You are right that Lieberman was never a "liberal." But he was a somewhat typical pre-9/11 "moderate Democrat," despite his penchant for grandstanding about the evils of Hollywood. Post 9/11, however, Lieberman has moved far to the right of significant number of "conservative" Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, whose positions on issues like civil rights and taxation are certainly to the right of Lieberman's on the old liberal/conservative axis.

Anyway, Lieberman and Dershowitz were once considered something other than "conservative."  Today, they are rabid, militant neocons of the first order.  Something has certainly changed.  I would argue it is the metric by which we identify liberals and conservatives.  Neoconservativism was once a kooky little corner of the foreign policy world.  Now it is the determining characteristic of our national politicians. 

Posted at July 5, 2007 6:45 PM in response to Dershowitz's Chutzpah

When I was in law school Dershowitz was one of the greater defenders of both the First Admendments and indigent defendents. It is my understanding that is this still the focus of his activities, as well as defending Israel.

This is no doubt true.  Dershowitz does continue to defend these classic liberal positions.  I think Dershowitz and Joe Lieberman demonstrate the great post-9/11 political reformation we have witnessed in which traditional liberal/conservative issues such as civil rights and treatment of the poor have been subsumed by the over-arching question: are you a neoconservative?  Both Dershowitz and Lieberman have answered so loudly in the affirmative that it has drowned out everything else they say or do.

I choose Lieberman here not because he is Jewish (I agree with your creeping anti-Semitism comment and don't want to contribute to it).  Rather, I bunch together Dershowitz and Lieberman because both continue to hold classical liberal positions on issues like civil rights and poverty while tilting hard to the right on foreign policy.  They are the quintisential "liberal neocons" - a political classification that didn't exist in any meaningful way prior to 9/11.  Indeed, both men have lost all credibility in liberal spheres because the arguments they make in furtherance of their neocon agenda are so rediculous and patently offensive on their face that they have become discredited figures in general.  It doesn't matter that Dershowitz defends the First Amendment and indigent defendants.  He has destroyed his credibility in other ways.  The same goes for Lieberman.

Take Lieberman's insistence that the surge is working or that Iran has declared war on the US through his dubious accusations (which we must respond to with bombs, he clearly implies). Or Dershowitz's impassioned defense of torture, which he continues to advance using the silliest "ticking bomb" hypotheticals imaginable.  These positions are so outrageous that both Lieberman and Dershowitz find their otherwise decent reputations overwhelmed.  They have become descredited figures, despite "all the good things" they have done.

As for the attacks on Dershowitz on this thread, I'm what somewhat sympathetic to your point.  Many are not substantive.  On the other hand, when someone of Dershowitz's intellect advances such transparent arguments in favor of a fellow neocon - for the sole, obvious purpose of justifying an unconscionable act of injustice by a corrupt and morally empty neoconservative president - it's hard not to react with scorn and derision.  As I noted above, Dershowitz's legal argument for freeing Libby is practically self-refuting...any first year law student can see through it.  The naked dishonesty of his article doesn't invite serious deliberation.  It invites just the kind of booing and hissing he has received.

Posted at July 5, 2007 12:07 PM in response to Dershowitz's Chutzpah

Agreed.  On the other hand, I think even the beltway insider types who have been so sympathetic towards Sccoter's "plight" from the start can smell the putrid stink emanating from this Bush Administration low point, now that it's actually happened.  There's no question the media elites enabled Bush's decision by attacking Fitzgerald's case and pretending Libby "didn't do anything" for so long.  Now that the verdict is in, however, I can sense a bit of shame oozing from the corridors of big media Washington.  Even Dean Broder must realize that Bush letting his buddy off scott free "creates the appearance of impropriety."

Not that it matters, obviously.  None of it will matter if Congressional Democrats don't begin holding serious hearings to construct a public record of has happened, and continues to happen, in the Office of the Vice President.

Posted at July 5, 2007 11:27 AM in response to Dershowitz's Chutzpah

I don't have a lot to say about Dershowitz's motivations, but I think it's worth noting how sleazy and dishonest this type of argument is coming from a practicing attorney and law professor.  It is much, much sleazier than the dutiful recitation of talkings points by some right wing drone like Mark Levin.  Why?  Dershowitz, of all people, knows how angry perjury and obstruction makes judges and prosecutors.  He knows judges take lying as a personal afront, and that the harsh sentence handed down by Walton was not based on politics but on Walton's personal anger with Libby.  Dershowitz is a high profile defense attorney. He's an expert in this stuff. And yet, here he is, pretending he's in a court room, unapologetically making political arguments that he knows to be false.

