I've been looking at Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo a fair amount lately. While he's good on his facts and scholarly in his argumentative approach, he still comes off as another Washington wannabe hanging out with the same tired government types, chasing the same types of leads, and reaching the same namby-pamby "consensus" as everyone else. He favors invading Iraq to install leadership more to the US's liking, for example, only disagreeing with Bush et al over the timing and the methodology--a viewpoint not likely to get doors slammed in anyone's face. (Karl Rove wants the media talking about Iraq to get their minds off Bush ties to corporate mal-fee-ance: who is Josh to buck the trend?) Folks constantly change hats in DC, from government to lobbying to media to think tanks, in an endless (lucrative) circulating flow, and if you're a pundit you inevitably pull your punches, since the person you're criticizing today might be working in the same office with you tomorrow. That's the suckup trail Marshall appears to be on. By contrast, a lot of what the west coast pundits (Counterpunch.org, Antiwar.com) print is paranoid speculation, but at least they call'em like they see'em and don't have to worry about "offending a potential source." The granddaddy of unimpeachable commentators, of course, was I. F. Stone, who worked solo, burrowing through government records, drawing intelligent conclusions, and printing the documented dirt. That's what Talking Points Memo should be like--instead of "I called Jane So-and-so in Senator Such-and-Such's office and I'm still waiting for her to get back to me..." or "I'm appearing on MSNBC tomorrow so be sure to tune in..."
Update, January '06: Marshall was wrong to support the war--got sucked in like a lot of other centrists by the disgraced Kenneth Pollack's BS--but most of the rest of this post was unfounded fretting. Marshall has done terrific work tracking government shenanigans--particularly during the Bush push to destroy Social Security. And he recently moved to New York.
For an example of Marshall's jitteriness about saying anything negative to our rulers, consider today's post. After a long, tortured explanation of why he still favors firing the first shot against Iraq, he confesses: "But let me discuss with you for a moment what I find the most difficult about this debate. The more ardent supporters of regime change lie a lot. I really don't know how else to put it. I'm not talking about disagreements over interpretation. I mean people saying things they either know to be false or have no reason to believe are true. Perhaps the word 'lie' is a very slight exaggeration. Perhaps it's better to say they have a marked propensity to assert as fact points for which there is virtually or absolutely no evidence. How's that?"
To quote Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie with Kristy Swanson, not the series): "Does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?"
that is a great quote funny as funny can be
It is, isn't it? I try to use it sparingly but unfortunately it comes to mind all the time when reading Josh Marshall's weblog. The man is a frequently quoted, up-and-coming pundit, but he sure can state the obvious. Here's another example: in yesterday's entry, he offers an elaborate analysis--including a lengthy quote from Orwell--to suggest that "regime change" is a...are you ready?...dishonest term. He doesn't mention that duplicitous use of the English language is a frequent trick of the Bush camp: "death tax" for "estate tax," "homicide bomber" for you-know -what, etc.
Josh Marshall says it himself: his Talking Points Memo is "the unofficial political blog of the Starbucks and latte set." Today he's on Salon.com explaining why Democrats should get behind GWB's crazed vendetta against Saddie the Baddie. Apparently Josh read some books that convinced him that Saddam is really, really bad--no I mean really, really bad. So now he thinks lots of Americans should die and we should hand unlimited wartime powers to a dry drunk who is just the picture of reason and equanimity. Memo to Josh: Blow Me.
[Just to summarize, Josh is afraid Saddam will get nukes, take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia under cover of "deterrence," and threaten our oil supply and way of life, so we have to invade now. Nothing is said about Israel and its 200 nukes aimed at Iraq--Marshall assumes that Saddam will ignore them, inviting the suicidal destruction of his country. I'd say the likelihood of this weird scenario happening within GWB's tenure is sufficiently low that the Dems should just fuckin' forget Iraq and concentrate on bringing down GWB--for his failure to rout al-Qaida, the state of the economy, his corporate cheatin' buddies, and his own checkered past. This shouldn't be so difficult.]
this is an interesting thread. i found it while looking to alert you to ken 'kenny boy' pollacks forthcoming appearance on meet the eunuch tomorrow. amazing how impactful that book seemed. or at least the gang of 500 elevated it to that status.
That dude should have fled Washington in disgrace, but then, no one flees Washington in disgrace. Once you have joined the daisy chain your hard dick is always welcome (to use a Rude Pundit-like metaphor).
