Thursday, August 10, 2006

Democratic Party Mascots: Replacing the donkey with the lemming


I'm not a big Joe Lieberman fan, mostly because I think he can be horribly hypocritical. He came down hard on corporate America after Enron and Worldcom, but, in my book, he shares more than his fair portion of the blame for the financial scandals we've had over the past few years. In the 1990s, when the SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board tried to rein in the conflicts of interest that were plaguing the accounting industry (and which led Arthur Andersen to overlook the shenanigans going on at Enron and elsewhere), he threatened to take FASB apart and cut the SEC's budget. He won, and investors and pensions throughout America lost. That said, Jacob Weisberg in Slate is right. The Democrats' dumping of Lieberman is an early indication that they believe ideological purity is more important than control of the Senate in 2006. And if anyone can lose against the Republicans in 2008, it's the Democrats.

6 comments:

SmoothB said...

Doesn't the fact that the editor of Slate wrote that article prove that his article may be, in fact, a bit overblown?

M.D. Fatwa said...

Now, now. Shooting the messenger may be gratifying, but it is rarely helpful.

M.D. Fatwa said...

BTW, bet you didn't know that that's what a lemming looks like.

SmoothB said...

Huh? I wasn't saying that Jacob Weisberg is always wrong: I was saying that if the editor of a prominent liberal online magazine writes a piece saying it's a shame that no Democrats are hawks, then since Weisberg is a Democrat it follows that he is himself a counterexample to his generalization.

And might I add: isn't it already a bit of a wild overgeneralization? Hillary supported Joe. Nearly half of the Democratic primary (read: particularly liberal) voters in Connecticut supported him. Not to mention all of the other hawkish Democrats who aren't facing a primary challenge (the most obvious being the aforementioned Hillary).

M.D. Fatwa said...

I wasn't talking about Weisberg, I was talking about me. Feel free to shoot at Weisberg or Slate all you want.

SmoothB said...

Weren't you citing Weisberg? And being a contrarian (or just plain disagreeing with you) need not be helpful -- kind of an end in itself, don't you think?

If the Republicans don't lose in 2006, they will probably be cocky enough to nominate someone like George Allen for 2008, who will promptly be crushed by Clinton. I doubt that even the Democrats will manage to lose both elections (though it might be difficult to win both: the Republicans would respond by nominating a good candidate)