A Conservative for McCain

Jonah Goldberg chiding his fellow NROniks for their McCain-bashing seems pretty persuasive to me. I don't like John McCain, and I can see why he's not the conservatives' favorite, but he's clearly a conservative and one with high electoral appeal so it's not clear to me why you'd throw a fit over the prospect of him running.

Then again, I actually think it's strange that Goldberg is the one with sensible views on this. Working within the frame of Goldberg's expansive definition of "fascism" I think it's pretty clear that John McCain comes much closer than any other major American political figure to fitting the bill. He offers a pure kind of politics-as-salvation where we're supposed to find a higher purpose through submission to the needs of the Nation. He doesn't just pay lip service to supporting the troops, he clearly believes that military service -- preferable in wartime -- is more virtuous than other pursuits (thus his dissing of Mitt Romney's business background) and he's thus sometimes led to seem to see war as a worthwhile end-in-itself.

Comments

Can't we finally agree that Goldberg's thesis makes no damn sense and we should stop talking about it? Why his incoherent book has stirred up so much legitimate debate astounds me.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 1, 2008 6:45 PM

In defense of McCain, he only dissed the vulture-capitalist part of Mitt's business background, and, therefore, the diss was quite well deserved.

Posted by gregor | February 1, 2008 6:45 PM

I haven't heard anyone make a credible case that McCain wouldn't be a good commander-in-chief. So it's a bit hard to believe McCain would be a disaster given that he would be — at minimum — pretty good on the single most important issue facing the country.

For what it's worth, I think the case that McCain wouldn't be a good commander in chief is exactly the one Matt lays out here. He's overly invested in the idea that further U.S. military commitment is the solution to nearly every foreign problem. It's not just that he'll keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He wishes we were still working through our 100 years in Viet Nam and Korea, and he's on the lookout for our next century-long commitment. The problem, or at least one of them, is that his view of the military's role takes no account of the finite resources at his disposal.

So while he may have been a decent commander of middling rank, McCain is absolutely unsuited to command an entire military. He'll be a Napoleon, but inheriting a military that's already overstretched. So the Russian winter will engulf him awfully quick.

Posted by southpaw | February 1, 2008 6:53 PM

"I don't like John McCain, and I can see why he's not the conservatives' favorite, but he's clearly a conservative and one with high electoral appeal so it's not clear to me why you'd throw a fit over the prospect of him running."

Imagine if you'd have felt if we'd nominated Joe Lieberman in 2004.

Holy Joe was clearly a liberal on many important issues. If we were to stipulate that he'd have had 'high electoral appeal', would that have made you not want to throw a fit over nominating him?

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 6:58 PM

Petey,

The big difference is McCain has never worked against his party to the extent Lieberman has.

Posted by Eric k | February 1, 2008 7:04 PM

For once in my life, I agree with Petey.

That said, the real question-- as it always is in these matters-- is not whether party members are pissed but whether they will get over it and vote for the nominee in November. We may be reading too much into conservative criticism of McCain now (or we may not be).

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 1, 2008 7:06 PM

The big difference is McCain has never worked against his party to the extent Lieberman has.

I'm pretty sure that's not how they see it.

Posted by southpaw | February 1, 2008 7:08 PM

"The big difference is McCain has never worked against his party to the extent Lieberman has."

Imagine if you were a conservative whose most important issue was immigration or tax cuts or partisan money in politics or...

I mean, the dude was considering becoming a Democrat earlier this decade, fergawdsakes. He really is their Lieberman.

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 7:10 PM

"Working within the frame of Goldberg's expansive definition of "fascism" I think it's pretty clear that John McCain comes much closer than any other major American political figure to fitting the bill."

Give Giuliani some credit.

Posted by Clashkid | February 1, 2008 7:13 PM

Nothing strange about it, Matt. Goldberg's book was basically just an exercise in liberal-bashing and Beltway Republican boosterism. He's not going to bash the guy who may well be the next Republican President (and thus, a possible meal ticket for him or some of his friends and family) as a "liberal fascist" for intellectual consistency's sake for one simple reason - even Goldberg isn't dumb enough to shit where he eats.

Posted by Mark in Houston | February 1, 2008 7:21 PM

Re Matthew's comment "Working within the frame of Goldberg's expansive definition of "fascism" I think it's pretty clear that John McCain comes much closer than any other major American political figure to fitting the bill."
-----------
So why were the Democratic leadership trying to get McCain to become a Democrat a few years back?
"He's a Fascist Strongman but he's OUR Fascist Strongman??"

Wasn't that the same reasoning the Centre Party used to support Adolf in the 1932?

From http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html
---------
" Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP
By Bob Cusack
Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned."

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 7:25 PM

even Goldberg isn't dumb enough to shit where he eats.

I don't know. He doesn't seem to stray too far from the computer.

Posted by calipygian | February 1, 2008 7:29 PM

More about McCain as Democrat from the cited Hill article:

"Other senators who played major roles in the intense recruiting effort, according to Democrats, were then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as well as Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“John [Edwards] at that time was working with McCain on a couple things and there was a sense that because of his relationship that he might be a good person to talk to him,” Daschle said. “He was clearly one of those that we thought could be helpful.”

A source close to Edwards said Daschle’s comments are accurate. "
-----------
PETEY!! Say it ain't so!

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 7:29 PM

" Democrats say McCain nearly abandoned GOP By Bob Cusack Posted: 03/28/07 07:39 PM [ET]

With Romney on the ropes, why hasn't he dragged this tidbit out? Now is the time to drop that bomb, or forever hold his peace.

Posted by calipygian | February 1, 2008 7:33 PM

"PETEY!! Say it ain't so!"

Poaching sitting Senators is a good thing, not a bad thing. Always.

Posted by Petey | February 1, 2008 7:33 PM

Hell, it appears even Ann Coulter is worshipping strange gods in this silly season.

As I noted earlier, Ann Coulter stated on Fox News that she would VOTE FOR and CAMPAIGN for Hillary over John McCain because Hillary is more conservative.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Ha ha ha ha Talk about strange bedfellows.

Although you could probably make a decent porn movie out of it.

Hmmmm. A sick --yet strangely compelling --porn movie, come to think of it...

Posted by Don Williams | February 1, 2008 7:38 PM

McCain is not "clearly" a conservative because a conservative is a person who other conservatives like. I am choosing the operational definition because that's the only one that counts now. I mean unlimited governmental power to spy on all citizens is a slam dunk conservative position now, while for the last hundred years or so no conservative in their right mind would even think of supporting such a proposition.

McCain is mistrustful of corporate economic elites. OMG! While any high school student with a feel for political theory could make a case that this mistrust could fit into a broadly defined conservative ideology there isn't a conservative who draws a paycheck in America who would even rub up against this idea without expressing disgust and yelling socialist.

McCain is not an obvious conservative.

Posted by rapier | February 1, 2008 7:53 PM

Although you could probably make a decent porn movie out of it.

No. No you could not. No.

No.

Posted by Jason C. | February 1, 2008 7:59 PM

You're too clever Matt, we'll have to bring Johah in for a pow wow in July.

Posted by Jimm | February 1, 2008 8:03 PM

The big difference is McCain has never worked against his party to the extent Lieberman has.

From a D standpoint, Lieberman has been solid on every economic issue and every social one. McCain has gone against Republican consensus on a handful each of economic issues, social issues, and foreign policy issues. McCain's problem with the Republican party is much worse than Lieberman's problem with the Democratic party (though you'll note that I'm describing his Republican apostasies--the Republican party is more guilty of apostasies to conservatism than McCain is).

I am choosing the operational definition because that's the only one that counts now. I mean unlimited governmental power to spy on all citizens is a slam dunk conservative position now, while for the last hundred years or so no conservative in their right mind would even think of supporting such a proposition.

That saddens a lot of us.

"Concentrated power is the chief enemy of liberty," Ronald Reagan

Posted by Shinyk | February 1, 2008 8:21 PM

Although you could probably make a decent porn movie out of it.

"2 Girls 1 Con?"

Posted by James Gary | February 1, 2008 8:22 PM

Southpaw - So while he may have been a decent commander of middling rank, McCain is absolutely unsuited to command an entire military.

Except he wasn't even a decent commander of middling rank. McCain was a flyer, and the only time he was in the role of a military commander, it was of a stateside training squadron where planes were repaired, pilots with drinking or family problems or performance issues were "patched up". McCain used that time for some adulterous affairs and then lied about them. For that and matters of temperment and his overall record, he was determined to be unfit for the office of Admiral and retired.

This is a guy that finished in the bottom 1% of his class and lost 5 jets in his career. Who was bailed out by his 4-Star Admiral dad from other messes.

I don't know about Southpaws reasoning, but my reason to conclude he is unfit to command the military is he never acccepted his problems of character, temperment, lower performance than his peers...and instead embraced the Bush Maximum Leader Philosophy that as a fighter jock, he knows best.

