A couple of stories recently seem like fruit from the same tree.
For the last few days Howard Dean has been
on the defensive over
remarks made at a fundraiser.
Dean also recently raised eyebrows when he told a group of progressives that Republicans ''never made an honest living in their lives,'' a comment he was forced to explain a day later. The one-time presidential candidate also said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has not been accused of any crime, ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.
Sen. Joe Biden, former VP candidate and Senator John Edwards, and NM Governor Bill Richardson, Democrats all, have all "distanced" themselves from Dean's remarks.
It's to Biden's, Edwards' and Richardson's credit that they came forward. I also think Howard Dean is the best thing the GOP has going for it at the moment (which also says a lot). Susan Estrich
seems to agree, saying:
The reason other Democrats don't say such things is because you don't win elections this way. In point of fact, of course, what Dean is saying is wrong. Most Republicans are not coupon-clippers -- they go to work and earn a day's pay like the rest of us. And hearing Howard Dean say otherwise not only offends Republicans, but also moderates and independents who have no taste for class warfare or the strident liberalism that Howard Dean is selling.
But that hasn't stopped the
rank and file:
What is a major Democrat doing bad-mouthing another Democrat on national television? I thought we had learned that this was stupid ...
Plus, it is way past time for establishment Dems like Biden to stop trashing the party's rank and file, which is what Biden is doing by trashing Dean. Biden has no clue what "the majority of Democrats" think, unless by that he means the majority of his buddies in the Beltway. Dean does speak for me, at least more than any other major Democratic figure. Certainly more than Biden. And I'll bet a lot of folks feel the same way.
So do us a favor, Joe: next time you have a problem with Dean, make a fucking phone call.
Second on the table is Amnesty International, which claims the detention facility at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, is today's gulag. Eh hem. The side of this barn is
so broad it's impossible
to miss. As the Howard Kurtz, in the second link, points out:
Excuse me, but did Schulz say that it's okay to unleash words like "gulag," even if it's not an "exact or literal analogy," because it gets him booked on Fox News? Is that the new standard? Yes, Chris, I called the president a war criminal because it was the only way I could get on Hardball?
Kurtz also notes that the result is a rare congruence between the editorial pages of the
WaPo and the
Washington Times. Thanks for bringing us together, AmInt! Indeed, several WaPo columnists, no fans of Bush,
more or less agree.
The best, perhaps, I left for last. Jesse Larner, of the left and someone of which I'm unfamiliar, has
written a book about Michael Moore, called
Moore & Us. Larner calls himself Left, but you can decide for yourself in this very interesting
interview with him regarding the book. As an intro, this is from
Clive Davis, the interviewer:
One reason for welcoming Jesse Larner?s new book Moore & Us (published by the British imprint, Sanctuary) is that it addresses the bizarre distortions from a left-wing point of view. Until now, much of the heavy lifting (if you'll pardon the pun) has been done by conservatives, which has given the media a convenient excuse not to take the charges too seriously. I wrote about Bowling for Columbine in The Times two years ago, but most of the press still prefers to tip-toe around the issue. If Moore is criticised, it tends to be over his passion for five-star hotels.
I wasn?t expecting an awful lot from Larner's book, since his politics are so far to the Left. As you'll see from the Q&A below, he hates George W. Bush almost as much as Moore does, and this leads him into some laboured rants against the forces of darkness. But to his credit, he refuses to ignore uncomfortable facts about the Left's favourite all-round polemicist. His verdict is detailed and damning. Moore?s admirers have long had a habit of shrugging off attacks as the work of the grand right-wing conspiracy. It won?t be so easy this time.
So what's in the interview? Let's establish Larner's lefty credentials first:
Let's be clear: Moore gets the historical and political specifics wrong in many regards, but he is entirely right in his assessment of Bush's character. I really do see Bush as a creepy, conscienceless, arrogant, narcissistic, strutting little sociopath who believes he was appointed by god to the presidency, and that therefore little things like actual election results don't matter. He did in fact steal the presidency in 2000, and not because of any close-result, election-day-chaos, bureaucratic-inadequacy scenario either; it was a very calculated, well-laid plan.
It's hard to describe the feelings of rage that a stolen election generates, and it can lead to some lapses in judgment. It is this kind of deep and quite justified contempt for Bush that leads to tactical and ethical mistakes like the warm welcome given by politicians, who should have known better, to Moore's film. As for Carter inviting Moore to sit with him at the convention, that I really can't explain except to say that Carter was acting like a fool. But I won't try to justify it.
And . . .
Q: In my experience, it?s almost impossible to persuade people on the Left to look at the allegations made against Moore. How have your friends on the Left reacted to the details of fabrications, etc, you have listed? Do you now expect to be "excommunicated"?
A: I must say that this has not at all been my experience. The idea of Moore as the universal darling of the Left is, I think, a product of the right-wing media. There's been quite a lot of criticism of Moore in the left-wing press--or what passes for it--off the top of my head I can think of pieces in Dissent, The New Republic, Salon, Slate, LA Weekly, Blueprint, Open Democracy, and numerous left-wing blogs. Believe it or not, there are great numbers of thoughtful liberals who despise Moore and consider him very bad for the left. Most of my friends are on the Left, and none of them respect him. Well, maybe one or two, with reservations and caveats. Far from "excommunicating" me, my friends have encouraged me by saying that what I'm doing is important for the health of the Left, and wished me success.
What's his major beef with Moore:
I didn't have much respect for Moore's work to start with, although I had initially been impressed with Roger and Me. But Columbine was pretty appalling; it was so transparently intellectually dishonest and manipulative. I've never cared for the lazily polemical style of Moore's books and articles, although he does occasionally make a good point. I resolved to be fair to Moore and to give him credit where credit is due, and I think I've done that. But as you've seen, I don't shy from pointing out where he's been dishonest and unfair.
Is there a thread in all of this? Howard Dean is Howard Dean and voices in the Democratic Party feel compelled to counter him. Amnesty International has jumped the shark, and even Bush's critics think by doing so AmInt makes it harder to make the case contrary to Bush because of it. And Michael Moore -- well Larner's claim that many on the Left disdain Moore is mostly news to me, but he again makes the point that the party shoots itself in the foot by not distancing themselves from him.
Nah, nothing going on here -- it's the same old story, really. All the Dems/Left have to do to become electorally competitive is to stop shooting themselves in the feet, as they themselves realize. But the temptation is too strong.
Reload!
[Linked to the
Beltway Traffic Jam].
[UPDATE 6/9/05] Via Instapundit:
THE HYSTERIA SPREADS: Charles Rangel compares Bush's foreign policy to the Holocaust.
Really, Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural.
You can't make this stuff up.