Noam Chomsky chooses Obama over GOPs as 2012 President

[Jefferson23]

Noam Chomsky has said, "I’m not a great enthusiast for Obama, as you know, from way back, but at least he’s somewhere in the real world." He stated that the 2012 candidates are "Off the International Spectrum of Sane Behavior."

The extended view by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman with Noam Chomsky --- world-renowned activist, linguist, public intellectual and Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, author and one of the most influential political analysts of our day and age --- represents what American GOP middle-class voters are lamenting, "If only we had another candidate to pick from."
This is even made more evident in Amy Goodman's latest article, "Republicans Divided, Citizens United," saying that "the Republicans are not enthusiastic about any of their candidates." In her article, Goodman forecasts that the 2012 presidential election promises to be long, contentious, extremely expensive and perhaps more negative than any in history.

Goodman asked Professor Chomsky what he thought the big difference was between President Obama, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. She also asked if he thought there would be a "drastic change in policy if a Republican were to win in 2012 and if it were Perry or Romney?" As seen in the above video, his reply was, "Politics in this country now is in a state that I think has no analogue in American history and maybe nowhere in the parliamentary system. It's astonishing."

One of things he referred to is the fact major Republican candidates deny climate change, except for Michele Bachmann when she was still in the running. "I heard a statement of hers in which she said, 'Well, yes, maybe it's happening. It's God's punishment for allowing gay marriage,' or some comment like that. I mean, this --- what's going on there is just off the international spectrum of sane behavior." He added, "The positions they're taking [the candidates] are utterly outlandish."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/317710#ixzz1kEaBO2B7

[Old and In the Way]

1. Big surpise.

Now, I can't wait for the Obama haters to throw Noam under the purity bus.

[Doctor_J]

10. And I can't wait for the "centrists" to stop claiming that lefties are

not going to show up. Holding my breath starting right now.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. I'm NO centrist

but I am, and always have been, an Obama supporter because like Chomsky, although I'm not 100% happy with what President Obama has so far done, I also know he's still the best choice. I'm also terrified the Republicans might regain the WH, thus also, the chance to put more rightwing-corporate lackeys on SCOTUS.

But I'm curious, are you going to call Chomsky a "centrist" now, too?

[Doctor_J]

18. Uh, no

Chomsky is critical of permawar, torture, pandering to the gun lobby and Big Insurance, the stacking of the cabinet with banksters and other 1%ers, and so forth. He and I will continue to complain about the wasted opportunity that is the Obama presidency, too. And then we'll support and vote for Obama in November, even though the DINOs claim that we're the problem. I have to hand it to the professor - he knew before Nov 2008 that we were about to get another coporatist who happened to look a little different and call himself a (D). I thought we were getting someone to lead the fight back.

[izquierdista]

2. "Most influential"??!

If only it were so. He's NEVER on the cable news stations or in the mainstream newspapers. His name recognition with the general public is probably in the low single digits. If only his talking points were spread as far and wide as Roger Ailes'.

[Jefferson23]

3. I see your point...when was he ever included within MSM. n/t

[joshcryer]

4. Unsurprising. I chose Obama for the same reasons. Lesser evil.

Completely.

[Mosaic]

5. Chomsky must stop talking about anarchy

Or no one of substance, like me, will ever take him seriously. Anarchy is the main excuse and reason for the crackdowns on OWS. I'm outraged by this because I was lead to believe it was a Progressive movement, then people kept saying Adbusters started it. Adbusters is not in control, they made an ad and suggested to bring tents. Stop talking about them, media I'm speaking to you. Forget about adbusters, or OWS will keep being marginalized. We have serious changes to bring to the system, and anarchists like Chomsky are fucking it up, seriously, sorry if you like him but he can go to hell for his damn anarchist views.

I am fully in support of most of OWS, in my blog I've labored months over I surely do not include anarchist views, only progressive. We must end the plutocracy, we don't need people sabotaging the most important issues of our time. Only idiots are anarchists, grown men and women are Progressives and Dems. The honest people know who they are.

Obama should be re-elected and will be. I just had to rant about Chomsky and his dangerous, and I think bogus views.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. You should read up.

I think you have a very narrow understanding of "anarchy" especially in the sense that Chomsky uses it. And OWS was never a "democratic" or "progressive" political movement. It was always a movement of all sorts of people who were pissed at the system, who are you to tell anyone that their beliefs aren't legitimate? It isn't a cute little center-left movement and it never was, it was a radical movement that wanted to stand the system on its head and shake it until its pockets were empty. Radical change takes radical ideas and it takes radicals coming together for change.

[joshcryer]

7. Anarchist philosophy goes way back, predates Marxism by years (Marx was influenced in part by it).

Chomsky is an unabashed anarchist, though I wish he would talk about anarchism more often and try at least one last time to write an anarchist book before he dies.

[AlbertCat]

9. Chomsky is an unabashed anarchist,

Great!

And when has anarchy ever worked? Or worked even close to as well as a Democratic-socialist model?

OWS wants rules and regulations! Not anarchy.

[RoccoR5955]

13. Anarchy worked eons ago.

Before we became "civilized," and wanted a leader.

[JoePhilly]

17. Anytime you have 2 or more people, a leader will emerge. Here is why.

First, you can look to the animal kingdom. While some species operate as autonomous individuals (some shark species might be a good example), many others act as groups.

An ant colony, a bee hive, a school of fish, a pod of dolphins, a pride of lions. For many, survival chances improve in groups. In many cases, the older and stronger members have proven their abilities. Other members follow them.

For man, a similar behavior is observed. Even in remote tribes of "uncivilized" members, leaders emerge. Importantly, there are often layers of leaders. The leader of the tribe is often an elder, then there might be leaders of the hunting groups, women who have assisted in many successful child births becomes leaders.

Basically, if you take 2 people, and place them in various situations, one of them will often take the role of leader. And that's really what leadership is ... it is a role.

When a tribe found that its hunting grounds were empty ... did they vote? Nope. A few elders decided what happened next, right or wrong. Those elders had been "right" enough in the past such that others deferred to them.

When those elders begin to fail, others will challenge them, demand a change in direction.

The point is that anarchy did not last very long for early man.

[joshcryer]

19. Anarchism is not the lack of rules and regulations.

It's the lack of hierarchies and authorities.

[RoccoR5955]

20. Exactly...

It worked then, it can work now!

[marmar]

12. You really need to read more about Chomsky's definition of anarchism.

"Chomsky and his dangerous, and I think bogus views."

So the truth about imperial wars, hegemony and forced free market exploitation are "dangerous" and "bogus"? ..... How far down the rabbit hole we have fallen.

[AlbertCat]

8. "The positions they're taking are utterly outlandish."

IOW.... the GOP is a sad joke.

Anyone who can keep more than ONE issue in their head at a time can see this. But there are so many "one issue" voters.

[Doctor_J]

11. No kidding. Check out the gun forum

A fan club for every nutty republican office holder in the country. One of the regulars recently posted that he doesn't care about unions, reproductive rights, free speech, illegal detention, etc. - his sole decision when casting a vote is which candidate will let him keep his guns. And the NRA propaganda is taken as gospel over there - even though their newsletter cover recently boasted that they are going to help vote the president out.

[Jefferson23]

14. I don't think I've ever read that forum...had no interest.

If you're honestly not kidding, I'll check it out.

[Straw Man]

15. Really? I haven't noticed anyone endorsing Republicans over there.

Perhaps you could cite a few?

What I see is people urging the Democratic party to drop its extremist gun-control agenda because it is causing us to lose elections in the Midwest and South.