Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Washington Post
Iraq Order of Battle
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News

Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Digby's Blog
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Monday, February 20, 2006


Silly bloggers, let me explain this politics
thing to you

William Beutler deigned to lecture us on how we don't understand anything about politics.

As for my referencing the term "Vichy Democrats," Thersites2 is correct in his suspicion that my column was partially inspired by his blog. But I'm not the first Beltway writer to notice its use on the left -- Howard Fineman picked up on it last fall, and Michael Crowley associated it with Howard Dean's approach in 2004. In fact, it didn't even originate with the blogosphere -- the late Mary McGrory attributed it to a "disillusioned liberal" in 1995 after a number of House Democrats voted with the Republicans to buy more Stealth bombers.

Now, I believe Markos when he says he despises the term -- it does drift too far into Godwin territory (I'm not sure why Steve Gilliard assumes I don't know what "Vichy" means) -- but nevertheless both "Vichy Democrats" and "Vichy Dems" are meta tags in use by contributors to dKos. The phrase was timely, punchy, and summed up the anger I saw directed against moderate and conservative Democrats.

Kos may not like the term, but then he deals with pols. I tend to avoid them at all costs.

I assumed his ignorance because of the assumptions he made in using the term. Republicans tend to be allergic to history.

But the reason I used the term and the reason he just brushes it off with conflating it with Godwin's Law, is because it would ruin his thesis of "moderate" Dems being successful, when they are just appeasing power for personal gain. The Vichyites claimed to be saving France, just in the same way that Lieberman claims to be bi- partisan, while freely stabbing Dems in the back.

They refused to oppose Bush because they didn't have the moral courage to actually develop ideas in opposition to la moda Beltway. So they chipped at the edges and accepted their arguments. That is why the term Vichy is appropriate. Because it is accurate.

Breutler also needs to remember something which also applies to Yankee fans: the only people who like the Beltway live in the Beltway. Everyone else hates the Beltway.

A lot of Beltway Dems need to get over themselves and listen to people living in the real America. Because all this calculation and grovelling doesn't work. People like our esteemed columnist need to realize that.

Oh and this:

First of all, I would like to separate the op-ed from my day job, writing Hotline's Blogometer. Matt advised you to take the Blogometer with a "massive grain of salt" from here on, but I think that's unfair. My op-ed took a clear position and gave advice; the Blogometer's purpose is to give an overview of the political blogging scene. When I do make arguments there, they're generally descriptive rather than prescriptive. So I just ask that you judge the Blogometer based on the Blogometer itself.
Oh, bullshit. Does he think we're idiots?

If I was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and a steady freelancer for Mother Jones, how long would my reporting not be an issue. Weeks?

His argument, trust me in my day job, but when I freelance for my right wing buddies, don't hold that against me, requires idiocy to make sense.

Sorry, but your biases are clear. If you're a wingnut on your own time, we're supposed to trust you in your day job? If your editors want to taint their section by allowing you to freelance for wingnuts, fine. But that doesn't mean we have to trust you.

posted by Steve @ 4:22:00 PM

4:22:00 PM

The News Blog home page


Editorial Staff

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans