<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>No, I was wrong, Common Dreams has put up the Rich article. A good object lesson on the state of the liberal-left. But some of the commenters get it, I think. And perhaps even some on the NYT website.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> David Green <davegreen84@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, February 28, 2010 1:48:45 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Sunday NYT: What to think<BR></FONT><BR>
<META content=off http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>I looked on Common Dreams to see if they featured Rich's Sunday dose, as they usually do. Instead, they have a relevant article by Robert Parry:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/28-4" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/28-4</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But left-liberal outlets like this show no sign of unmasking liberal fulminators like Rich. They're still somewhat beholden to MoveOn.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> David Green <davegreen84@yahoo.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> Peace Discuss <peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, February 28, 2010 1:27:29 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Sunday NYT: What to think<BR></FONT><BR>This is scary mainstream stuff indeed, and certainly should be taken seriously.<BR><BR>It does show how worried the liberal establishment is about the popular discontent represented by the Tea Party movement. (Don't these people know enough to leave politics to their betters?)<BR><BR>Worse, the liberal paper of record continues on its campaign in support of Mideast war - nothing new there, it's been down with the program for many a day - but also I think
sees it as a cover for Obama's elite-favoring domestic policies ("Don't you know there's a war on?"), both directly and via deficit-hawkery.<BR><BR>Of course even the imminent disappearance of the NYT won't do much god. The cure for the Times' bad speech is more speech, not less. We should be attacking directly the Times liberal prevarications and misrepresentations, as you do here. --CGE<BR><BR>David Green wrote:<BR>> Many elite Americans--mostly liberals--read the Sunday NYT in order to be told what to think. Today Frank Rich told them that the Tea Party movement has no basis in genuine dissatisfaction, including antiwar sentiment (foreign policy is not mentioned in the article). Liberal Rich throws in his lot with the "mainstream" GOP perspective:<BR>> "No less an establishment conservative observer than the Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz describes Paul’s followers <<A
href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071330757893248.html" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071330757893248.html</A>> as “conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged.”"<BR>> <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html?ref=opinion</A><BR>> From Israeli Ephraim Karsh, we get a racist view of the Islamic world, and the case for an attack on Iran:<BR>> <BR>> "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s two-track plan — discussion with Tehran while at the same time lining up meaningful sanctions — is fine as far as it goes. But a military strike must remain a serious option: there is no peaceful way to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, stemming as they do from its
imperialist brand of national-Islamism."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html?ref=opinion" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html?ref=opinion</A><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> This is scary "mainstream" stuff, and should be taken seriously.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> DG<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and<BR>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <<A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://www.mailscanner.info/</A>>, and is<BR>> believed to be clean.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Peace-discuss mailing list<BR>> <A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank
ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR>> <A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR><BR>-- <BR>This message has been scanned for viruses and <BR>dangerous content by <A href="http://www.mailscanner.info/" rel=nofollow target=_blank><B>MailScanner</B></A>, and is <BR>believed to be clean.
<META content=on http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control></DIV></DIV></div><br>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>