It's easy for the chattering class to just kind of assume that the whole thing was "political."  The talking points get out there, they recite them, and they more or less convince themselves that they're true.  Not so with Dershowitz.  This is a guy who knows his way around a court room.  This is a guy who understands judges and what it takes to win a criminal trial with an unpopular defendant.  He knows what he's saying is false.

Scumbag.

What really gives it away is Dershowitz's insistence that the three panel appellate review was "playing politics" with Libby.  It's such a silly, transparent argument that it practically rebuts itself.  Why, on God's green earth, would an Appeals Court let a defendant stay out of jail in an obvious perjury/obstruction case with a prison sentence within the sentencing guidelines?  Dershowitz knows as well as anyone that the guidelines are presumptively reasonable and will only be overturned by an Appeals Court in the most extraordinary circumstances. 

Even Dershowitz doesn't bother arguing that Libby is not guilty of perjury or obstruction.  But he is fully aware that his argument that a prison sentence within the sentencing guidelines is somehow "excessive" is nearly as rediculous.  Moreover, he knows that even if such a sentence is excessive, the Appeals Court still will not second guess the trial judge without the presence of spectacularly unusual circumstances.   

Posted at July 5, 2007 8:03 AM in response to Dershowitz's Chutzpah

So exactly why do we put up with this?

Because we respect the Constitution.  Because of the separation of powers.  You know, checks and balances and stuff.  If liberals attempt to undermine the power of the Supreme Court then they undermine the power of judicial review, which in turn undermines the power of the rule of law.  This is a wet dream for Bush conservatives over the long haul.  Imagine, for a second, the current crop of Republicans unconstrained by the courts and unrestrained by the rule of law.  And yet, this is precisely what you advocate in the above post, Reed.  And you know what?  It's creepy and I wish you'd stop.

I'm not going to defend the Roberts court.  But it's downright scary when liberals start directing broadsides at the basic structure of our constitutional government.  Suggesting that we should disregard or discard judicial review because we don't happen to like the current members of the court is sickeningly similar to the Bush Administration's attempt to discard the Geneva Conventions because they are "quaint."  Who cares about the constitution when the system produces results we don't like, I guess. 

If you take away the independence of the Supreme Court, you undermine the power of the entire judiciary.  If the Supreme Court is illegitimate, then what are the Federal Appeals Courts?  And the Federal District Courts, for that matter?  Or what about your State Supreme Court?  Or your local district court?  It's all of a piece.  You dismantle the top, you dismantle the whole thing - because the only authority any court has to go on is the authority passed down by superior courts.  Take out the top court and they are all illegitimate.  Is that really a place we want to go?

Why do they wear robes? Who else wears such garments?

Judges wear robes, Reed.  Everywhere.  In courtrooms across America.  Every day.  Should we ignore them too?

Look, I think Scalia is a fraud.  I think Roberts is a scary, dangerous guy.  I think Thomas is right wing freak.  But that doesn't change the fact that you have just written an extremely creepy article that I normally expect from the populist right wingers who have been attacking "activist judges" for the last two decades.  Are you going to argue that the President should overrule Congress just because there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and a Republican majority on Capital Hill?  That's essentially what you are doing here.

And after disrespect comes....something worse.

What does this mean, exactly?  After making the case that we shouldn't respect the court for most of your column, it sounds an awful lot like a threat.   

Even the Fed Chair, who has a vastly more arcane and arguably important job, has to report to Congress twice a year and is often in the public explaining what he intends and is trying to accomplish.

Are you suggesting that we should haul Supreme Court justices before Congress to justify their rulings?  To let Senators attack them?  Perhaps you want to give the Senate the power to remove justices for their more unpopular rulings?  Certainly someone of your stature knows that the Chief Justice has limited power on the Court - and that he alone cannot "explain" the decisions of the other 8 justices.  So what exactly do you suggest?  Bring them all before Congress for a good grilling?

Frankly, I'm disgusted.  Glenn Greenwald should come over from the Book Club and give you a thorough tongue lashing for this post.