And here he goes again (Josh Marshall). While moaning about Bush's screwups he's pushing the party line about dangerous Iranian expansionism.
|
I've been looking at Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo a fair amount lately. While he's good on his facts and scholarly in his argumentative approach, he still comes off as another Washington wannabe hanging out with the same tired government types, chasing the same types of leads, and reaching the same namby-pamby "consensus" as everyone else. He favors invading Iraq to install leadership more to the US's liking, for example, only disagreeing with Bush et al over the timing and the methodology--a viewpoint not likely to get doors slammed in anyone's face. (Karl Rove wants the media talking about Iraq to get their minds off Bush ties to corporate mal-fee-ance: who is Josh to buck the trend?) Folks constantly change hats in DC, from government to lobbying to media to think tanks, in an endless (lucrative) circulating flow, and if you're a pundit you inevitably pull your punches, since the person you're criticizing today might be working in the same office with you tomorrow. That's the suckup trail Marshall appears to be on. By contrast, a lot of what the west coast pundits (Counterpunch.org, Antiwar.com) print is paranoid speculation, but at least they call'em like they see'em and don't have to worry about "offending a potential source." The granddaddy of unimpeachable commentators, of course, was I. F. Stone, who worked solo, burrowing through government records, drawing intelligent conclusions, and printing the documented dirt. That's what Talking Points Memo should be like--instead of "I called Jane So-and-so in Senator Such-and-Such's office and I'm still waiting for her to get back to me..." or "I'm appearing on MSNBC tomorrow so be sure to tune in..."
Update, January '06: Marshall was wrong to support the war--got sucked in like a lot of other centrists by the disgraced Kenneth Pollack's BS--but most of the rest of this post was unfounded fretting. Marshall has done terrific work tracking government shenanigans--particularly during the Bush push to destroy Social Security. And he recently moved to New York.
- tom moody 9-03-2002 8:49 pm
For an example of Marshall's jitteriness about saying anything negative to our rulers, consider today's post. After a long, tortured explanation of why he still favors firing the first shot against Iraq, he confesses: "But let me discuss with you for a moment what I find the most difficult about this debate. The more ardent supporters of regime change lie a lot. I really don't know how else to put it. I'm not talking about disagreements over interpretation. I mean people saying things they either know to be false or have no reason to believe are true. Perhaps the word 'lie' is a very slight exaggeration. Perhaps it's better to say they have a marked propensity to assert as fact points for which there is virtually or absolutely no evidence. How's that?"
To quote Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie with Kristy Swanson, not the series): "Does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?"
- tom moody 9-21-2002 4:27 am
that is a great quote funny as funny can be
- sarah 9-22-2002 10:47 pm
It is, isn't it? I try to use it sparingly but unfortunately it comes to mind all the time when reading Josh Marshall's weblog. The man is a frequently quoted, up-and-coming pundit, but he sure can state the obvious. Here's another example: in yesterday's entry, he offers an elaborate analysis--including a lengthy quote from Orwell--to suggest that "regime change" is a...are you ready?...dishonest term. He doesn't mention that duplicitous use of the English language is a frequent trick of the Bush camp: "death tax" for "estate tax," "homicide bomber" for you-know -what, etc.
- tom moody 9-23-2002 2:07 am
Josh Marshall says it himself: his Talking Points Memo is "the unofficial political blog of the Starbucks and latte set." Today he's on Salon.com explaining why Democrats should get behind GWB's crazed vendetta against Saddie the Baddie. Apparently Josh read some books that convinced him that Saddam is really, really bad--no I mean really, really bad. So now he thinks lots of Americans should die and we should hand unlimited wartime powers to a dry drunk who is just the picture of reason and equanimity. Memo to Josh: Blow Me.
[Just to summarize, Josh is afraid Saddam will get nukes, take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia under cover of "deterrence," and threaten our oil supply and way of life, so we have to invade now. Nothing is said about Israel and its 200 nukes aimed at Iraq--Marshall assumes that Saddam will ignore them, inviting the suicidal destruction of his country. I'd say the likelihood of this weird scenario happening within GWB's tenure is sufficiently low that the Dems should just fuckin' forget Iraq and concentrate on bringing down GWB--for his failure to rout al-Qaida, the state of the economy, his corporate cheatin' buddies, and his own checkered past. This shouldn't be so difficult.]
- tom moody 11-11-2002 8:42 am
this is an interesting thread. i found it while looking to alert you to ken 'kenny boy' pollacks forthcoming appearance on meet the eunuch tomorrow. amazing how impactful that book seemed. or at least the gang of 500 elevated it to that status.
- dave 1-27-2007 6:12 pm
That dude should have fled Washington in disgrace, but then, no one flees Washington in disgrace. Once you have joined the daisy chain your hard dick is always welcome (to use a Rude Pundit-like metaphor).
- tom moody 1-27-2007 8:10 pm
And here he goes again (Josh Marshall). While moaning about Bush's screwups he's pushing the party line about dangerous Iranian expansionism.
- tom moody 1-30-2007 10:18 am