Through much of the past eight years, Dorris Kearns Goodwin and her non-threatening, DC loyalist brand of "liberalism" was granted high profile token placement on Meet the Press and other venues where she was summarily eaten alive by professional wingnut vipers like Kate O’Beirne.
Her feeble jokes and banal, pop culture grasp of history made her perfect for the job of reinforcing every negative liberal sterotype the GOP media complex wanted to generate — soft, ineffectual, unequal to the task of standing tall and defending America from the terrorist threat.
She talks about the imperative for giving Bush a pass on torture this morning on Imus (audio):
IMUS: Kind of interesting — let me clear my throat — kind of interesting that [Obama] has already expressed a reluctance to dismantle or even investigate some of these Bush programs — domestic eavesdropping, detainee treatment — says he’s going to close Guantanamo – I guess my point is he is not demonstrating himself to be the wild eyed crazed radical that he was portrayed as by some folks, and more importantly in my view he’s not going to waste a bunch of time that doesn’t make any sense when the wheels have come off the world and he’s got all those problems to solve, which you just talked about.
GOODWIN: You’re absolutely right, Don. I mean, I think — you know what it shows is I don’t think this man has a vindictive bone in his body, which is a good thing. I mean you know obviously you’d want to stop whatever it is Bush was doing that you disagreed with, as you were just saying Guantanamo — but you don’t have enough time and energy and imagination and focus right now to look backward, you have to go forward. I fact that was one of the great strengths that Abraham Lincoln had. You know he said you can’t allow these past hurts to fester within you, or it poisons a part of you. So think about what would happen if we get a whole bunch of hearings going on in the Congress and the newspapers are filled with looking back in a negative way about what Bush did. That’s not going to help us at this moment in time when you’ve got these crises at home and these crises abroad. So you decide you’re going to stop doing what you didn’t want to do that he did, but you don’t want to take the imagination of the people and the energies and the focus away from the future. And I think it’s a very healthy thing on his part. There’ll be some people on the Hill who are going to be mad who wanted that pound of flesh, I mean just at the end of Lincoln’s administration there were people who wanted him to go against the South, you know to make them pay for what they had done and even to change the states around so they didn’t have the same names any more. And he just said now is the time to go forward. He had to protect the black rights, but on the other hand he didn’t want to look back vindictively. And I think it’s a very healthy part of Obama’s temperament right now.
Goodwin’s insipid book on Lincoln, "A Team of Rivals," is becoming the intellectual justification for the "forgive and forget" impulse of the DC chattering class with regard to the Bush administration crimes — as if forging a memory hole about Bush’s extra legal wiretapping and torture policies would somehow be equal to Lincoln’s efforts to fold the Southern states back into the Union after the Civil War. (Jon Meecham employed the same "Lincoln did it" argument on Scarborough this morning to excuse what Bush did "in a time of war," and Big Tent Democrat rightfully rips him for the sheer wrong-headedness of his defense.)
Historian Matthew Pinsker shredded Goodwin’s whole premise about Lincoln’s "team of rivals" in the LA Times, saying that "There were painful trade-offs with the ‘team of rivals’ approach that are never fully addressed in the book, or by others that offer happy-sounding descriptions of the Lincoln presidency."
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s grasp of history is about a teaspoon deep, but what she has she’s willing to twist to buy establishment Washington a pass for their silence and complicity during the past eight years. Together with Ruth Marcus and other simpering members of the DC chattering class, she is a purveyor of the belief that the rule of law ought to apply to ordinary people but establishment Washington should be exempt. To espouse anything else is to be "vindictive."
Goodwin grinned complacently for years sitting next to Tim Russert and said nothing while outrage after outrage piled up. If people start asking "what happened," she’ll have to explain why she was happy to sit in a high-profile perch and spew drivel instead of asking serious questions, and she’s willing to twist history and prostitute Lincoln to buy herself that pass.
(h/t prairie sunshine)



94 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
If it weren’t for the moral cowards, we’d have no morals at all. or something…
I don’t understand why those people are afforded any sense of relevance, whatsoever. The mind wobbles.
I appreciate DKG’s writings about history very much. But you are correct in that she has no business offering political analysis. She’s great at THEN, not so much at NOW. She belongs on Booknotes, not MTP.
