The Neoconolist Conspiracy

The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan – The Daily Beast

A list-serv existed that brought many Likudnik and neocon defenders of Israel’s government together; and on that list-serv, the former AIPAC spokesman, Josh Block, urged a coordinated campaign to target key critics of Netanyahu as anti-Semites. As soon as this was revealed by a leaked email and a piece by Justin Elliott, the list-serv shut down.

Here are the details of the email coordinating smears against various writers mainly connected to the Center for American Progress:

Block’s email to the Freedom Community list arrived under the subject line “Important piece to echo and the research to do it….” – a reference to the Politico story. He wasted no time throwing around more accusations of anti-Semitism.

“This kind of anti-Israel sentiment is so fringe it’s support by CAP is outrageous, but at least it is out in the open now — as is their goal – clearly applauded by revolting allies like the pro-HAMAS and anti-Zionist/One State Solution advocate Ali Abunumiah and those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having ‘dual loyalties’ or being ‘Israel-Firsters’ – to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats,” Block writes. “These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.”

The blacklist included writers such as Matt Duss, Eli Clifton, Ali Gharib, Matt Yglesias, and Media Matters’ M.J. Rosenberg. Duss responds here. Look: there’s nothing wrong with making strong arguments against those with whom you disagree. But when you call them anti-Semites and when you argue that there should be a campaign to isolate, defame and get rid of them, you have gone over into the kind of bullying that is inimical to an open society. And by bullying, I mean:

I wonder if Steny Hoyer or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Dick Durban or James Clyburn agree with CAP?  I wonder if they will say they disagree and condemn this stuff and expect better. You know how I feel – look at the below — and ask them how they feel about this discourse from CAP and Media Matters.

After you read the story, see below for more examples of CAP’s and Media Matter’s work and statements along these lines….

YOU SHOULD AMPLIFY this.  And use the below to attack the bad guys.

A question: why is Journolist out of order but the Freedom Community isn’t? And who was on the Freedom Community list? Who are on the list-serv being urged to smear other writers as anti-Semites and pressure the organizations that employ them?

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

15 comments on “The Neoconolist Conspiracy

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. The frog says Alana Goldman is very nice, so I won’t say more than I’m not very surprised she doesn’t see anything particularly scurrilous in the e-mail she received three different times.

    But it’s nice, DM, to see that you’ve gotten over your problems with journalists and activists discussing stories and ideas of import to them, even if it’s taken you more than two years.

  2. OT, I guess it was expected the actual ending to BoardWalk Empire, like the Atreus clan, Darmody was not long for this world.

    • I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I had been wrong about BE ending last week, but I think that the second-to-last episode was much stronger than the actual 2nd Season finale. Still good, and may serve the narrative better if there’s to be another season.

      Now that I’ve seen the second episode of BREAKING BAD S1, I’m surprised to that so many people over the years have treated it as “serious drama” rather than as “dark comedy.” I think it possibly qualifies as both, but much more of the latter than I had expected based on past discussion and on the the just-concluded season.

      Did you ever busy yourself on it, Mr. Phrog?

  3. I guess one might call noir comedy, the humor is very dark, like some of the Travolta/Jackson repartee in Pulp Fiction, the part of the lesson of having the right plastic container to do the business,

    • All of the Pinkman trying to deal with the corpse was dark farce. Dealing with the live guy is much darker, and for me strains credulity quite a bit. If I found it more believable, it would alienate me from Walt and Jesse further. If I had been watching it at the time it was new, I might have felt tempted to give up on it at that point…

  4. It’s much more hands on a situation than say another academic turned Criminal, Moriarty, would get involved, then again he Major Moran to do his dirty work, a template that continues with the current incarnation of Sherlock, by the m akers of Dr. Who, have you been watching it.

  5. The new season will be available on line on January 1st, Jared Harris should make an interesting Moriarty in the film

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins