The column itself is behind the New York Times' paid subscriber wall (I read it in the Houston Chronicle this morning), but one of David Brooks' more recent columns mentioned the possibility of the "McCain-Lieberman Party." Quotes from (and discussion of) the column can be found here:
According to New York Times columnist David Brooks, the "three major parties in America" are "the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party," and "all were on display Tuesday night."...
"And the McCain-Lieberman Party was represented by Joe Lieberman himself, giving a concession speech that explained why polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics," Brooks continues.
I can see easily why people would be turned off more by the increasing polarization of American politics -- witness the social conservatives calling for a constitutional convention just because they can't get their way on gay marriage, and the perpetual hate fests at places like the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and the Democratic Underground -- but if it's a choice between a McCain-Lieberman-and-probably-Giuliani-too hybrid of political strategy and the continued polarization of American politics, well, then that's really no choice at all. It's been said that "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit," and it would seem to me that in hyping this McCain-Lieberman tripe, Brooks is showing his delusion that we will indeed soon be able to make chicken salad out of the aforementioned chicken shit.
Harsh assessment? Some might think so, but what the McCain-Lieberman boosters are putting forth as their biggest virtues are either nothing but veneer or just outright deception.
In Lieberman's case, we have them touting his moderation, which comes mainly from the public image he puts forth as a man of honor and principle. I thought as much myself, and I guess I haven't really seen anything to change that much, but, as Ilya Shapiro points out at TCS Daily (h/t Kim du Toit):
In all the spin about how a "moderate" cannot win given our nascent "politics of polarization," we lose sight that Lieberman's supposed moderation rests mostly in his even-tempered disposition. This is a man, after all, who received an 80 percent approval rating Americans for Democratic Action and only 8 percent from the American Conservative Union (less than Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer and equal to Chuck Schumer and John Kerry).
So there you have it -- behind the face of honor and integrity, Lieberman's just as big of a lefty as the biggest hitters in the Democratic portion of the Senate. His Achilles heel was, of course, his support of the General War on Islamic Extremism -- which, of course, in a more sane Democratic Party, should have been a feather in his cap. (Apologies for the bad mixed metaphor.) But, of course, the moonbats on the other side of the aisle have cast their lot in with the likes of John Cut-and-Run-Murtha and International ANSWER, thus sealing the fates of folks like Lieberman. It remains to be seen if the nutroots will win any more upsets like they did in Connecticut, but, we shall see come November.
As far as John McCain...pardon my french, but give me a fucking break. Pragmatism and moderation and working with his opponents? I have three words for anyone who thinks McCain or his ilk would be good for American politics, or, for that matter, America in general: "Campaign Finance Reform." And then there's that infamous quote, you know the one, "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." I've heard that George W. Bush has said that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper," apocryphal or not, but it would seem to me that McCain and his kind would be the ones who really think that. Given the way McCain feels about the First Amendment -- notice that "'quote First Amendment rights" -- then there can't really be much, if any, doubt that he and his ideological soulmates would happily shit on the rest of the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution to advance their agenda. We already have a good idea of how McCain feels about our natural right to arms.
McCain-Lieberman Party? No thanks. I'd sooner vote for Ross Perot.
|