I can't go into as much detail as I would like on this whole question. The bottom line is that it's phony as Bush's WMD claims about Iraq. Brooks is a stauch Republican partisan. And he's calling for being bipartisan nicey-nice in an election year? Get real.
What Brooks means is that he wants Democrats to not be too critical of Bush the Magnificent, Liberator of Peoples and Hooder of the Unrighteous. And it's easy to see why. The Iraq War is a disaster. And it will keep on being a disaster through Election Day. Bush's senior officials are facing very serious criminal investigations in three major matters: the exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame; the Ahmed Chalabi/Iraqi National Congress espionage case; and, the war crimes involving torture.
It would make matters much more convenient for Bush if Democrats just declined to campaign against him because they didn't want to appear "partisan."
Brooks was doing a similar schtick last year, which got to be kind of a fad for several months among Republicans:
David Brooks, Democrats Go Off the Cliff Weekly Standard 06/30/03
It faded away in the fall, though, as the situation in Iraq continued to deteriorate dramatically. Or rather, most Democrats had the sense not to fall for this transparent Republican plea for a fake "bipartisanship." The Republicans kept repeating it reliably.
One lasting part of the schtick, though, is the phenemenon of "Fox Democrats." Those are the ones that are rolled out on conservative programs as "liberals," who then proceed to say, "I'm a staunch Democrat, but I totally agree with the Republicans on [insert issue of the day]." Entertaining for those who want to enjoy the pleasing sensation of broad-mindedness without the effort of actually engaging in thought.
Media Matters does a takedown of on of the main "Fox Democrats," Susan Estrich: Hannity & Colmes substitute host Estrich: progressive standard-bearer? 06/09/04.
The incomparable Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler has analyzed Estrich's act a number of times, e.g., Susan's Lament 10/03/03; Motive Mouths 12/10/03. In the latter, Somerby explains:
What does it mean to be a “Fox Democrat?” For one thing, you reliably trash liberals and other key Dems. In her most recent screaming blunder, Estrich took after Hollywood’s Laurie David, who had helped plan a meeting of tinsel-town liberals looking for ways to defeat Bush. Uncritically citing a Matt Drudge report—a report she didn’t attempt to confirm—Estrich wrote a nasty column, claiming that David had stupidly dubbed the meeting a “Hate Bush” affair. (Note the Standard RNC Spin-Point: If you’re against Bush, then you must be a hater.)
He goes on to explain that Estrich wound up doing a retraction when the Drudge story turned out to be bogus, though she whined that her version was based on "published reports." The Howler's take on her retraction:
It can’t get dumber. “Published reports.” Published reports by Matt Drudge. Still describing a “Hate Bush” meeting, Estrich offered a clowning “correction.”
I posted several times last fall about the particular Republican game of stigmatizing criticism of Bush as "hate speech":
Loving Bush or Stimatizing Dissent? 09/19/03 (1 of 2)
Stigmatizing Dissent: "Anger-Baiting" 09/19/03
Stigmatizing Dissent: Bush Weighs In 09/21/03
Stigmatizing Dissent: Molly Ivins Weighs In 09/24/04
Stigmatizing Dissent: David Brooks Weighs In (Again) 09/30/04
I've also taken note at various times of how Religious Right Republicans are known to dissent in pretty provocative ways themselves. For instance:
No comments:
Post a Comment