Is there anyone sadder than David Sirota?
Like the troll you just can't ban, he's now hollering "conspiracy theorist" at people who've stated that Barbara Lee wasn't allowed to offer an amendment to the Pelosi measure that passed Friday (and let the Dems buy the illegal war). Al Franken's Sirota wants to tell you only conspiracy theorists believe this. Well he is Al Franken's Sirota.
Stinking Sirota, meet your 'conspiracy theorist,' US House Rep Lynn Woolsey, appearing on Democracy Now! last Thursday:
REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: And that's true, but also new members who ran on the very issue of, I am going to vote to bring our troops home, are not going to get that vote today. We should at least have that on the floor. That should be one of the amendments. But more important than -- there will be no amendments. But more important than that amendment, there should be stronger enforcement in the bill, so that each step along the way, where we're saying to the President, one, the troops have to be trained, rested and equipped -- we shouldn't be giving him waivers. He can waive those, and he will.
Then, when we say at each date certain that we want the benchmarks -- we're going to measure the benchmarks that the President has set and that the Iraqi government is supposed to have met, when they haven't met those benchmarks, there is nothing in there that says, "And now, here’s what we’re going to do: we’re going to sequester the money, we're going to now put that money in place to bring our troops home, because obviously the Iraqi government isn't living up to the benchmarks." And then, when we get to the end of August 2008 and the war is still going on, we’re going to say to the President, "Alright, now you have to bring them home." The only way we can force him to do that in this bill is to sue him.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Representative Woolsey, when you say that there will be no amendments, given the heated nature of this debate, wouldn't it be more advisable to at least, for those of you who are in opposition to certain aspects of it, to at least allow amendments on the floor and have debate on them?
REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Well, I believe so. I believe this is a democracy and it's still America, and that's why we supposedly have all of our troops in harm's way, that we should have amendments. And, actually, I disagree with Bob. I think if our amendment, the Barbara Lee amendment, is made an order, which it wasn’t last night and it's not going to, there’s a lot of people that would like to vote "Yes, what I really want is to bring the troops home, but, yes, I will vote with the supplemental, but I want my constituents to know that I really want to bring them home sooner than that."
"There will be no amendments to the bill." Even the other guest on the show agrees with Woolsey's statement that amendments will not be allowed and says that they can't have any amendments at all because if the Lee and Woolsey amendment (a co-authored amendment but Sirota can't very well mention Woolsey since she proves him wrong -- AGAIN) then the Republicans will want an amendment and, like the theory Diane Keaton debunks in Love and Death, there will be anarchy over blintzes! ("I know. And if everybody went to the same restaurant on the same evening and ordered blintzes, there'd be chaos. But they don't.") Lynn Woolsey, member of Congress, co-author of the amendment with Lee, said that on Democracy Now! the day before the vote.
It's pretty simple unless you're Stinking Sirota who, for humor?, also writes: "However, what I don't respect -- and what no one else should respect -- are people who fabricate stories out of whole cloth in order to justify their own political relevance." Yeah. That would be you -- the one screaming "Conspiracy Theorists!" That would be no one but you, the Stinking Sirota, Al Franken's little buddy. Hard times now that Baby Cries A Lot doesn't have a radio show, eh?
Sirota, one of the main reasons In These Times became In The Toilet (they ran off the wrong Dave -- no matter how many laughable e-mails Joel sends out), also wants to stick up for MoveOn and, as usual, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about there either. Pajama blogger and apparent shut in for the group wants to dispute John Stauber that MoveOn didn't alert members to their poll. Well, first they sent out their poll on March 18th. Pajama blogger, in his own defense of MoveOn, reveals, by the way, that "members" are anyone who gets an e-mail from MoveOn.
So we turned to a friend of C.I.'s whose a member 25 times over and asked him to pull up the e-mails from any of his 25 accounts he signed up with and forwarded them over. MoveOn doesn't send one e-mail a week. The day before, the friend was advised of local Iraq actions ("Important Decision on Iraq"). (The friend is, to repeat, a MoveOn member, in fact, he's 25 MoveOn members. C.I. says that's not uncommon and knows a number of people who signed up repeatedly to vote in the 2004 polls -- a studio executive in Los Angeles is thought to hold the record with an even fifty e-mail accounts -- signed up as fifty different people. The 25 member friend wanted it made very clear that has he never given money to MoveOn, not under any of the 25 e-mail accounts that allowed him to vote for his Democratic candidate of choice during the last presidential election cycle -- vote 25 times.) [Clarification for one reader: Those voting multiple times were voting in MoveOn elections, not in real elections -- no laws were broken.]
