Excellent piece by Jonathon Chait on the increasingly unstable folks at the Weekly Standard:
First, there is Kristol’s curious premise that tnr only published this essay because we have “turned against” the war. If Beauchamp’s writings were tnr’s attempt to discredit the war, why would his first contribution describe a pro-American Iraqi boy savagely mutilated by insurgents? For that matter, why would we work to undermine the war by publishing a first-person account on the magazine’s back page rather than taking the more straightforward step of, say, editorializing for withdrawal?
***The theme of traitorous liberals is becoming a Standard trope. Last week’s cover depicted an American soldier seen from behind and inside a circular lens–as if caught in the sights of a hostile sniper–beneath the headline, “does washington have his back?” The Weimar-era German right adopted the metaphor of liberals stabbing soldiers in the back. Kristol is embracing the metaphor of liberals shooting soldiers in the back. I suppose this is progress, of sorts.
There was a time when neoconservatives sought to hold the moral and intellectual high ground. There was some- thing inspiring in their vision of America as a different kind of superpower–a liberal hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples, rather than mere self-interest. As the Iraq war has curdled, the idealism and liberalism have drained out of the neoconservative vision. What remains is a noxious residue of bullying militarism. Kristol’s arguments are merely the same pro-war arguments that have been used historically by right-wing parties throughout the world: Complexity is weakness, dissent is treason, willpower determines all.
Kristol’s good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink-and-nod awareness that he’s too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing.
Chait’s article is another example of TNR’s defense by offense, and it’s the work of a smear artist and a scoundrel. The usual liberal canards are there — right-wingers are thugs, they’re relying on Nazi (or “Weimer-era German right,” to be specific) imagery to sell a war, etc. And all because Bill Kristol pronounced the diaries of Scott Beauchamp what they are, fiction.
Chait does a liberal-rousing job of going through Kristol’s career and making the worst of what he finds. What you won’t find in Chait’s article is a thorough fact-checking of TNR’s own work. Where’s the stratified mass grave, Jonathan? Did your magazine really pose vague, misleading questions to the communications director from the company that manufactures Bradleys? Is there really a street in parched Baghdad with sewage flowing up to a man’s waist? And would troops really stop to change a tire there? Why haven’t we heard from Beauchamp, or more to the point, why haven’t you heard from him over at TNR? A fortnight after the magazine returned from vacation, and still no concrete answers to basic, factual questions.
It may be time to turn the lights out at the New Republic. There seem to be no grownups left over there.
We agree with Hot Air. We need more adults.
BTW- Am I the only one who finds it super-duper amusing that Preston doesn’t even understand Chait’s Weimar reference?
*** Update ***
More stab-in-the-back here from Sully. And from the Decider, himself.
Pb
Heh. Saw this on Daily Kos today–and yes, when even the President (of the wingnuts) starts pimping the ol’ Dolchstosslegende, people are going to notice, and mention the similarities. See also: freedom fries and liberty cabbage.
dslak
For people who seem to only be able to think of the world in terms of WWII clichés, how would you expect him to take it?
Bruce Moomaw
Note that Preston doesn’t try to lay a finger on Chait’s most important argument — namely, that that earlier Beauchamp story which they printed is not only not “anti-US military” or “anti-war”; it’s solidly PRO-both, whether Beauchamp was lying or not.
The Right Wingnutosphere is definitely (and predictably, under the circumstances) getting more hysterical. See also Andrew Sullivan’s demolition job this morning on Victor Davis Hanson’s latest rant in NRO, which (as AS says) can literally be described as “unhinged”.
Zifnab
That would destroy the entire “TNR is a giant liberal rag” talking point. And it’s a known fact that if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists. One article by one writer published in one edition clearly puts TNR in the “terrorists” category. QED.
Ironically, the Republican Majority will die the same way so many authoritarian regimes have fallen before it. Eventually, authoritarians propose ideas that don’t work, and when they fail denial sets in, compounded by further authoritarianism. In the end authoritarians eat their own.
cleek
from comments at Hot Air:
this comment alone can generate enough irony to supply a medium-sized city for two years.
rachel
With nooses, guillotines and cyanide for all!
