Who Are Your Favorite Liberal Columnists and Writers and Why

Frankly, I no longer have favorite columnists and writers in politics. I am at the point I wish to be "shown" and not talked to.

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", by Gregory Palast, is (along with "Seabiscuit") the best book I've read this year.

Go to his website -- www.gregpalast.com -- and read an excerpt from it about the Florida steal-lection, entitled 'Jim Crow Revived in Cyberspace'.

Molly Ivins is a national treasure. Her column appears in the Texas Observer, at www.commondreams.org and she also has a new book, "Bushwhacked".

Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" is hot off the press. This is the book that got Bill O'Reilly's shorts in a wad.

Paul Krugman of the NYT seems to be one of the few published weekly who's not afraid to tell the truth about the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Breslin, while not exactly liberal, sure do tell it like it is.

Eric Alterman has a great weblog, Alternet.org, you can also find it online at msnbc.com; and he wrote "What Liberal Media?", disproving the well-sold, fully swallowed myth.

There are dozens and dozens of excellent blogs; here's one good directory:

The Lefty Directory

I gotta start with Noam Chomsky's writings, they may not know it, but much of the "Anti-Corporate" movement is using Chomsky's ideas.

Ivins is a treasure, but what about Dowd from the NYT.

Of course, you have a mess of them in "Nation"; Alterman, Pollit, Cockburn.

Ted Rall may get out of hand, but he makes some good points too.

EB, I'm wondering what you mean when you say you want to be shown?

PDiddie, I too enjoy Molly Ivins. She usually packs a lot of factual information into her comments. I have an idea she must have some researchers working with her. As much as I enjoy her, I have a feeling that her "style of discourse" does nothing to change the minds of Conservatives. I live in the Chicago area and read the Tribune. I think there are more letters to the editor complaining about her than about any other commentary writer. I'm not sure it it's because the truth hurts or because Conservatives really think she is dead wrong. It is funny how something can seem so dead right to one person and so dead wrong to another.

Neo, just today I started to read Chomsky's "Power and Terror." There is a simple persuasiveness in the way he interprets events. His language is always fresh and clear and to the point.

Early in the book he is talking about being accused of being an apologist for the terrorists because he exposes reasons for their actions. He says the following:



I thought his mode of expression was clear and truthful while being only mildly disdainful of his critics.

chomsky, gore vidal, eric alterman...and who ever writes mediawhoresonline.com

Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Michael Kinsley

Krugman, Herbert and Rich at the NYTimes.

Alterman and Cockburn at The Nation (among others!). (Hitchens used to be good before he had his mid-life crisis.) Katha Pollitt sometimes.

Hendrik Hertzberg at the New Yorker.

Lapham at Harpers.

Various at NYRB.

Didion.

Blatham.

They share certain qualities -- humor (often acerbic); passion for the facts; grace; style; a healthy perspective.

In a different category are in various investigative journalists and there are a bunch of them. Palast and Hersch, certainly. There are quieter ones at the NYTimes who turn in spare, well-researched reports day after day. Most good newspapers have them and their bylines often go unnoticed. We might want to start to notice and list them too!

Good Reporters
Tartarin, I agree that there are many good reporters whose efforts go unsung. I read the Chicago Tribune every day. This is a paper that in the past has been strongly Republican, reflecting the views of the McCormick family who are the big stock holders in the company.

When it comes to endorsements of candidates at election time, the Trib still endorses mostly Republicans, but not all. I'm not sure why, but the paper has become much more centrist in recent years. Probably in an effort to sell more papers.

I am constantly amazed at the quality of the writing in this newspaper. There are a number of writers who have been regularly been printing all the arguments against Bushe's wars, his occupation policies, his medicare "reforms," his transgressions of church state separation, and all the rest of it.

Concluding paragraphs like this are more common in the writing of Kemper, Witt, and Tackett than in the others, as far as I can see. In a recent scathing article about the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, Howard Witt presented all the failures of that doctrine, then, in summary, quoted Danielle Pietke of the American Enterprise Insitute. This quotation took much of the bite out of the article.

Here are the names of a few good writers on the political scene:
Bob Kemper
Howard Witt
Michael Tackett
Michael Killian (also good on culture)
R.C. Longworth

Here for example is a recent article by Bob Kemper
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0308080233aug08,1,992135.story

The title of the article is
Overstatement seen in Bush's case for war

Here is a summarizing quote which apparently comes from a source trying to make Bush look as good as possible considering the constantly building evidence against him:
"A variety of outside experts said the Bush administration, while not intending to mislead the American public, overplayed the hand dealt it by its own intelligence analysts and in some instances may have coerced intelligence officials to focus on information that backed the case for war."

What seemed incongruous to me was that the article presented so much damning information, then the concluding statement failed to make the obvious point that Bush was lying with the intent to deceive.

Here's another vote for Frank Rich--I think he's brilliant. I was worried when he switched to the Sunday Arts section, but I love the way he ties cultural trends to political themes.

And another vote for Maureen Dowd. Her humor is sometimes forced, but usually she's refreshing.

I look forward to both of them in the Times!

I wonder about the Rich transfer -- maybe it was to free him up?

I'll tell you what troubled me lately about the Trib: they went hammer and tongs after Robert Scheer, tried to get him fired from the LA Times. I didn't mention him in my list and should have.

Tartarin, I'll read Robert Scheer to see what he's like and write and write a letter to the editor in his defense.

I GOT THAT WRONG -- as I realized last night. I don't know how the Trib reacted, whether they actually put pressure on Scheer. Right wingers -- O'Reilly, Medved and many others -- were pressuring their followers to urge the Trib (owner of the LATimes) to fire Scheer. Big hoopla. Don't know outcome.

http://www.robertscheer.com