Thursday, March 9, 2006
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
The state of the Democratic party leadership
Jacob Weisberg -- come on down and tell us how you really feel about the Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean: Since assuming their positions, the three of them have shown themselves to be somewhere between useless and disastrous as party leaders. Individually, they lack substance and policy smarts (Pelosi); coherence and force (Reid); and steadiness and mainstream appeal (Dean). Collectively, they convey an image of liberal elitism, disarray, and crabbiness. Of the three, I think Pelosi comes off the worst:
To understand [Pelosi's] politics, think Huffington Post without the flashes of wit. Here is a typical Bush-bashing, cliché-ridden quote of hers: "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back!" Pelosi dismisses people who disagree as hoodwinked or stupid. She's not exactly Hillary Clinton herself, though. A five-minute interview is usually sufficient to exhaust her knowledge on any subject.I certainly hope that in his next essay Weisberg will stop sugar-coating and tell us what he really thinks.
posted by Dan on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM
She sounds like Bush without the power.posted by: Rick Latshaw on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
People who disagree with her condemnation of Bush are in fact likely hoodwinked or stupid - or lying.
That Slate article isn't loading - I take it Weisberg considers how Reid has been pushing Frist around and calls that a lack of force by writing "la la la"?posted by: rilkefan on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
So let me get this straight. In a jab at Pelosi's intelligence (which is how the comparison is framed, as a contrast with being "stupid"), Weisberg knocks her for a lack of knowledge. As I understand them, intelligence and knowledge are not at all the same. So Weisberg doesn't make his “I’m so clever” argument, which makes him look, well, stupid. In the piece Weisberg casts some other evidence-less (I'd even take a single anecdote) accusations at Dean and Reid.
No doubt the Democratic Party's leadership has been atrocious, but Weisberg's criticisms are illogical, unsupported and riddled with accusations based upon hidden, false assumptions. His addition to the FT Comment page, where this piece also ran, has been nothing short of pathetic in an otherwise fine publication.posted by: ross on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
Compared to incurious Bush, dead-eye-dick Cheney,
posted by: James on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
Oooohhhh, that was a threefold wigging!
Weisberg certainly took Pelosi down about 15 pegs with that 5-minute crack. He priases Dean with faint damns, saying that while Dean is smarter than the others and stands for something. But in the minds of most people Dean stands for 'incandescent rage and upscale socialism'. True enough. I do disagree with a Deanism, the 'merlot Democrats'. Merlot is a perfectly fine grap and good wine, so what the Merlot ever did to deserve being compared to the 'base' I don't know. Unless he's working the similar-sounding words wine and whine, in which case I can't help but agree......posted by: Don S on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
It might actually be a good idea for the GOP to lose to these Keystone Kops on the grounds that taking back power would be relatively easy after 2 or 4 years of these geniuses 'running' the Congress.posted by: Don S on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
Those of you who are mocking Weisberg are part of the problem with the Democratic Party. When will you figure out that playing the Angry Left, being just as corrupt as the Republicans, and telling Middle America what is good for them will never win elections unless you're 30 miles from an ocean?posted by: Neema on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
Is it just me, or is Slate becoming increasingly hack-y? That Weisberg article reads like it was written by Murray Chass. I get so tired of Slate's boring-twist-on-conventional-wisdom thinkpieces. So Democrat leadership blows. Tell me what else is new. Don't even get me started on Hitchens, whose recent essays define the phrase "mailing it in," or Kaus, whose incoherence has become pathological.posted by: festus on 03.09.06 at 12:21 PM [permalink]
I believe Merlot got its' current bad rap
Post a Comment: