Video: Joe Klein on the “anger and vitriol and disdain” of the nutroots
posted at 4:29 pm on August 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
In all candor, Kos calling the DLC “a bunch of cranks” was the closest I’ve ever come to liking him and the first insight I’ve had into why someone on the left might prefer the nutroots over the centrists. Every time I see Harold Ford or Shillary on Fox taking a very meek, politic, inoffensive line about the filthy left, it makes them look that much more feeble and hesitant by comparison. It’s all carefully tactical on their part, of course: there’s no sense antagonizing the liberals lest it provoke an intraparty schism that ends up hurting Hillary’s chances in the general election, especially when they’re confident they’ll win if, as expected, she’s the nominee and tacks back towards the right for the general next year. But I wonder how young uncommitted Democrats, presented with the two options, will come down. It’s strong horse/weak horse all over again: Kos, who at least has the stones to call his opponents cranks, versus the mealy-mouthed establishment centrists who tremble at the thought of offending the far left’s angry bottom-feeders. They look, and sound, scared. The DLC thinks it’s going to have the last laugh when Hillary’s elected, but if she tries to govern from the center the nutroots is going to make more trouble for her than righty bloggers ever could. And she’ll deserve it. Which brings us to the clip — here’s Joe Klein, nutroots hate object, hinting at what a bad idea it is for the Democratic presidential field to go kissing Kos’s ass. Enjoy it; you won’t hear it from the Democratic side of the Monday night Michelle/Kirsten segment on O’Reilly.
Speaking of kowtowing to the nutroots, Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson school of public affairs and potential future secretary of state, is posting at TPM. Quote:
Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election. I can imagine a Karl Rove political calculation that would buttress a Cheney-Addington national security calculation, probably with Eliot Abrams’ support.
This scenario is one that any Democrat, of any type, and any moderate Republican (I know, I know, they don’t exist. But explain to me then how the Salazar-Alexander amendment got 10 co-sponsors in the Senate, and Lugar and Warner offered their own version) should be taking seriously and fighting against.
Her nightmare in the event of a U.S.-Iran war replete with terrorist attacks is that it might tilt the election? And incidentally, given that I’ve opposed the attack scenario myself, does that make HA a “moderate Republican” website? I’ve always thought it is but I suspect the left would impolitely disagree.
Exit question: Are the nutroots a paper tiger?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, the Nuroots aren’t a paper tiger, they’re a powder keg, and the Democrat elite deep down are terrified the Nutroots keg will explode, because if it does, it will take nearly the entire left with them, politically speaking.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM
No surprise. The economic viability of the US as well as the security of the US in the face of terrorism always takes a backseat to the Democrat’s plans to regain control of the White House. They are selfish and short-sighted.
Qzsusy on August 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM
That sounds so…. juvenile.
DaveS on August 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM
That’s why they’re appeasing Kos, he’s the guy that’s holding the match, and he can easily use the threat of dropping it as leverage.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
The comments in response to Slaughter’s piece are priceless. Sample:
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
RushBaby, you sure Sean Penn didn’t write that?
And I can’t think of a better example than that, see, powder keg. Kos can loose those dogs (or hell, they can loose themselves if General Kos isn’t barking the orders they want to hear) any time he wants. And they are devoted and crazy enough to make things real embarrassing for the establishment.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Any response to the exit question must be taken with a grain of salt.
You are asking people who invest a lot of time and energy into reading or writing blogs to assess the power of another group of people who do the same.
In light of the article linked to in the question, how can the question be viewed as anything other than trolling?
Careful fellow conservatives. Any weakness we attribute to the new-media platform of the nutroots is inherently shared by us all. It’s better to admit we are not as powerful as we tell ourselves than to be counted as part of the ranks of the self-deluded masses.
unamused on August 8, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Both Parties are filled with apparatchiks. Party before country – get used to it. The People will always come last.
That’s why I’m a conservative without a Party.
OhEssYouCowboys on August 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Kos is nothing more than a Rosie with a blog.
Just a little more polished. Howard Dean had a
following in the webworld.
I just can’t get too excited or worried about one
blogger taking over the country. You peeps go right ahead.