Posted at July 2, 2007 4:28 PM in response to The Minority Court

You may be right when it comes to carrying on operations in the field, but this bill can still hit Cheney where it hurts: his employees' salaries.  Cheney can't funnel funds from black-ops projects to pay his people. 

Frankly, I'm shocked by how cautious everyone is.  The American people respect balls.  And this is a ballsy move.   Which is rather extraordinary, since most people think Democrats have no balls.  If Dems back down it will be a defeat, but if they play it to the hilt, there's no reason it can't be a roaring success.  Cheney simply cannot ignore the bill.  His people's salaries depend on it.

Posted at June 26, 2007 7:14 AM in response to Rahm's Moment

Good catch, mrs panstreppon.

There's no doubt that House and Senate Republicans are uncomfortable with Cheney.  But this article strikes me as a little rediculous.  John Warner vs. Dick Cheney?  Are you kidding me?  Warner would get eaten alive.

People call Democrats cowardly, but there is nothing more cowardly than a "moderate" Senate Republican.  Warner and Arlen Spector might express their concern with Cheney to Tim Russert, but they won't do anything about it.

If anyone is going to stop Cheney, it is Dems.  The best we can hope for from Warner, Spector and Lugar is that they avoid mucking thing up to much with their infernal "compromises." 

Posted at June 26, 2007 7:09 AM in response to Rahm's Moment

Democrats often make the mistake of not thinking big enough. We examine issues in a vacuum, on a tactical level, without considering longterm strategy.   What is the longterm strategy here?  Surely, it is not as simple as "freezing funding" for the OVP.  Rather, Democrats' broad, longterm goal is to put sustained pressure on the OVP to (1) limit Cheney's power, (2) force transparency upon his office, and (3) uncover past and present lawbreaking.  In the perfect storm, impeachment of the VP (4) could even become an option.  Thus, Emanuel's bill is not an end unto itself, but a beginning.  And a clever one at that.

Rahm's bill is a appropriately brash first step, since it creates much needed media buzz and focuses attention on the conduct of Cheney and the OVP as a serious issue, worthy of debate.  As we all know, the media only covers political issues if there is a dispute between the parties, and Rahm's bill certainly satisfies the media's need for a front and center political catfight between Dems and the Darth Vader of the GOP (it's hard not to look good standing up to a figure a dastardly as Cheney). So Rahm's bill will get people talking.  But it's only an entry point.  Indeed, if the bill is defeated and nothing more comes of it, Republicans may successfully dismiss the whole thing a media stunt.  But it doesn't have to be that way.

If I were in charge of Democratic strategy, I would use Henry Waxman and Emanuel in a coordinated, "good cop, bad cop" political attack on the Vice President.   Emanuel plays the bad cop, grabbing headlines and keeping the yacking class talking about the entertaining catfight between the upstart Dems and Darth Cheney. Meanwhile, Waxman starts holding serious, very adult hearings on the Office of the Vice President, digging his teeth into Addington's legal arguments, demanding accountability, and forcing Cheney to make absurd arguments.  In the background, bloggers and Dems' oppo research teams search for new "revelations" to feed the media feeding frenzy as the temperature rises higher and higher for Cheney.

It needs to be a multi-pronged attack.  You need (1) a political catfight to keep the cable news cycle happy, (2) serious hearings to keep the elites and serious journalists engaged and (3) a steady stream of new revelations to keep the pressure on Cheney. 

Posted at June 26, 2007 7:03 AM in response to Rahm's Moment

As a journalism major myself, I would argue that the current quest for "balance" is really a perversion of the classic ideal of journalistic objectivity.  Objectivity in journalism is not so much a goal as a method.  Any journalism (or philosophy) professor will tell you that truly capturing the "truth" about any one thing is impossible.  Objective reporting never the less strives for "truth," but does so in a realistic manner.  It requires the journalist to investigate an issue from all vantage points, to question the assertions of each stakeholder, and to articulate the strengths and weakenesses of a given position using credible sources and the analytical insights of the reporter herself. 

The quest for "balance" short-circuits this process by saying that the reporter does not need to carefully examine the position of each side.  Simply presenting each side's argument is enough.  Under the "balance" approach, there is no need to analyze or quantify a given position.  It is cheap, easy, and relatively uncontroversial.  (It's worth noting, of course, that even the "balance" model can be watered down and cheapened when media outlets select only the blandest and least pointed positions to present.)

"Balance" is not real journalism.  Nor is this how journalism is taught at the university level (in my experience, at least).

Unfortunately, the objective model of journalism is time consuming and expensive.  It also requires reporters to take strong stands - to tell the reader in explicit terms when one side appears to be lying, for example.  As a result, objective reporting is not only expensive, but risky, since media outlets are regularly accused of treason and frozen out by official government sources for publishing unflattering pieces.  Moreover, as Knight-Ridder will tell you, practicising the objective model doesn't always win you the Pulitzer or even garner much attention.  

Still, I would argue that there is nothing at all wrong with the modern "journalism model."  When practiced in a principled and faithful fashion, it is still the best method for arriving at "truth."  The real problem, in my opinion, is how few media outlets actually follow it...

Posted at May 2, 2007 8:34 AM in response to Chait's "Machine"

Atrios lambastes Chait for accusing the netroots of not "believing in ideas" when Chait says:

The prevailing sentiment here, however, is not a distrust of pointy heads. Rather, it's a belief that political discourse ought to be judged solely by its real-world effects. The netroots consider the notion of pursuing truth for its own sake nonsensical. Their interest in ideas, and facts, is purely instrumental.

Atrios says:

This is just weird. The point of giving a shit about stuff is that you give a shit about ideas. The point of caring about outcomes is that you care about the idea behind the outcomes. The suggestion that there's no concern for facts is a baseless attack...

I think Chait is basically attacking the netroots from the classic journalistic perspective here.   Chait is not saying the netroots has "no concern for facts," but rather that the netroots doesn't strive to tell both sides of the story through the classic journalism model.  In other words, the netroots doesn't strive for balance or objectivity - to tell "the whole truth," so to speak - but instead seeks out those facts that are most persuasive to its side.  I suppose this is a valid criticism, but given journalism's difficulty unpacking the lies of modern conservatism, it's not very powerful or persuasive. 

Beyond this, I think Chait's article fundamentally misunderstands the fact that the netroots is first a medium and only secondly a "movement."  After all, what is the netroots?  It is a bunch of ordinary people using the internet to combine their voices to create influence.  I would argue that the fact that the people who have created and grown this medium are liberal is strictly secondary.  Any group of likeminded people could use the internet to create influence in the same way liberals have.  Liberals just did it first.

Chait wants to put the netroots in the same ideological box as political movements like communism or fundamentalist Christianity.  From this perspective, it's unsurprising that he finds the netroots "interest in ideas" to be "purely instrumental."  After all, true ideological movements are almost always built around one or two central ideas (workers should own the means of production, the Bible tells us to live this way, etc.).  The netroots lacks this kind of ideological purity because...well...it consists of a bunch of ordinary people on the internet who share some general political views but are nothing like the "movements" Chait would like to compare the netroots to.  After all, the members of the netroots would be liberal even if they never touched a computer.  It is the medium that is pulling them together, giving them strength in numbers.  The medium is the movement. 

In one sense, the netroots is nothing new.  Unions have been allowing individuals to pool their influence for decades.  So have interest groups like the NRA.  From this perspective, Chait's article is right on the money: the "liberal netroots" is another collectivist political entity in a long line of collectivist political entities to wield its influence in the public sphere.  And yet the netroots is different from these "movements" because the medium - the internet - does not require a membership.  Anyone can use it for any message at any time.  All that is needed is an idea and a sufficient number of individuals.  No real organizing is required.  No money is required.  All that is really needed is a couple of leaders to get the ball rolling and a message that persuades ordinary people.  

And this is where Chait misses the boat.  I think his article does a decent job of looking at who is currently powering the "liberal netroots" and what effects these people may have on political discourse in the next few years.  By and large, however, I think he fails to see the forrest for the trees.  The internet, as a medium, is bigger than any union or interest group.  Anyone can do it - and the only way to do it is to persuade people that you are right.  

The power of the netroots lies in the fact that it is not an idealogical "movement" or a union or a special interest group.  There is no hook or sales pitch.  It is simply a bunch of people who agree with each other on the merits.  The simplicity and accessability of the internet - the medium - is what makes this possible...but there's absolutely no reason that libertarians or conservatives or whoever couldn't do the same exact thing.  Their only challenge?  Finding enough people who agree with them on the merits. 

It is pure, uncut democracy. 

Posted at May 2, 2007 7:39 AM in response to Chait's "Machine"