Now they sent out on the 18th, a Monday. When did the polls close? Who the hell knows? But before eleven o'clock in the morning (EST), March 20th (Wednesday), they were rushing out the e-mail on the results ("The results are in"). Hope the most important thing on your mind Monday morning was seeing what MoveOn wanted this time. If you saw the e-mail in your inbox in time, considering the title (which says nothing about "Vote" or "Poll"), you'd probably assume it was another request for money ("Emergency: Reps Trying to Weaken New Plan For Iraq Exit" -- March 8th, and that e-mail was just begging, no information) or yet another request that you sign one of their petitions ("It's time to take on Fox" -- March 2nd).
No mention of a "vote" in the subject heading, the polls opened and closed very quickly. (Zogby, by contrast, allows those receiving the e-mail to take part in their poll for several days after the original e-mail goes out.) Before Sirota brings his b.o. our way, we're not saying that was a "conspiracy." We're saying MoveOn is run by idiots.
Stinking Pot wants you to know that what he says is just the way it is. He's just a straight-foward reporter. Of course, a real reporter wouldn't, as The Washington Post reported last week, have "dashed off a memo to progressive lawmakers Wednesday night, imploring them to 'accept the congressional world as it is right now,' not to insist on the world as they wish it to be, and vote for the bill." That's not a journalist, no matter how many times The Nation and In The Toilet publish his scribbles. In fact, if any of those outlets operated under even the most basic journalistic principles, Sirota would not be writing for them after that. There is supposed to be a very strong wall between journalism and activism. The much criticized New York Times would even be forced to address Sirota's employment were he covering politics for them.
See, Sirota's not a journalist by any use of the term. He's a political hack (or "operative" if you prefer) who pads out his non-campaign days by jotting off pieces for journals that once featured thinkers but now will provide the badly written scribbles of the next James Carville. No, it's NOT a conspiracy. It's bad writing. It's lowered standards. It goes to the fact that The Nation has been so watered down (featuring every writer they could for every other publication) that it doesn't even have its own identity anymore. It goes to the fact, as Cedric pointed out, that a White Man always has a place at the table, regardless of qualifications or talent.
But, no, it's not a conspiracy. We don't think anyone with Sirota's mental capacities is capable of participating in a conspiracy (let alone planning one). We'd argue that's more than proven by the fact that Ned Lamont ran a strong and successful primary campaign and won on August 8, 2006 only to lose the general election to Joe Lieberman on November 7, 2006. What changed? Well Lamont seemed to stop running on Iraq and begin running from it. How does that relate to Sirota? Sirota joined the campaign as a consultant on August 31st. Call him the new Bob Shrum.
We don't think that's a "conspiracy" either. We just think that where there is craven, there is David Sirota.
And, Sirota, you're own conspiracy theories are showing:
Congressional progressives now face the same pangs that come with evolving into a movement with majority power, rather than serving merely as contrairian voices in the minority. They are undoubtedly being pressured by a small but very vocal group of organizations that make up what's known as the Professional Protest Industry -- organizations that exist solely to see the world as they want it, not as it is (a note: not everyone working to kill the supplemental is part of the Professional Protest Industry -- many folks just legitimately believe stopping the supplemental is the best way to go, and I absolutely respect that even though I think it is the wrong strategy -- however, there is no denying that there is a loud, vocal Professional Protest Industry -- check out International ANSWER or the LaRouchies for a few examples). As a matter of existence, this industry wants -- no, needs -- to prioritize the public debate over wielding real legislative power, because that is the niche that makes them relevant. That these organizations have attacked some of the most steadfastly progressive groups for not being antiwar "enough" shows exactly where their priorities are.
Can you be more stupid or more insulting? A.N.S.W.E.R. gets tarred and feathered all the time. We won't engage that, we won't support it. He mixes them in with "the LaRouchies" (he is aware that he publishes in a magazine with a supposed former "LaRouchie," right?). We don't like that group, we don't support it, we've made our feelings quite clear. The two groups have nothing in commong but Sirota wants to tell you they do and to see a conspiracy. He wants to smear and defame A.N.S.W.E.R. and wants to whine about the pressure from progressive groups. If it appears that the non-objective, non-journalist is taking it personally, he is. From the same column (at Working for Change, "A memo to the Progressive Caucus on the eve of the Iraq vote") he adds this "update:"
Say the binding anti-war language gets eliminated or weakened to allow the President to get out of it. That is a possibility. But it does not negate my position that progressives should vote "yes" because remember - if that happens, then we have a chance to stop it by voting down the conference report because the conference report (aka. the final bill) comes back for a final vote before being sent to the President's desk.
