SEC/DEF Lieberman?

Altercation

Frank Rich writes of these same folks who gave us the catastrophe that is Iraq and cheered Israel toward its folly who now "apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont's victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont's pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.

Rich continues:

"That's just another version of the Cheney-Lieberman argument, and it's hogwash. Most of the 60 percent of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq also want to win the war against Al Qaeda and its metastasizing allies: that's one major reason they don't want America bogged down in Iraq. Mr. Lamont's public statements put him in that camp as well, which is why those smearing him resort to the cheap trick of citing his leftist great-uncle (the socialist Corliss Lamont) while failing to mention that his father was a Republican who served in the Nixon administration. (Mr. Lieberman, ever bipartisan, has accused Mr. Lamont of being both a closet Republican and a radical.) ... "

Here's my prediction: If Lieberman wins the election, he will not switch to the Republicans, as some fear. But he will do the functional equivalent, which is accept Bush's appointment to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, resign his seat and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his stead. That is the implicit deal between the Lieberman camp and Rove, Cheney, Bush etc and the reason, that alone, in the entire country, this is the only race where this most partisan of political operations, refuses to support the Republican in the race. Bush Rove and Cheney do not make political decisions on the basis of what they think is good for the country. They care only about their party and themselves. If Lieberman supporters are genuinely supporting him as a Democrat, is it not enough for him to pledge to vote with the party in the Senate. He must pledge that, under no circumstances, will he accept an appointment from Bush or resign his seat, so long as a Republican occupies the state House.

Trivia: Lamont's great great grandfather, or something, I couldn't pin it down this morning, was editor of The Nation. That's one more reason for Marty Peretz to hate him since, as we all know, when Peretz took over TNR, it dwarfed the Nation's circulation by something like four to one, but not only has he squandered his wife's inheritance to the point where he has had to cut salaries and sell off controlling interest in the magazine, it's circulation is now barely a third of the magazine he considers to the too "reflexively guacheist" with which to compete.

The news in the Times Hillary poll IMNSHO is the fact that her negatives are so high with independents and that Edwards' negatives are so low with everyone. That's his 'electability' argument right there. I'm internal divided about whether Gore's high negatives would stay high negatives if he ran. If he ran as the new Al Gore, he'd wipe them out. If he reverted to the old Al Gore, well, that's why they're there. Nobody knows what would happen if he became a candidate again, but people tell me they think he's not running, as of now...

John Irving defends Gunter Grass. Another view, from Peter Gay. My friend Norman Birnbaum has also written an extremely provocative piece called "Is Israel Good for the Jews?"

"Said balding, hen-shaped power-broker Fiorello La Guardia, 62" Just read it. Alan Brinkley reviews Randall Woods' thousand-plus page biography of LBJ. Woods, I am proud to say, is one of the historians who participates in the H-Diplo symposium on When Presidents Lie.

In the "Freedom is Slavery" department, during the course of an 11,000 word essay, Norman Podhoretz, argues that the Iraqi insurgency is "itself a tribute to the enormous strides that have been made in democratizing the country." He also hates Fred Kaplan. How's this: I propose that the entire Podhoretz family moves to Iraq to enjoy all of those enormous strides in person. I'll even take up a collection to pay for John-boy's bar bill and Pilates classes. Send the money directly to me. I'll take good care of it. What's left after expenses, I will donate to The David Horowitz Savings Center.

Could someone please tell the Times sports section that The Mets are also a hometeam baseball club, and are, in fact, better than the Yankees. I dare someone on the staff to count up the front-page Yankee coverage vs that of the far-superior, far-less obnoxious, and less-imperialistic (and George W. Bush-like) Yankees. Sure they beat the Sox, but still, what's that dollar-per-win ratio again?