why we fight
Aug. 20th, 2006 08:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sisyphusshruggedNo-one needs to give me a reason to sever Joe Lieberman's in-name-only connection to the Democratic party. He's been promoting himself by running against his party for years, and enabling Republican actions that have damaged this country.
It's blatantly obvious enough that even the even-the-liberal pundits are (gracelessly) admitting it.
Naturally, that couldn't happen without a replacement narrative which establishes that (stop me if you've heard this) they were wrong about Lieberman for all the right reasons, and we wacky hippies were right for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, since a fair chunk of the right establishment pundariat has decided to cut their losses and follow the overwhelming majority of the country into opposing Our Fearless Leader's boneheaded prosecution of foreign policy, Sen. Lieberman's only-quislings-oppose-this-president formulation is unavailable to them. Our new operative talking point involves the terrible electoral risks of opposing Sen. Lieberman, who has it in his power to Hurt Us.
No shit?
Anyway, I generally avoid meta (I don't really have the leisure to put in as much blog speculum time as the olympians of The One True Journalism) but Matt Stoller has a tightly-argued essay about what's at stake in the Lieberman race and where we fit in that you really should read.
As long as I'm dipping a toe in the meta-ocean, Hullabaloo has a meta-meta discussion of Stoller's essay that's well worth a read too.
Given a choice between maybe going down because we did the right thing (for, of course, the wrong bla bla bla) and definitely going down because we did nothing while the usual suspects used us as toilet paper after the cocktail weenies did their worst, I know what I'd prefer.
Gee. They don't much like wars they actually have to fight, do they?
edit: third-level meta via barb
It's blatantly obvious enough that even the even-the-liberal pundits are (gracelessly) admitting it.
Naturally, that couldn't happen without a replacement narrative which establishes that (stop me if you've heard this) they were wrong about Lieberman for all the right reasons, and we wacky hippies were right for all the wrong reasons. Sadly, since a fair chunk of the right establishment pundariat has decided to cut their losses and follow the overwhelming majority of the country into opposing Our Fearless Leader's boneheaded prosecution of foreign policy, Sen. Lieberman's only-quislings-oppose-this-president formulation is unavailable to them. Our new operative talking point involves the terrible electoral risks of opposing Sen. Lieberman, who has it in his power to Hurt Us.
No shit?
Anyway, I generally avoid meta (I don't really have the leisure to put in as much blog speculum time as the olympians of The One True Journalism) but Matt Stoller has a tightly-argued essay about what's at stake in the Lieberman race and where we fit in that you really should read.
As long as I'm dipping a toe in the meta-ocean, Hullabaloo has a meta-meta discussion of Stoller's essay that's well worth a read too.
Given a choice between maybe going down because we did the right thing (for, of course, the wrong bla bla bla) and definitely going down because we did nothing while the usual suspects used us as toilet paper after the cocktail weenies did their worst, I know what I'd prefer.
Gee. They don't much like wars they actually have to fight, do they?
edit: third-level meta via barb