"We"? We can vote it down? Sirota's identifying up. He's been a Congressional lackey but he's never been a member of Congress. For the record, the long list of groups opposed to the weak and non-binding Pelosi measure included: CODEPINK, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Oil for Change, the Green Party, Democracy Rising, Veterans for Peace, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity . . . As of Friday, A.N.S.W.E.R. had nothing up at the main page of their website indicating a position one way or another regarding the Pelosi measure. But Sirota wants you to think they were actively campaigning against it. Unlike MoveOn, A.N.S.W.E.R. has an actual membership who can be mobilized and can show up because they aren't a few people in a virtual world posing as many. Had A.N.S.W.E.R. posted anything by Friday, a position on the Pelosi measure, it would have been noted in the "Iraq snapshots" at The Common Ills.
Sirota's a funny sort of boy. He thinks it's praiseworthy that his man crush (he must really get off on the smell of pit stains) Brian Schweitzer lied to voters. That's what tricking voters is: lying. Now Sirota was "senior strategist" for Schweitzer's campaign, so trickery and deceit are apparently in his arsnel (no surprise after he smears A.N.S.W.E.R. or Hugo Chavez, or any of his other targets he's trying to slay as he lays down the faux liberal line). Here's the Trickster from the same Working for Change column (which, you'll note, praises the Schweitzer's campaign without mentioning Sirota's own involvement in it):
As just one example, in Montana in 2004, a strongly progressive populist gubernatorial candidate named Brian Schweitzer used his love of hunting to publicly package himself as a supposed "conservative Democrat." This helped him win over the independent voters he needed to carry the deeply red state of Montana. It also made some Montana progressive understandably suspicious of him at the start of his term, just as some congressional progressives are genuinely suspicious of the conservatively packaged Iraq bill. But to be a mature political movement in a majority position, progressives in Montana learned to understand the difference between political rhetoric and packaging, and the wielding of political power. And they've seen a supposedly "conservative governor" champion the most progressive agenda the state has seen in a generation.
Please note, Sirota pushed the myth of "Red" states. We don't push that. We know it's offensive. (We heard about it again when we spent the week in Texas.) We know it's insulting. Faux populist Sirota -- first with the stereotypes, last with the truth. And Texas community members were very vocal about the damage done in their state (longterm damage that happened over many years) by the likes of Ralph Hall and Martin Frost -- Democratic candidates who insulted other Democrats as they rushed to assure you they weren't like the other Democrats. That may have been good for getting those individuals elected -- as it may have been in the campaign lies Sirota helped sell to people in Montana -- but it does long term damage to the Democratic Party. Bean counters like Carville and Sirota can't be concerned about that. That's not a "conspiracy." That's simply noting that Sirota is so stupid he will defeat the party to win one race.
Here's a question everyone who is foolish enough to trust a word Sirota puts on paper: Having admitted that a campaign he was "senior strategist" for set out to trick voters, why should anyone ever believe a word out of Sirota's mouth? He lied but he lied to the right? Is that the logic that allows some people to believe the crap coming out of his mouth? He lied to get what he wanted, what he thought was "possible" (someone so mentally limited shouldn't be allowed to define human possibility), so what makes anyone think he wouldn't lie on another issue? He's not interested in truth, he's bragging about a campaign (one he forgets to mention he worked on) that tricked voters.
That goes to the disrespect he shows the people. It's there in his hectoring, it's there in his use of "we" to refer to members of Congress.
He's craven. He's an admitted liar (he might prefer "trickster" -- but we take elections seriously and we take what politicians tell the public seriously so we call "Lie" when we see it). He's constantly telling people to stop protesting and accept whatever is the least path of resistance. Of course, 'journalist' Sirota didn't just tell readers that, he also told Congress and, again, at real publications, a memo like that would get your ass fired.
Sirota's not a journalist, he's not even a commentator. He's just a Party Hack who will sell whatever is the easiest thing to sell and he will resort to any falsehood to sell it while claiming, as he laughably did, "However, what I don't respect -- and what no one else should respect -- are people who fabricate stories out of whole cloth in order to justify their own political relevance." Fabricate stories? Like lying to the people of Montana that a candidate was conservative when, according to you (who worked on the campaign and crafted the message) he wasn't.
We're not surprised Sirota doesn't respect himself. If we were in his shoes, we wouldn't either. We are appalled that The Nation continues to print him. As bad as things are at The Nation (no coverage of Abeer, 4 male bylines for every one female byline, no coverage of war resisters, little coverage of Iraq -- Katrina vanden Heuvel's husband wrote the best piece thus far on Iraq, it should have been required reading for everyone involved witht he magazine), we really don't think that the magazine has sunk so low that they need to regularly feature the writing of a party hack. This should have been a wonderful period for the magazine. Instead, nothing seems to be working.
Do you feel like a pawn in your own world?
You found the system and you lost the pearl
-- "Money," written by Laura Nyro (off the Smile album)