We must start holding folks accountable, or it will happen again and even more bold atrocities will occur and with more ferocity and impunity. Perish the thought.
This is the same Doris Kearns Goodwin who had a cloud of plagiarism hangng over her head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin , and was featured on NPR this fall marketing the “Team of Rivals” path.
Goodwin has won the jackpot in the historian lottery. No need to dig deep when that lucrative platitude vein runs so close to the surface.
What do you mean by “holding folks accountable’?
Doris the Skank:
Yeah, that’s right Doris. We just “disagreed” a little with the torture and renditions, and the illegal wiretapping. It’s really no big deal, can’t we disagree without being disagreeable?
Can you imagine what the TV gasbags would say if it was a democrat who committed war crimes?
Jane made the case very clearly below that we are well past “forgive and forget.” The meat puppets of the corporatist groups such as DKG should be given no accommodation. Paraphrasing Richard Pryor, “Doris, sit down, STFU and have a Coke and a smile.”
What exactly do these people think the future will hold when torture is practiced with impunity under the legal cover of inaction?
A stitch in time saves nine, how about that?
One thing the Villagers miss about Lincoln’s plan to bring the Southern States back into the Union – We KNEW who the criminals and law breakers were. We are no where near knowing all the crimes that have been committed by the outgoing administration.
I’m still irritated Ken Burns included her in his PBS baseball documentary.
Compare and Contrast with Scott Horton’s piece up on his Harper’s blog:
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004174
about another Chief Executive, accused of allowing and ordering torture of prisoners.
In particular, that the Executive allowed prisoners to be stripped naked and beaten.
The verdict?
The issue isn’t who Lincoln forgave. It is whether or not Lincoln ordered torture of prisoners and if he had, should he have faced no consequence. The ability of an Executive to grant pardons to others is not the same as putting the Executive above the Constitution.
What Mary said!!
Also we have no idea what Lincoln would have done as far as letting the ex-Confederates participate in politics in their home states.
folks who loves them some torture and extraordinary rendition. those folks. accountable. now.
in reply to the headline of this post….
Hey, she had every right to be there. “Wait Till Next Year” lovely book.
Yes, Doris is a little bit sloppy when it comes to remembering who wrote what in her books, which, without their plagiarised portions, would be even thinner.
Yes!
I. am. so. sick. of Pelosi types saying we have other priorities. This is like saying “oh sweetie I’m sorry that your uncle has molested you but I’m busy grocery shopping right now.”
really messed up.
Damn, I thought I was the only person in America that thought Doris
Kearns Badloss was a hack.
“A Team of Rivals” was drivel on steroids. She should go back to plagiarizing. Although not original, it was readable.
Bush Apologizes: The Farewell Interview We Wish He’d Give
W. comes clean – on his dad, Condi’s farts and the time Dick waterboarded the house boy
By MATT TAIBBIPosted Jan 22, 2009 11:45 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/ne…..y/25329027
renditions, torture, black prisons, massive fraud, mercenaries, these are all but quaint reminders of the past
the geneva convention is a sweet but ridiculous relic
the constitution a mere collection of suggestions
habeas corpus…well you get the point
ignorance is strength
hail amsoc!
In interviews, I found her naive and completely lacking in content. She shared how she felt about baseball as a child. I’m glad she liked baseball.
Quite the analogy. It is very messed up.
The point is there is really no “need to know” about Classified Source and Methods. The disclosure of these to meet a political desire for vengeance is reminiscent of the bloody purges that go in Third World Countries when authority is transferred. They are unworthy of a Great Constitional Republic. Even Cicero did not believe in trying Caesar as much as he thought Caesar was destroying the Roman Republic.
I’d love to stop what Bush is doing that I disagree with, Doris. It’s probably more important, a legal and moral imperative, in fact, that Obama and Congress stop what he is doing that is illegal or that threatens our national and economic security.
Ms. Goodwin buys into the Wingnut falsehoods that everything is a horse race, that all disagreements are about differences of opinion, not facts, and that the golden mean is midway between two shouting heads on Fox News or Meet the Puerile.
It is easy to label prisoners at Guantanamo bad. No trials, no making the government put up or shut up. We know some of them were cab drivers and the like whose crime was to be given up by someone who didn’t like them or who was currying favor with the occupiers. It’s like a criminal case where new evidence exonerates a convicted defendant but the prosecutor fights against a new trial as if the person was actually guilty.
What happens if the powers that be decide to forgive and forget? That’s how we slowly turn fascist. We huddle in our houses hoping the knock doesn’t come to our door. We are not so principled we put our necks on the block for a stranger to whom injustice has been done. It’s understandable. I’ve watch lots of *hit go down and did nothing. We need to organize. We need to get courage from each other. When lots of people stand up, the nasty few will back down-or that’s the theory. So what to do? It’s past time to talk about it, but hopefully it’s not too late.
Mary, I think you’re mistaking Mr. Horton’s account of the execution of Charles for an example of correct legal process.
The issue is not how best to take vengance but how best to maintain our system of laws.
Excuse me, but just WTF does George Bush have to do with Abraham Lincoln other than they were both presidents of the US but 140 years apart. The only other similarity was that they were both on the same planet and not anywhere near the same time.
I can’t believe anyone cares what you think – unbelieveable
WHAT would you do. to hold them. accountable? Huh?
Well said.
But in fact the rights of African Americans weren’t protected, were they?
I really hated it when David Brooks parroted White House talking points. I don’t like it any better now that someone like Kearns Goodwin is doing it. Obama used this line 4 times in his Stephanopoulos interview. Biden has also used it. This is a classic cop out. By not addressing Nixon’s lawbreaking we got Reagan. By not addressing Reagan’s law breaking we got Bush. It is precisely by “moving forward” without regard for the past which allows these problems to “fester”. If Nixon had not been pardoned, we would never have had Bush. The disasters that surround us would not have happened.
Kearns Goodwin, Cokie Roberts, the whole NPR crew, Jim Lehrer and the NewsHour, these are all people whose public lives have lasted much longer than their usefulness. They represent the existential problem of the entire pundit class. If over 8 years they couldn’t recognize the worst Presidency in our history, then what seriously can they tell us about anything?
The “Team of Rivals” idea for the Obama cabinet was always stupid. In fact, we have an example on the NYT op-ed page of Wilson appointing Bryan as SoS for purely domestic political reasons, so Lincoln wasn’t the only one who did it. The thing about the team of rivals is that Lincoln appointed all of his rivals for the nomination, so they represented every faction in the Republican Party, in a much smaller cabinet, and they continued hating each other.
If you didn’t know very much about Seward, Bates, or Chase, the thing was worth reading. Also the footnotes were valuable.
Kearns is a plagiarist and as a historian she is a fraud.
Lincoln did not protect “black rights” because he was murdered as a result of a Confedrate conspiracy. After the civil war, former slaves were denied most of their rights for the next hundred years. The South and the North were quite vindictive against former slaves.
Doris Kearns, Kookie Roberts, and Andrea Mitchell, are three professional liars who are a disgrace to their gender and their country.
So true.
And the idea that Lincoln had the political genius to press things when the country was ready for them and not before was not original with Doris Kearns Goodwin.
24: But the idea is that torture was considered an unforgivable charge at the very beginning of the liberal tradition.
President Lincoln allowed for a mass trial in MN in which 303 Santee Sioux were tried without benefit of a defense. Many of the trials lasted less than five minutes. After the trial Lincoln remanded the sentences of 284 who were sent to prison in Iowa. 39 were hung in what is the largest mass execution in american history.
166 hrs & 48 min
what is your problem with me?
I want war criminals investigated, tried and convicted. If we can’t do it here in the US (which I have stated many times on this blog is quite improbable), then I am hoping that some international organization will take it on.
OK?
Goodwin:
Somehow PEBO strikes me as the sort who can walk and chew gum at the same time. Anyway, we have special prosecutors exactly so that overburdened presidents and congresses don’t have to do their own prosecuting. The Republican’s had no problem simultaneously pursuing their “Contract with America” and prosecuting a sitting presidents for whatever the hell they could find. They multitasked quite effectively, and I suspect that Obama could too.
Hague! Hague! Hague!
So as long as something can be classified, who cares what law breaking it entails then, huh? Boy, I bet Valerie Plame likes that idea.
