Media Trot Out Gorbachev to Attack John McCain

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.
By Warner Todd Huston | April 21, 2008 - 18:19 ET

If they had a reality show for international politicians called "Biggest Loser" the most popular nominee for the title would be Mikhail Gorbachev, the man that lost his whole country, not merely an election. Yet, every once in a while and for some untenable reason, this communist loser is trotted out by the US media as some sort of expert on international politics. Unsurprisingly, his opinion is always sought to act as an attack on a Republican politician or policy. This time it is the All Headline News service trotting out old spotty in order to wag a finger at GOP presidential candidate John McCain.

Back on March 18th, McCain reiterated his idea of creating a new international organization styled as a "League of Democracies." McCain imagines this organization as a chance to renew the commitment of the world's democratic nations to the concept of helping others grow as well as lending more support to those already so formed.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face, whether radical religious fanatics who use terror as their weapon of choice, the disturbing turn towards autocracy in Russia or the looming threats of climate change and the degradation of our planet.

But the key word is “together”. We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.

Well, whether you think it feasible or not for all the democratic nations to get together to form a new United Nationsesque organization, the idea has some merit. After all, the entire reason the UN does not work -- and never did or even could work -- is because those nations that stand four-square against freedom and liberty have as much say in policy as those who wish to further the advancement of human freedom. The UN is a joke that we should never have bothered with.

So, the merits of McCain's plan aside, there is much debate that could be had over the idea. But who does the media trot out to join that debate but Mikhail Gorbachev, a has been who's only claim to fame was seeing a 75-year-old regime crumble under his inept "leadership." Worse, it was a regime that was responsible for the murder of 40 million or more human beings. And still worse, it was Gorbachev that was trying to prop up the regime that killed 40 million human beings!

Why this man's opinion is still sought out after all these years is unfathomable.

Unfathomable, of course, until you realize that Gorby's constant attacks against American Republicans and conservatives is the sole reason the U.S. media are interested in him.

Gorbachev's criticism this time is to claim that McCain should be looking to ways to strengthen the UN not create a new version consisting of democratic nations.

"Great powers set an example to the world and must give a chance to the United Nations to develop a new global system," Gorbachev said. "We must not, instead of the United Nations, propose NATO or some kind of a coalition of democratic countries, as suggested by Sen. McCain. I think that to replace the U.N. with that kind of an organization would be wrong."

Give the UN a "chance to develop"? What is 66 years? The UN has made no meaningful headway in over six decades yet Gorbachev imagines we haven't given the UN a "chance"? THIS is substantive commentary? What poppycock.

Yet, here we go again, seeing Gorbachev trotted out as some sort of expert by the U.S. media. And why? Only because he attacks a Republican, not because his opinions have any merit whatsoever.

One wonders how many people you have to have murdered to fall out of the U.S. Media's favor? So far, the Soviets are up to 40 million and the U.S. media are still ga-ga over them. The Chinese surpassed that a while ago and still find kind words in the western media establishment.

But, remember... it is Republicans that are truly evil!

(Photo credit: Chinadaily.com)

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Environmentalism

Environmetalism the new Communism.

Slight Constitutional issue...

Article 4, Section 4 says the US is a Republic, we are, therefore, excluded from any group "definding dumbocracy".

Italy, France, India, paragons of political stability, could belong.

"Duh old media" trot out another commie as though he were a "senior statesman"; instead of drawing upon discredited Marxist stupidity.

Just because the cold war

Just because the cold war "is over" does not mean we should place past communist-dictator's on a pedestal.  Oh wait, this is the U.S. media we are talking about.  They love communism :(

McCain being Swift-MSM'd

Almost every day now - and more often in the near future - we are reminded, by witnessing the actions of the MSM, of how pale in comparison and how futile the efforts of the Swift Boat veterans were.

McCain being Swift-MSM'd.

I don't know, WTH

If they had a reality show for international politicians called "Biggest Loser" the most popular nominee for the title would be Mikhail Gorbachev

Right now, I'm kind of thinking Jimmy Carter.

