Despite yesterday’s comments about the general superiority of Monday news, today is shaping up pretty well. The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen stumbled upon the angry left because he pointed out – rightly so – that Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner was just really, really, unfunny.
It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age — which I am — I am simply out of it, wherever “it” may be. All in all, I was — I am, and I guess I remain — the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.
I normally like Colbert, and I imagine Cohen may, as well. But the left, despite their cheerleading for John Kerry’s sense of nuance, sees the world in the same monochromatic way the Bush Administration does – you’re either with us, or against us. If you dare to state the obvious – that Colbert sucked that night – you are clearly a GOP stooge. It’s good that the angry left is turning on the moderates enough that they’re starting to see what Republicans have been saying for several years.
Bloomberg is reporting that the Iraq War and Vietnam enjoy differing levels of support. I have to say, this is probably the strangest piece of writing I have ever seen.
More Americans — 57 percent — say sending troops to Iraq was a mistake than the 48 percent who called Vietnam an error in April 1968, polls by the Princeton, New Jersey-based Gallup Organization show. That’s because more people believed that Vietnam was crucial to U.S. security, scholars say.
Comparing wars seems to me to be the ultimate apples and oranges scenario. Different political drivers, differences in force strength, differences in the attitude of the American people about life in general skew any possible findings. To say that the difference is purely attributable to the relative importance people place on the security interests of the nation is somewhat simplistic. The article glosses over the fact that 10 times as many US troops had died in Vietnam, and many were conscripted into service as opposed to our current all volunteer force. In doing so, they ignore a set of circumstances that seem to go unnoticed by opponents of the war who would attempt such comparisons.
Roll Call goes the opposite direction and clearly explains why 2006 isn’t like 1994. Echoing the Cohen piece, Winston’s take is the electorate is not reflected in the left.
Of those tested, voters perceived Howard Dean as the most liberal at 3.7. They gave the Democratic Party a 3.9 rating. Both President Bush and the Republican Party got a 6.6 rating.
The numbers take on real meaning, however, when put in the context of how voters see themselves ideologically. On average, voters put their own political ideology at 5.7 ‚Äî clearly center-right, and within less than a point of the GOP. The voters‚Äô perception of Democrats, on the other hand, was significantly to their left.
Now the Democrats see these three articles quite differently. They see the lack of public support for Iraq as their Golden Ticket. They believe those who question the war share their rabid ideology and will turn out in droves to drive the GOP from power – as they were driven out in 1994. It’s just not true, however.