[The Democratic Party's] 2006 congressional takeover, engineered by incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, wouldn't have happened if the party didn't run centrist and conservative Democrats in traditionally red states.
The whole piece is like this. Here's a question for you James: Why did the Democratic party win the 2006 election? because they opposed the Iraq War. Why did they do that? Could it be, because an unknown anti-war Senate primary challenger defeated the party's biggest proponent of the war? Might that have something to do with the way the party campaigned against the war? Go read the exit poll again. Scroll down to the questions about Iraq. Hmm.
This is to say nothing of Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy, nor Chuck Schumer who surely had something to do with it. How about Pelosi and Reid? But no, it's all on Rahm in Kirchick's world.
More:
Were the Democrats to punish their former vice presidential nominee, it could weaken the position of these legislators by making the party seem too liberal and intolerant of moderates.
Yes, just like voters punished Democrats in 2006 by giving them a historic landslide and majorities in both chambers of congress. Voters so hate it when you pick on Lieberman. They like him so much at home.
Earlier this year, far left activist Robert Greenwald started the website Liebermanmustgo.com, which hosts a petition demanding the revocation of Lieberman's seniority. The Daily Kos is urging its readership to call Democratic Senators and demand that they do the same. Joe Klein, who refers to the "flagrantly dreadful" Lieberman, writes that allowing him to keep his committee chairmanship but revoking his seniority is "far more than Lieberman deserves," while Josh Marshall declares that offer "simply unacceptable." The popular liberal blogger Jane Hamsher, who once doctored a photo to portray Lieberman in black face, bizarrely argues that Democrats must strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship because he'll "no doubt" use it to investigate the Obama administration. If Democrats follow the cues of this crowd, then the party will lose credibility among the moderate majority of the American electorate.
Could you pack more rubbish into one paragraph? "Far left activist"? Really? I get painting Jane as some wild eyed extremist (I don't agree, but I get why one would try this piece of rhetorical dishonesty) but Josh Marshall? And Joe Klein? Uhm, James, Joe writes for Time. The dead tree edition. Yes, he has a "blog" but I didn't know that made him a "liberal activist" on par with Robert Greenwald.
Note the weak rebuttal to Jane's actual point about Lieberman abusing his subpoena power. Why is this "bizarre?" Who knows? Kirchick doesn't address it. Liberman would have near-unfettered subpoena power and campaigned for John McCain and against Obama, yet it is somehow implausible that he might convene a hearing into Obama's administration that damages it. Nothing like that ever happens in Washington! Especially not by Joe Lieberman. He would never attack the sitting president of his party.
(And what's with calling it "The" Daily Kos? Here at The Open Left we have strict policies around referring to websites by their actual names. I hope The The New Republic takes note.)
The final joke:
James Kirchick is an assistant editor of The New Republic.
There's plenty more wrong with the piece, so Chait's rejoinder is worth reading too.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