Despite his very limited military knowledge in a very narrow field, and him not excelling at even that, McCain leads with Bush swagger.

"My way or the highway."
"Maybe Mr. Romney thinks he needs to consult lawyers and experts before a military use of force, but I don't, because I know the military and am ready to lead at anytime."
"We will be in Iraq 100 years."
"As someone who served 27 years as a war plane pilot and a POW, I have all the experience and knowledge I need to be Commander in chief."
"I was the one who led the Surge (a shock to Bush, Petraeus, the strategists who came up with it). I was the only person among the Republicans who supported it, risked my career on it (also a shock to Romney, Giuliani who supported Bush before he announced it...and well as 59 other Senators who supported it..)"
"People call me stubborn. They only call me that because I'm right."
"I'm needed as President because I'm the best to keep America safe...there will be other wars."

His media fellators have kept many of those details of McCains checkered past from the public. Basically so McCain can fail spectacularly when he faces the Democrat who the media really favors, right after the Conventions. Then all the dark stuff on McCain will start dribbling out.

This is one stupid, dangerous man to make CiC. Just for being a "hero" and "suffering while serving". It isn't enough. Hitler was a WWI hero with two Iron Crosses and months of agony recuperating from a gas attack. He was convinced later, and convinced others, that that earlier heroic and suffering experience made him a master strategist and Commander in Chief.

As an ex-officer, I believe Duncan Hunter would have been superb as a CiC. Romney and Hillary would be very adequate.

Rudy, McCain, Kucinich would be dangerous. Pure and simple.

Obama might be weak and dangerous but he will have a need to have others advising him to keep him out of trouble. Rudy and McCain are so very dangerous, and I say this as a former officer, that because of their confidence as being the greatest of heroes, they do not need to stoop to get the advice of others before pushing the button.

Richardson, Edwards, Pastor Huckleberry appear to lack the basic knowledge of nations and war to do well.

Posted by chris ford | February 1, 2008 8:33 PM

McCain's problem with the Republican party is much worse than Lieberman's problem with the Democratic party.

Agreed. It is multiple issues and it is worse than even that because many of McCains betrayals were accompanied by lies, violating other Republican's trust on his committments - and sanctimoniously demonizing his opponents as "evil" in their good faith positions. With Lieberman, he really crossed the Dems on just Iraq - and bent over backwards to avoid the incendary, sanctimonious accusations McCain made against fellow Republicans against his Fellow Dems.

To be like McCain, Lieberman would have had to do 10-12 years of treachery and betrayal on multiple causes then publicly accuse fellow Dems of being traitors, defeatists, immoral.

McCain did it just because he infuriated his fellow Republicans and each time the media rewarded him for his "courage", then he did his slurs impugning the motives of his opponents so his photo op lasted more than one news day cycle.

Now the payback starts, the chickens come home to roost. And the media no longer has any use for their darling Mac because he now longer is sabotaging the Republicans - but challenging the next Democratic President of the USA. So they will magically "find" all the stuff they buried on dear hero John and join in his evisceration...

Posted by chris ford | February 1, 2008 8:50 PM

So why were the Democratic leadership trying to get McCain to become a Democrat a few years back?

But, you know, McCain didn't join the Democratic Party. He didn't become Kerry's running mate. Instead, he sold his soul, kissed George W. Bush on the mouth, and tried to prove that he was wingnuttier than the wingnuts. His reward seemingly will be the Republican nomination, largely because the Rs haven't anyone else plausible who wants it bad enough to run.

He had a chance to be a historic figure who put a stop to the insanity pushed by the administration of Bush the Lesser. He blew it.

Posted by rea | February 1, 2008 9:04 PM

Today's "conservatives" are in favor of starting unnecessary wars that they refuse to fund because they insist on budget busting tax cuts even though the country is already $9 trillion in debt.

Consequently, liberals are the true conservatives, not the ersatz types, like McCain.

Posted by Rich | February 1, 2008 9:14 PM

Richardson, Edwards, Pastor Huckleberry appear to lack the basic knowledge of nations and war to do well.

Well spoken as someone that believes the primary function of a federal government is to wage war.

Chris, you're a tool. That may not come as a surprise to many folks here, but I don't know that anybody's actually ever told you.

You have no idea what you're talking about, all you're after is endless hate and war.

Posted by justinb | February 1, 2008 10:02 PM

Devo said it all (as they did so often): Duty Now for the Future!

Posted by elle loco | February 1, 2008 11:00 PM

Chris, you're a tool. That may not come as a surprise to many folks here, but I don't know that anybody's actually ever told you.
You have no idea what you're talking about, all you're after is endless hate and war.
Posted by justinb

And you're a smug little anti-American. Who is likely to have a very short day in the sun, then piles of dead Americans will happen again, and the Left will once again be seen as the Copperheads of the Civil War, the communists of 60 years ago, and the John Kerrys of 40 years ago - people out to undermine national security. Then enemy sympathizers like you will crawl under your rocks again and hope it isn't bad enough that your jobs are purged in the name of public safety.

Posted by chris ford | February 1, 2008 11:30 PM

I love the way Repugs like Chris demean Kerry, who chose to fight a war in Vietnam, despite his questions about the legitimacy of the war, yet they support Bush, who dodged service in Vietnam, despite his support of the war.

That's more than a little fucked up, and hardly patriotic.

Posted by Rich | February 2, 2008 12:16 AM

I'll admit that "Chris Ford" is a bit of a puzzle to me...

Overall, his package of ideological beliefs seems pretty self-consistent, and is actually found in quite a few areas around the Internet, though rarely on liberal blogsites like this one.

But the huge anomaly is his apparent support for the crazy Iraq War and our continued occupation. Virtually all of the other people around the Internet who share his ideological profile are absolutely 100% against the Iraq War, and mostly think Bush and all the neocons should all be hanged for treason, a sentiment which I heartily endorse. And although few of them are willing to explicitly advocate torture, it's pretty clear that Bush and all the neocons would be their preferred "subjects" for that policy as well. Two for two, I say!

Mysteries challenge me, so here's a little speculation. Several times, Chris Ford has mentioned that he'd served in the military and recently that during the 1990s(?) he spent a few years as a contract mercenary or something in Saudi Arabia. He also seems exceptionally focused on the exact details of our Iraq Occupation policy, and its precise legal structure. As a pure guess, I'm wondering if he doesn't currently earn his living in some connection with our Iraq Occupation, perhaps even related to those companies who provide the 100K or whatever mercenaries on which we're currently wasting such endless tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Many years ago, Eisenhower, one of our best presidents, cautioned against the rise of the Military-Industrial Complex. Today, this has now become a Military-Industrial-Mercenary complex, which may be even a more serious problem, and Marx had some shrewd obversations about how ideological perspectives are often shaped by personal livelihoods.

Don't know whether or not my guess on Chris Ford's possible "motivations" is anywhere near correct...

Posted by RKU | February 2, 2008 12:37 AM

McCain is bad whatever side you're on. First he flirted with opposition to Bush, opposing the irresponsible tax cuts, etc. Then he completely sold out (except, to his credit, on the torture issue), and now he's supporting all of Bush's worst policies.

Posted by mq | February 2, 2008 1:17 AM

He offers a pure kind of politics-as-salvation where we're supposed to find a higher purpose through submission to the needs of the Nation. He doesn't just pay lip service to supporting the troops, he clearly believes that military service -- preferable in wartime -- is more virtuous than other pursuits (thus his dissing of Mitt Romney's business background) and he's thus sometimes led to seem to see war as a worthwhile end-in-itself.

Matthew is forgetting that for Goldberg, fascism has nothing to do with a desire for more war. It's all about a desire for government-funded daycare. This is self-evidently true because there were soldiers and uniforms long before fascism came into existence.

I think that's how the argument runs, judging from the reviews I've read.

Posted by brooksfoe | February 2, 2008 1:22 AM

"With Lieberman, he really crossed the Dems on just Iraq - and bent over backwards to avoid the incendary, sanctimonious accusations McCain made against fellow Republicans against his Fellow Dems."

Long before the Iraq War, Joe Lieberman repeatedly took a very far right position against the Democratic Party's moderate position on a number of economic, social, and foreign policy issues. During his 2000 VP debate with Cheney they agreed more often than not.

He made a habit of going on Fox News and attacking his fellow Democrats in vociferous terms, repeating every Republican talking point and characterizing the moderate position as "the far left". He repeatedly attacked their patriotism and repeatedly accused them of secretly hating their country. He did this just about every week for several years.

Both McCain and Lieberman are conservative on the domestic side and very-far-right hawks on the foreign policy front. And that's without factoring Iraq into it.

Posted by Chris | February 2, 2008 2:43 AM

A lot of the anti-McCain energy comes from the POW-MIA movement, which believes that Vietnam is still holding American POWs. Kerry and McCain were important supporters of the normalization of relations, and some people have never forgiven either of them. One of the anti-Kerry people (Stampley I think) is doing the same thing with McCain. The leaders of the POW-MIA movement are charlatans preying on the families of MIAs.

Posted by John Emerson | February 2, 2008 7:23 AM

A lot of the anti-McCain energy comes from the POW-MIA movement, which believes that Vietnam is still holding American POWs.

You know, no one has ever accounted for all the Union MIAs from the Civil War--I bet they're all being held in secret in some prison camp in backwoods Georgia . . .

Posted by rea | February 2, 2008 7:59 AM

Republicans and conservatives have multiple reasons for despising McCain. Aside from trying to win the Republican nomination with Democratic crossover votes, twice, he's been the Republican part of too many Democratic "bipartisan" bills, and his campaign censorship crusade has conservative groups like the NRA and Right to Life directly in it's crosshairs.

How this compares to Democratic complaints about Lieberman, I don't know. But it's more than sufficient to justify a great deal of hostility.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | February 2, 2008 9:09 AM

Re: Working within the frame of Goldberg's expansive definition of "fascism" I think it's pretty clear that John McCain comes much closer than any other major American political figure to fitting the bill.

I would put Giuliani closer than McCain, unless we're demoting him to minor political figure now that he's out of the presidential race. And I don't think McCain comes very close to being a fascist (though I won't be voting for him in November).

Re: Long before the Iraq War, Joe Lieberman repeatedly took a very far right position against the Democratic Party's moderate position on a number of economic, social, and foreign policy issues.

Please cite these "far right" positions involving somethintg other than foreign policy (and Israel). It's my take that Liebermann was sometimes a moderate, including on abortion, but never "far right"

Posted by JonF | February 2, 2008 9:13 AM

Dear Matthew,

In re: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/the_crazy_years.php

I just noticed you used a single sentence out of my 1997 Mirabella Clinton piece and the
quote to Howie Kurtz welded together out of context in support of the
idea that the 1990s were "Crazy Years." I am sorry I didn't see it
back when you wrote it, because I would have responded within the thread, which is now closed, effectively allowing you to slag me on the web without any response.

While I agree those years were "crazy" the current decade is hardly
any less insane, with actual dead bodies piling up by the tens of
thousands thanks to current White House occupants.

Some of your commenters seemed to think you got my sense of humor, I
can tell you did not. Maybe I can simplify it for you.

It was crazy that we actually had a special prosecutor investigating a
president for having sex, diverting the entire govenrnment while there
were other things to do, like look out for suicide bombers or figure
out how to insure the uninsured.

It certainly was crazy for the nation to listen to beltway farts with
comb-overs like Buchanan, Fred Barnes, TimRussert, and yes, Lieberman,
et al, piously debate "sexual harassment" while not a single woman
from the DC establishment had the guts to get up and talk about sexual
harassment experienced by women who worked alongside the old Capitol
goats. Or to observe that flashing a thong at the boss wasn't standard
victim behavior.

Was it possible that the American people watched that whole show
without falling on the floor laughing? Amazingly, yes. Was it crazy for me to try to burst
that fake little Puritanical bubble constructed by the right wing and
the DC establishment together?

I also note that you apparently think a magazine called Mirabella was
another element of those "crazy" years , i.e., a silly chick mag. Not,
in other words, "The Atlantic." (Say that in a very low pitch of voice
for desired effect, you smug pedigreed shmuck.)

I can't wait to read your next book, it sounds absolutely gripping.

Cheers
Nina

www.ninaburleigh.com

Posted by Nina Burleigh | February 2, 2008 9:24 AM

Cheers, Nina. Matt has a thing with women lately, that needs to be gotten over fast.

Posted by Jennifer | February 2, 2008 9:49 AM

"Please cite these "far right" positions involving somethintg other than foreign policy (and Israel). It's my take that Liebermann was sometimes a moderate, including on abortion, but never "far right""

Actually Lieberman has always been a conservative. He originally won in 1988 with the endorsement of William F Buckley and support from conservatives, attacking the Republican opponent from the right. He was president of the DLC and on business issues is one of the most pro-Big Business/corporate Senators in either party.

Off the top of my head, some domestic shenanigans include:

- Strongly favors indefinite detention, anti-habeus, pro-Gonzalez, pro-wiretapping.

