Wow: Bush won't endorse CT-R senate candidate
What is it about Lieberman that makes bloggers want to use the word "wow"? I think it's because we can't believe he's that inept, or that he's that in love with Bush. Get a load of this: Bush won't endorse the Republican canididate (his name's Alan Schlesinger, but no one seems to remember it) in the CT senate race. That is completely mind-boggling. (OK, after all that's happened, it isn't.) We're not talking about supporting Schlesinger with RNC cash or campaigning with him or lending him campaign staff. We're just talking about words. Here's press secretary Tony Snow doin' the bob-and-weave (HT: Sullivan):
Obviously, Bush doesn't want Republican votes taken away from Lieberman, so Lieberman can defeat Lamont in the general election in November. This just once again completely justifies every accusation that Lieberman is closer to Bush and the Republicans than to the Democrats. I'm so glad he lost. I'm watching the other Dems to see where they line up. We already know whose side the Republicans are on.Q: Does the President support the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut?
MR. SNOW: The President supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November.
Comments
It's amusing to watch all the media blather: .In amidst all the gas about "radical" Ned Lamont, I'm hearing few pundits mention the first day's lesson in Politics 101: If you're in Party A, and you really want the other guys in Party B to run your favorite, candidate J -- you maybe slip J some cash, quietly back a spoiler, but in any case, YOU KEEP YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU LOVE J!! Instead, we see guys who are anathema to card-carrying Dems, guys like Rove and Billy "On to Tehran -- you first" Kristol, clucking about what a great guy Joe Lieberman really is. Now, this latest "favor" from the Idiot Prince.
At one time I might've worried that this was evidence of some incredibly subtle tactical genius. But after five years of these clowns, I think it's just another example of how they fuck up everything they touch. I think it's strong evidence that they've reached the end stage of self-delusion, where you're so full of bullshit that you don't even know you're full of bullshit, and you're oblivious to those looks you get when you mention your latest "clever" scheme.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy than Smokin' Joe. I'm glad he's running. I think the implosion of his campaign is going to be one of the great political comedies in our history.
On an unrelated note.... I usually get here via a trackback from Sullivan's site. (I like your blog, but my blog card is pretty crowded already, so I usually don't visit here directly.) Anyway, is it just me, or is Sullivan frantically backpedaling into his usual idiocy and hysteria? Seems to me that lately I'm seeing lots of the standard logic: Some guy made an inflammatory post on Kos, or some guy carried a boneheaded placard at an ANSWER rally -- ergo, The Left is a bunch of bin Laden and Saddam loving cultists. It's an adolescent kind of reasoning, doncha think?
-- sglover
It's amazing how long it takes for "common wisdom" to be thrown out, even when it's obviously false. Right now, the Republican party seems like Wiley E. Coyote after he's run straight off a cliff, but before he's realized it and thus starts to fall. He can go for a ways on sheer "Joementum" and ignorance, but soon the fantasy is exploded, doubt takes hold, and he plummets to a humiliating doom. But like the Republicans, no amount of failure causes him to re-think his basic assumptions about his war on the Road Runner. He just tries again.
Yes, Sullivan is doing the classic smear move of pointing to some ridiculous character and using that to smear the entire left. I would simply like to point out that the left's loonies are usually pretty obscure (as you mention, Sullivan points to a Kos diarist and guys with a signs at rallies), whereas the right's loonies, such as Coulter and Malkin, are regular guests on Fox News, consistently cheered by large masses, and often find themselves on the bestseller lists.
Sullivan has profound distrust of anyone not sufficiently vocal about their contempt and hatred of Islamic terrorism. (I think much of the blogosphere consists of folks saying "you don't feel strongly enough about what I feel strongly about".) He's a sucker for hawkishness, which might explain why he likes McCain so much. What is he afraid Democrats wouldn't be able to do? That a Democrat wouldn't capture Bin Laden, wouldn't take port security seriously, wouldn't be able to confront the North Korean nuclear problem, wouldn't be able to stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium?
Sullivan can be very frustrating, but in a way that's what makes him a good foil for my blog: I often agree with him, but I'm sometimes exasperated by him. That and the fact that trackbacking on his site produces the majority of my traffic, including you, apparently.