I read the Michael Gerson column that the Booman refers to in this post.

As I did, I concluded that it was such a load of hooey that I would not waste my time blogging about it and that, if Gerson had any sincerity, he would admit that, in bitching about the right, he was repudiating his career, which he has devoted to putting lipstick on the wingnut pig.

But he doesn’t, and he didn’t.

Share

2 Comments

  1. I tried to follow that, too, and he was just so out to lunch on all facets that only stupid people would take it seriously. First, the question of criticizing the size of these programs and the NSA, which is legitimate but which he dubs the opposite. And this is because he links the Snowden affair to what you would see published at the Washington Times or World Net Daily, a standard piece of John Bircher frothing about tyranny that’s now really old. Which is not how Edward Snowden or the Guardian have delivered it. There are serious matters revealed having to do with national security hypocrisy and the complete non-oversight of the huge apparatus that has been built. Which he never gets around to, or even faintly entertain the idea that it’s function and purpose is utterly beyond what the American people need, that it has become a construct for super-surveillance as something beholden only to itself. 

  2. He’s a Bushie.  

     

    He’s all about protecting the surveillance without actually saying, “I’m all about protecting the surveillance” because to do so would enrage the Teabaggers, who think only black and brown persons should be surveilled.