- Strongly pro-PATRIOT act

- Strongly anti-Affirmative Action

- Strongly pro-censorship of entertainment

- Strongly pro-censorship of academic free speech

- Strongly pro-death penalty, including for minors

- Anything involving the impeachment of Bill Clinton

- A mixed record on environmental issues at best

If the topic is attacking your own party, Lieberman makes McCain look like a piker.

Posted by Chris | February 2, 2008 11:32 AM

A quibble:

A mixed record on environmental issues at best.

Lieberman had an excellent and outstanding environmental record circa 2000 or so (which was one of the reasons Al Gore chose him for the V.P. slot). 100% ratings from green groups for a decade or so.

That's about the only good thing I can say about the guy, but there you go.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | February 2, 2008 11:51 AM

While I disagree with Brett's claim that conservative hostility to McCain is not demented, I hope and pray that he succeeds in spreading his own dementia to as many Republicans as possible. A third-party candidacy from either Paul or Huckabee would be a very good thing, unless this country is even more nuts than I thought.

Posted by John Emerson | February 2, 2008 12:54 PM

Lieberman's a conservative Republican? Let's examine your specific claims.

Strongly favors indefinite detention, anti-habeus, pro-Gonzalez, pro-wiretapping. - Strongly pro-PATRIOT act

Those positions were alien to the Republican party as recently as 1997, when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's similar proposals (which Lieberman supported). It was the Democratic party that switched positions--not Lieberman.

- Strongly pro-censorship of entertainment
- Strongly pro-censorship of academic free speech

Censorship almost always comes from the Democrats. Social conservatives may complain about, say, South Park, but the Republicans never offer any national bills to actually do anything about violence or naughty language. Democrats, by contrast, are responsible for the V-chip, music censorship, Hate Speech laws, the Hillary Clinton Computer Game Censorship Act of 2005, the Fairness doctrine, etc. Hell, the MPAA hired D power-broker Jack Valenti as Chairman just to get the D Congress off their backs.

Lieberman's record is clearly consistent with that of the D party on this issue.

As far as "Academic Free Speech" is concerned, I'm unaware that either Lieberman or any Republican has ever made any claim of Federal jurisdiction over what College professors or students say or do not say. The only academic free speech issues I know of are those that occur when Universities try to kick the Campus Repubs off campus for saying things that are un-PC (such as offering a $100 scholarship for "deserving white males").

- Anything involving the impeachment of Bill Clinton

You mean the impeachment where Lieberman voted "Not Guilty" on all counts and most Republicans voted "Guilty?"

- A mixed record on environmental issues at best

Hogwash. The Sierra Club loves Joe Lieberman.

Based on this list, I have to wonder if you aren't thinking of some other Joe Lieberman, but just in case, I checked to see what a few "Conservative Republican" groups had to say about him.

NRA grade--------F (10%, worst grade in the senate)
Club for Growth--F (7%, worst grade in the Senate)

Posted by Shinyk | February 2, 2008 3:46 PM

I didn't address Affirmative Action because Lieberman generally takes the Republican approach, verbally, then votes in favor of more affirmative action (which is confusing and proves nothing one way or another).

I also didn't address the Death Penalty, which is the issue for which both parties hold the highest level of tolerance for deviation from the official platform.

Posted by Shinyk | February 2, 2008 4:17 PM

"Matt has a thing with women lately, that needs to be gotten over fast."

I suspect it's the opposite - he doesn't have any thing going with women, so he needs to get over that fast(er) before he makes any more of a fool of himself.

Somebody give him Natalie Portman's phone number.

Uhm, wait, why bother...

Maybe Megan's? (The private number, not the Atlantic office phone - he has that, but it could be embarrassing...)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 2, 2008 7:18 PM

I suspect it's the opposite - he doesn't have any thing going with women, so he needs to get over that fast(er) before he makes any more of a fool of himself.

Matt has a very hot girlfriend (especially once you adjust for DC/blogger standards) so I don't think he is working out any sexual frustration issues, if that's what you're getting at.

Posted by mq | February 3, 2008 2:04 AM

"It was crazy that we actually had a special prosecutor investigating a
president for having sex,"

For pete's sake. I wish people could stop identifying with Bill Clinton for 5 seconds, stop being afraid of someone investigating their sex lives and actually think about what Clinton did.

If Bill Clinton had been the CEO of any major corporation, he behaved the exact same way and it became public...do you know what would have happened? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED. And if that CEO had tried to obstruct that investigation exactly like Bill Clinton did...do you know what would have happened? IT WOULD HAVE ENDED UP IN COURT.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 3, 2008 6:03 PM