But Gorby would be in the running. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Hey, Jimmah

Hey, Jimmah only lost an election. Gorby lost his ENTIRE country AND its government!!! That takes some doing! Thanks to Gorby's able leadership, there isn't even a U.S.S.R. in existence any more!

Thanks to Gorby's able

Thanks to Gorby's able leadership, there isn't even a U.S.S.R. in existence any more!

And that makes him a loser???

Jer

Perspective

All a matter of perspective, I guess.

I remember my ex (an ex MI Officer) seriously shaking his head over the rapid fall of the Sov's.  It was truly an amazing thing.  Staggering, in fact.

So...I guess WTH does have an excellent point.   The demise of Soviet style communism was a wonderful thing.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

My point, Blonde, is that

My point, Blonde, is that while, technically speaking, he "lost" the Soviet Union, it was the reforms which he instituted which accelerated its eventual dissolution.  His "loss" was our gain.  That makes him a paradoxical "winner" in my book.

Jer

"...it was the reforms

"...it was the reforms which he instituted which accelerated its eventual dissolution"

THAT is hilarious!

His was a failed attempt to keep control by a tyrannical government and it failed. He was desperate, NOT trying to "reform" anything.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud his failure, but to ascribe noble efforts to this clown is the height of historical revisionism.

Warner...Your post is so

Warner...Your post is so stunningly absurd, I am going to assume it was intended as a joke.

Jer 

WTH's post was a well

WTH's post was a well thought out analysis of history. Gorby lost. His desperate "reforms" were a frantic attempt to keep the CCCP from collapsing of it's own ponderous weight. Too little... too late.

Let me make sure I

Let me make sure I understand you, PeskyDane.  You are saying the most recent post by Warner to which I responded was "a well thought out analysis of history".  Correct?

Jer

A joke...

You may "feel" it a joke, but let me assure you that how you feel is no less than most here consider your every post.

My post about that loser Commie was right on. Gorby meant NO reform, intended NO benevolent change, and wanted NO less than to keep his monstrous regime in power. He WAS able to fool many silly, unserious westerners who wanted nothing so much as to pretend that the Soviet's system was the next best thing to Heaven on earth .... quite DESPITE the many MILLIONS they murdered.

Unfortunately, to be a leftist never means having to say "I'm sorry your whole family was murdered and your country was oppressed for generations."

WTH

Liberals really care about all oppressed people living in corrupt, non-democratic countries. Until, of course, we get involved and work to bring an end to it all. Then, suddenly, their former leader (and/or tyranical government) was not so bad, and we either mucked things up and made things worse, killed "millions" directly or indirectly, or don't deserve any credit if it's too obvious to everyone that we clearly succeeded.

Reagan with USSR. Bush with Afghanastan and Iraq.

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

 

MrShy...If you

MrShy...If you are including me in that category of "liberals" regarding Reagan viz-a-viz the Soviet Union, then you obviously haven't read earlier posts of mine which completely contradict your assertion.

Jer

Jer

You evil liberal, evil liberal, evil liberal! :p

No, I was not dumping you in completely with my whole generalization. I'll also admit that WTH is getting somewhat overly hot under the collar with this. But then, he passionately sees Gorby this way, and he certainly knows more about it than I do. You probably know a lot, too, so...

I'll step aside now :)

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

 

Gorbachev's "Reforms"

The disaster of Gorbachev's reforms of glasnost and perestroika fall more into the realm of unintended consequences, though the nature of glasnost is what most Westerners consider a liberal one. The reason for Gorbachev's reforms was to quell the dissatisfaction arising in the Eastern Blok especially, since the pattern of the Hungary 56 uprising, the Prague Spring of 68, and the 80-81 Solidarity movement in Poland had shown that this was the epicenter of dissent in the USSR and not the neutered Russian people themselves. The glasnost reform did have a precendent - in Alexander Dubcek's so-called "Socialism with a Human Face" in 1968, a series of "reforms" (little more than propaganda campaigns) which also failed to satisfy Eastern Europeans. After the years of decay under Brezhnev, the split in standard of living between East and West became more salient, and the Soviet government struggled to meet consumer demands, countermeasures to Reagan's proposed SDI, and global commitments like the war in Afghanistan. The relative deprivation, to use Ted Gurr's idea of it, between what Eastern Europeans had and what they thought they deserved widened, and, in accordance with Davies' J-curve theory (posited years before the 1989 revolutions) glasnost and perestroika provided the social outlet and the relative uptick in quality of living needed to foster the inertia for revolution in places like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania when retrenchment by the Soviets became evident (the culmination was the famous standoff between Gorbachev and the Poles, when he announced that he would not militarily intervene). Gorbachev may have wanted to quell the dissent in the Eastern Blok, but it was akin to letting out enough slack to hang the state with.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

In other words, everything

In other words, everything he did was to keep power, none of it was meant as true "reform" and ALL of it failed.

Exactly my point.

He deserve no credit for ANYTHING.

Thanks.

True enough

I wasn't really refuting anyone but simply "bridging" the arguments - not that this is my usual modus operandi of avoiding conflict.

 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

I didn't...

I didn't imagine you were "refuting" anyone. You posted the facts and that was quite enough to refute those who imagine that Gorby was a 'reformer."

Wrong Warner...I didn't

Wrong Warner...I didn't "feel" your post was a joke.  Its patent absurdity forced the assumption you must have intended it as such.

Others may think what they wish of my posts.  I try my best to be fair, honest, and amicable.  But, I'm not here to win anyone's approval.

Jer

 

Curiously enough...

Curiously enough I am in full agreement that "winning approval" is not necessary. I, similarly, do not seek yours, nor your uninformed view of history.

Still, it is fun to gin up the discussion.

So, you can side with your murderous tyrants as too many in the west often do. Just like those partisan, unthinking "historians" who were unprofessional enough to claim they already know that W. Bush will be considered the "worst president in history" even though they have not 1/10th the amount of information extent to make such an absurd judgment.

Still, I am amused that you take the word of partisans who's only motivation is hatred for conservatives and Ronald Reagan that Gorbachev was a great guy only interested in bringing liberty and justice for all to the whole planet.

Yep, that Gorby was such a great feller! Why, if he touched water it might turn to wine.... oh, wait. That is you boy Barack.

Sorry.

I try my best to be fair,

I try my best to be fair, honest...

So by that standard, you would have to admit that Gorby lost the Soviet Union, lost the cold war, lost, lost, lost. Hmm... that would make him a... loser.

PeskyDane...I

PeskyDane...I admitted Gorby "lost" the Soviet Union in my second post several hours ago.  That, in my view, doesn't demand that history pronounce him a "loser". This man was not the typical Soviet autocrat bent on tightening the totalitarian screws on an oppressed populace, while harboring imperialistic designs on other nations and suppressing democratic impulses in Eastern bloc satellites.  Indeed, he was quite the opposite.

Gorbachev implemented political reforms and attempted others which may not deserve to be characterized as noble, but nonetheless were clearly laudable.   Obviously, his liberalization policies were not intended to destroy communist rule, yet he unwittingly set the stage for that very occurence--which the Reagan administration exploited in splendid fashion.

As such, he, we, and the rest of the world were winners.

Jer 

His was a failed attempt to

His was a failed attempt to keep control by a tyrannical government and it failed. He was desperate, NOT trying to "reform" anything.

Why, yes.  That is a pretty well thought out analysis.  In fact, to anyone who was paying attention back then, or anyone who has a grasp on history today, its pretty much spot-on.  Questions from the class?

No thanks, Pesky...I've

No thanks, Pesky...I've already attended enough Russian history classes.  I didn't always pay attention, but did enough that I believe I have a reasonable grasp of the issue.

Jer

Then we agree Jer.

Then we agree Jer. Gorbachev lost the Cold War, and Ronald Regan (gasp) won.

Correct, PeskyDane...

Correct, PeskyDane...

Jer

One more thing, Pesky...

That fact is a major consideration in my concluding that Reagan was the best President in my lifetime [going back to Truman]--an opinion I have posted at this site three or four times in the past.  But, what do I know...according to Warner, all of my posts are jokes.

Jer 

[Heavy Sigh] Sleep well,

[Heavy Sigh] Sleep well, unless you're working in which case safe travels on your way home.   

Thanks, it's waaay past my

Thanks, it's waaay past my bedtime.

Jer

You were dishonest

The problem here is you were dishonest. At first you claimed that Gorby was a "reformer" in your original posts, now you are saying he was just hapless and his actions ACCIDENTALLY led to reform.

So, you started in one direction and finished in another.... yet you are calling everyone ELSE names!

Amazing.

But, you mentioned that you "learned" this tripe in a university. It doesn't surprise me that a university filled with communie simps would end up graduating people who imagine that the Soviets weren't all that bad and that accidental actions made in desperation legitimately led to "reform."

Now, if we end up on the same page, more or less, that Gorby was a loser that deserved to be ushered out of power and that his actions weren't intentionally benevolent. That is great. If that is your ultimate point on that level, then we are definitely in agreement.

Where we differ is to give Gorby any credit whatsoever for "helping" to bring in change in Russia. I do not give people credit for accidents that had no bearing on actual intent.

Gorby is a loser that deserves no credit. The only way to give him credit is to deny that he REALLY meant to keep his whole country enslaved. And THAT denial makes a mockery of any REAL change that happened after the loser was ousted. It also demeans the millions that the Soviets killed as well as make light of the real hero of the story, Ronald Reagan.

Just because Gorby happened to be standing there when the end came does not make him a "reformer."

Amazing indeed,

Amazing indeed, Warner...Amazing that with respect to the remaining seven paragraphs of your post, you are zero for seven.   Seven times you step to the plate, and seven times you whiff.  Wrong about my "communie university", wrong about the name calling, wrong about the dishonesty, wrong in your Gorby analysis...staggeringly, comprehensively, wrong.

Jer

Your "opinion" is noted.

Your "opinion" is noted. Gorby will be sending you a Christmas card again this year. Lucky you.

Well, Warner, you know we

Well, Warner, you know we commies keep dreaming of a "Red" Christmas.  :-)

Jer

LOL...

LOL

Blonde, when you come back,

Blonde, when you come back, indulge me in some amature psycological speculation.  What is it about libs like Jer?  Why are they so obsessed with changing Gorby's legacy?  This is beyond silly.  Why would anyone want to pick that hill as the one on which they choose to die?

My take...

My take on why libs try to re-make murderers like Gorby into paragons of virtue is because they think it makes them sound "reasonable."

And, you see, "reasonableness" is a goal in and of itself and stands as the highest desire quite despite any facts. It is a virtue elevated far past its actual definition. To be "reasonable" regardless of the facts or any common sense is the height of folly but is prized by libs above all else. "Reasonableness" is truth without all those darn messy principles.

And then, anger is ALWAYS bad, see.... unless it is anger at conservatives and the USA. That is the only time it is justified. Because that is "reasonable."

A gang member kills an innocent kid in a drive-by? Well that banger CAN'T be evil. Let's be "reasonable" and say the gang banger had a "tough life" so he was "forced" to kill. Society and a bad Father made him do it.

The Soviets killed millions? Well, that can't be their fault. Let's be "reasonable" and realize that the Soviets were only "afraid" because the mean ol' USA was out there FORCING the Soviets to overreact!

And all this stems from the childish assumption that people are basically good (unless they are conservatives). So, they can't be evil in the end. There HAS to be a "reasonable" reason for their actions. And that reason is that WE do bad things FORCING them to act that way. It isn't their fault, see. It's ours.

So, if only WE were better people, see, THEY would be like little angels. After all, "reasonable" people wouldn't kill a kid in a drive-by and kill millions of their own in Gulags.

No, there is no such thing as evil.

Unless... it's... from... conservatives.

But the good thing is, the libs can pat themselves on the back and claim the mantle of "reasonableness" even as they constantly misuse and misdefine the very word. But then, if everything is "explainable" and can be dismissed as not important enough to take a firm position against, then NOTHING is right or wrong. Everything is "reasonable."

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill

... and with that I go nighty, night.

Sleep well all.

An Important Caveat

I agree overall with your solid take, but as someone who is in the bunker in Academia, reason itself is under attack. So although the way you put it is valid, the term "reasonable" is not one libs subscribe to nowadays. They are "sympathetic," "understanding," etc. - any adjective that denotes their subjective emotional status and reifies it as a subjective objective.

 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

Proceed with the

Proceed with the psychoanalysis if you wish, but I can assure you I am in no way obsessed with Gorbachev's legacy.  However, that doesn't mean I won't challenge historical nonsense peddled by myopic ideologues like Warner.

Jer

I love the pic, too. Talk

I love the pic, too. Talk about a swollen head! Or is that the Berlin Wall crushing him? LOL

Why do these idiots even listen to this guy? Where's he been for the last decade or so, if he's such a great statesman? Hey, he has a foreign accent, maybe they think he's Henry Kissinger?

;^)

I think Gorby is living on the Left Coast, Calif.

Gorby bought his way into America.....it was safer than retiring in the Russian Gulogs. It's a wonder the MSM doesn't trot him out more for some "Comments of Wisdom".

Gorby dahhhling!

It was Ronnie the republican that kicked his commie a**, a girl from England (Thatcher) and a man who, in Bill Mahers words, wears funny hats (Pope John Paul II)

If they showed a picture of Gorby walking away, it would expose three footprints on his sorry behind.

 

  Gorby was so naive he

  Gorby was so naive he thought that his countrymen and the enslaved satelite countries would willingly choose to stay with communism given it's inherant superiority (eye roll).  All lefties think that way.  That's why after every defeat they complain they couldn't get their message out or the election was stolen. 

Dear John, oh how I hate to write.

It is said that “familiarity builds contempt”.

In case you haven’t noticed, John, the years of being familiar (a.k.a. pandering) with the MSM is finally showing what they really think of you as the now-presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency, and that is contempt.

As I had said in a previous comment on the subject, all the time you were playing footsee with the press to show them that you’re a regular guy, they were sharpening their knives behind their backs.

Well, John, the knives have finally come out and it will be getting worse as November approaches.

John, I didn't figure you for a naive person. But, now I'm beginning to wonder.

 

Separated at birth?

Gorbachev

Doesn't this fool live near San Francisco and front for some international peace institute ? Once a phony baloney big shot, ALWAYS a phony baloney loser.

Who pays for this guys food and air ? Is he a UN paid critic ?

The UN-Democracy-Communism Link

It shouldn't surprise anyone here that the UN, the ineffectual successor to the ineffectual League of Nations, was largely crafted on the U.S.' side by communists in FDR's cabinet or wide-eyed dreamers like Woodrow Wilson (see List of Persons Mentioned). The Soviets had their thugs at Yalta and Malta like Gromyko and Lavrentia Beria and the French sent the radical socialist Daladier - heavies who were scarcely balanced by leftists like the U.S.' proven spy Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss and the suspicious acting Dean Acheson. My explanation for Harry Truman's acquiescence to the proposal is that he could scarce overturn a pet project of the late President Roosevelt in the shadow of his death. The point is that the UN, in concordance with the IMF and World Bank, two projects that Harry Dexter White and fellow spy at Treasury Lauchlin Currie were directly involved with, set the stage for the Post-War world order. The United Nations, in due time, became the stamp of imprimatur for legitimate international action by states, though this organization was half comprised of dictatorships, and had a preponderance of non-democratic/socialist states on the UN Permanent Security Council (Russia, China, and France). It is by no means a surprise that former Soviet Premier Gorbachev, a man despised in his own country, would appeal to democratic processes and the United Nations to harness the nebulous and paranoia-inspiring global warming scam to enact a Communist one-state. The world is becoming more Orwellian by the day, and dragging out communists who vouch for democracy (as Gorbachev has done), who tout the dangers of global warming, and look to found a "new global system" should give one a moment's pause. But gravely more serious is a willingly complicit Western media that gives such utterly nefarious fluff a credence it by no stretch of the imagination deserves. This all points to the goal of statist elites, including John McCain and Mikhail Gorbachev, of effectively democratizing socialism-communism.

 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

reasonj

very interesting and informative as well.  Thanks.  Gives me something to investigate and educate.  Well done and right on!!

"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER