/* trackback code -- i added this */

Friday, August 11, 2006

A Foolish Consistency

"A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but sometimes a principled one ought to be demanded ." Thus speaks Jonah, castigating Republicans for not encouraging Joe Schwarz to run as an independent. Because the ultimate story of Joe Lieberman is of course about the Republicans. It's not the fact that Joe Lieberman is the embarassing exception for those Democrats who want to impugn the motives of Republicans with regard to the war. It's a little tough when a nationally prominent Democrat continuing to stand behind the president. Remove the thorn in the side by defeating Lieberman in the primary, problem solved.

I would like to see Lieberman prevail, even over the Republican, because I don't want to see a Democrat run out of town on rails for taking what I view are reasonable positions. I plan to contribute to Lieberman's independent campaign for that purpose. If Jonah is so concerned about Joe Schwarz (maybe the reason that the consistency Jonah craves is lacking is that 99.9% of America has no idea who Joe Schwartz is, and whether he is a Congressman or plays third base for the Padres), I'm sure he'll cough up some money for any independent run he may make and would support him over his Democrat rival.

2 Comments:

Blogger Jonah B. Gelbach said...

peter

that was a very nice attempt to obscure the issue.

the issue is not that i think anyone who supports lieberman's new-party run for the senate should also encourage/support an indy (or third-party) run by schwarz, or for that matter for any primary loser.

rather, the issue is that many of the people who are so excited about joementum's transition into the general make a big deal about how ct dems' choice of lamont is supposedly the triumph of extremism over reasonableness (a view that paul krugman beautifully dismantles in today's nyt column).

well, schwarz, a supposed moderate, was beaten from the right after a coordinated campaign by the loony club for growth. the same arguments about extremism versus (supposed) sensibleness that folks like you use for lieberman certainly apply to schwarz's case. (and this is the point that Graber makes in the article to which I linked in my post that you apparently are commenting on in this new post of yours.)

moreover, your support for lieberman's supposedly "reasonable positions" is a reminder of how totally unreasonable lieberman's positions ARE. saying this isn't an ad hominem attack on you but rather an observation about your (near?) total lack of expressed disagreement with the disastrous policies and personnel choices of the Bush administration and GOP Congress. after a while, it's hard to take seriously a collection of people who seem to be so unwilling to change their views when they are so overwhelmingly rejected by data.

lastly, while i do think that lieberman's "stand[ing] behind the president" is a disgrace, the primary reason is not that i value partisanship for its own sake. rather, it's that the president's policies are so darn BAD. i'm for efficacy-based policies. i'm glad to see that a majority of ct dems join me in rejecting
bushlieberman's faith-based ones.

j

8/11/2006 4:36 PM  
Blogger cornhuskerblogger said...

lieberman's incredible ego -- and cluelessness -- threaten to do serious damage to three potentially tight house races in Connecticut. he's a Pyrrhic politician, to coin a phrase, who is willing to burn the landscape to save his own hide. this is about much more than lieberman. he still doesn't get it. he flabbergasted me when he said this week that the voters and country had changed, but that he hadn't. He had meant to sound strong. But, senator, you sound like a moron when you shut out reality like that. and it's felonious considering how deadly serious reality is. The plain fact is that the country and the world can ill afford more of the same US leadership. he seems to want praise for playing accomplice to that leadership.

8/11/2006 8:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home