Debra Saunders is the latest to recycle the stupid and ridiculous Democrats-are-hypocrites-because-they-hate-Lieberman-but-love-McCain line:
MONTHS AGO, I was lunching with some savvy Democrats, when one of them asked me: What is the problem with all those Republicans who can't stand maverick GOP Sen. John McCain?Thing One: I've known some Democrats who have, in the past, expressed respect for McCain...but at this point I don't know any Democrats who have anything but contempt for him.
....Then again, I added, Democrats have their own maverick -- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman....That's when the table got quiet. It is one thing for Democrats to feel superior to rube Republicans who don't like McCain because he is not sufficiently doctrinaire. When, however, a Democrat gets along with Republicans and espouses moderate positions, well then, he is a turncoat, plain and simple. The episode demonstrated how voters value bipartisanship -- from the other side, only.
Thing two: most Democrats have an entirely consistent position on Lieberman and McCain. We can't stand Lieberman because he kisses Bush's ass, and we can't stand McCain because he kisses Bush's ass. No inconsistency at all.
Thing three: the 'maverick' standard is completely inane in the first place, an insipid elevation of personality over substance that pretends to the status of savvy commentary.
Thing Four: there are mavericks and there are opportunists, and it doesn't pay to confuse the two.
Russ Feingold is a maverick--that is, he parts ways with the party on genuine matters of principle. I don't like some of his votes, and I don't always like the way he does things (I think he completely and unforgiveably bungled the censure resolution), but I respect his motivation.
Chuck Hagel is a maverick. Hagel has been one of the most vocal critics of Bush on the Republican side, not just on Iraq but on other issues as well, and he's been marginalized within the party as a result. I don't think I'd ever vote for Hagel, but I respect his willingness to deal with the real world instead of party-line ideology.
Lieberman and McCain are opportunists. They're 'mavericks' only in the narrow sense that they differ with their respective parties on some issues. When it really matters, what they do is gravitate toward power and popularity. In Lieberman's case, that means crossing the aisle because that's where the power is. The very things people like Saunders see as Lieberman's 'maverickness' (Iraq, attacking his fellow Democrats) are in fact evidence of his slavishness, of his instinct for kissing up to those in power.
McCain's opportunism is a little different because he's on the stronger side. He differs with his party on the little things because it plays well with the people he'll need to win the presidency; on the big things (e.g., Iraq) he goes along with the administration. So he sponsors a toothless bill that says torture is sub-optimal, knowing full well that as long as this administration is in power it'll never have any practical impact; he gets some cred with the people who are uncomfortable with torture (also known as 'sane people'), but he doesn't pose any serious challenge to the people whom he'll need to get him through the primaries.
So, yeah, show me a real maverick and I'll at least grant him or her a little respect. Lieberman and McCain aren't it.
[That's all, folks]
|