Joe Lieberman might have cause to think so after Tuesday’s primary. It’s his honesty that could cost him his Senate seat, writes Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan:
If Lieberman loses, it will not even be because he supported the war. Almost every leading Democratic politician and foreign policymaker, and many a liberal columnist, supported the war. Nor will he lose because he opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Most top Democratic policymakers agree that early withdrawal would be a mistake. Nor, finally, is it because he has been too chummy with President Bush. Lieberman has offered his share of criticism of the administration’s handling of the Iraq war and of many other administration policies.
No, Lieberman’s sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn’t recant. He didn’t say he was wrong. He didn’t turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn’t claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn’t try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn’t claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn’t go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted “public intellectuals.”
These have been the chosen tactics of self-preservation ever since events in Iraq started to go badly and the war became unpopular. Prominent intellectuals, both liberal and conservative, have turned on their friends and allies in an effort to avoid opprobrium for a war they publicly supported. Journalists have turned on their fellow journalists in an effort to make them scapegoats for the whole profession. Politicians have twisted themselves into pretzels to explain away their support for the war or, better still, to blame someone else for persuading them to support it.
Al Gore, the one-time Clinton administration hawk, airbrushed that history from his record. He turned on all those with whom he once agreed about Iraq and about many other foreign policy questions. And for this astonishing reversal he has been applauded by his fellow Democrats and may even get the party’s nomination.
Apparently, amazingly, dispiritingly, it all works. At least in the short run, dishonesty pays. Dissembling pays. Forgetting your past writings and statements pays. Condemning those with whom you once agreed pays. Phony self-flagellation followed by self-righteous self-congratulation pays. The only thing that doesn’t pay is honesty. If Joe Lieberman loses, it will not be because he supported the war or even because he still supports it. It will be because he refused to choose one of the many dishonorable paths open to him to salvage his political career.
What’s even more amazing and dispiriting is that some people have the unmitigated gall (not to mention lack of common sense) to claim that Lieberman’s honesty is actually a sign of “spinelessness,” an indication that he has “no principles beyond winning and political expedience and no honor beyond his own self interest.” I’m not just picking on dcl; it’s a distressingly common sentiment among liberals on this blog and elsewhere. This despite the fact that, manifestly, Lieberman’s entire political career is in mortal peril this week precisely because he stuck to his guns arguing for an unpopular position of principle. It doesn’t matter whether you think that position is right or wrong — if you have a shred of intellectual honesty in your body, you should be able to acknowledge that it’s the exact opposite of “spineless” or “expedient.”
There is absolutely no way Lieberman would be facing a serious primary challenge if he had pulled a John Kerry, back in 2003 or 2004, and turned against the war when that became the hip, popular thing to do. But Lieberman didn’t do that, because his conscience told him that supporting the war is right, and thus he continued to do so, even though the political tides had obviously turned against such a stance. As a sitting senator in a deep-blue state, Lieberman had absolutely nothing to gain, and absolutely everything to lose, by continuing to support the war. Because he continued supporting it anyway, he became a joke of a presidential candidate in 2004, and now he has become the left wing’s favorite whipping boy, a pariah in his own party — and, on Tuesday, he may become a lame-duck senator, or at least a lame-duck Democratic senator. None of that would have happened if he’d taken the dishonorable route and pretended to oppose the war.
Look, I don’t go around calling Russ Feingold “unprincipled” or “spineless”; he’s an honest, principled man with whom I happen to disagree. Likewise, those of you who disagree with Lieberman, even if you disagree profoundly and virulently, should be able to recognize that he’s an honest, principled man. You can call him stupid if you like (you’re wrong, of course, but that’s a whole different argument), but you can’t call his stance on Iraq dishonest or unprincipled if you expect anyone with functioning logical faculties to take you seriously.
Anyway, Kagan is right. (Hat tip: my dad.)
P.S. Let me add a caveat to my statement “Kagan is right.”
I don’t believe that everyone who has changed their mind about Iraq is necessarily being dishonest. Changing one’s mind is perfectly all right when changed circumstances dictate it, and there are plenty of honest critics who initially supported the war but now have reservations. However, I do believe that Kagan accurately describes a phenomenon which has indeed occurred. While some folks have had honest changes of heart, others have cynically hitched a ride on the jet stream of popular sentiment (a weather-nerdy way of saying they’re swaying whichever way the political winds are blowing). I happen to believe John Kerry is a great example of this. I refuse to believe it’s mere coincidence that he magically had an honest change of heart about the war at the very moment that Howard Dean’s emergence turned Iraq into a litmus test for presidential candidates.
Another issue is the manner in which those who have had honest changes of heart have chosen to express themselves. It’s one thing to say, “I was wrong”; it’s another thing entirely to say, “I was misled,” when one’s pre-war statements suggest that one would have supported the war regardless of the factual points about which one was supposedly “misled.” For example, I made clear from the get-go that I supported the Iraq war primarily because I believed removing Saddam was a moral and humanitarian imperative and because I believed it was essential to avoid the “paper tiger” reputation that would come with allowing continued defiance of our decade of legitimate demands on Saddam’s regine — not just because of the WMD issue. Thus, it would be dishonest for me to claim in retrospect that “I was misled” and wouldn’t have supported the war if I’d known then what I know now. Plenty of others have not been so circumspect.
There’s another issue, too, and it’s the matter of Monday-morning quarterbacking. It is logically untenable to judge the initial wisdom of the deciding to go to war on the basis of things that could only be known in hindsight. To steal an analogy from Andrew, that’s like saying Pete Carroll’s decision to go for it on 4th-and-2 in the Rose Bowl was inherently and obviously foolish, when we all would have been hailing it as a brilliant gambit if it had succeeded. What happens after a decision has been made can be illustrative of whether it was a wise decision, but it is not necessarily conclusive — sometimes a decision that genuinely seemed wise at the time, based on all the available information, ultimately turns out in hindsight to have been a poor choice, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad decision at the time it was made. Many of those who have “flipped” on Iraq don’t seem to recognize this core tenet of basic logic. I have a hard time respecting the positions of people who make arguments that don’t sufficiently distinguish between what we “know now” and what we “knew, or should have known, then.” Those are very different concepts, and only the latter can legitimately be used to argue against the initial decision to go to war.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
August 7th, 2006 at 2:56:09 am
Lieberman’s “honesty” is best exemplified by this quote:
“It is better now…it, it, it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way.”
– Sen. Joe Lieberman, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, on the Iraq War. Video excerpt by Crooks and Liars at http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/06/lieberman-on-this-week-iraq-is-better-and-worse/
August 7th, 2006 at 5:50:04 am
The latest Quinnipiac poll shows the numbers have become much closer. The Democratic voters in Connecticut may be looking past the advertising blitz of the unproven Mr. Lamont and deciding to vote for a proven supporter. We’ll know tomorrow.
August 7th, 2006 at 6:16:11 am
To answer your question: No, honesty is not over-rated. It’s just that it is punished by the nutsroots. They don’t want honesty, they want platitudes. They don’t want facts, they want to feel good. So they get the representatives they deserve. The problem is, the rest of us have to deal with their representatives also. I still believe enough rational adults will vote tomorrow to defeat the candidate of the adolscents. Of course if Lamont does lose, we will immediately be beset with “the election was stolen” rants.
August 7th, 2006 at 6:32:10 am
bonnie,
lieberman has outspent lamont 2 to 1, had a 50 point lead in an early poll and has bombarded connecticut with negative ads about lamont recently. please don’t misinform people who might think that somehow lieberman is some underdog here after reading your comments.
i think its ridiculous that people want to portray lamont as some hardcore leftist, or want to make this out to be the democrat party going radically to the left. the facts are that the majority of america is not happy with the iraq situation and is not happy with the way the current administration is handling the iraq situation. this is even moreso in conn. lieberman is totally against the grain on this. not only has he support this joke of a war, but hes also gone after people who have tried to put the pressure on this adminsistration and ask the tough questions. thats a much bigger problem.
hopefully, connecticut sends this bozo packing tomorrow, or at the least makes him look like a sore loser as he runs as an independent.
August 7th, 2006 at 6:58:30 am
he also honestly told everyone that if he lost he would run as an independent.
