« Lichtblau's Revenge | Main | Hoekstra's Threat »

July 09, 2006

Comments

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

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad