The Bush Cult? Try The Cult of Greenwald
I didn’t post much on my own blog last night because I was busily engaged in the ultimate exercise in futility: trying to convince Glenn Greenwald’s sycophantic followers that their hero might, in fact, be wrong, as he clearly was when he stated that Nancy Pelosi never considered Alcee Hastings for the chair of the House Intelligence Committee:
Pelosi never said she was even considering Hastings. All of the media reports suggesting otherwise were either based on pure speculation or, as Jay B notes in Comments, may well have come from the camp of Jane Harman, who was campaigning heavily for the position (perhaps too heavily) and easily could have created the myth that it was either her or the impeached Hastings whom Pelosi was considering.
Now, the above is as clear as rain: Greenwald is saying, in a quite forceful way, that the story was made up. Of course, anyone with a third-grade education knows that’s dead wrong, and a story in the New York Times put the nail in the coffin of that interpretation:
The decision by Mrs. Pelosi, the incoming speaker, ended weeks of speculation over whether she would tap Mr. Hastings, tainted by an old bribery scandal, for one of the most sensitive chairmanships when the Democrats take control of Congress in January.
Members of her staff had said she favored Mr. Hastings. But his position was weakened because he was impeached and removed as a federal judge in 1989 in connection with a bribery case. He was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case.
I showed this quote in the comments of the Greenwald post linked above, and the knee-jerk Greenwald apologists still insisted that Greenwald got it right, as did Greenwald himself today:
It was obvious all along that (a) Hastings wanted the job, (b) the Congressional Black Caucus voiced mild and obligatory support for him, and (c) Pelosi had to proceed carefully so as not to trample on the sensibilities of her caucus when navigating the ambitions of various long-serving members.Thus, Hastings’ name was repeatedly floated by anonymous sources as a leading candidate — likely by some who wanted to help Hastings get the job, likely from Harman’s camp wanting to paint the impeached judge as her only real competition, likely from others with even less noble intentions wanting to harm Pelosi — which, in turn, led to garden-variety Washington speculation and gossip about who would get this position. Idle chatter of this sort happens every day in Washington.
So I guess the Pelosi staffers who told the New York Times that she preferred Hastings were also Harman plants. You can draw your own conclusions, but from where I stand, that’s pure, unadulterated bullspit…
UPDATE 10:07 a.m.: More from the always thorough MinuteMan, who also struggled last night in vain to talk sense to the Greenwald cult…
The more the far lefties get disconnected from reality, the more people give up on trying to help them. They are going to get more and more stupid, it is scary.
I agree with you that Glenn’s take on this situation seems to have been somewhat wrong. I think he mistakenly minimized Pelosi’s feelings about Hastings getting the job. That said, it also seems likely that Glenn’s point had some underlying validity – that the Hastings candidacy was hyped by his supporters, and by Harmon’s people, and by Pelosi’s enemies, and that the general impression in the media and blogosphere probably erred in the opposite direction of Glenn – i,e, by exaggerating Pelosi’s preference for Hastings.
Now, why not take this as a cautionary tale? Instead, what you do is to commit the same error as Glenn. Namely to exaggerate whatever point you have to the extent of being wrong. I refer to you bizarre “cult” comment. Glenn had an interesting and valid point in support of an argument that was overdrawn and thus faulty. One need not be in a “cult” to defend the valid points he made, nor to even come to a different conclusion than I have.
Are you so defensive about the real cult-like behavior of so many on your side of the ailse, that you are just dying to find some excuse the hurl the term back?
Tano, my references to the Greenwald cult refer to (a) the pot-kettle irony involved with such a prominent exponent of the ‘Bush cult’ theory, considering (b) how high the pedestal is that his sycophantically slavish followers have placed him on.
Glenn’s a good blogger, but his biggest problems are two: (1) he paints his opponents with the broadest possible strokes, and (2) he absolutely refuses to admit mistakes (remind you of anyone famous?)…
I’d argue his biggest problem is diarrhea of the keyboard, and an inability to understand that verbosity does not automatically equate to a kind of argumentative impregnability. But that’s more a style issue.
My thoughts exactly. Pelosi leaned toward Hastings, but it’s silly to paint this as some huge, crushing blow as if she had put all of her influence toward his nomination.
Jealous much?
Glenn Greenwald has had his statements engraved on the door of the Senate, has twelve law degrees, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Pelosi Act?” His offhand comments to his dog often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has the most-read blogs on the Interent, or indeed the history of civilization, after just 9 days of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.
I bid you GOOD DAY, sir