August 7th, 2006 at 7:40:07 am
Joe, not as mutable as the Demonatrix.
simply, bad strategy and this article to augment yours, Brendan.
http://www.slate.com/id/2146861/
August 7th, 2006 at 7:45:43 am
If Lieberman loses the primary and the general election, I hope you will like the tremendous amount of influence this will heap on Kos and all the other radical left supporting Lamont. The 2008 nominees are no dummies and they will want to court the Kiddies lest they invoke their wrath.
And Yea, I hardly see how his refusing to say our going into Iraq was a mistake makes him a bozo. Does that principled argument mean I can call anti-war lefties poopie heads and expect to consider that rational discourse?
Finally, Lieberman is hardly the only one throwing hits out there, Lamont’s campaign and his buddies, whether on the payroll or not, are doing their fair share and more of negative campaigning.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:22:40 am
he also honestly told everyone that if he lost he would run as an independent.
Yes, he did. Does this comment have a point? Is it meant to refute anything in my post? Because, just FYI, it doesn’t.
August 7th, 2006 at 8:26:24 am
A Nun Mouse, that’s a cheap shot and you know it. There is nothing inherently incorrect on its face about saying “it’s better and it’s worse.” In fact, that seems self-evidently correct: in some ways it’s better, in other ways it’s worse. Duh. Without watching the video, I would guess that Lieberman’s point is that it’s overly simplistic to characterize conditions in Iraq as either “better” or “worse” — that some areas have improved while others have worsened. How is that not an “honest” assessment? Is “honesty” only possible when someone is giving an assessment that’s 100% bleak? Anyway, Lieberman’s phraseology is not exactly artful, but it’s also not a rebuttal to anything in this post, and it’s certainly not a sign of “dishonesty.” You’re the one who is demonstrating “dishonesty” by quoting the guy devoid of context and trying to pretend that there’s something dishonest about giving an honest assessment of conditions in Iraq that isn’t one-sided like the typical assessments made by either the Bush camp (”everything is going great”) or the Feingold/Kerry/Murtha camp (”everything sucks, we’re doomed”).
August 7th, 2006 at 8:46:08 am
I’m certainly willing to grant that Lieberman is honest in his positions, notably on the Iraq war. At the very least, he believes them. I just think that those positions are honestly the wrong ones, and that he’s honestly confused as to the situation. It’s fine to say that we’ve made a mess that we now need to clean up, but he maintains that it was the right thing to do in the first place, and if I were a Connecticut voter, I would be amazed that my senator could be so honestly wrong-headed on such an important matter, especially as he appears to be an honestly intelligent person.
This liberal, for one, maintained from the beginning that the war was a gross strategic error and would only make our position in the region more difficult. I think I can honestly say that my position has been justified.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:09:10 am
Brendan,
You can say I “know it’s a cheap shot” but it really isn’t. Lieberman is as much a politician as any other person out there. He isn’t some Saint of Honesty. He’s a human being and human beings are fallible.
Last year he actually agreed with Bush and said the war was going well. Now he says this. Forget that he said this, and look at his statement in 2005 that the war was going well. It WASN’T. It never has been going well.
So it’s weird to hear Kagan praise Lieberman on his “honesty.” The notion that Lieberman is losing a statewide Connecticut primary where thousands of voters are going to take part– and he’s losing by a solid 10 point margin– the notion that this is taking place because he’s too honest is downright silly and immature.
How did Lieberman win his previous elections, if this is the case that, as Kagan puts it, “dissembling pays”? Was Lieberman dishonest and dissembling before and now that he’s trying the honesty tactic he’s going to lose because of his honesty? The illogic of Kagan’s ideas are obvious.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:13:45 am
Brendan, it goes to asininity (Note, I didn’t get to make up asininity… oh well.)
August 7th, 2006 at 9:15:58 am
Here’s an interesting article. Here’s an excerpt, link to full article below:
“While the war seems to be the top cause for voter unhappiness with Lieberman, there were hints of irritation in the past.
“We resent the fact he ran for senator and vice president at the same time,” said Carolyn, who is also 83, referring to Lieberman’s 2000 bid for both offices.
