Reply #3: What's Chomsky smoking?? I disagree strongly that [View All]

[cali]

the second bushco term took a turn toward the center. And Chomsky doesn't provide any evidence of that except for Rumsfeld leaving. If anything bushco ramped up in his second term with his use of signing statements continuing and the issuance of regs and admin rules.

I also believe that Chomsky's wrong about why Obama is popular in Europe. It's certainly not simply that Obama isn't Bush. That's patently absurd.

Chomsky is big on making pronouncements but not so good at providing evidence. This illustrates that quite well:

"In fact, you know, even in the Middle East, where you'd think people would know better, they accept the illusions. And they are illusions, because there's nothing to back them up. So, yes, he is different from Bush."

Interesting and reavealing claim by Chomsky.

Chomsky claims that Obama's chief support comes from financial institutions, but again provides no evidence. The fact is that Obama has support from disparate groups. Claiming his constituency is financial institutions is simply wrong. The claim that most of his financial support came from said institutions is simply a lie. Why he'd lie about this is beyond me.

Chomsky may be a brillian linguist, but a brilliant- or even honest- political commentator, he ain't. Of course he's the perfect political idol for some segments of the left- sort of a high brow Nader.