It would appear that Richard Cohen, a liberal columnist at the Washington Post, has discovered the rabid Left of the Democrat Party and finds them to be a danger. They were not amused by his criticism of Steve Colbert’s comedy routine the other day:
…The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble — not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before — back in the Vietnam War era. That’s when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.
The hatred is back. I know it’s only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that’s going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice — once because they couldn’t stop it and once more at the polls.
It is because of this fringe, Mr. Cohen, which has become mainstream in the DNC, that I loathe your party. They are everything you say they are and worse. The Kossack-wing of the DNC angers me far greater than the nutjobs in the Republican Party. If the Dems ever wish to not only win nationally again, but also maintain their winnings along with expanding them, they need to eject this rabid contingent or they will continue losing with only the occasional win when the GOP really screws up.
Of course lest the GOP get cocky over this, let them remember that they have their own problems as well with conservatives being very unhappy (myself included).
Excellent! Thanks for saying that so much better than I can!
Thanks! 🙂
AGJ quoting Cohen: “Institution after institution failed America — the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have.”
They?? THEY?????? What’s this THEY crap?????? Cohen HIMSELF was one of the war’s biggest cheerleaders. Now he tries to shift the blame elsewhere. What a weasel. If that’s the sort of cowardly and dishonest pundit you admire, well, you can have him.
Ian, why do you presume that I “admire” Cohen?
Very good post, Joe.
If readers want to see something scary, go to Americablog. Don’t just read the rantings posted by John Aravosis and his fellow leftist loons. Take some time to read the comments — but have a barf bucket handy.
In case a reader didn’t want to believe Mr Cohen, along comes Ian to back it all up. Hilarious.
I don’t like Repubs much but I fucking HATE the present Democrat party.
Its a bit annoying for Cohen to play so dumb. He was fine when those freaks were attacking military people and the president but now he suddenly is “worried” when he gets a taste of it as well. What’s that well-worn statement? “First they came for the Jews but I wasn’t Jewish . . .”
#4 OK so you don’t admire Cohen. I don’t either. And therein lies the problem for “liberals” like him: his wishy-washy cowardly political mendacity leaves many cold. He’s been a Bush butt-licker since 2000 and see where it gets him with conservatives like you.
I think you are wrong in your opinion of what will continue the Dems losing streak. It’s not the virtually powerless Kossaks. If anything, they are invigorating the party. Instead the problem is the widespread perception that the Dems don’t stand for anything, that they don’t stand up and fight for whatever they believe in.
#6: “along comes Ian to back it all up.”
I simply called Cohen on his dishonesty. What’s so wrong about that? In any event, it’s clear that you’d never vote for twits like Cohen so why should you expect the Dems to want to be like him other than to keep the GOP firmly in control of the entire government?
I don’t think Cohen is all that different from the rest of Democratia. Its just interesting how quickly he becomes a heretic. Aren’t these the things you imagine Southern Baptists doing all the time?
#7 I haven’t noticed. Everytime I read one of Cohen’s columns he hardly sniffing around Bush’s posterior. If anything his liberal streak is a huge turn-off which is why I usually skip his writings.
You say that the Kossacks are “reinvigorating” the party, that I dispute. It isn’t just Daily Kos or Atrios, but all the radical nutjobs like them — personified by the Chairman of the DNC. Individual Dems may triumph when they run more to the center, but as a party such “reinvigoration” has yet to be seen. If anything, the Dems have blown just about every big chance they have had to regain power all because they lack a plan AND they tend to piss off or scare the piss out of disaffected Republicans and also Independents. They will get lucky on occasion when the GOP really screws up but until they reign in these nutjobs they will have the power they once held.
Make that they will never have the power they once held.
If anything, they are invigorating the party. Instead the problem is the widespread perception that the Dems don’t stand for anything, that they don’t stand up and fight for whatever they believe in.
Oh, they stand up and fight all right.
The problem is that their “fighters” are Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Cynthia McKinney.
That’s why no one believes you when you say that Democrats supported action in Afghanistan, Ian; Cindy Sheehan makes it clear you don’t, and at the snap of her fingers, you will be horsewhipped by the Kossacks. Pick an issue; regardless, the same thing will happen.
As I posted once before about Aravosis, the trick is not in summoning Mephistopheles, but in banishing him.
#10 “all the radical nutjobs like them — personified by the Chairman of the DNC.”
Can you please provide a couple of examples of policy positions that Howard Dean has taken that make him a “nutjob” in your eyes? As for Dems running toward the center, they’ve been doing that since the 1990’s and look where that’s got them today.
Here BTW are the policy positions that nutjobs like Atrios support:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_05/008769.php
As for Dems running toward the center, they’ve been doing that since the 1990’s and look where that’s got them today.
It got them the Presidency in the 1990s.
Of course, in 2000, they veered moonbat, and it’s gotten worse ever since.
And you want to see nutjob positions from Howie? See him endorsing and supporting the terrorist-supporting organization CodePink — which, by the way, also opposes the war in Afghanistan, opposed toppling the Taliban, and supports Iran’s right to attack Israel.
#6 – When did it become OK to use the word Hate in American politics??
Being a Goldwater/Buckley/Reagan republican, it sickens me to see this word, and it’s true emotion, used by so many on the left and right. I don’t think we should all be in a circle singing KumBaYa, but we have to re-learn something about civil discourse, and I will point a finger to those on the far left who seem to be the worst offenders.
Good post, Joe; thanks. I usually skip Cohen’s pieces because I found his perspective as unique as Chris Matthews, John Podesta, or Jimmy-junkyard-dog-Carville… they’re all Johnny-1-Notes.
Ian S: I think you missed the initial point. Your first comment was almost a textbook example of what Cohen –and Joe here– are saying about the Democrats. You can’t see the forest, the trees, the meadow, the landscape or anything else with those partisan blinders. and the GayLeft at DNC is hardly invigorating the party –their stridency is killing any hope of taking power anywhere in the US except in corrupt, decaying inner cities like NO, Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, et al.
#16: “You can’t see the forest, the trees, the meadow, the landscape or anything else with those partisan blinders.”
Since when is it “partisan” to take someone on my side to task for being disingenuous? Cohen was a cheerleader for the war on Iraq and now he’s trying to pretend he wasn’t. That’s all I criticized him for. Why are you so willing to attack those of us who demand a little honesty from BOTH sides of the spectrum?
Ian S, you were hardly demanding “…a little honesty from both sides” in your attempt to discredit Cohen’s opinion. Like Cohen wrote “…critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies….”
You just can’t help yourself. You’ve become that parody of the radical GayLeft which is unintentionally harming the Democrats’ capacity to ever gain meaningful power in DC again… and you don’t even know it.
It’s why I offered that you missed the initial point in the first place.
#18 Here’s a simple question Matt: is it or is it not legitimate to criticize a pundit for being disingenuous? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Trying to pull a Chuckie Schummer, Ian S? “yes or no”
It might work in the Senate Judiciary Committee but you aren’t a Senator, I’m not testifying, and you sure as hell aren’t calling the shots in a marginalized minority position.
You comments above don’t reduce to a simple test of intellectual honesty –and by trying that stunt, you prove your intellectual DIShonesty… the very thing you accuse Cohen of while trying to discredit his opinion.
Sorry, Ian S; I quit jumping to the directives of anyone on the radical GayLeft long, long ago.
#20 So you won’t answer my simple question. Fine. I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that conservatives today are so willing to tolerate dishonesty in the media if it suits their purposes. After all, they defend it in their elected Republican officials.
Ah, the liberal Culture of Treason. That’s why we keep winning elections.
Ian S, how easily you jump from one partisan hackjob to another… let’s see, my refusal to answer your uncivil directive translates into acceptance of dishonesty in the MSM & govt & the GOP &, gosh, who knows what else?
Nice try Ian S; the dog just don’t hunt.
Oh, and Ian S, when you write Republican officials are dishonest do mean the ones who control the WH or the ones who control the House of Representatives or the ones who control the Senate or the ones who control SCOTUS and federal court system or the ones that control a majority of the important gubernatorial mansions or the ones who control a majority of the important state chambers… or some other ones?
Let’s remember, for most voters corruption equals the Democrats no matter what NancyPelosi and you might wish.
Can you please provide a couple of examples of policy positions that Howard Dean has taken that make him a “nutjob” in your eyes?
Sorry, that’s an old trick of distraction which is a irrelevant to my post and the point I was making. Let me make it simple for you: perception in politics is nearly everything. You’ve probably heard that before or something akin to it. It matters not why I think Dean and those like him are leftist nutjobs, it’s how they are perceived by a majority of the electorate — especially those whom you wish to attract to your side. Oh and before you say it, I could be lying out of my ass about Dean and be part of some Karl Rovian ingenuously evil plot to defame him and none of that would be relevant here. Both parties have their spinmeisters and spin machines. In the end it still boils down to how a party’s leaders, candidates, and base are perceived to be by the electorate and again particularly those are not regular supporters but might be convinced to vote your way just once.
As for Dems running toward the center, they’ve been doing that since the 1990’s and look where that’s got them today.
As someone else mentioned it won them the presidency, barely, in the 1990s. A far left agenda, even if only it is perceived as being so, is what cost them defeat in both the presidency prior to that and in Congress since ’94.
Here BTW are the policy positions that nutjobs like Atrios support:
These slogans are about as meaningful as the pretty rhetoric on the Republican side: “No Child Left Behind”, “economic security”, blah blah blah. Such rhetoric is part of a political campaign to be sure, but as one wacky lil’ nutjob once said, “The devil’s in the details, Larry!”. The manner in which the opposition is criticized and how these slogans are presented are just as important as well, if not more so.
#24: “It matters not why I think Dean and those like him are leftist nutjobs, it’s how they are perceived by a majority of the electorate”
I suppose it only matters if you consider honesty a virtue. Fortunately, an honest appraisal of the GOP’s pervasive deceit, corruption, and incompetence is beginning to seep into the national consciousness and that will be a problem for you guys.
#15 – God! I am so chastened. Let me be specific, I hate the Democrat leadership both in the headquarters and the freaks directing things in Congress.
I had no problem voting for my Democrat governor.
Fortunately, an honest appraisal of the GOP’s pervasive deceit, corruption, and incompetence is beginning to seep into the national consciousness and that will be a problem for you guys.
Not really — since it will only lead to the Democrats’ self-immolation.
Maybe Pelosi can explain why she rails against corruption while a) practicing it herself and b) promoting it among her underlings.
Most Americans aren’t as stupid as the Democratic base, Ian, which is why Pelosi does such things; she simply doesn’t believe that people are smart enough to figure out what a complete hypocrite she is.
#6 VinceTN — May 9, 2006 @ 11:24 pm – May 9, 2006
What’s that well-worn statement? “First they came for the Jews but I wasn’t Jewish . . .”
If you are referring to Pastor Niemoller’s “well worn statement,” sorry, that is not what Niemoller said that he had said. What he said (in 1976) what he had said was:
When the Nazis took the Communists away, I remained silent; I was indeed not a Communist.
When they (the Nazis) blocked in the Social Democrats, I remained silent; I was indeed not a Social Democrat.
When they took away the trade unionists, I remained silent; I was indeed not a trade unionist.
When they came to take me away, there was nobody left who could protest.
Translated from http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a31
The background for this “Zitat” is at http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a46 Sorry, it’s in German, and too long for me to translate here.
Actually raj baby, not to defend Vince TN ’cause he is well equipped to do so on his own, there are many variations on Rev Niemoller’s near-famous statement and several translations, some of which the deceased Rev seemed to approve of when he was in Ho Chi Minh City in ’67 and then, later that year, in Moscow to accept the Lenin Peace Prize (which seems like an oxymoron). As you might recall, Niemoller was an ardent pacifist whose willingness to embrace evil and accomodation for peace has only been surpassed in this generation by former US Prez JimminyCricketCarter… well, maybe not surpassed per se.
Everyone knows that the quote loosely referred to by Vince TN is fairly accurate to the spirit of the Reverend’s comments –despite your opinion. The translation most scholars accept is from the German “Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich nicht protestiert;ich war ja kein Jude.”
Although you’re partially correct in your translation –it is a presumption for which a majority of scholars would dissent. I suggest you study German a bit more, take some time to learn about Niemoller, and reflect on scholarly research before being pedantic.
(Did I get the whole voice of Raj-as-Grand-Corrector down pat here?)
That’s the source of his “power” Matt. He was right to correct me, however. It doesn’t do a thing to the point of my post but then his posts seldom do anything about other’s posts. He posts for his own purposes. Like most on the Left, its all about him.
More heckling from the peanut gallery.
#29 Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2006 @ 9:36 am – May 11, 2006
Ah, no citation, I see. No surprise.
There were, indeed (the particle “ja”), more than a few versions of Niemoller’s Zitat. Since apparently none of them, up to the 1976 version that I cited, were written down, the reports of the earlier versions were subject to what the reporters–the listeners–wanted to hear.
BTW, you aren’t seriously going to contend that my translation was incorrect, are you? It was reviewed and approved by my mother-in-law, who is a native German speaker living in Germany. Zurzeit sind wir auch in Deutschland.
raj baby, “no cites” on your mother-in-law’s translation of the Niemoller quote? What is this world coming too? No surprise at this end, either.
BTW, the people listening in and hearing Niemoller’s quote were either in Moscow or Ho Chi Minh City… Niemoller was –at best– a tool for the radical communists now in disgrace for their inefficent govt system, flawed and inferior political doctrines, failed economies, and miserable record of massive human rights violations. Like Jane Fonda, he was a tool for the international pacifists and his value to society’s collective thinking is nil.
Well, I need to hear directly from you rmother-in-law by noon today or you’re simply a liar. It’s that easy. To think you’d use your mother-in-law as a scapegoat is quite disgusting… predictable, but disgusting raj baby.
Vince –lol. Good perspective there.