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:
Oh, bullshit. Does he think we're idiots?
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.
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