Punchy
Wow, how fucking stupid can they be? They just equated the Weimer Republic with the Nazis, when the two are by definition two separate eras. I guess the mere invocation of any comparison to anything German flips the winger’s Nazi Button. Send these idiots a history text.
Steve
Did anyone ever end up producing Beauchamp’s signed confession, the one that only the Weekly Standard supposedly knew about?
Andrew
Well, that’s a bit like laughing at a developmentally disabled child trying and failing to tie his shoe. Funny sad, not funny ha ha.
Dreggas
You know. These are the types of things you expect to see on shows like SNL and Mad TV. Then you find out, no those weren’t parodies there really are people like this out there and you throw up a little in your mouth.
Jack Handy’s deep thoughts…so very close to our current wingers.
Sstarr
Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch and Yellowcake Uranium = Good Lies.
Beauchamp = Bad Lie.
Just to let everyone watching at home keep score.
rawshark
As I’ve said before it takes a staggering amount of ignorance to be a wingnut.
The Other Steve
Not to mention insanity. Wow, just wow.
Is HotAir part of Open Sores Media?
rachel
They’ve run out of toilet paper.
The Pirate
I died a little when that douche made the “Weimar right = Nazis!” comment. No love for the Freikorps?
Polderjongen
I keep reading that they still doubt the capabilities of Bradleys.
On youtube are several vids of what Bradleys can do. Here’s a twirling Bradley
Since they used a scale model for checking if it was possible to flatten a dog with it, here’s a video of what a scale model of a bradley can do
And here’s one that shows that tanks and their handlers have a predilection for harassing dogs
Zifnab
Bombing the Reichstag was actually a German expression of affection, not at all any attempt by the Nazi Party to overthrow the remnants of Weimer government.
The Other Steve
More info…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
dslak
Many of the Nazis were associated with the Weimar right. Some of the Weimar right opposed them, of course.
Still, Chait’s use of the Weimar right’s Dolchstosslegende was to make a sarcastic joke about how liberals’ attacks on soldiers have evolved from the use daggers to sniper rifles.
Jake
Bunker mentality anyone? (Wrong era, I know.)
I foresee a day in the not too distant future where even Faux News and the Washington Times are librul media outlests to the hardcore wingy-thingies.
Must…maintain…ideological…purity…
The fun begins when individual neo-cons discover doubt in their own minds and try to tear those bad thoughts out with sporks.
Fronts NYC
What amazes me the most about this whole ridiculous affair is the mix of sheer arrogance and desperation of the keyboard kommandos. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything they’ve said is true: TNR published Beauchamp because they were easily snookered by an amoral 5th columnist and were ready to believe the worst about US troops because they wanted to sap the public’s will for “victory.”
Beside the obvious fact that from the very beginning of this war, until the present TNR has done nothing but support this mad debacle and find new ways to defend the indefensible, but once again, assuming for the sake of argument that they’re just liberal defeatists who want to slander the troops and by extension the entire war…what effect do they think such an article would have on pubic opinion? Do they honestly believe that some anonymous diary published in a magazine few people read anyway could possibly lower the public’s opinion of this war any lower than it already is?
The Pirate
Zifnab, the Nazis were only one of many right-wing factions in Weimar Germany until the 30’s. As a history fanatic it pains me when people make broad generalizations like “the Weimar right is identical to the Nazis”
rawshark
Pardon?
dslak
Rawshark, I get my conclusion from this bit of Chait’s piece:
I hope that makes it a bit clearer.
The Other Steve
I think dslak might have not read the article and got his kerning and fonts wrong.
TenguPhule
The only thing that could improve this circular Right Wing firing squad is real bullets.
Wilfred
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. That goes for Bush I/II, Vietnam/Iraq and the stabs in the back.
On to Iran!
