Noam Chomsky Endorses Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
MIT Professor Noam Chomsky has endorsed Barack Obama but, as this recent Der Spiegel interview makes clear, Chomsky is not fooled by Obama’s rhetoric:
“SPIEGEL: “Change” is the slogan of this year’s presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the United States? Or, to use use Obama’s battle cry: Are you “fired up”?
Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion.
SPIEGEL: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society.
Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues.”
Chomsky views U.S. politics as a one-party system ruled by business but he isn’t totally down on America. He believes “the American society has become more civilized, largely as a result of the activism of the 1960s.”
It’s interesting how many Obama endorsements come from people who identify more with Ayers the Activist than Joe the Plumber.
— DRJ
Chomsky was a given. After all, they agree on most things. What is kind of a surprise is Adelman although it sure lets us see the careerists in Washington who are desperate for a job. The guy must think the Democrats are going to be in power for a long time so he had better try to jump on the bandwagon. Churchill had an explanation for people like this. “They hope the crocodile will eat them last.”
Mike K (1ac1c7) — 10/20/2008 @ 4:30 pmMore civilized because of the efforts of dope smoking hippies?
Chompsky definitely inhaled and way too much.
tyree (158c98) — 10/20/2008 @ 4:34 pmIs Chomsky supposed to be important or something? I’ve seen a lot of lefties carrying his books around but never reading them, almost like a badge of honor or something. I understand he hates the government but makes a lot of money from government contracts, rails against capitalism but has a fortune in the stock market. He apparently has some nice real estate on Cape Cod, too. Just another wealthy hypocritical liberal.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/20/2008 @ 4:42 pmChomsky was a fellow member of the New Party.
Karl (1b4668) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:19 pmChomsky endorses Obama? Well, so does Ken Adelman.
Uh, that Ken Adelman. And he told The New Yorker his switch is because McCain doesn’t have the temperament or the judgment to deal with serious international situations, among other things, which includes Flailin’ Palin.
But you all just keep banging the drums here. Push the Bill Ayers stuff, and throw in “Hussein” as the nominee’s middle name as often as you can (that means you, Monsieur Patterico. Push that one hard. Use every code word possible to make people think “OMG he’s black” and “he’s muslim” and “he’s gonna help terrorists.”
Boo!
Keep pushing it. Drive that Atwaterian/Rovian wedge and push the culture war. Fight it for a hundred years, or whatever. You’re the better bunch for it.
Ken Adelman. Never mind Colin Powell. Ken Adelman. Harrumph.
At least Diehard batteries start cars. You diehards start only each other.
Heck yeah, quote some Churchill. Crocodile burgers? Crocodile tears?
Larry Reilly (276329) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:27 pmGeorge Will, Peggy “the shill” Noonan, Buckley Jr., Kathleen Parker….and on and on and on. Please recalibrate your personal histories and put negative marks beside every little positive thing you ever thought about any of these turncoats. Good luck. You’re gonna get a lot busier in that game.
Excellent post! All we need is all the academics illuminati professors to confess their love to Obama. At least then we will see how many of these intellectual snobs are trying to brain wash the future of America. GO JOE!
Mike Drew (f270c6) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:31 pmLarry, as usual, you’re late. I pointed that out along with the probably backstory. Some of these folks are going to be pretty embarrassed when McCain wins the election. Remember that Kerry had the same lead in the polls in 2004 and lost. A lot of you trolls are working very hard to try to drive down turnout of McCain supporters. Fortunately, most of us vote absentee. It might work on the independents but you keep stepping on your message, like attacking Joe the Plumber.
Mike K (1ac1c7) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:33 pmOne week ago (hell, two days ago) the left (broad strokes now) were calling Ken Adelman a neocon fascist and Colin Powell a war criminal.
Presto, they endorse Obama and all is forgiven.
Hmm, I’m starting to wonder if they mean all of those nasty things.
SteveMG (88f181) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:38 pmMawy is still learning how to read, so she’s a little slow on the uptake regarding her daily memes to spout out. She doesn’t understand the words that she’s mouthing, but isn’t she the cutist thing?
Dmac (f11dda) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:43 pmSorry to burst your bubble, Mike, but Bush led Kerry in the polls all through October.
Nice story for the cocoon though.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:45 pmsnuffles,
Here’s the CBC:
Now, to be completely fair, most polls showed Bush ahead. But the fact that the race tightened up equally makes Mike’s point, which is that a five-point lead is not much, even this close to election day.
Karl (1b4668) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:54 pmWhat is usual, Mike, is me coming here and posting at greater than Twitter-length and being slammed by folks with comprehension skills that max out on bumper stickers.
Larry Reilly (276329) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:55 pmChurchill, remember? You quoted, I noted.
I don’t care if you go to the pools and drool at the polls. The question is whether you’ll go there to commit voter fraud, e.g. work hard at keeping others with legitimate credentials from voting. That’s a Republican thing. They know the difference between voter registration fraud and outright voter fraud. The latter gets them the right votes.
Noam Chomsky has endorsed Barack Obama
Boy, I’m glad that’s settled.
Another Drew (25937f) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:57 pmYou don’t know how worried I was that he was going to endorse Bob Barr.
No, he did not:
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015815.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html
Son, you’re about as sharp as a pound of wet leather.
Dmac (f11dda) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:57 pmMeanwhile, Larry embraces the judgment of Colin Powell and Ken Adelman? M’kay.
Karl (1b4668) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:58 pmMary graces us with its received wisdom. Thank you.
JD (f7900a) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:59 pmI don’t care if you go to the pools and drool at the polls.
Mawy also wants a pink horsey for Christmas, and she thinks yellow flowers are kewl.
Dmac (f11dda) — 10/20/2008 @ 5:59 pmDmac – I thought it wanted a unicorn.
JD (f7900a) — 10/20/2008 @ 6:01 pmSorry to burst your bubble, Mike, but Bush led Kerry in the polls all through October.
No, Snuffles, you’re lying. Here’s what really happened four years ago–written by someone who’s as left as they come, Ruy Teixiera:
Kerry leads Bush by 6 to 7 points
By Ruy Teixeira, The Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.
Posted October 27, 2004.
“Poll results in the battleground states have generally been good for Kerry lately, especially in the most important of these states (for example, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida).
In that light, it’s interesting to note that five recently released national polls give Kerry solid leads of six to seven points in the battleground states overall. In 2000, these states broke evenly between Gore and Bush, so a six- to seven-point Kerry lead, if real, would be quite significant. Here are the polls and the numbers, with a link:
Democracy Corps (October 20-21): 52 percent to 45 percent
Offical Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 10/20/2008 @ 6:37 pmMarist (October 17-19): 50 percent to 43 percent
Pew (October 15-19): 49 percent to 43 percent
NBC/Wall Street Journal (October 16-18): 49 percent to 43 percent
Harris (October 14-17): 51 percent to 44 percent”
Karl – Meanwhile, Larry embraces the judgment of Colin Powell and Ken Adelman? M’kay.
Larry embraces Obama, and whoever is for Obama, regardless of the reason, or lack thereof.
Larry reviles Rothschild and Lieberman for the same non-reason, even though Larry himself chose to vote for Lieberman for the “Palin” ticket in 2000. Evidently Joe L had the judgment to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency – at least until he started thinking for himself.
The evaluation of others’ judgment on condition of agreement is exactly the logical disconnect that people like Larry use to chastise GWB.
That Larry does not recognize this contradiction is unsurprising.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/20/2008 @ 6:48 pmLarry Reilly,
You don’t have to go any farther than John McCain to get that genuine sugary good bipartisan resume that you claim you crave. The same one Obama the hater claims to have but whose record is nothing but left, left and more left (when he bothered to vote).
We’re not talking pro-choice, legalize-pot and the usual stuff indies incorporate. It’s your Wright-Rezko-Ayers-Daley-Stroger-CAC cesspool that surrounds The One who walks on contaminated water. It matters not why you’re voting for Obama. If he had the same lack of record as a white pol, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR HIM? No, sucker. You would not. He’s an empty suit. With a filthy lining.
