Beware of the False Prophets of Moderation

I often don't bother answering my critics, particularly bed-wetting pawns of the Neocon Right who begin their posts by linking to Michelle Malkin's Hot Air as a font of wisdom. But Michael van der Galien, who posts at The Moderate Voice, provided me with just the opportunity to discuss a number of important issues after I read his attack on my last post here as "idiotic" and "unbelievable." Most notably his false claim of "moderation."

What had poor Michael's panties in a bunch? I had the audacity, upon reports of the foiled plot in England to blow up airplanes bound for the United States, to question the timing of the news release and the decision to raise the terror alert for the airline industry. It just seemed a bit odd to me that right after the War in Iraq was repudiated in Connecticut for the America-weakening, resources-draining security disaster that it is, and Ken Mehlman and Dick Cheney did their Fred & Ginger routine about it emboldening Al Qaeda, that suddenly the airlines were at CODE RED. For the first time EVER.

As Keith Olbermann has pointed out before, and did again on Countdown last night, this was not, however, the first time that bad news for the Bush Administration was suddenly replaced by shrieks of fear from Michael's friends because we might hit magenta, or whatever color is supposed to make us barricade the doors. But a good self-styled "moderate" is always temperate, so Michael much like his idol Lieberman, is compelled to accept carte blanche whatever he is told by the Bush Administration no matter how many times we have been lied to-lest he use what limited faculties he possesses to figure things out for himself.

No matter that I was careful to state in my piece, "I'm not saying there was no plot. Just wondering about the timing of our notification and the decision to raise the threat level." A quote which he, and the right-wing intellectual ring-dings people like him enable, were shockingly all careful to omit when launching their pathetic attacks.

But of course we now know who is really "idiotic." And perhaps just a tad naive. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the Bush Administration pressured England to make the arrests before they were ready, and well before these plots could have been hatched (which now even looks as if it might imperil British prosecution of these miscreants). We also know that Dick Cheney knew about the impending arrests when he launched his hysterical tirade, not that at least 65% of us needed additional proof he was a soulless ghoul.

But Michael's a "moderate," which I guess means to him it's ok not to ask any questions of an administration that has repeatedly politicized the issue of terrorism, even if it means a botched prosecution down the road.

What other fine nuggets of wisdom do we get from "moderate" Michael van der Galien? Well, while declaring manly devotion to a John McCain-Joe Lieberman Faction, he of course references the musings of Marshall Wittmann. The same Wittmann who was legislative affairs director for the Christian Coalition, and as many before me have pointed out, now hides at the DLC where he, like Lieberman, seems much more comfortable attacking Howard Dean than George W. Bush. I am just spitballing here, but maybe it has something to do with Smith Richardson buffets or the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation covering his dry cleaning bill. Plus I hear brunch at the Kristols' is to die for!

The lesson here: Just because you say you're a moderate doesn't mean you're a moderate. Just because you split the difference in your positioning between two parties, if one (hint, it starts with an R) is the most extreme it has been since the early 20th Century, you're not a moderate.

If you refuse to ask questions, thereby enabling right-wingers, because you are scared of seeming like you are not moderate, then, um, you are not moderate. And if you have a man-on for McCain and Lieberman, two of the most diehard supporters of the continuing disaster in Iraq, you are also not moderate. It's called Neoconservativism. Try it on for size, Michael.

Ned Lamont is moderate. Sherrod Brown is moderate. Jon Tester is moderate. At least if you believe silly things like polls that show solid majorities of Americans favoring withdrawal from Iraq, universal healthcare and corporate regulation. Joe Lieberman is a Neocon whose positions on Iraq are as coherent as Ron Silver's. His vote on Bush's energy bill would make Teddy Roosevelt puke. Not only does his aide, petulant right-wing shill Dan Gerstein, constantly attack progressives, but so does his boss, while continuing to support a war that only 36% of Americans think is worth the the long-term damage it is causing to our nation's security.

Your bio says you are a resident of the Netherlands, Michael. Go smoke a fatty and see if you can figure out better role models for moderation than a couple of Neocons and a former Christian Coalition leader.