Good God. Marshall Wittman.
The BullMoose, while sneering at the Barr-ification of the Democratic Party, weeps over how unfair it all is:
Nothing has earned the Moose more opprobrium from polite and not so polite progressive circles as suggesting that the President had authority to eavesdrop into communications between suspected terrorists and their contacts in the United States. For that heresy from liberal orthodoxy, the Moose was branded a reprobate, a reactionary, a scalawag, a know nothing, a brown shirt, a jack-booted brown shirt, a fascist jack-booted brown shirt and a very, very, bad person with bad breath and bulging bunions.
Essentially, Wittman thinks it's deeply ironic that he should be accussed of being on the right for his stance on Bush's right to engage in warrantless domestic wiretapping when Bob Barr, who really is on the right, is a full-throated opponent of the program. It's hard to imagine anything more pat.
Well, except maybe Wittman's latest post:
The Moose argues that the presumptive '08 Democratic front-runner has an opportunity...Senator Clinton should seize the issue of Iranian nukes to draw a line in the sand. While she should embrace a multi-lateral solution to the problem, she should not make UN support a fetish...Moreover, Senator Clinton can harshly criticize the Bush Administration for failing to undertake a massive effort to promote energy independence. Her husband, President Clinton has been particularly eloquent and focused on this issue. In sum, Senator Clinton should move to the right of the Bush Administration on Iran. Like JFK, this would clearly put her in the position of a progressive hawk in the public's mind. And if that stance upsets the lefties, so much the better. If she is truly fortunate, Al Gore will run against her from the left and enable her to establish that she is truly a centrist.
Good fucking God. Is there a single Democrat, elected or otherwise, who doesn't think Iran and its president is a problem? No. So why exactly is this an opportunity for Hillary Clinton specifically (and not, say, Evan Bayh)? Has Wittman read any Clinton Admin retrospectives? If so, he might realize the unlikelihood of Al Gore running against HRC "from the left". (And didn't Wittman just argue that being associated with Bob Barr makes one a false leftist anyway?) Also, while it's nice that President Clinton has recently been "eloquent" on the subject of energy independence, it's also quite true that he did absolutely nothing about it during his presidency. The one serious attempt at energy reform -- the 1993 BTU tax -- died in the Senate at the hands of a cadre of rightwing Democrats, the sort that Wittman lauds on a daily basis in his column.
As a rule, I find the endless blogospheric railing at "The Establishment" tiring and simplistic. On the other hand, it's rather, er, amusing the way folks like Wittman and Ed Kilgore have rushed to defend or downplay HRC's ropey, demagogic remarks before a black audience on MLK Day about the Republican House being run "like a plantation". Generally, ropey demagogic remarks, when they come from conservative Democrats like Howard Dean, give folks like Kilgore (who is still, in my opinion, by far the best analyst the DLC has produced) and Wittman a bad case of the vapours and cause them to wail about how being "on the left" will get the party nowhere.
Here's a thought: maybe if we're all really lucky, John McCain will be 2008 Republican nominee and Wittman will stop pretending to be a Democrat and getting credited with a "sensible" Democratic opinion. From back to where his heart truly lies, will he have the same positive opinion of HRC I wonder? Or will she suddenly find herself out there "on the left"?
Nothing has earned the Moose more opprobrium from polite and not so polite progressive circles as suggesting that the President had authority to eavesdrop into communications between suspected terrorists and their contacts in the United States. For that heresy from liberal orthodoxy, the Moose was branded a reprobate, a reactionary, a scalawag, a know nothing, a brown shirt, a jack-booted brown shirt, a fascist jack-booted brown shirt and a very, very, bad person with bad breath and bulging bunions.
Essentially, Wittman thinks it's deeply ironic that he should be accussed of being on the right for his stance on Bush's right to engage in warrantless domestic wiretapping when Bob Barr, who really is on the right, is a full-throated opponent of the program. It's hard to imagine anything more pat.
Well, except maybe Wittman's latest post:
The Moose argues that the presumptive '08 Democratic front-runner has an opportunity...Senator Clinton should seize the issue of Iranian nukes to draw a line in the sand. While she should embrace a multi-lateral solution to the problem, she should not make UN support a fetish...Moreover, Senator Clinton can harshly criticize the Bush Administration for failing to undertake a massive effort to promote energy independence. Her husband, President Clinton has been particularly eloquent and focused on this issue. In sum, Senator Clinton should move to the right of the Bush Administration on Iran. Like JFK, this would clearly put her in the position of a progressive hawk in the public's mind. And if that stance upsets the lefties, so much the better. If she is truly fortunate, Al Gore will run against her from the left and enable her to establish that she is truly a centrist.
Good fucking God. Is there a single Democrat, elected or otherwise, who doesn't think Iran and its president is a problem? No. So why exactly is this an opportunity for Hillary Clinton specifically (and not, say, Evan Bayh)? Has Wittman read any Clinton Admin retrospectives? If so, he might realize the unlikelihood of Al Gore running against HRC "from the left". (And didn't Wittman just argue that being associated with Bob Barr makes one a false leftist anyway?) Also, while it's nice that President Clinton has recently been "eloquent" on the subject of energy independence, it's also quite true that he did absolutely nothing about it during his presidency. The one serious attempt at energy reform -- the 1993 BTU tax -- died in the Senate at the hands of a cadre of rightwing Democrats, the sort that Wittman lauds on a daily basis in his column.
As a rule, I find the endless blogospheric railing at "The Establishment" tiring and simplistic. On the other hand, it's rather, er, amusing the way folks like Wittman and Ed Kilgore have rushed to defend or downplay HRC's ropey, demagogic remarks before a black audience on MLK Day about the Republican House being run "like a plantation". Generally, ropey demagogic remarks, when they come from conservative Democrats like Howard Dean, give folks like Kilgore (who is still, in my opinion, by far the best analyst the DLC has produced) and Wittman a bad case of the vapours and cause them to wail about how being "on the left" will get the party nowhere.
Here's a thought: maybe if we're all really lucky, John McCain will be 2008 Republican nominee and Wittman will stop pretending to be a Democrat and getting credited with a "sensible" Democratic opinion. From back to where his heart truly lies, will he have the same positive opinion of HRC I wonder? Or will she suddenly find herself out there "on the left"?
4 Comments:
Just when you think it's safe to admit that you agree with most of what the DLC stands for . . . .
What no one seems to realize is that the great problem with Iran is how we solve this problem and let the Iranians save face. Bush seems intent on humiliating them, and that just stokes the fire.
Wittman is an idiot, and I don't say that casually. Iran may be the most pressing issue of our time; it's a bigger issue because of the Iraq war that help propel the current Iranian president into power on western backlash; and the only thing Wittman worries about is who is going to take the "opportunity" to be sound most "centrist" on the issue. He's unserious. I'd have more respect for the DLC if they'd just walk away from this sort of thing.
I just checked out the DLC and PPI, to see if there was anything about Iran different from Wittman's post on Bull Moose. Nada. Actually fairly thin content on foreign policy. Couldn't they just hire Josh Marshall?
One amazing thing about Wittman is that he's peddling the whole "it could be worse" nonsense about wiretapping, the imperial presidency, etc. Yes, it could be, but that's NOT THE POINT OF BEING A PROGRESSIVE!
What's particularly unserious about him is his suggestion that Hillary move to the right of Bush on Iran. Talk about wishful thinking.
Post a Comment
<< Home