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/20/2008 @ 6:52 pmIt was interesting to note in the interview, that Chomsky has nothing to say specifically about Obama. However when asked about McCain, he does,
In one aspect he [McCain] is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest even though they see it the same way.
It’s striking he made no mention of Obama considering he is supporting him and its also noteworthy that he obviously is not sold on the Obama company line of nonsense and rhetoric. At the end of the day, Obama is just a means to an end.
Consumption distracts people. You cannot control your own population by force, but it can be distracted by consumption.
Well, at least he’s honest about this even if Obama isn’t. That Chomsky is a smug, arrogant chump who sees the masses as easily manipulated, pliable and simply unable to resist or have any self-control over our impulses is one thing. That someone this ruthless finds commonality with Obama is very revealing, if not expected.
Dana (658c17) — 10/20/2008 @ 6:59 pmLarry, it’s reilly simple. McCain tried to clean up campaign funding. If you say Obama changed his mind last minute b/c of the free speech element to contributions, you’d be derailed by all the times Barack Hussein Obama has threatened normal political discussion… in Missouri… in Chicago… on the Internet… The best part is you’d flip if any other candidate tried this. Essentially, you’d come to your senses. The Truth Squad is where your vote’s going.
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/20/2008 @ 7:03 pmOfficial Internet Guy,
Note the part of your quote that says “in the battleground states overall” and realize your error.
Here are the October 2004 polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
See Bush leading Kerry in all of them(but a couple weirdos)?
Hope and change.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/20/2008 @ 7:21 pmMy information is correct. There was no error.
Offical Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 10/20/2008 @ 7:41 pmThe point is how sloppy polls are, and how tilted towards Democrats, and when Kerry is shown to have led Bush in the battleground states, but lost almost all of them on Election Day, my point is proved.
Snuffilm, looking at the sky:
SF: “The sky’s cloudy today.”
Dmac (f11dda) — 10/20/2008 @ 7:45 pmObserver: “What are you talking about? There’s nothing but blue sky as far as you can see!”
SF: “THAT SKY’S CLOUDY!”
Well, Obama certainly proves Chomsky’s point. Obama is going to spread the wealth around to improve consumption. Who said that the people can not be bought?
Chomsky is also right about this election being about personalities. I would venture that if not for Obama’s personality, charisma, outsize ego and race, he would not even be in the running.
I hate it when Chomsky is right, but must give credit where credit is due.
sgi (a43bc9) — 10/20/2008 @ 7:48 pmThe irrepressible Dmac writes, about Yet Another Troll:
I think you mean the “cultist” thing, don’t you?
Seriously, Dmac, when I feel low, your joyous dissection of trolls makes me want to sing songs from “Oklahoma!” Much appreciated after a day of grading.
Eric Blair (2bdff8) — 10/20/2008 @ 8:03 pm2004 Polls Prediction: Bush 50%, Kerry 48%
2004 Election Results: Bush 50%, Kerry 48%
“The point is how sloppy polls areThe point is how sloppy polls are”
-Offical Internet Data Office
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/20/2008 @ 8:40 pmNow there’s going to be a 3-page spread in the liberal mainstream media papers about Chomsky’s qualifications and accomplishments and how he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Just another example of the liberal media and its lovefest with the leftist illuminati views of Obama.
Jeff (9f2f2a) — 10/20/2008 @ 8:40 pm“MIT Professor Noam Chomsky has endorsed Barack Obama”
Him and every other commie, terrorist and dictator on planet earth.
Dave Surls (03c560) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:32 pmJeff #30 – Dave Surls #31 may be right about this not actually being a good thing for Obama. You’ll hear much more about Powell.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:39 pmWhat American presidential candidate would not want the endorsement of a left-wing apologist for communist mass murderers?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:40 pmHas Hezbollah weighed in for Obama yet?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:43 pmSPQR – Again, that is a feature, not a bug.
JD (f7900a) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:45 pm#34 – daley Has Hezbollah weighed in for Obama yet?
They weighed in over the internet.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:46 pmMany times.
With money.
Daley and Apogee – Was it Hezbollah or Hamas that advertised in the bulletin at Baracky’s church?
JD (f7900a) — 10/20/2008 @ 9:48 pmSnuffles, read and re-read what I posted again, and see if you can understand it.
The key to Ruy Teixeira’s data I posted is that the latest individual battleground poll he cites was October 21st, 2004, which is four years ago tomorrow. Once again, Kerry led by 6 to 7 in these states, but somehow lost almost all of them by the time the real election rolled around.
The next thing you’ll be telling me is that Kerry really won the election in 2004, because Rove rigged the voting on the Diebold machines in Ohio, even though no Diebold machines were used in Ohio. You don’t even believe election results, so how can you claim to believe polls?
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 10/20/2008 @ 10:21 pmOIDO,
Each of the polls you listed predicted George W. Bush would beat John Kerry by a few point, which he did.
Ruy Teixeira’s data is nonsensical because it talks about “battleground states” that were defined differently by each poll.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/20/2008 @ 10:50 pmOIDO – They get to define, and re-define terms at will, to suit whatever narrative they are pushing.
JD (f7900a) — 10/20/2008 @ 10:57 pmEach of the polls you listed predicted George W. Bush would beat John Kerry by a few point, which he did
No, Snuffles, that’s completely wrong. That polling data from Teixeira I cited each showed that Kerry was ahead by several points around October 17-21. What’s wrong with you?
If you think lefty Ruy Teixeira’s work is nonsensical, then why does he get all that publicity and that grant money?
If you have a problem, take it up with President Kerry.
Official Internet Data Office (bb7744) — 10/20/2008 @ 11:01 pmYou might want to actually read your links, OIDC:
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ — With only two weeks to go before the election, a new Harris Poll finds President George W. Bush leading Senator
John Kerry, but the size of the lead depends on how we define likely voters.
The poll, conducted by Hart/McInturff, shows that 48 percent of registered voters back Bush, 46 percent support Kerry, and 2 percent side with Independent Ralph Nader. Those numbers are virtually unchanged from the September survey, which had Bush at 48 percent, Kerry at 45 percent and Nader at 2 percent.
etc., etc., etc.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/20/2008 @ 11:09 pmBarack Obama spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church because he, like Wright, loathes America.
Chomsky also loathes America, thus he endorses Obama. Plus, they’re both socialists, of course.
Figuring this out ain’t exactly rocket science, kids.
Dave Surls (74646b) — 10/21/2008 @ 10:49 amDespite your valliant efforts to label all those who don’t believe in McCain terrorists, BO won. I guess in your book, that makes the majority of the American voters terrorists, which should prompt the Bush administration to spent their remaining days in office putting the USA on top of their ‘rogue states’ list and acting accordingly. That means lobbying for sanctions against the USA at the UN, demonizing the American government as tyrants who are preparing a wmd attack on civilisation, and preparing the US army for war against itself. Good luck!
Me (19706a) — 11/16/2008 @ 1:31 pmMe, dishonest strawmen arguments are unimpressive.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/16/2008 @ 1:32 pmWell it depends on the strawmen. I agree with you for the most part – a lot of the ones here were your standard “blah, everyone who disagrees with me is a terrist!!!1”, but there were a few that I was impressed with. I mean, check this out:
I mean first the guy redefines what a lead in the polls means so he can pronounce himself the winner of the argument. Next he predicts (wrongly, but who’s keeping track) what his opponent’s next argument will be, and declares that the person is a hypocrite because of the argument that was just put in his opponent’s mouth.
That takes skill, dedication, and a total lack of intellectual honesty. You can’t tell me you’re not a little bit impressed by that.
Jesse (413d05) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:25 pm“a lot of the ones here were your standard “blah, everyone who disagrees with me is a terrist!!!1″
That would be your strawman. No one else’s, since you invented that by pulling it from your backside.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:28 pmJesse – Give even one example of this from this blog. One.
JD (b96a9e) — 11/17/2008 @ 3:32 pm