losing battle...

    Parent

    Excellent (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon May 17, 2010 at 06:57:36 AM EST
    I've heard that song a hundred times and always assumed I was mishearing that word. Never occurred to me it was a real word I just didn't know!


    Parent
    BTD wrote: (none / 0) (#21)
    by szielinski on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    I wish he [Greenwald] would not have characterized Kagan's career path in pejorative terms and instead had just focused on her views, or the lack of a public record of her views on a number of subjects.

    Kagan's career path is one of the most -- if not the most -- damning facts a critic can use to oppose her her nomination. Why? It is because Kagan's career made her a woman nearly without qualities. Her most important 'qualification' for the SC position: She's an elite insider within the party faction now occupying the White House. This, however, is the rot that is destroying America's minimally democratic institutions. Elitism in a democracy implies limited democratic accountability. It implies the dominance of the political system over civil society. In the extreme cases elitism serves as a virtual negation of the demos. The extreme case appears when elections are manipulated plebiscites that minimally legitimate the outcomes produced by an elite-driven political caste.

    Had Glenn Greenwald failed to hone in on Kagan's career he would have conceded too much ground to the partisan hacks who made Kagan a nominee. He would have tacitly accepted ladder climbing as a decisive qualification for a SC nominee. He had, then, good reasons to focus on Kagan's career. Her career and nomination amounts to an affront to democratic legitimacy and popular self-government. To my mind her career path provides a reason that is so compelling that it alone serves to damn Kagan's nomination.

    Just watched the clip (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 17, 2010 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    and thought Greenwald was terrific.

    Yes, Greenwald was terrific (none / 0) (#23)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon May 17, 2010 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    For those of us who read Greenwald regularly, his arguments were quite familiar, and there was no doubt that Greenwald would come out on top.

    Gillespe was predictable in his partisan ramblings.  Craig was pretty ineffective.  The lady from New York Times was probably the most disappointing in the panel.

    Greenwald On ABC's This Week | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment