Decision ‘08

Harold Meyerson Plays Dumb

There are few things more insulting than feigned ignorance. Here’s Harold Meyerson on Joe Lieberman’s problems with the Democrats:

I thought that elections were held to enable voters to choose between candidates espousing different points of view on the most important issues. Lieberman seems to believe that elections exist to enable voters not to choose — indeed, to “accept diversity of opinion.” And that if voters have the temerity to go ahead and choose anyway, they have crossed the line between party and sect in their zeal “to have everybody toe the line.”Toe the line? On Iraq? The Democrats? What line would that be?

Please…spare me the histrionics. We all know what Lieberman meant; it’s not the voters of Connecticut, who have consistently showed their support of Lieberman, that Joe is referring to; it’s the outside activists who choose to portray his principled stand on Iraq is a sellout of ‘progressive’ principles - and it’s that ‘progressive’ line that Lieberman has crossed.

Lieberman’s problem is not that he faces expulsion from a sect but that he has chosen to stand outside what remains a big, messy tent of a party. Moreover, he seems to have reversed the roles that the two parties play when it comes to Iraq.

By criticizing the president on the war, he has said, the Democrats are playing partisan politics. His opponent, Lieberman told Broder, criticized him for breaking “Democratic unity. . . . Well, dammit, I wasn’t thinking about Democratic unity. It was a moment to put the national interest above partisan interest.”

How’s that again? To criticize Bush on the war is partisan, while refusing to criticize Bush on the war affirms the national interest? That’s taking a rather partisan — a pro-Bush partisan — view of the national interest. Lieberman is surely right that one party has exploited the war for partisan gain, but that party is the GOP.

Again, I must beg to be spared from this faux outrage; so Lieberman is standing outside the big tent? That makes no sense whatsoever. Lieberman’s point is that the tent is not big as far as the progressives are concerned - or at least not big enough for a principled stand in support of the war. And, as we have seen, even Democrats now acknowledge that one of their own, Senator Kerry, is trying to politicize the war for his own benefit.

Meyerson’s biases couldn’t be more transparent. I stand by earlier statement - if the Democrats are shortsighted enough to turn away Joe, the Bush administration should welcome him with open arms into the cabinet…

10 Responses to “Harold Meyerson Plays Dumb”

1 Sean P Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 10:16 am
I seem to recall a lot of ink being spilled over how the mean old right wingers purged Jim Jeffords from the party and over the Pat Toomey challenge to Specter last election cycle, and how it showed the conservative wing’s intolerance over ideological diversity. Of course, the Republican party pulled all the stops for Specter, and I don’t see Dean publicly proclaiming he’ll do what it takes to help Lieberman fend of Lamont. And Jeffords didn’t need to quit the Republican party to hang on to his Senate seat.

Furthermore, neither Specter nor Jeffords were ever considered in the mainstream of their party at any time. Lieberman, by contrast, was once considered acceptable enough to secure the nomination for Vice President and was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination this time three years ago.

Amazing that the sad “nonpartisans” in the media who lamented over Jeffords and Specter’s treatment have suddenly fallen mute.
2 mtl Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:03 am
I caught the Meyerson piece, and was glad you presented it here.

It has zero informational quality and proves to be more of a screed.

Meyerson clearly read Broder’s piece and was pissed. Doing no research, failing to discuss the implications and results of Liebermann being forced to run as an independent, and not mentioning the other 22 dem senators who voted for the war, 21 of which still have not taken back their vote basically makes this an op-ed of dowd quality, having zero news and no politcal value.

Perhaps Meyerson could establish a benchmark for the 21 other Senators, to determine if they are sufficently complaining about Bush, and if they do not meet his standard of contempt for the president, he should ‘out’ them as well.

So out of touch with CT voters, that he is at 55% approval, while having averaged 60%+ since the beginning of Combat Operations.

The simple, transparent implication is that Liebermann is far more respected than his own party in the state-

perhaps it is a reflection of the public’s belief in the sincerity and integrity of Joe. It should also demonstrate how far the democratic party has to go to gain crediblity in CT. Rather than trying for Lieberman’s numbers, the dems are trying to remove him from sight, to hide their own embarrassment at lacking the connection Lieberman has with the people of CT, and hide the fact that they are out of touch with American voters.

It is not a question of his support for Bush’s Iraq policy, it is the jealousy of his being more popular than his own party, while not shilling their marginal views, that makes democrats hate him.
3 mtl Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 11:48 am
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/062106.html

Dick morris has a piece about hoe the Dems can win six senate seats, and regain the Senate. He does fail to discuss what would happen were lieberman to go independant, resulting in dems needing 7 seats.

His six seats are:
Santorum, De Wine, Burns, Talent, Chafee, and Ford.

This is wishful thinking, altough he characterizes it as a ‘fair bet’. Ford has ‘zero’ chance in TN. Santorum, chafee and Burns are goners, but the other three are a toss up at worse.

He also fails to mention NJ, MN.

I think Morris fails to see the implication of Lieberman not being on the Dem ticket in Nov, and his ‘fair bet’ is more like a 1in 5 chance.
4 Mark Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 12:00 pm
You know, maybe I’m being unrealistic, but I think Chafee can still pull it out…
5 mtl Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
It would be a good call, against conventiaonal wisdom.

To support your argument-
Rassmussen has it at 44-42 Chafee. 59% approval rating…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/rhodeIslandSenJune.htm

Burn is within margin of error, and candiates peak after their nomination-see JFK.

DeWine is also within moe.
Talent too.

Incumbency is a strong predictor, especially in moe races.

Ford can’t crack 40%,and has a ton of baggage.

Cantwell is hurting for supporting Bush, so were she to lose, I would not take too much heart.

Santorum…this guy’s numbers track closer to Bush’s than any other senator. If Bush can’t make it to 45%, Santorum is done, but I hold out hope.

You got any numbers on MN?
6 Mark Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Nah, I’ve mostly been looking at RealClearPolitics and Rasmussen, too…
7 Can't See the Center Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Phased Redeployments Through History

Sens. Salazar, Reed, Levin, Kerry — this one’s for you.
8 mtl Says:
June 21st, 2006 at 9:08 pm
It’s an old one-May 06-

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Minnesota%20Senate%20April.htm

within margin of error.
9 John Dolan Says:
July 11th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
The difference, then, between Meyerson and you guys is that he’s merely playing dumb. You, by contrast, are the real thing. Have any of you huffy hicks ever lived in a parliamentary democracy? I suspect not. If you had, you’d realize that real democracies–a classs utterly excluding your Texan oligarchy–have real opposition parties, which actually oppose the policies of the party in power. Try to get your corn-fed little heads around that concept, and you might begin to see why Lieberman is rightly despised by those few Americans who actually believe that the Democrats could and should constitute an opposition party. The fact that you need to have this explained to you is a rather frightening reminder that you no longer retain even the concept of serious debate over national policy. Dear God, where did all the intelligent Americans go? Did you lot eat them? Because that’s how it looks from abroad, folks.
10 Mark Says:
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Hey, thanks for the comments, John; I would respond, but as I am a Texan myself, I’m far too dumb (you might read up on the education level here in Austin - you might be surprised to find how high it is - and how high we rank in terms of bookstores and books sold, and our cultural diversity is pretty of the charts, too. We like a little learning now and then to go with our cornfeeding and cow-milking)…how’s things in the penal colony, since we’re throwing around stereotypes?…