Why Lieberman (And Brooks) Gets Nutmeggers (And Bloggers) Angry

by DemFromCT

I don't froth at the mouth like David Brooks claims in his latest "read me - I'm still relevant" column.

Sometimes history comes with previews. In the 1930's, the Spanish Civil War served as a precursor to the global conflict that was World War II. And in a smaller fashion, the primary battle playing out on the smiling lawns of upscale Connecticut serves as a preview for the national conflict that will dominate American politics for the next two years.

This isn't a fight between left and right. It's a fight about how politics should be conducted. On the one hand are the true believers — the fundamentalists of both parties who believe that politics should be about party discipline, passion, purity, orthodoxy and clear choices. On the other side are the quasi-independents — the heterodox politicians who distrust ideological purity, who rebel against movement groupthink, who believe in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity.

Please. This is the Joe Lieberman Brooks is defending.

LIEBERMAN: Well, Tom and Joanne, Ned has got me confused again. But I'll tell you one thing he is wrong about. The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress.

And the question is, are we going to abandon them while they are making that progress?

And this is Joe Lieberman's "progress" on the front page of Brooks' paper, the NY Times:

Dozens Killed as Gunmen Savage Baghdad District

Dozens of people were gunned down by rampaging militia gunmen in a Sunni district of Baghdad on Sunday, police said, in the bloodiest such incident of sectarian violence that has raised fears of civil war.

So Brooks is saying, " hey I like Joe, he's one of us. He's a source. He talks to me in measured, educated tones. The riff-raff are all over him (and me) about this damned war, but can't we just get along the way we columnists and Senators do? Why all the anger? We'll let the left know how to behave and how to think. Just read my columns and watch Joe and I show how it's done."

David, start by both of you telling the truth about the war and the truth about Lieberman. Until that happens (and it won't), your weekly apologia will continue to be ignored behind the NY Times firewall. The idea that you are willing, capable or qualified to speak for Democrats is as absurd as Tom Friedman's "the next six months are crucial" (repeat every six months until you can say 'I told you so'). You certainly don't speak for CT Democrats, who have voted to have a primary at their convention because of dissatisfaction with Lieberman at every level of his performance, not just the war. You can try and make it about civility, except Lieberman blew that argument out of the water during the debate.

Brooks' sneering disrespect for bloggers means nothing, of course, any more than the lack of denouncing Coulter, Malkin, or the paid portion of the Republican media machine, like Fox News. But that same sneering disrespect for democracy (small d) that brooks and lieberman share tells it all. Brooks doesn't know squat about Democrats, the blogosphere, Connecticut ("smiling lawns of upscale CT"? Come visit Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven) or America, except for the elite he has cocktails with. When I want to know THAT opinion, I'll be sure and read him.

Comments

[Melanie]

Brooks is an idiot. The Spanish Civil War had everything to do with post-Versailles fallout and very little to do with WWII.

[croatoan]

Well, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union all sent troops and weapons to fight in Spain as sort of a training ground for World War II.

[4jkb4ia]

DemfromCT may enjoy that my mom on the Fourth of July was not sure about Lamont's name. But this fairly left of center Democrat observed that Lieberman has been on "the wrong side of every question" without prompting.

[4jkb4ia]

In fact Brooks does not understand the difference between being intensely partisan and being intensely ideological. It was funny to see some of the JOM commenters discover that the Democratic Party did not completely live up to the ideals of the 1960s. Of course not!

[emptypockets]

It seems they just can't figure out what to do about Ned Lamont. First he was painted as the darling of the left-wing fringe. Next (actually concurrently) he was painted as a Republican poseur. Now we get this:

On the one hand are the true believers — the fundamentalists of both parties who believe that politics should be about party discipline, passion, purity, orthodoxy and clear choices.

So I'm guessing that's where he's pegging Lamont, right? A hard-core mainstream Democrat who is a pillar of what the party stands for. OK. Sounds all right to me, but it's a new tack for them.

On the other side are the quasi-independents — the heterodox politicians who distrust ideological purity, who rebel against movement groupthink, who believe in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity.

And that's what they're going with for Lieberman? That he's a maverick who zig-zags across party lines and now is being punished for not giving in to party "groupthink"? Please.

Politics loves a battle but what we're seeing now is something more like a Diogenean quest. It's not in line with the pundits' "divided country" schtick of recent years, but I'm not sure that or the red-blue divide was ever very accurate. I think voters everywhere mostly want some integrity, and consistency -- not to one's party but to one's internal core beliefs. Lieberman hasn't got that, and is getting whacked for it. Bush, on the other hand, is a complete ass but at least he's consistent about it, and it's remarkable how much trust that got him -- it's his inconsistencies that have bitten him in the butt in his own party (Miers, immigration).

[Mimikatz]

The LA Times doesn't think things are going so swimmingly in Iraq with the police force, either. It seems like as much if not more of a lost cause than the Iraqi military (which we won't even trust with heavy or sophisticated weapons).

Garance Franke-Ruta isn't exactly everyone's fave around here, but she really nailed it with this post about Lieberman--he didn't just parrot Republican talking points, he actually seems to have invented some of them. That's what's so unforgiveable about him. That, and his ability to seem at once so entitled and so victimized. Something Brooksie seems to share with him.

[freepatriot]

The Spanish Civil War was the "dress rehearsal" for WW II

but the Ct Democratic Primary doesn't resemble the Spanish Civil War at all

the opposing forces in Spain were non-players in the upcoming war

Lamont or loserman will be an active participant in the conflagaration that commences when the Democratic Party takes control of Congress

And David Brooks is a pure, unadulterated IDIOT

[Blue Gal]

I think you hit the nail on the head in your first line. I blogged on this before I read your post...Brooks has found a way to be suddenly relevant.

[DHinMI]

Funny how all the righties keep invoking the mid-30's, in this case the Spanish Civil War. But the side we identify with today isn't the right, but the left. Bush and Company aren't fascists, but they're far closer to the fascists and Falangists than they are to the communists, socialists and anarchists.

[jim]

If you consider Brooks as a writer who cares about being consistent and logical, then yes, he would be a complete and utter idiot.

However, if you consider Brooks as a propagandist who works with false conflations, obfuscations and unconscious assumptions to support his class, then he's a brilliant writer.

Working for evil, by trying to confuse and mislead, but nonetheless with a certain sick brilliance.

[ctkeith]

Glad eeryone here is having fun.

Wait until you see the video of Joe Lieberman getting asked a Question from MaurafromVa today in Stamford.It will be on the 5 oclock news on channell 8(wtnh) and I expect everywhere else in the world shortly after that.

Poor Joe got WHACKED with an uppercut from a pretty Irish girl today he never saw coming.LMAO