And Tom noted that Lieberman said little that was critical about Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security at the time it was proposed. Now he’s sending glossy direct mail declaring that he “stood up to the Republican attacks on Social Security, strongly opposing the Bush privatization plan.” ”
Lieberman trailing badly in polls; turnaround seems unlikely
By Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondent
Published August 6, 2006, 6:45 PM CDT
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060806lieberman,1,3359596.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
August 7th, 2006 at 9:17:36 am
Brendan has had some sort of rabid love of big L since I’ve know him. Some times such blinders make it hard to really see. From what I can tell Lamont (here in after little l) is not particularly rabid or outrageous in the left wing area apart from opposition to one of this countries most outrageously colossal mistakes. Which really doesn’t seem to be enough.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:18:19 am
I don’t think the term “pulling a Kerry” should be considered a negative thing. Kerry made a wrong decision, and changed his mind once more evidence came out. I’d prefer a leader who can change his mind once something doesn’t seem rational to continue anymore, than someone who stubbornly sticks to his guns despite common sense dictating otherwise. Do we really want to fault Kerry or any politician for changing their mind on something? We all make mistakes. Its better to realize those mistakes and adjust accordingly in my opinion.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:23:19 am
Lieberman has always been honest. No, he’s not a saint, but he’s an honest man — one of the most principled men in the Senate for sure. He has demonstrate this time and time again. In the past, this has served him well. But with regard to Iraq, many people are so passionate that they have allowed themselves to be deluded into thinking that Lieberman’s position of principle is somehow a sign of weakness or spinelessness. Thus, his honesty is hurting him in this case. The obvious fact is that if Lieberman had dishonestly pretended to be antiwar starting back in 2003 or 2004, he wouldn’t be in this predicament.
Last year he actually agreed with Bush and said the war was going well. Now he says this. Forget that he said this, and look at his statement in 2005 that the war was going well. It WASN’T. It never has been going well.
That’s your opinion, not Lieberman’s. You can’t prove that Lieberman was lying in 2005 by citing your own subjective opinion of what was happening in 2005. I, for one, would contend that the war is going substantially worse now than it was in 2005. In 2005 you didn’t have a general testifying before Congress that civil war could be imminent. Is that general also “dishonest”? Or is it possible that conditions have changed, and both the general and Lieberman are reacting to those changes? Also, Lieberman’s opponents are obviously cherry-picking his quotes from 2005. I can recall plenty of occasions where he has candidly admitted that mistakes have been made, while still arguing for the overarching point that things are going relatively well and, above all, the war was just and we must continue to pursue our strategic goals and help the Iraqi people become self-sufficient. Whether he said that in a particular article or speech or on a particular TV show obviously depends a lot on context — who was he rebutting, what point was he trying to get across and for what purpose, etc. But anyone who tries to argue that Lieberman’s statements on Iraq have somehow been fundamentally inconsistent over time is engaging in severe stretching of the truth.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:43:38 am
I don’t think the term “pulling a Kerry� should be considered a negative thing. Kerry made a wrong decision, and changed his mind once more evidence came out. I’d prefer a leader who can change his mind once something doesn’t seem rational to continue anymore, than someone who stubbornly sticks to his guns despite common sense dictating otherwise.
There are some people for whom this is true, though I don’t happen to believe John Kerry is one of them. I just added a note to my post addressing this. In any event, I don’t agree with your characterizing of Lieberman as “someone who stubbornly sticks to his guns despite common sense dictating otherwise.” I believe Lieberman’s assessment of the situation in Iraq is perfectly realistic and in line with “common sense.” Different people can look at the facts on the ground in Iraq and come to different conclusions while still being within the bounds of “common sense.”
August 7th, 2006 at 9:46:11 am
Brendan,
I certainly do think it’s dishonest for Lieberman to now talk about the war going badly when he made previous comments like this.
” In December 2005, Lieberman chastised Democrats for pushing for withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that “we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.â€? The comments drew public praise from both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Said Cheney: “On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our missionâ€? (New York Times, December 10, 2005).”
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3357
This is an incredibly anti-democratic comment.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:50:28 am
I specifically addressed that “anti-democratic” comment in my update to the post.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:55:03 am
Great post nun mouse, its stuff like that from lieberman that makes me happy he is on the way out. His type of thinking is the last thing this country needs at this point.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:22:04 am
Well said, Mouse
Brendan writes: “Lieberman has always been honest. No, he’s not a saint, but he’s an honest man â€â€? one of the most principled men in the Senate for sure.”
Where does that leave McCain? I think McCain has more gusto and character than Joe, and–I consider him to be one of the most honest. Get off the bandwagon, already.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:28:19 pm
Nun -
‘War going badly.’
‘Bad idea to remove troops from Iraq.’
Somehow these don’t seem MUTUALLY exclusive to me. The War can be going badly, sure. In fact it is, but that doesn’t meant that withdrawal suddenly becomes the only option available or even the best one. I can point to a previous thread where me and Jazz discussed this directly.
The fact of things not going well does not inherently make the case for withdrawal stronger. It enhances the need for alternative plans. It doesn’t strengthen one over the other.
August 7th, 2006 at 1:36:47 pm
uscroger, I like McCain too, but it is my personal opinion that he is somewhat less principled and more self-interested than Lieberman… but, that’s a personal feeling that I can’t prove, and in any event, it is neither here nor there vis a vis this discussion. I said that Lieberman is “one of the most principled men in the Senate for sure.” That leaves plenty of room for you to believe that McCain is another “one of” the most principled men in the Senate. The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. So, to your question, “Where does that leave McCain?” I would answer: “I dunno. That’s not really relevant. I doesn’t automatically ‘leave’ him anywhere in particular.”
Finally, I have no idea what you mean by “get off the bandwagon, already.”
August 7th, 2006 at 3:00:53 pm
“I certainly do think it’s dishonest for Lieberman to now talk about the war going badly when he made previous comments like this . . . ‘We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.’”
Is anyone else laughing at how ridiculously far down “dishonesty” is being defined by this dumb insult to Lieberman? It’s just not enough that you disagree about Iraq. Nope . . . Lieberman’s gotta be “dishonest” too. Some people have their heads so far up their ass that they can’t accept disagreement without finding “dishonesty” as well, no matter how flawed the reasoning and how much evidence there is to the contrary. If that’s “progressive,” I’ve never been prouder to be an oh-so-retro stick in the mud.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:52:04 pm
Yes, Lieberman is honest. I don’t doubt that he sincerely wants the government to define indecency and punish adults who are thus indecent in front of adults. I don’t doubt that he sincerely thinks that democracy can be established by force. He honestly thinks a woman should have to leave a Catholic hospital if she’s been raped, because he apparently honestly thinks that she won’t find a single doctor or nurse willing to offer emergency contraception. He honestly thinks that vigorous debate is harmful. And the people of Connecticut honestly disagree with him.
Get your head around it, Brendan. It’s not about honesty or dishonesty. It’s about choosing a man who best represents us. Nobody’s out to punish anybody. We’re out to give our views a stronger say. You can instantly dismiss the anti-war crowd as insane so you don’t have to think about it like you always do, or you can accept that we’re honest, too, and that our problems, might, just might, come from a place of reason. For some of us, centrism for the sake of centrism isn’t enough. “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation no virtue.”
As for me, I’ll be very happy if I come home from karate tomorrow to find that (honest) moralizing prude on his way out of office.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:26:27 pm
You quoted Barry Goldwater! I love it! Wait till my dad sees this. :) The full quote is “moderation in the pursuit of justice is not virtue,” but close enough.
Anyway, I believe I’ve said already, and I’ll certainly say again, that I respect the views of those who are making their choice based on your criteria: “It’s not about honesty or dishonesty. It’s about choosing a man who best represents us. Nobody’s out to punish anybody. We’re out to give our views a stronger say.” That’s perfectly fine. I respect that, even though I disagree, and even though I’m profoundly uncomfortable with the direction voters with such views want to take the Democratic Party. What I don’t respect is the very common, oft-repeated falsehood that Lieberman is dishonest, spineless, unprincipled and so forth.
Look, I’m not making this “dishonesty” stuff up. You claim, “It’s not about honesty or dishonesty.” I say, tell that to Lamont’s supporters. Tell that to the Daily Kos crowd. Tell that to A Nun Mouse and others of his ilk on this blog. They aren’t content merely to disagree with Lieberman on the issues; they feel the need to call him unprincipled, spineless, a disloyal Democrat, a closet Republican, a Bush crony, etc. etc. etc. That sort of name-calling has been a central theme of the anti-Lieberman insurgency from the very beginning, and if you’re asking me to ignore it and pretend no one is Connecticut has been influenced by it, well, sorry, I’m not going to. “Get your head around it, Brendan”? There’s nothing for me to get my head around. Your reasons for opposing Lieberman are honorable and respectable, if wrong IMHO. But much of the Dump Joe movement, from the very beginning, has been based on lies and distortions, a smear campaign of the worst kind. I don’t respect that and if Lamont wins I’m not going to sit here and pretend that he will have won strictly on the issues. He will have won partly on the issues and partly because he and his supporters successfully convinced the Connecticut electorate that Lieberman was various things which he is not.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:29:02 pm
P.S. Can you point me to a citation for this rape-victims-in-Catholic-hospitals thing? I don’t know anything about it, but I don’t like the sound of it, if your characterization is accurate.
August 7th, 2006 at 4:52:10 pm
Brendan,
Google “Rape Gurney Joe”. Couldn’t have come up with that if I tried.
Remember, better Red than dead. Vote For Ned!
August 7th, 2006 at 8:07:17 pm
I think the editor of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, captures the situation perfectly.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:35:42 pm
Peretz columns kinda write themselves. He takes the liberal(ish) uber-hawk line and runs with it; always and with no surprises. Not that plot twists are a necessary element of a good op-ed. Still, there is one whopper of a (deliberate?) misread in this effort:
Here, for instance, is his [Lamont’s] take on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear-weapons venture: “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.” Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing.
Is that what Lamont meant by “give them reasons”? I think not. And the way I know is that he clarifies in the very same sentence: “to give them incentives.” Now the funny thing is, Peretz could have argued that what Lamont really meant (buy them off) is even worse. He leans in that direction later on: “…Mr. Lamont’s view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate.” Why he went for that childish misrepresentation in the first place is beyond me.
Brendan, if I agree that A Nun Mouse’s opening shot was in fact cheap, will you agree that the Kerry “voted for it before [he] voted against it” attack is cheap for similar reasons?
Oh, and a word of advice for tommorow… don’t blog while you’re angry.
August 8th, 2006 at 4:59:37 am
Its seldom I agree with a libertarian but Sean has it spot on. His honesty is only going to cost him in that the voters honestly think he is the wrong choice because of where he stands on the issues, not because he is being honest about them.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:44:51 am
Read Bob Somerby’s detailed analysis of the Kagan column: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080806.shtml
August 8th, 2006 at 10:05:34 am
Heh. Also read Bill Clinton’s own Lanny Davis on Joe Lieberman and how “bigotry and hate aren’t just for right-wingers anymore”:
Liberal McCarthyism
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
August 8th, 2006 at 10:17:02 am
Hey, this is fun!
Drum on Davis:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009300.php
August 8th, 2006 at 10:36:42 am
Drum was really too kind. Davis claims to be addressing the “hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle,” He wants to show that the left has it’s own Limbaughs, Coulters, and Savages. What does he come up with? Five semi-anonymous blog comments* and a third-hand story about some unidentified emailers making boycott threats. Hell, if I wanted to play devil’s advocate and find some loony lefty commentary, I could do a better job myself. This column is beyond silly.
*Note to Davis: There’s a big diffrence between a blogger writing under his own name for an audience of thousands and an anonymous or semi-anonymous commenter unacountably spouting nonsense. There’s an even bigger difference between the anonymous blog commenter and a
pundithack with an audience of millions.August 8th, 2006 at 10:39:26 am
Yep!
Here’s Levin on Davis:
http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGZhMzBjYTg1YWJiNmIxYjQyOWNiMjE0YjhlZmJlOTc=
“Our nuts are on the fringes; his nuts run the DNC, their PACs, and their think-tanks. Davis was a mouthpiece for one of the most corrupt president’s in history. More to the point, Bill Clinton and his wife were specialists at using slurs and personal attacks against their opponents (including numerous women). Davis defended all of it. We are nothing like the Left.”
August 8th, 2006 at 10:47:06 am
Ok, we cross posted there, and I sorta broke the rules by going with a non-proxy argument. And I can’t find a proxy rejoinder to Levin’s post, so I guess you win. Unless we’re allowed to change topics, in chich case: here’s Greg Djerjian on Levin.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/08/selfparody_alert_iii.html