If I’m wrong, I’ll eat the crow and it’s bones : )
Texyank on August 8, 2007 at 4:55 PM
RB – I read that too. The entire comments section stinks of paranoia, a complete lack of perspective and displays a huge misunderstanding of American strategic interests.
As for the article, projection is found in places other than your local cinema.
MCPO Airdale on August 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
I’m serious, it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a blogger to admit that blogs are not that powerful…
unamused on August 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
There is a difference between people on the extremes and people in the middle.
People on the extremes have solid agendas and stick to them. People in the middle (progressives, centrists, etc) are all over the map when it comes to policy and agenda.
I can respect people that take a side, even when I disagree with them. I think liberal leftist agendas are just plain wrong, but I respect their tenacity.
However, it’s the so-called progressive centrists in the middle that I view as the real nutroots, and are the people I hold in least regard.
On the quesiton of Hot Air being centrist? Hardly. This is a pretty solid dedicatedly right-leaning forum on most issues including religion.
Lawrence on August 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM
No, of course I know we (and the Nutroots) aren’t very powerful. Also keep in mind, the Nutroots outnumber us bigtime, so they are more powerful than us. And I know Kos isn’t gonna take over the country, but if you think the sinistrosphere and the cranks who are among its ranks can’t cause serious problems for the Dem candidate, you are a fool.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I’m confused here. Is she saying that a Bush-Cheney plot to start a war with Iran would ’tilt’ the election in favor of the Republicans?
Ah, because the political left would do, could do nothing as the rest of the country rallies ’round the president? What does she think the results of the November 2006 election signify? I thought they were all saying the voters want the US out of Iraq, (so we can then start a war with Iran)? That makes no sense.
I swear, in order to be a loyal democrat you have to have no memory, and no conscience, and reality is what ever you want it to be at the moment.
rockhauler on August 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM
In other words, afflicted with a mental disorder.
Brat on August 8, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I’m thinking of a metaphor….
Kos -> Bolshevik
Klein -> Menshevik
What we conservatives consider to be far left, Kos claims as the center of the Democrat Party universe: doctrinaire socialism. And it’s obvious that Democrat polls have demonstrated “Kos Gravity”. Otherwise, why come to Chicago in the summer?
Klein is the “paper tiger”. He represents reasonable socialism in the Democrat Party, who can dish it out to soft targets, but they can’t take it, especially from their progeny. They are currently in that dreaded, “Wha’ happened?” fugue.
I smell a schism, but is it better for conservatives that the Bolsheviks dominate the Mensheviks within the Dems??
Randy
williars on August 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Moderate Republican sounds a little too Olympia Snowe. Now, I like Olympia Snowe–she has her good points–but I doubt she views this site as a base of support. So how about a mainstream Republican website? After all, the only area where HA analysis tends to be consistently unfair and lack intellectual depth is about the Democratic Presidential candidates, and that is allowed in partisan website.
I suspect that the silent majority on the left would agree with a mainstream Republican characterization. My social life going to art openings funded by Teresa Heinz suggests that not even the committed leftist voter is nearly as moonbat as the leftist political leadership. The political elite having different views of issues than the masses is not restricted to the immigration issue and the right-wing. For instance, when I explain the Joe Doe issue at an art opening most people agree with Hot Air.
thuja on August 8, 2007 at 5:17 PM
All is not as it seems. Or put another way; politics is involved.
On the top level, in front of the bright lights, the Dems are taking the nutroot line, get out of Iraq and get out quickly.
In the middle level, in the actual content of bills the Dems are actually trying to pass knowing that President Bush would veto, they are trying for modest changes in policy.
On the bottom level in the Armed Services Committee the Dems are approving long term plans for weapon systems and vehicles to be delivered for use in Iraq years from now.
They are either trying to cover the bases or cover their butts.
TunaTalon on August 8, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Q: Are the nutroots a paper tiger?
A: Ned Lamont.
smellthecoffee on August 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Allah, your snarky wit eludes me if I’m not paying close attention. Yesterday (Monday?), you greeted the news of some lesser GOP Presidential candidates signing on to the YouTubeTop carny debate as “victory”.
Today, you seem to disapprove of Anne-Marie Slaughter engaging in dialogue at TPM Cafe (?), ostensibly because she is a Princeton PhD and possible Sec’y of State appointment in a leftist administration.
What gives? Was one of these sarcasm? TPM — judging from a quick review of the comments on her post, and her responses to those comments — is about 100 light years ahead of the knuckleheads at YouTubeTop, where you are cheering for GOP Presidential timber to sit in the dunk tank.
What am I missing here?
Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Exit Answer: yes.
Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Proof: every video I saw of the Yearly Kos FoilFest showed twice as many empty seats as full ones, and every interviewee I listened to was thisclose to either special ed classes or institutionalization. Can you say Freak Show?
Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I’m not accusing her of kowtowing to the nutroots by posting at TPM, I’m accusing her of kowtowing to the nutroots by framing the Iran thing in terms of elections.
Allahpundit on August 8, 2007 at 5:34 PM
You mean where she throws out her own personal nightmare of a Cheney/Rove plot to win the 2008 Presidency by attacking Iran and provoking a state-terrorism counter-attack here?
Yeah, she’s an conspiracy-idiot, don’t get me wrong. Now I get you. She’d be perfect for SOS in the Obama-Edwards admin.
Jaibones on August 8, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Yes to that. Any blog which is even-handed with its criticism, as I find to be true here, is moderate. Criticizing Bush, Cheney, or any Republican for wrong things they have said or agendas they have pushed is not something a “nutroot Republican” would do.
As to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s comment–it is only horrible in that the major concern she seems to have about a terrorist act, from Iran here, but presumably from anywhere just before an election, is that it would adversely affect the Democrats in said election. 9-11 and other attacks are NOT political attacks, but it is true that a more (conservative) Republican response is what the country wants just after.
Vanquisher on August 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Ned Lamont proved that the netroots can wield power in an election that is limited only to democrat voters in a single state. They focused all of their resources on that single race, and they were able to affect its outcome. The question for the Presidential primary is whether or not the netroots have sufficient resources to affect primaries across many states. The netroots failure to advance their causes on the national stage would suggest that they are perceived by the democrat elite to lack those resources. Impeachment and withdrawal from Iraq have gone no where with the democrat controlled congress. Pelosi refuses to stop funding the war, which is entirely within her power.
The candidates are flattering the netroots like any other special interest group in order to secure their favors in the form of financing. In the case of Hillary, I would expect that her pandering is due to the belief that it is unwise to make unnecessary enemies and to siphon sources of financial support from the other campaigns. Howard Dean proved that perceptions of “electability” outweigh netroots fervor in democrat primaries. The netroots would probably be better desribed as a paper loud nuisance animal.
rw on August 8, 2007 at 6:36 PM
The Democrat Party cannot SURVIVE without the nutroots. The moonbats are the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Think about it: What issues do Teamsters, homosexuals, blacks, teachers and pornographers have in common?
The answer is that they have absolutely NOTHING in common – except the ginned-up class warfare hatred engendered by the constant broadcasting of warmed-over Communist agitprops. Without that, the Democrat Party would fall apart like a house of cards.
The insane rhetoric of the ultra left is not a liability to the Democrat Party. Without the frenetic energy of the extreme left-wing activists, there would BE no Democrat Party.
logis on August 8, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I’m not sure I’ve seen a liberal ever say so explicitly what we all know – that they care far more about electoral politics than national security.
Is this becoming common? Is it now standard for Democrats to publicly (and off-handedly) mention the very thing they once swore they didn’t think even to themselves – the thing they denounced us most for accusing them of?
Interesting.
Professor Blather on August 8, 2007 at 6:36 PM
people are fooling like kenyon dooling if they think that if Hillary is elected POTUS next year, the nutroots will give her unholy hell once she’s in the WH.
forget that. never happen. if god forbid Hillary wins in November, by January, every nutrooter from Bangor to Balboa Island will be cheering both Clintons to the rafters, calling them the greatest political figures who ever lived, and they will be killing each other over tickets to Hillary’s Hoedown’s come inauguration week.
Mike D. on August 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM
And here’s a question no one ever touches on: if everyone – including Democrats, apparently – agrees that military conflict pushes voters towards Republicans … why don’t they ever ask WHY that is?
It’s not like its some logical imperative. Maybe – just maybe – Democrats would do a little better if they’d quit worrying about wars being hypothetically started to make people vote Republican … and addressing whatever it is that makes people trust Republicans more on national security.
Democrats have their priorities on this exactly backwards. And I don’t think it ever even occurs to them.
Professor Blather on August 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
The nutroots are generating money hand over fist for democrats. In return, they have a seat at the table. That’s power, like it or not.
RushBaby on August 8, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I strongly disagree. I can almost guarantee that a Hillary presidency – especially if troops remain in Iraq a day past her inauguration – would lead to Democrat in-fighting like you’ve never seen.
I think she’d take a thousand times more heat from the Kos/DU faction than she would from Republicans. Remember what they did to Joe Lieberman? This would make that seem like a nice game of Parcheesi.
I think that it just might fracture the Democratic Party completely.
Most importantly, I think it’d make great entertainment. In some ways – especially the entertainment value – I think a Hillary presidency might be a very good thing. It might finally expose the truth about liberalism, and either end the Democratic Party or at least begin healing the festering boil of Kossite fascism that now controls too much of that party.
It would be immensely fun to watch.
Assuming we all survive of course. And the economy doesn’t tank. That’s sort of the downside. :)
Professor Blather on August 8, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Prof I grok you, but imho, it will be a different calculus for them if she’s actually sitting in the oval office.
at the end of the day, there will be heavy internal nutroots pressure to keep the heavy guns aimed at the permanent dictator Bushitleroilwar even though said dictator will have voluntarily given up power, handed it
to Hillary, and gone back to Crawford to face 15 years of screaming hippie nutbars lining the road to The Ranch.
the nuts will also reckon that they’re gonna want a second term for hillary, so no real smackdowns.
Mike D. on August 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM
In order to serve its intended purpose, a paper tiger would have to be constructed with a lot of thought and skill. So, no.
Jim Treacher on August 8, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Only in the sense that they’re on fire and concealing a pile of crap.
As Confucious say: “Paper tiger stalks like stone tiger, it is easily defeated by walking away.”
and
“Paper tiger makes for an unsatisfying meal and be sure you don’t get any on you.”
So, clearly, Confucious wasn’t all bad.
The Apologist on August 8, 2007 at 7:19 PM
Jim, I think you’re thinking of an origami tiger. Kos kids are made with purple construction paper and safety scissors. There tends to be a lot of glue involved too, but it isn’t entirely clear why. They sure are sticky though.
And they absolutely love stickers. Little sparkly “Impeach Bush” stickers are suddenly everywhere when the nutroots show up. Hateful little fairies sprinkling pixel dust on everyone.
“Stinkerbell? Is that you? Everyone, clap your hands if you BELIEVE! We’re off to Never, Never Land! C’mon, Stinkerbell, let’s fly!”
The Apologist on August 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I think that Mike D. and Blather’s scenarios are both plausible. It would be dependent on how much red meat the theoretical democrat president would throw to the Nutroots. And the Nutroots are gonna be hungry.
Bad Candy on August 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Are the nutroots a paper tiger? How come we’re cowering so much we even ask?
petefrt on August 8, 2007 at 8:41 PM
(Pssst… that was my point.)
Jim Treacher on August 8, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Great point, Allah!
Buy Danish on August 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I’d love to see the nutroots used AGAINST the Democrats. I know it’s just a dream, but wouldn’t it be awesome if Biden or Dean entered as a third-party candidate and took the far left vote AWAY from the dem nominee?
JustTruth101 on August 8, 2007 at 11:20 PM
With all the Cheney talk . . I just hate the fact that he isn’t even/wasn’t ever considered for an ’08 run.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 9, 2007 at 12:07 AM
KOS’n'friends are like rice paper; content without substance.
captivated_dem on August 9, 2007 at 12:27 AM
The question is: what can Bin Laden do to assure a Democrat win in 2008?
profitsbeard on August 9, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Actually “Common Sense Republican” is the better term, because
we have no problem discussing the merits and faults of our
candidates and elected officials.
Mcguyver on August 9, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Of course nutroots like Khaos are a paper tiger, and that is why bedding with the Kool-Aid drinkers will ultimately damage the Dem candidate. They have little to provide a campaign and lots of smelly baggage.
T J Green on August 9, 2007 at 6:49 AM
Yes, I would consider HA to be moderate, especially because AP is so very moderate ;-)
Christine on August 9, 2007 at 1:58 PM