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!”