This entry was posted on November 3, 2009 at 6:09 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Dragging this over from a late-night post at yesterday’s Free For All, because I think it makes a good counterpoint to some of the arguments being presented on today’s election coverage.
Is it just me, or does Juliet Huddy come across as a party-girl who wandered into the wrong tv studio? She makes one pine for the gravitas of Martha McCallum, or even Jamie Colby.
Credit goes to Laura, Red. She posted it late last night, and I figured not many people saw it. It makes a good point about ‘what if it was a Democrat’ that this Democrat found hard to ignore.
Anyone know what Rich’s comments were regarding the whole Lieberman/Lamont situation? You know… since the situation is pretty similar, might show some insight into what Rich really thinks, versus what he wants you to think he thinks (again, it’s the “I don’t like their tactics” versus “I don’t like their politics” argument… one masquerading as the other).
Lieberman is an excellent example, Blue, and the first thing I thought of while reading the link. If he were running as a Dem in an election I could vote in, I’d be looking for an independent candidate, too.
The CW that today’s elections don’t necessarily show that the Republicans are in the ascendancy or the Democrats in decline is probably correct – I can’t argue with the political junkies here. But I think a combination of GOP victories along with the latest polling data sends a signal to the moderate blue dog Democrats to pull back from supporting the more contentious parts of the Obama agenda. Cap and trade may be the first victim of today’s elections. Healthcare too.
Virginia is particularly interesting since it has been trending blue for awhile. I used to live in Northern Virginia and that part of the state has been heavily swinging to the left in recent years. Perhaps that’s stopped.
If Virginia is a indicator of larger national changes it may be that the Republicans are slowing removing the Bush anchor and are now almost equal with the Democrats on the national stage. That, to me, is surprising since I thought the Bush failures would sour the public for at least the first four years of the Obama Administration.
Blue, here’s what Rich had to say about the Lieberman/Lamont situation back in ’06. As you might expect, it’s full of condescension toward Lieberman….and exposes his utter hypocrisy:
“Mr. Lieberman’s star began to wane in Connecticut well before Iraq became a defining issue. His approval rating at home, as measured by the Quinnipiac poll, had fallen from 80 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in July 2003, and that was before his kamikaze presidential bid turned “Joementum” into a national joke.
The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician’s opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn’t easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman’s loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.
A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont’s victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont’s pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.
That’s just another version of the Cheney-Lieberman argument, and it’s hogwash. Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies: that’s one major reason they don’t want America bogged down in Iraq. Mr. Lamont’s public statements put him in that camp as well, which is why those smearing him resort to the cheap trick of citing his leftist great-uncle (the socialist Corliss Lamont) while failing to mention that his father was a Republican who served in the Nixon administration. (Mr. Lieberman, ever bipartisan, has accused Mr. Lamont of being both a closet Republican and a radical.)
November 3, 2009 at 10:22 am
Dragging this over from a late-night post at yesterday’s Free For All, because I think it makes a good counterpoint to some of the arguments being presented on today’s election coverage.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/third-party-challenger-stalinist
November 3, 2009 at 10:40 am
Is it just me, or does Juliet Huddy come across as a party-girl who wandered into the wrong tv studio? She makes one pine for the gravitas of Martha McCallum, or even Jamie Colby.
November 3, 2009 at 10:47 am
Excellent linkage Joe. Thanks!
November 3, 2009 at 10:55 am
Credit goes to Laura, Red. She posted it late last night, and I figured not many people saw it. It makes a good point about ‘what if it was a Democrat’ that this Democrat found hard to ignore.
November 3, 2009 at 11:19 am
Anyone know what Rich’s comments were regarding the whole Lieberman/Lamont situation? You know… since the situation is pretty similar, might show some insight into what Rich really thinks, versus what he wants you to think he thinks (again, it’s the “I don’t like their tactics” versus “I don’t like their politics” argument… one masquerading as the other).
November 3, 2009 at 11:32 am
Lieberman is an excellent example, Blue, and the first thing I thought of while reading the link. If he were running as a Dem in an election I could vote in, I’d be looking for an independent candidate, too.
November 3, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The CW that today’s elections don’t necessarily show that the Republicans are in the ascendancy or the Democrats in decline is probably correct – I can’t argue with the political junkies here. But I think a combination of GOP victories along with the latest polling data sends a signal to the moderate blue dog Democrats to pull back from supporting the more contentious parts of the Obama agenda. Cap and trade may be the first victim of today’s elections. Healthcare too.
Virginia is particularly interesting since it has been trending blue for awhile. I used to live in Northern Virginia and that part of the state has been heavily swinging to the left in recent years. Perhaps that’s stopped.
If Virginia is a indicator of larger national changes it may be that the Republicans are slowing removing the Bush anchor and are now almost equal with the Democrats on the national stage. That, to me, is surprising since I thought the Bush failures would sour the public for at least the first four years of the Obama Administration.
Real winner today? – blue dog Dems.
November 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Blue, here’s what Rich had to say about the Lieberman/Lamont situation back in ’06. As you might expect, it’s full of condescension toward Lieberman….and exposes his utter hypocrisy:
“Mr. Lieberman’s star began to wane in Connecticut well before Iraq became a defining issue. His approval rating at home, as measured by the Quinnipiac poll, had fallen from 80 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in July 2003, and that was before his kamikaze presidential bid turned “Joementum” into a national joke.
The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician’s opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn’t easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman’s loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.
A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont’s victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont’s pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.
That’s just another version of the Cheney-Lieberman argument, and it’s hogwash. Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies: that’s one major reason they don’t want America bogged down in Iraq. Mr. Lamont’s public statements put him in that camp as well, which is why those smearing him resort to the cheap trick of citing his leftist great-uncle (the socialist Corliss Lamont) while failing to mention that his father was a Republican who served in the Nixon administration. (Mr. Lieberman, ever bipartisan, has accused Mr. Lamont of being both a closet Republican and a radical.)
November 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm
You were right, Spud. This is WAY too much coverage for these elections. Even for this election junkie.
November 3, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Sen. Harry Reid said today that he would not – that is not – commit to passing healthcare this year.
Links: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66175-reid-doesnt-commit-to-healthcare-this-year
And: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/03/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5513630.shtml
Blue dogs arising.
As I said above, the battle over the next year will really be between the liberal/left and the moderate Dems. That’s where the action will be.
November 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm
There should be an ‘Election Night’-thread, so we can go buck-wild, and throttle each other. Just a thought.
November 3, 2009 at 4:44 pm
- buck wild –
Sounds….. um… interesting.
November 3, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It’s all a bluff.
November 3, 2009 at 5:13 pm
^
Fun Chickie in the bluff
November 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm
^
Must be a Britishism.
November 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm
They have bluffs, we have grassy knolls. It’s a different way of looking at things. Sorry, Spud.
November 3, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Even Olbermann won’t push this line (I don’t think):
Media Matters: “Fox News ignores that vaccinating Gitmo detainees benefits military personnel”.
Gosh, I think the smarter approach would be to vaccinate the military personnel handling the detainees?
Anyway, the White House says that the vaccinations of the prisoners won’t take place.
If that’s the quality of work from Media Matters, I don’t think Soros is getting his money’s worth.