NYT: Lamont Builds Insurgent Win On Support of Wild-Eyed, Kos-Krazed... Moderates

Bumped: Compare and Contrast.

I know-- you thought that Lamont drew his strength from the very-liberal New Left of the Kos netroots.

Well, the New York Times is smarter than you are, and they know better. Lieberman did not, in fact, have the support of the 48% of his party's voters who were "moderate."

That's the old definition of "moderate." Get with it, square. Generally, by "moderate," we have meant those voters who tend be equally drawn to either party, or to belong to one party while agreeing with some principles of the opposite party. Thus, "moderate Republicans" were, we always thought, more Democratic in attunement than partisan or ideological Republicans, and vice versa as regards "moderate Demcorats."

The New York Times is here to inform you that "moderate" now means the more extreme, partisan, and ideological wing of the liberal/Democratic coalition.

Mr. Lieberman’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists....

No, it's really not. Connecticut may like to call itself the "Land of Steady Habits," but its chief political steady habit is voting for liberal Democratic Presidential candidates by fairly lopsided margins. It is nestled snugly between the state that likes to call itself The Land of Senator Hillary Clinton and another state called The Land Where Kennedys Get To Kill People Pretty Much Scot-Free Because We Love Them That Fucking Much.

Based on some kind of state motto or nickname I've never heard of, and I'll bet hasn't been seen in newsprint for fifty years (and never before that), the New York Times just tried to sell you Connecticut, the Ultimate Deep-Purple Swing State, where the last eight Presidential races have been decided, a little slice of Moussouri conveniently located right on the nation's eastern seaboard.

They think you're that stupid. They really do.

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.

Unmoderate? Immoderate I thought. Anyway, forget it, they're rolling.

A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

These are the concerns of "moderates," expressed by "moderates" on the NYT editorial board, stated in very "moderate" language.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda.

Moderates are always stopping me on the street to exclaim "The political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda!"

They're so annoying like that. Sometimes I have to run from a throng of rampaging moderates who just want to moderately scream at me about the Patriot Act.

Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court...

Note that by "person," the New York Times meant "foreign terrorist captured on enemy soil during a war."

That's the way "moderates" refer to such folk. As "persons." Just personable people-person people, no different than you or me, except they jack off to Muslim terrorist murder-porn.

But otherwise? Just good folks.

.. or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme.

"Moderates" believe that wars are just like Stratego. You just need a "plan" -- like keeping your Spy hidden behind one bomb in the middle of the board, to get that damn Marshall when he comes rampaging through -- and it's a snap.

War isn't about willpower, or armaments, or training, or adapting to an enemy's tactics as he adapts to yours. No, as everything else in life seems to be to our famously moderate urban intellectual class, war is preeminently about IQ.

The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him.

Again -- imperial presidency, dawning of a new fascism, the American Republic in bloody tatters: all moderate-talk.

Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

"The real center." I think I know where the "real center" of this country is.

I think you all do too.

I think you think the "real center" of this country, the ideological fulcrum upon which our politics is balanced like a see-saw, is a bit to the left of you, because you're almost all conviction conservatives or partisan Republicans to one extent or another. You know you're a little to the right of center. Ergo, the center is a bit to the left of you.

The New York Times Editorial Board thinks it knows where the "real center" of the country is.

They don't imagine that the "real center" is to the right of themselves.

They think the "real center" is located precisely in the middle of the New York Times Editorial Board.

For such smart people, they can be rather... I don't want to say "dumb," so I'll say "intellectually incurious."

posted by Ace at 07:52 PM

| Access Comments