Politics

I haven't been writing about politics much lately, but sometimes... two big stories to comment on: there's the terror plot for one. And the defeat (though not yet the end) for Holy Joe Lieberman, Connecticutt senator and all round jackass. The former is an odd tale. It's always good to hear about these things being foiled, but I'm not always sure I trust the reaction. Security changes for instance. There may be good reasons for it - but isn't the point that the plot was discovered? I don't know - I don't know enough about what happened to say. I just get the impression sometimes that a lot of the reaction to terriorist plots and acts is just that - a reaction, more about appearing to do something than about actually stopping them from happening. That's obviously not true of every security measure, but it's true of enough that you wonder about others. (The temptation to post about the security barricades office buildings put up - just run of the mill office buildings, nobody special, not one any terrorist is going to blow up, not even one a disgruntled employee is all that likely to want to start any crap in - is very strong. I'll resist. I wouldn't want anyone to think I don't take the war on terror seiously.)

There's some of that ocming out of the Lamont v. Lieberman race. Roy Edroso has rounded up some of the right's reactions to Lamont's win (and the terrorism plot) - a miserable spectacle; two miserable spectacles. There's the sad tale of one Brendan Loy - who can no longer "cling to the label of Democrat" now that Joe Lieberman has lost his primary. This Loy person is your basic "9/11 changed everything" type, but for some reason, it took him 5 years to change. And that, friends, is incomparably freakish. I suppose there is some logic in becoming a hawk after 9/11, and thinking the republicans were more hawkish than the democrats - but it's been 5 years! You should have picked up that just about everyone became a hawk after 9/11 - it's only whenn the GOP went off message (and went after Iraq instead of terrorists) that the dems and the left in general dug in their heels. But more to the point, and to the point that giving up on the dems now is just plain freakish - the GOP has completely failed. Their foreign policy has been a miserable failure for years. Going into Iraq was an abandonment of the "war on terror" in a meaningful sense; it was an immoral war, that served no discernable national security interest - and it has been a wretched failure.

So - if Lamont won because Lieberman continues to support the war as uncritically as it is possible to do - well - that's because most of the country has pretty much come to see the war as a failure as well. It's the majority position in the country and not just in liberal Connecticut. At this point - why would even a hawk support Bush? What good is an aggressive foreign policy if it is that badly applied?

There's a lot of wailing in the pundit classes and on the right just now. Holy Joe's defeat has them unnerved - maybe because they realize they are in the minority, and have to ratchet up the noise to get people to forget what a disaster GOP rule has been. They certainly waste no time seizing on the thwarted terrorist plot as proof of something - usually something about the need to kill more Arabs, once you get through the details. I don't know. Holy Joe himself won't be missed: it ain't just the war, it's the whole package. Can't say we'll miss him.