Home | About | Donate

More Denunciation of Omar, More Bullshit: Enough!


More Denunciation of Omar, More Bullshit: Enough!

Jeffrey C. Isaac

It’s all over the news. Ilhan Omar has done it again. This time it’s not “the Jews” she’s attacking. It is “Obama.”

This headline, viral on Facebook, says it all: “Ilhan Omar Goes After Obama, Suggests He Was a Pretty Face’ Who Got Away with Murder.’”



Enough about this unimportant person .



Omar, those wet spots on many of your fellow congress critters’ seats are testament to your value. You were duly elected and earned your right to represent your District for two years. The media have not.



Right On, Omar!!   Let me confess (yet again) that I was one of those whom O’Bummer fooled with his smooth rhetoric back in 2008, but after he and P’Loser let the War Criminals and Banksters off the hook without even any investigations – much less trials – in 2009, I realized that I’d been suckered and wrote in “Bernie & 'Beth” for Pres & V.P. in 2012 — and again in 2016.  I hope we get to vote for “Sanders and Gabbard” (or vice-versa) in 2020, and if I lived in Omar’s district I’d vote to re-elect her as well.




I strongly disagree with this author about Rep, Omar being an outlier. I believe that a majority of “informed” people in this country, and around the world, agree with the logical and humanistic policy positions of Omar, Tlaib, AOC, Sanders and other true progressives. Look at the polls on Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Income Inequality, etc.
Even had she been specifically referring to Obama, she was absolutely correct. What we lack in the U.S. is an unbiased media, with a mission to “inform” the citizenry.



Ilhan Omar speaks for me. I’m proud as hell to be an outlier, and disappointed as hell with all the cowards and sock puppets who cling to the status quo out of fear or corruption.



Notice the rhetorical tricks in this article:

"Omar is obviously rather radical in some of her rhetoric and in some of her policy ideas. I don’t endorse her words " "She is farther to the “left” than I am, and I am farther to the left than most others."

This author is participating in the very marginalization of Omar and people like her that he seems to be criticizing. He takes advantage of the extreme right-wing criticism and by saying, “Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I do disagree with her,” uses a rhetorical device of trying to make his point seem acceptable simply because it isn’t as extreme as the one he’s criticizing.

But here’s the crux–if you are trying to prove that Omar is too radical, but you don’t actually provide a reason for this thesis, you are essentially doing the same thing as Alberta did, albeit in a less obviously bigoted way.

"The notion that Omar is singling out Obama for attack here is misleading and incredibly cynical" No, the notion that you think this singling out means anything is incredibly cynical. First, she didn’t excuse other presidents; it is obvious she is referring to every one of them who has had such destructive policies. Secondly, the mere fact that OBAMA WAS TRUMP’S PREDECESSOR, makes him the obvious point of comparison. It really seems like the author is trying to take the untenable middle-of-the-road position of excusing Obama or saying, “Well, Democrats sometimes do wrong things, but hey, we should forgive them,” for whatever reason.

"This means there is a debate. Isn’t that what public discourse in a democracy is all about?" Notice that the author never actually debates any of Omar’s points. You may say of course, that’s not the author’s purpose in this article. Then why does he point out so many times that he disagrees with her? Why not just say that if other people disagree with her, they should debate her instead of trash-talking her?

Though not the stated thesis, this author’s secondary point is to say that Omar is wrong without taking the necessary step of saying why she is wrong. As for trash-talking, he does that, too, calling her a neophyte. Do you mean she’s naïve? In what way? Regarding every subject she’s addressed that people have attacked her on, she’s considerably less naïve and more informed than most.

The author is hiding behind the more extreme criticisms of Omar to make his own unfounded criticism seem more moderate and unquestionable. Yet I am questioning it. He expects us to take that time-worn assumption for granted, that Democrats are the good guys!–of course they do some not-so-nice things, but hey, you must be a neophyte if you think you can run this country without doing some not-so-nice things like mass murder and putting children in concentration camps, so lay off!

But the headline makes the point–“More Bullshit: Enough!”



I felt the same way about the author’s approach, which amounted to a thinly veiled defense of the status quo d-party big tent bullshit.

The fact that there’s a deep divide in the d-party is a function of having a 2-party farce control our political options.



Isaac sez:
“… even if (Omar) can be elected and re-elected in her district, few districts in the U.S. will now elect someone like her, or AOC, or Rashida Tlaib, or Ayanna Pressley.”

What — because AIPAC, a Politico hack and a centrist pundit have come out in opposition to them?



My take is this:

Yes, there are moderate and conservative districts that as of ‘now’ will not elect an AO-C.

But the d-party actively tries to stifle the voices of the left to maintain moderate dominance.

Yet when left-leaning voices like Bernie’s and Omar’s gain center stage, their viewpoints gain traction.



Rep. Omar is just telling the truth, which is anathema to TPTB. For this unpardonable transgression she has become their punching bag. The “mainstream” and those who fancy themselves the centrists cannot abide the puncturing of their carefully crafted myths.



Just what the Democans need. The party has a disease and has had it for a long time; it’s called neo-liberalism, corporate dependency and obsequiousness . Omar, AOC, Pramila and others are the antibiotics. Note I am not mentioning Bernie; he is compromised, just look at his foreign policy. Keep up the good work ladies.



In his sentence construction — and, particularly, in the context of his argument — Isaac’s “now” can easily be understood to mean “as a result of” (ie, as a result of Omar et al taking ‘radical’ positions).
As you note, their ideas fail to gain traction only when their words are silenced, marginalized or twisted. Isaac’s argument is that Politco is twisting. Meanwhile, he is marginalizing.



Yes. As far as I am concerned, Ilahn Omar is throwing the ball right down the middle of the lane. She is right and this author is attempting to thread his way between MSM points and truthful points.
Omar is saying exactly, and precisely what has been missing from the conversation. Nore is she using old and ugly tropes. She is calling out those tropes while stating realities on the ground. No pussy-footing.
Good for her.
This is where the mainstream really needs to be.



Says a lot about how actually reactionary is the US. One has to suspect that the US nativist loathing of immigrants of color–especially muslims–is that they bring a fresh and honest perspective as they come without the baggage of so many deliberately deluded “Americans”.



That’s right. The idea of a nation of over 300 million people being represented by two parties is, on its face, absurd.



Bernie, for most of his long and distinguished career, has been focused on domestic issues. On foreign policy, he has come out against the fervor to meddle in Venezuela, supported free speech where BDS is concerned and has defended Omar, et al for speaking truth to power and starting/expanding the conversation on other foreign policy issues. We need leadership that will listen to the conversation and then act on the merits. That is why I am fully behind Bernie, again.



I stand with Con. Omar and Thomas Jefferson here: " dissent ( against bad foreign/domestic policy ) is the greatest form of patriotism ".
The majority isn’t necessarily right until it proves it is right and The PTB have failed this basic tenet since the ceasefire of the Korean War.
Where, actually, have our country’s courses of action in foreign policy been correct? Looking back it is a lousy record of military boondoggles, one after another.
Con. Omar will be getting a campaign contribution from me next year. OhBummer got his last one in 2008.
End of story.



Remember the insurgence of the Tea Party? Fur was flying, Rhino was getting tossed around like a rodeo bull rider, and the party was torn asunder. We didn’t like or appreciate either half of the republican/tea party then, or now.

Are the dems any different, at this point of dissent between progressive, and traditional?



Totally agree about ‘the truth’. Except for unimportant matters, the truth cannot be spoken in Washington or across America by the mainstream media. If it is even hinted at, as Ilhan Omar did last week, the truth teller must be disembowelled, discredited, denied, placed outside the pale. Her words must be slightly twisted, over and over, until they don’t resemble what she said and what she meant. As for Obama, his first term began with a trip to Egypt with a rousing speech and pledging help for the Palestinians. Next thing we know he has totally backed away. What happened? Threats against his family? Is the truth so bad that it endangers the lives of those who speak it?

1 Like