Just who exactly is the Stooge here?
Washington Post "media analyst" Howard Kurtz crows triumphantly this morning about "major league exasperation" with the Democratic leadership. What Kurtz is referring to is Jake Weisberg's piece in Wednesday's Slate, which Kurtz describes as "a one-finger salute" to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean.
It's funny, you know. Howard is included as a part of the Democratic leadership only when it's convenient. There are those recent reports that Nancy & Harry tried to tell Howard what to do, which implies that he's not a part of the Democratic leadership. But now he is, probably because Weisberg found the concept of "The Three Stooges" so clever that he didn't want to let it go. Would it have been too much to refer to Nancy & Harry as the Laurel & Hardy of the Democratic party?
I could live with that. I'm underwhelmed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's been a bit of a letdown.
But we're all about Howard here so back to the matter at hand. Here are the slings and arrows flung by the outrageous Weisberg:
Howard Dean is smarter than either Pelosi or Reid and clearly stands for something. Unfortunately, what he stands for in the minds of most people is incandescent rage and upscale socialism. Dean has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue, even when, as lately, he's trying to maintain a low profile. His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up. Building on the work of a DNC pollster, Dean a few months ago took to referring to his party's base as "merlot Democrats." With him and Pelosi in charge, this threatens to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well he gets a couple of points for calling Howard "smart." I have no truck with that--he's smarter than most of the empty suits in this town. However, Weisberg gets mega-demerits for relying on tired DLC/GOP memes. For your convenience, they are in boldface type in the above paragraph. I could recite them in my sleep.
Howard was more accurate in his assessment of Iraq than anyone else on the national scene and he had the guts to say it when no one else would.
As for the GOP being the party of white Christians, you don't think he was referring to these guys, do you?
Maybe.
As for the charge about "merlot Democrats," Weisberg says it like it's a bad thing. I like a nice glass of merlot once in a while. But to his credit, I haven't heard Howard use it lately so I think he's smart enough to have figured out it was a label that didn't quite work.
But it isn't Howard who has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue. It's the Democratic establishment who feel threatened by him and the media stenographers who are all too happy to quote them anonymously. Oh, and the Republicans. Can't forget them. It's all about who controls the party so it's easier to aim fire at Howard than it would be to seriously take on Bush, Cheney, and the right-wing punditry who are willing to aid and abet.
Eric Alterman had this to say about Weisberg's DLC-tainted rant:
I keep reading this statement by Jake Weisberg in Slate where he is picking on Howard Dean and I can't believe it: "His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up."
How in the world is possible for Michael Kinsley's appointed successor to write the word "gaffe" in this context in the magazine Kinsley founded without pointing out Kinsley's most famous observation: that "gaffe" is what Washington calls a statement by a politician that happens to be true? Would Weisberg argue that White Christians do not dominate the Republican Party? Would he argue that we are "winning" the Iraq war, or are likely to in the foreseeable future?
Clearly both Dean statements constitute Kinsley "gaffes" in the respect that both are true. And it's the job of intellectuals to congratulate politicians for speaking uncomfortable truths... at least I thought it was. I know my memory is going, but I don't recall any cases in which when Kinsley wrote about such things, he was attacking the truth-tellers. But Weisberg seems to think Dean is deserving of contempt for exactly this reason. Am I missing something or is this as depressing as it looks? (HT to Susan S over at DailyKos)
To answer Eric's question, it's depressing but no surprise. People who tell the truth are unwelcome in this town.
It's funny, you know. Howard is included as a part of the Democratic leadership only when it's convenient. There are those recent reports that Nancy & Harry tried to tell Howard what to do, which implies that he's not a part of the Democratic leadership. But now he is, probably because Weisberg found the concept of "The Three Stooges" so clever that he didn't want to let it go. Would it have been too much to refer to Nancy & Harry as the Laurel & Hardy of the Democratic party?
I could live with that. I'm underwhelmed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's been a bit of a letdown.
But we're all about Howard here so back to the matter at hand. Here are the slings and arrows flung by the outrageous Weisberg:
Howard Dean is smarter than either Pelosi or Reid and clearly stands for something. Unfortunately, what he stands for in the minds of most people is incandescent rage and upscale socialism. Dean has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue, even when, as lately, he's trying to maintain a low profile. His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up. Building on the work of a DNC pollster, Dean a few months ago took to referring to his party's base as "merlot Democrats." With him and Pelosi in charge, this threatens to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well he gets a couple of points for calling Howard "smart." I have no truck with that--he's smarter than most of the empty suits in this town. However, Weisberg gets mega-demerits for relying on tired DLC/GOP memes. For your convenience, they are in boldface type in the above paragraph. I could recite them in my sleep.
Howard was more accurate in his assessment of Iraq than anyone else on the national scene and he had the guts to say it when no one else would.
As for the GOP being the party of white Christians, you don't think he was referring to these guys, do you?
Maybe.
As for the charge about "merlot Democrats," Weisberg says it like it's a bad thing. I like a nice glass of merlot once in a while. But to his credit, I haven't heard Howard use it lately so I think he's smart enough to have figured out it was a label that didn't quite work.
But it isn't Howard who has an unfortunate knack for making himself the issue. It's the Democratic establishment who feel threatened by him and the media stenographers who are all too happy to quote them anonymously. Oh, and the Republicans. Can't forget them. It's all about who controls the party so it's easier to aim fire at Howard than it would be to seriously take on Bush, Cheney, and the right-wing punditry who are willing to aid and abet.
Eric Alterman had this to say about Weisberg's DLC-tainted rant:
I keep reading this statement by Jake Weisberg in Slate where he is picking on Howard Dean and I can't believe it: "His injudicious comment about the GOP being the party of white Christians was followed by his statement that "the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Such gaffes lead to endless debate about how Howard Dean is screwing up, rather than about how Bush is screwing up."
How in the world is possible for Michael Kinsley's appointed successor to write the word "gaffe" in this context in the magazine Kinsley founded without pointing out Kinsley's most famous observation: that "gaffe" is what Washington calls a statement by a politician that happens to be true? Would Weisberg argue that White Christians do not dominate the Republican Party? Would he argue that we are "winning" the Iraq war, or are likely to in the foreseeable future?
Clearly both Dean statements constitute Kinsley "gaffes" in the respect that both are true. And it's the job of intellectuals to congratulate politicians for speaking uncomfortable truths... at least I thought it was. I know my memory is going, but I don't recall any cases in which when Kinsley wrote about such things, he was attacking the truth-tellers. But Weisberg seems to think Dean is deserving of contempt for exactly this reason. Am I missing something or is this as depressing as it looks? (HT to Susan S over at DailyKos)
To answer Eric's question, it's depressing but no surprise. People who tell the truth are unwelcome in this town.
posted by Corinne at
10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home