Uh, you do recall what Caesar’s fate was correct? Seems that Cicero’s actions did a good bit to destroy the Roman Republic and maybe if Cicero had actually, you know, tried Caesar for his crimes, then Rome might just have saved itself a good bit of futre trouble.
Kind of like now where we’d like to see the laws followed and enforced as written to forestall various someones proclaiming themselves Caesar.
Well, I agree with you. But I sometimes wonder if Jim et al are hanging on so that the Newshour won’t swing even farther to the right without them. My wishful thinking says they are augered in and doing the minimum to satisfy their wingnut Big Oil masters. I do think Judy Woodruff is the most pliable of all of them, letting guests wingnuts blather on with the least control and reining in from her, and always giving some Bush apologist the last word. disappointing. But at least people aren’t yelling at each other. That’s my faint praise.
There is absolutely no comparison between George Bush and Abe Lincoln.
By definition of law George Bush is a war criminal.
I have no problem with you. I was asking you to clarify something that you said. That a problem?
Guillotine!
Yes We Can!
Dammit. It riles me no end that a stand v. torture is equated to “being nice” to terrorists (bounty hunter booty) and civil liberties are snivelled at. THIS is what are country was founded on, not Gods and Guns on Steroids. *spit*
whatev.
[Sorry if anyone said this already; I haven’t had time to read through all of the comments] What Kearns misses is that, after the Civil war, the leaders of the rebellion in the South were punished by the devestation of the War. Rebellion and treason had their own penalties.
Today, in the aftermath of the Bush Administration, what is at stake here is the rule of law. Many administration officials who knowingly broke the law will be walzing away to lucritive corporate positions, never feeling or understanding that the principles which underlie the Republic have been trashed. Moreover, these people have trashed the good name of our country in the eyes of the world. We can redeem it by showing they are not above the law.
I second Hugh’s comment about Jim Lehrer’s crew at NewsHour: they have outlived their usefulness and now defend the MSM’s self-aggrandizing exceptionalism instead of displaying it for public criticism. They are marginally better at delivering the news than the MSM. But like Bush, Lehrer seems intent on taking us back to a 1950’s, “our government must be good because they’re our government” schtick that America discarded during Vietnam.
He gives us a washed out Ed Murrow-like persona, critiquing fictional, cleaned-up Joe McCarthy-like politicians. His defining style is that politeness is more important than the facts or those who lie about them. His is a kind of Southern politeness that discusses only those topics suitable for Sunday on the porch. He ignores what happens under the bedsheets, whether used to cloak Saturday night’s gropings in the bedroom or the violence of the Klan.
I think that there is some comparison between Bush and Lincoln. Not that Bush isn’t a war criminal but rather that Lincoln isn’t the saint he is purported to be. see my 34
166 hrs & 35 min
Every time I’ve seen Kearns Goodwin on the tube I’ve fantasized the late great Barbara Tuchman (god rest her) walking into the studio, jerking her thumb at Doris the Passive, and telling her, “Out of that chair, lightweight!”
Well, perhaps the inmates in jails and prisons across America will be persuaded that DKG is right; they should be prosecuted under the law up and until the time they become Very Important Politically Connected People. At which point, they can do anything with no legal consequences.
Good to know that DKG is giving such useful civics lessons, designed to encourage social harmony and a shared sense of sacrifice and fairness.
/s
Let’s not solve the arson/fraud known as 9/11 either, right, Doris?
7 purported “hijackers” are known to be alive in the aftermath of their supposed suicide mission, yet the media and the government still dutifully proclaim their participation (all 19) in the events of that day…yet you want us to ignore the fact that no one has been arrested and convicted for the arson and insurance fraud we know as 9/11?
Sure – we’ll respect your opinion – you bet.
But Cicero did engage in the extra-judicial murder of one of Caesar’s mentors Catiline because he thought he was plotting a coup against the Republic. Apparently you never took Latin.
Yesterday Indians ….. today Arabs Guess I was wrong !
25 – Nope. I’m saying that our legal precedent includes trials of Chief Executives (like Stuart) based on the premise that they were not above the law, and that after trial and evidence could be (and should be) convicted.
You may be confusing “how best to maintain our system of laws” with looking forward, not back, and not having to address the difficult questions and issues of not just Chief Executive, but a whole intelligence agency, riddled with torture and torturers.
No one is going to void the due process provisions that now exist (and did not for Stuart) and no one is going to cut off heads with an axe, and if that is all you took away for the example, I’m not sure that it’s worth making this next point again, but I will anyway. What is still the concept is that a Chief Executive who orders torture is responsible for, not exempt from, the consequences.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:
Well behaved women rarely make history.
Thanks Jane for always remembering this quote
So many of the people involved in the crimes of the past eight years had the ability to do so because we “forgave” and looked “forward” thirty five years ago. And again twenty five years ago with Ronnie Raygun/Bush the senior. The lesson they learned was that there was nothing they couldn’t get away with. That is why, in my opinion, we must prosecute these criminals.
25 – and as a PS, there is no “system of laws” if a Chief Executive is allowed to opt in and out at will. Protect that if you want, but call it by its proper name and abandon the pretense that it is a system of laws.
For the small amount of time I spend watching cable “news”, I have noticed with annoyance how often I see Goodwin’s face. Surely there are many other historians media could bring on their programs. Maybe they have & I’m not aware of it but somehow I doubt it.
Ah, Doris Kearns Plagiarist, who thought that the Marc Rich pardon was worse than Bush Senior pardoning his Iran-Contra co-conspirators so they wouldn’t rat on him.
I’ve yet to hear anyone say, “Golly, 9/11 is a painful episode, let’s just forget it and look forward.” That kind of attitude wouldn’t be merely morally corrupt, it would put the nation at risk. Ignoring Bush’s crimes would not be merely morally corrupt, it would put the nation at risk.
Like you, I think “Team of Rivals” has some good points.
The problem as I see it is that it’s a completely false analogy today.
Was Seward a torturer?
No.
Did Stanton unilaterally revise regulations on prisoners of war, without taking it through Congress?
No.
Lincoln was not faced with the problem that confronts Obama.
Lincoln didn’t have to retrieve the nation’s reputation in a global telecommunications melieu.
Misusing analogies like “Team of Rivals” by extending them to cover everything Obama does is patently sloppy, and it’s laying the stage for problems down the line.
You never know someone unless you do business or sleep with them. Doris has never been okay since the Dodgers left Brooklyn. It’s sad. She should get a pass. Bush et al. should get a pass until he’s exPOTUS. I really don’t want to hear about Doris and her justifying martial law
If we don’t hold Bush accountable it will set a precedent that future generations could use to defend even greater atrocities.
As you suggested it would be a moral failure .
For its time, Dr. Guillotine’s device was a humane improvement over dull axes maliciously or incompetently wielded. The civilized world has grown beyond the need to exact torture or capital punishment for stealing bread, for heresy or for disagreeing with the king. Even kings who abuse their people are stunted not by the headsman’s axe, but by being condemned to live in the south of France with the harpy for whom they gave up a crown.
The proper consequence for Bush and Cheney and their lieutenants is to be made subject to the laws they most sought to discredit. The most suitable response to their crimes is to resuscitate government and run it well, not for Mr. Cheney’s one per centers, but for the ninety-nine percent of Americans who work and pay and live and die defending and paying for it.
So when would it not be a good idea to move forward and leave the past to itself? Should this have been done on May 9, 1945?
Cicero survived Caesar; it was Octavian that got him. By that point, the Republic had to change into an Empire…Possibly it IS that time for the USA because the kind of backbiting politics that has folks trying to try their predecessors is EXACTLY what destroyed the Roman Republic which was designed to foster compromise with two consuls, two praetors, etc..each who could veto the other..Catiline needed execution. The Executive’s first reponsibility is to preserve the Polity. To try him afterwords destroys the polity and as such, should be avoided. I really believe that Obama wants to spend his time looking forward…not wasting his political and economic capital looking back…
Actually, as I stated in the thread below, once Germany was defeated, no trials should have been held. As Taft pointed out, we sullied our legal system by using partly Soviet techniques and it was victor’s justice which is cited now as precedent. It is bad precedent and should be overruled.
Right. Cicero survived Caesar but the Roman Republic did not since the Romans elected to kill Caesar rather than try him.
Nice to know how much you hate the Constitution though, since your way would totally destroy it and the Republic with it.
I don’t agree ,see my 62.
Eloquent and well- reasoned. I particularly like your addendum.
What I would suggest to you is that the history of England, through the laws that we’ve inherited, has made for easier to replace a head of state than to convict him of felonies.
Would it be fair to say that Doris Kearns Goodwin is quickly becoming the Thomas Friedman of historians?
No–we do it by elections. The election has been held. Obama won. Let him govern. Let those who want nothing more than to retire, retire!
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich:
Well behaved women rarely make history.
That should be modified to
well behaved people rarely make history.
What I am saying is that the desire for vengeance and political vindictiveness is destroying the Republic and an Empire may be the only choice.
Yours is a valid point that should be shouted loud. Historical analogies are metaphors. They are not what they describe. They are attempts to paint a little known current figure with known past colors. They may or may not accurately reflect the subject’s true colors. Instead of enlightening, analogies are more often today used as propaganda, to associate the supposedly good or bad traits of historical figures with those personalities we favor or oppose.
Bush’s supplied rhetoric, for example, is not remotely Churchillian. That’s a belly laugh. Churchill wrote his own speeches, whereas Bush can barely read the words given him. But Bush’s handlers want to associate him with a politician chiefly remembered for successful wartime leadership, despite or because of Bush’s gross failures as a wartime leader.
Similarly, twenty-first century American is not 1860’s America and Obama is not Lincoln. Nor was Saddam Hussein Hitler. Propagandists merely want to associate criticism of Bush with the after-the-fact disdain for those politicians who misread or failed to oppose Hitler. In his use of aggressive warfare with little regard for the costs paid by local populations or his own people, Mr. Bush is more Hitlerian than Hussein. That comparison, too, suffers from inaccuracies. But they don’t alter Bush’s incompetence or his callous disregard for consequences and costs that only others bear.
Mr. Bush has a mind that can grasp only costs he himself bears, like inheritance taxes, for which he has an articulate abiding disdain. He’s not alone, which is why it is imperative that Obama’s administration publicly catalog Bush’s most grievous violations of the law and where there is sufficient evidence, prosecute, convict and punish the violators.
It’s been more than a century since this country started it’s experiment in Empire.
Thanks for this Jane
It has infuriated me over the years that such an historical lightweight was given a TV forum. Is the state of historical understanding in USA so bad that Goodwin is actually treated as an historian? If so, we ARE doomed!
We’re a very stupid empire. I’d rather have a smart Republic.
American TV usually prefers lightweights to intelligent, thoughtful, informed people.
Heh.
Some points that are important:
Without an independent, open and thorough accounting of all those held in US custody since January 21st, 2001, all those renditioned, and all those disappeared, those still held secretly may never be released; their families may never know what happened to them.
The victims of torture under the Bush administration were overwhelmingly not American. Americans do not have the right to decide that they do not have the right to seek justice.
Standing for justice and accountability,
For Dan,
Heather
You really want to live in a dictatorship. The first responsibility of our government is the defense and preservation of the US Constitution, not the “Polity”. If we defend the Constitution, the polity will be preserved. If we do not defend the Constitution, then there is no polity worth preserving.
A little history is a dangerous thing. Platitudes and inaccurate metaphors replace facts, and are not saved by being about Rome or Hitler, Churchill or King Charles.
As David Brooks might say, using his best Bulwer-Lytton phrase, looking back has a “backward influence back onto life”. It’s like looking at death, political or real. “Looking back” is code. The issue is really about NOT looking back, as Glenn Greenwald and Scott Horton have taken pains to point out. It is about conferring immunity from prosecution for co-Villagers as much as it is about achieving some mythical consensus from looking forward. Goopers will resist mightily any attempt at making them liable for their misdeeds. Among other tactics, they will blackmail Quisling Democrats like Harmon and Rockefeller ceaselessly.
For Obama, looking back is undesirable because it heightens “conflict”, which I think will replace “terrorism” in the Obama lexicon, giving us the GWOC, instead of the GWOT. He assumes that looking back – that is, addressing past failures and wrongs as a means to avoid repeating them – will distract from the things he wants to accomplish. Never mind that all politics is about conflict, and that failing to “look back” in the case of the CheneyBush administration might destroy what he will shortly vow to preserve, protect and defend.
The devil’s bargain that Republicans will offer Obama is the promise of cooperation with his “centrist” program to fix and rebuild what they’ve broken. What Obama seems willfully to ignore is that they broke it on purpose, not simply out of incompetence (though there was plenty of that). They like government broken because the chaos is profitable and the resulting extremism builds their base. They won’t legitimately help fix it. But they will blame him for his failed fixes, just as they will claim that he did all the breaking in the first place.
Funny thing. I feel even more strongly about Goodwin, not just because she’s banal and superficial, but mainly because she’s a plagiarist and she didn’t do her own research, but others accepted her lame excuses because … I don’t know why. And I think war crimes trials would be most appropriate.
However, if Jane Hamster feels this way, I will have to rethink the matter, because I have yet to see her write anything fair and accurate.
Speaking of accurate, Jane, it’s “Doris,” not “Dorris.” And it’s “Team of Rivals,” not “A Team of Rivals.” If you can’t even get that right, why should we pay attention to what else you say?
If you’re going to mention Goodwin, you can’t forget Michael Beschloss, otherwise known as the rabbi on Seinfeld.
Thanks so much, Jane. Their positions and their own histories are at risk should questions be asked. The conflict of interest is massive. Moving on serves them most of all.
*bows*
Thank you for this, Jane! Too often false framing becomes conventional wisdom because The Villagers decide it’s “out there.”…’nuff already.
There is nothing vindictive about transparency and truth.
Kearns is only one example of the kind of “historian” the corporate media foists on its viewers. Michael Bescloss is another. What they have in common is a view of American history which is narrowly focused on the Presidency. You never hear TV “historians” discussing the role that unions, popular pressure or Congress played in important national moments–it’s always all about the President.
Kearns made her reputation as an historian by spending hundreds of hours with LBJ after the Presidency and writing “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream”, which is a decent introduction to LBJ for those who know little about him. Maybe some of them will go on to read Robert Caro’s masterful multi-volume biography.
Kearns then went on to write about Franklin Roosevelt and, now, Lincoln. She does a decent job of writing light history, and there’s a place for that as an entry level to reading and thinking about history.
That does not mean that she is a perceptive student of current events, or has anything worthwhile to say about politics on television. In those deficiencies, she is joined by about 90% of the people who regularly opine in the corporate media.
Excellent imagery!
Who’s worse Richard Goodwin or Doris Kearns? You had to live in the sixties and seventies and be around Harvard and the wanabes and the folks who used education instituion branding. Goodwin and Kearns have never done a public act which is not terribly self serving and mediocre.
Don’t these historian/ authors need to maintain a certain sense of neutrality on political issues so they can appear to be non-partisan, making it easier to access people from both the Bush and Obama administrations for future book writing purposes?
cuz evidently she’s a presidential historian now on top of her numerous other expertises.
and psst, Lefty, a word to the wise: run for your life, before the groupies devour you.
Michael Beschloss is also crock,
I am so F-ing sick of this “Move on” approach! I have seen several bloggers say that if they do that, why not use the same technique with the average robber, child molester, murderer? In that case, prosecuting them will not bring your car, child’s innocence, life back. So why bother?
Why don’t all Americans see this double standard?????
The issue is not how best to burn the straw man, but how to paint a pretty picture. Bah.
If we don’t uphold laws which relate to the things Bush & Co have done, then we have no Democracy.
If Bernie Madoff can walk on the streets of New York after stealing $50B, then he is free to write checks and hand out diamonds to his relatives and those who have been robbed are robbed again.
If we don’t punish wrong-doers, then they will be free to do it again.
Are we crazy enough to allow monsters to walk free among us to hurt us again?
At least we know Bush won’t be in government again, but if he’s not at least charged & tried for his actions, then what’s to stop others like him from doing the same? Jebbie seems to want to and Babs wants somebody in her family to make her proud. How many of this crew were there from the Nixon or Ford or Reagan years and kept coming back?
Question is: are ya gonna vote for Bush again? No, wait, that’s the punch line of a joke. No, the question is, do you want the liars, thieves & killers to come back and do it to you and your kin again? Well, do ya punk?
Justice: giving someone what they deserve.