Bubblegum Tate
Not at all. That was like the cherry on top of the Unintentional Comedy Sundae. Dear god I hope the Hot Air folks never gain any self-awareness–I would hate to be robbed of such a fantastic source of hilarity.
rawshark
I get the joke but I certainly don’t think it was Chait’s only point concerning dolchstosslegende. I think his point was that the right likes to blame others for their mistakes so they can stay in power or get back in power and do it all over again. The german right did it after WWI, our right wing did it after Vietnam and are gearing up to do it again.
Bubblegum Tate
Oh, and also, Weimer Republicans is the perfect descriptor for our present batch of wingnuts. I’m definitely adding that one to my lexicon.
August J. Pollak
WTF is up with HotAir and the constant, whiny “why haven’t we heard from Beauchamp yet” nonsense. Hasn’t A. HotAir made it perfectly clear they will not believe anything he says to begin with, and B. Both TNR and the Army itself have made it perfectly clear they are not letting Beauchamp speak to outside media anymore?
I’m waiting for Ian to start complaining that the Haditha killings never happened because he hasn’t gotten any response to the e-mails he sent the victims yet.
Zifnab
I was always under the impression that the Weimar Republic was the big scary Jewish Conspiracy that Hitler wanted to topple. That was his jiggle, back in the 20s, wasn’t it? That the Jews were running Germany? I guess I never even bothered to give it an ideological bent.
RSA
I couldn’t help thinking of an additional question that Hot Air inadvertently left out: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
John Cole
Check out McQ if you want some more comic relief:
Putting aside the fact that one of the chief criticisms of Kristol’s stab in the back bullshit is that it is little more than BROAD BRUSH ASSERTIONS, the chief reason most of us are openly mocking these wingnuts is that not only do they not consider Kristol’s nonsense to be outlandish, but they believe it and REPEAT it.
Look- I agree I was wrong voting for Bush, but you will never convince me I was that fucking stupid.
dslak
Sure, I get what you’re saying, but I was just thinking back to what John said at the beginning about Preston not getting the point of Chait’s reference to the Weimar Right.
Polderjongen
With relation to HMMWV’s not having spare tires: check out all the pics of HMMWV’s in Iraq with … spare tires attached to them: on the roof of the HMMWV, on the back, on the side, on the front. The soldiers have to improvise because the original tires aren’t that spectular in Iraq.
dslak
Would you consider your discovery of this shortcomings to be a fisking or a beauchamping?
myiq2xu
I had the impression that Wingnuttia has been getting more hysterical and irrational since the last election. Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed.
Not that they have ever been particularly calm and reasonable, but lately they have really been foaming at the mouth.
My guess is that the reason they are coming unglued is that their carefully constructed alternate reality is crumbling all around them.
Either that, or it’s the kool-aid.
dslak
I hear the Jonestown recipe can pack a mighty wallop.
John Cole
And the confederate yankee apparently spends his days not only scouring his referral logs, but where his visitors come from.
Scroll down to the bottom of his post.
racrecir
Kevin Drum writes:
But look: the phrase “stab in the back” is a common idiom. Everyone reading this has probably used it dozens of times in their lives without once thinking about its German roots. … It’s a common phrase, commonly used, and I’ve never heard a suggestion that it’s no longer suitable for ordinary conversation. Unless we’re ready to make that argument, we should probably call off the language police on this one.
myiq2xu
They are waiting for it to dry. It got wet while they were waterboarding Beauchamp.
Jake
You mean like the mad scientist who shrieks and cackles as the lab burns down around him?
I often wonder about these people. Are they just sane enough to realize they are wrong about everything and so are becoming more unhinged because those damn facts keep contradicting Known Truth (TM)? If they were completely batshit crazy I’d think they wouldn’t let those pesky facts disturb them. If you told me giant invisible chickens are stalking the Earth I wouldn’t shriek in your face because you were “lying,” I’d just feel sorry for you because I knew you were unwell. So the spittle flinging from the fRight wing does strongly sugguest a desperate attempt to dispell doubt.
But I also wonder what would have happened to them if the Bush’s Flowerz n Candeez game plan played out, we were out of (or had a very limited presence in) Iraq and the country was spreading Democracy Rays all over the ME. Would they be at least semi-rational (and usually quiet) or would they be clamoring for war with Iran?
Sorry for the long musing, loonies interest me.
myiq2xu
I got this from a site called “Blogs for Bush:”
I’m not even sure what this screed really says. GWB is too honest? The mess in Iraq was the CIA’s fault?
Reading this makes my head hurt. Maybe it requires kool-aid induced cognitive dissonance to understand.
jenniebee
More to the point, Zif, the Weimar hard right predates the Nazis, not just in the way that the Wiemar Republic came before the Third Reich, but in that the Dolchstosslegende was alive and well back in the day when Herr Hitler was still wondering why nobody understood his art. It isn’t a Nazi meme, it’s a meme that was started by Ludendorff right on the heels of the Treaty of Versailles. Ludendorff ran just about everything in Germany toward the end of WWI, so his choices of how to explain the German loss were pretty much: 1) there was no way that Germany could have won that war; 2) Germany might have won it, but he, Ludendorff, personally fucked up and lost it all; or 3) Germany could have won and he did a heckuva job, but he just didn’t have the support he needed at home. So he picked 3. And the Nazis later capitalized on it, of course, but it had been around for a while by then.
If you haven’t read Stabbed in the back! in Harpers, you really must. It’s a neat little history of the idea.
caustics
Its not like he has a lot of visitors…
As if. Although it would be very true to say TNR has the undivided attention of every fuss pot blogger in the wingnutosphere.
myiq2xu
What’s interesting about the stab-in-the-back meme regarding Vietnam is that it has no factual basis.
Johnson got to do pretty much everything he wanted, then Nixon ran for office with a “secret plan” to end the war. Nixon got to do pretty much everything he wanted to do too, and got reelected by announcing right before the election that he had reached an agreement with the North Vietnamese to end the war.
Despite the protests and changes in public opinion, Congress did nothing to stop the war. The media was mostly supportive of the war, even after the Tet Offensive.
Where was the back-stab? Who did the stabbing?
Now look at Iraq. Bush has been allowed to do everything he wanted, Congress has been rubberstamping everything until this year, and now they are, at most, tepid and weak in opposing Bush. The media have been very supportive, and have basically ignored the anti-war movement.
Even if us DFH’s are the treasonous cowards that Wingnuttia accuses us of being, how have we done anything to cause the mess we’re in now?
According the the Wingnuts, the Iraqis have been hanging in there and refusing to surrender because a group over here with little or no political power wanted the US to withdraw.
And after that group won control of the legislative branch by a very slim margin, they signed off on the President’s surge plan.
John Cole
I made precisely the same point 5 minutes ago in a different thread.
Punchy
I’d like to extend a golf clap for the appropriately-named West Virginian Cole for wading thru those righties’ sites and taking one for the team. I tried to do that once, and almost broke my lappy in rage.
Cole reconnoitering the rabid righties for his readers. Gracias.
Tsulagi
Kristol and the rest of the Malkinettes crack me up.
Seven guys walk in and bitchslap them in an op-ed. Pom Poms go limp. They tear up a little bit and whine (you don’t see the BIG picture like Meeeeee), they pout (you’re just trying to get back for O’Hanlon and Pollack), but then they regain their steel and squeal with delight: “Hey guys, ignore them, let’s all go chew on those Beauchamp bones some more!” They’re ferocious like that.
rawshark
A member of the reality based community I see. None of those facts matter. Wingnuts listen to only certain people and those people will tell them whatever they feel like telling them. Its damn easy to ignore what you aren’t made aware of by trusted sources.
Bubblegum Tate
Yes, Mark Noonan does believe that Bush is too honest. He has repeatedly insisted that Bush has not lied at all as president (actually, he prefers the phrasing, “Bush has not told lie the first” because he thinks the stilted language makes him sound smarter). As for the second, Noonan will quickly tell you that there is no “mess” in Iraq, as it is an unrivaled success, but insofar as there are messy parts to Iraq (I know…the cognitive dissonance is thick there…just bear with me), it’s because liberals who criticize the never-told-a-lie president (absolutely committing treason in the process, by the way) keep undermining the troops, rooting for terrorist victory, etc. He says, “Either you root for American victory, or you root for American defeat. It’s just that simple.” To simple minds such as his, perhaps.
Bear in mind, also, that he also believes that:
1) We found WMDs in Iraq, and it is a “leftwing lie” to say that we didn’t
2) Bush never said that WMDs were the main justification for invading Iraq, anyway
3) Joseph Wilson is a “known liar” whose sole purpose was to undermine Bush because he hates Bush for some reason
4) “The media” is nothing but a terrorist propaganda organization
5) (This one is my favorite) It was wrong to invade Afghanistan post-9/11, but it was absolutely 100 percent correct to invade Iraq.
I swear that guy must put effort into being as wrong as possible about everything under the sun.
Jake
Maybe we should try to get him on Dirty Jobs. But the host dude would likely prefer to wade through a sewer. Barefoot.
ThymeZone
Well, that’s a popular mischaracterization. Actually, the potatoheads figured out how to run out the clock before the ISG even published its report. Congress is playing a political game of chicken. The GOP is playing defense and trying to lose as few seats as possible next year, and the Dems are on offense and angling for a large pickup of seats.
Despite the crowd’s insistance that these players play to the crowd, which they will not do, the players are playing for themselves and will stick to their game plans.
So you are going to see the election of 2008 played out in much the same atmosphere that we are in now, where Bush stays steady on his “the next president will have to decide how to deal with Iraq” course, and the Dems working on their congressional election playbook.
All the rest is theater to keep you entertained out here in cable tv/blogovia and so far, it seems to be working.
myiq2xu
The Dems are playing pussy, not chicken.
If they want to win they have to quit “triangulating” and throw deep. Hit ’em hard, kick ’em in the crotch and when they’re down, step on their necks.
ThymeZone
Win what? An election in 2008? That will be decided in several hundred individual contests.
A vote on the Hill? The votes are not there for your aggressive ideas. Someday, even bloggers will figure out what really goes on on Capitol Hill. For today, just take heart in the idea that you can be a trendsetter and be an early adopter. It’s all about the votes. The votes, all the votes, nothing but the votes. Counting the votes.
Count the votes. You don’t have any actual power on the Hill. Your Patton imitation doesn’t work up there. Until Republicans break ranks, this is what you get.
Zifnab
This assumes that Democrats want a substantial policy change. And by “Democrats” I mean “whatever meatheads are running the Democratic Party”. I feel uncertain whether full Democratic control will yield the majority of America what it wants, any more than full Republican control. Will President Hillary actually withdraw troops? Or will she just announce she’s withdrawing troops and try to push the war onto the back burner of the political discourse?
Dems know they’re enroute to a full run of the federal government. And there are no shortage of bad Dems who are more interested in kickbacks and campaign contributions than actually running government. Big Business knows that there are palms to be greased and backs to be scratched in the emerging Democratic Majority too.
The fact that Dems are dragging their feet bothers me more because I’m worried that they’re not being cowardly at all, just very politically calculating.
Pb
Then Noonan is a liar, and Bush is a leftwing liar:
QED.
ThymeZone
Arrgggh. What happens on the Hill is based on counting votes, not on what people “want.”
Votes, votes, votes. Until the GOP breaks with Bush and coughs up votes for our measures, we’re done.
The Other Steve
Do Dems want to withdraw troops? Yes, you betcha.
But what’s at play here, is that they don’t know what will happen. They are afraid. So they’ve got the military advisors saying “It’s gonna end up worse than Sudan”, and that makes them squeamish.
Why are they squeamish? Because they actually give a shit about people.
If it were me, I’d fucking pull out, and I don’t give a fuck what happens to the Iraqis, or the Saudis or anybody else. But that’s cause I’m cold hearted.
So enough of this bullshit worrying and concern trolling.
ThymeZone
Quit being an ass. There you are in the Senate, you have 48 or so Dems voting with you.
Whatcha gonna do, big boy? What’s your stretegy?
You need 60 fucking votes to change the toilet paper in the men’s room, and the Repubs are sticking together.
Go ahead, tell me your big plan.
Bubblegum Tate
Pb–
I’ve repeatedly posted that exact quote to Noonan. He says I’m taking it out of context.
Uh-huh.
myiq2xu
Every week that Congress is in session, submit at least one bill that has widespread public support. Not wedge issues like gay marriage or late-term abortion, but things like universal health care, campaign reform, infrastructure maintenance, worker safety and environmental protection.
Let the GOP vote against the bills, let them filibuster, let Lil’ George veto them, let the GOP fail to support a veto-override.
Then let the GOP explain themselves to the voters.
Pb
Bubblegum Tate,
Reading Is Fundamental, and all that. Noonan can of course say whatever he wants, but all that does is add one more to his lie count. Personally, I think it looks even worse in context, because in his next breath, Bush back-pedals by instead citing alleged WMD-related programs. That is to say, sure, Saddam didn’t have the weapons, but he knew about weapons, and perhaps one day in the future he could have had weapons, maybe… that’s about as weak as it gets, and doesn’t help Noonan’s original point at all. But hey, what else is new.
ThymeZone
They don’t have to. Under the current rules, which are aimed primarily at protecting a minority, they can use procedural delays and other end-around plays to keep from having to make upperdown votes on much of anything.
Which is, I think, exactly what they are doing.
People seem to think that wnat goes on in there is like a PTA meeting, where the issue is discussed and then everyone votes. Turn on your CSPAN, citizens, and behold, that is not what goes on there. In order to get smooth action like that, you need ….. votes. In a divided house, the votes are not there until someone breaks ranks.
Zifnab
This is no concern troll. You think the only bad people in our government just happened to all line up on the right side of the aisle for us? I think smucks like Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson prove to everyone that you can have a (D) in front of your name and still have a full-blown, latex encased, ten inch war-on.
What’s more Democratic Presidents aren’t any more immune to the temptations of power than the rest of us mere mortals. Everyone’s joked about how Supreme Empress Hillary Clinton will wield her Bush-endowed cosmic powers. I don’t think you talk those jokes seriously enough. The next President is going to need to take a HUGE step back from Supreme Executive Authority, or we’re going to have to re-label our government to Pseudo-Constitutional Monarchy.
So now I’m casting glances at the “timid little Dems” and thinking to myself, maybe they’re crazy not to put up a huge fight against wreckless federal authority. And maybe they’re crazy like foxes.
Either way, it would make me feel a lot better if Dems didn’t just roll over every time the White House demanded more power because I don’t trust Dems with free-wheeling warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention powers much more than I trust Republicans.
myiq2xu
Me not stoopid, me have degree in heestorie an politickle si-unce. Me got JD too.
Let me say it differently:
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND CAN PASS ANY FUCKING THING THEY WANT.
IF THE GOP WANTS TO BLOCK THINGS IN THE SENATE, MAKE THEM DO IT. MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER AND/OR PULL WHATEVER OTHER BULLSHIT THEY WANT TO TRY.
The current plan seems to be “wait until after next year, then we’ll have more votes.”
Well the GOP isn’t gonna break ranks unless you make them.
Make them either oppose popular legislation or break ranks. either way, the Democrats and the rest of the country win.
ThymeZone
Well, if you would take a deep breath and stop imagining this (just because bloggers say it doesn’t make it so, you see) ….. you would feel better.
What is actually happening is much closer to what I described above at 4:33.
It’s a standoff. You need 60 votes to break it.
Get 60 votes.
Hint: November 2008 is your next shot at 60 votes.
myiq2xu
BTW- the Democrats only need 41 votes in the Senate to stop bad legislation from passing, not 60.
myiq2xu
This is how you get veto and filibuster-proof majorities: You make the GOP vote against or procedurally block popular legislation. Lots and lots of popular legislation.
You run ads showing how the GOP members voted on those bills. Then you have your candidates run against those GOP incumbents saying “If elected, I will vote for those bills.”
If they pass both houses and Lil’ George vetoes them, your candidate for President gets to say, “If elected, I will sign them.”
That’s called giving people a reason to vote Democratic.
ThymeZone
But that’s a minority position. The majority pretty much controls what comes to the floor. Once it comes to the floor, then the other rules kick in.
If you are talking about the wiretapping thing, well, that’s the rant topic of the week. But I promise you, in January 2009 nobody is going to care about that issue.
For various reasons.
myiq2xu
Nobody will be voting in January 2009.
But if you want to make them care in November 2008, keep trying to repeal or amend it, and make the GOP stop you.
And stop passing everything monkey boy wants.
cleek
the choices will be:
Republican v Democrat who voted against it
or
Republican v Democrat who voted for it
if you’re against it, your position might not matter.
myiq2xu
Democrats need to do more than run on a platform of “We’re not Republicans.”
This is a “Hoover Moment,” and the Democrats are letting it slip away by trying too hard to be careful. Fuck Old Weird Harold and the DLC, the middle of the road is where you get run over.
The current Democratic strategy seems to be two-pronged:
1) Moan
2) Lay there
I say fuck the GOP, hard! Slap them bitches when they cry, and don’t give ’em a reach-around either!
“He either fears his fate too much, or his desserts are small, who dares not put it to the touch, to win or lose it all.”
Tsulagi
I agree with the stoopid JD.
After the first Iraq supplemental bill with benchmarks in it was vetoed in May, didn’t like it, but I understood why the Dems then went along with a cleaner bill. There was some sentiment about trying one last time to fix it, The Surge, plus the reality is they don’t have the 60 votes in the Senate nor enough of a majority in the House to override. Just the way it is. In the Senate they don’t even have a simple majority when it comes to Iraq. Johnson is still on the disabled list unable to vote, and on Iraq Lieberman continues to represent the Likud Party.
But the Dems only funded for four months. It’s coming back up. Now it’s time to play harder ball.
If they won’t go with a funding bill containing a reasonable exit plan, make the Upperdown Party vote. Even if it is just voting against ending cloture. Then rather than allowing them that quiet out they hope nobody notices, tell them they’ll have to actually filibuster.
The Whiny Rightys grab every opportunity they can to cry about the “liberal MSM” and tell everyone in earshot how much they’re persecuted by it. Since you’re already “guilty,” use the goddamned thing. Persecute the bastards. Club them with the thing.
Media loves its visuals. Last time around for an actual filibuster, they kept showing cots being set up in the halls. Didn’t matter that no one ever sleeps in them; the visual looks good. Make the Upperdown Party own the longest recorded filibuster if need be.
Press would eat that up. Cots on the floors, sleepy-eyed senators. “Day 6 of The Filibuster, Day 7…” Each day during it, use your party organ aka the evil MSM to say the reason there is no vote on the Iraq supplemental is because the Republicans refuse to vote for their constituents’ wishes, yea or nay.
Then borrow a page from the Pubs and keep repeating it, and repeating, and repeating even though you’re embarrassed to be doing so. It’s worked for them.
sglover
Nowadays I find it difficult to say anything about our precious geniuses in media and politics without resorting to profanity.
So y’know what? Fuck Kristol, AND fuck Chait. Fuck the Weekly Standard, AND TNR. They were ALL delighted about our Glorious Adventure in Iraq — safe in the knowledge that none of them, NOT ONE, would see anything coming out of it other than talk show gigs and book signings. Any plumber, any receptionist, any janitor, performs more honorable and socially useful work than ALL of these Beltway vermin put together.
David
In the meantime…
Sullivan has totally gotten under Victor Davis Hanson’s skin.
A response to even more from Andrew Sullivan
After calling him “frenetic” and “not sure that [he] can read the English language” while on his way to pounding out a near-1000 word rant, VDH finishes up with the conclustion, “I used to think Sullivan was perhaps unstable, but not necessarily dense. But I fear that he is increasingly both – or more still.”
Can you say “unhinged”? Damn, Sullivan struck a nerve this morning, didn’t he?
myiq2xu
I think “unhinged” is part of the wingnut job description.
sglover
Can you say “unhinged”? Damn, Sullivan struck a nerve this morning, didn’t he?
Sullivan and Hanson deserve each other.