Lefty bloggers not deranged wishful-thinkers

Maximus views Sam Tanenhaus’ “An Antiwar Campaign That Takes a Page From the G.O.P. Playbook” as “the most cogent analysis of what’s happening right now within the Democratic party” from the mainstream media. The article appeared in the weekend’s New York Times, and it is, indeed, insightful. Here’s an excerpt:

Like the current Democratic insurgency, the conservative movement was driven by activists who combined journalism with partisanship. Just as today’s insurgents often post their analyses and self-described “rants” on Web sites like Daily Kos, so the conservative rebels of an earlier day poured forth their opinions in the National Review, the biweekly magazine founded in 1955 by the 29-year-old William F. Buckley Jr.

Today, of course, National Review is widely read as a journal of the Republican establishment. But in its infancy it was regarded as extreme — far more radical than the bloggers most influential in the Lieberman defeat…. National Review’s biggest targets were the moderates in their party….

Mr. Lamont, a multimillionaire businessman from Greenwich, is by no means a radical. Neither is an insurgent blogger like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of Daily Kos. In “Crashing the Gate,” the book he wrote with Jerome Armstrong, Mr. Zúniga says his goal is to advance the cause of the Democratic Party and “rebuild our institutions of power.” Few Democrats differ with him. What does set the insurgents apart is their belief in partisanship. This is the basis of their attack on Senator Lieberman, who, in their view, has failed to be a team player as evidenced by his long history of siding with Republicans and his persistent defense of President Bush.


You might want to subscribe to my free Substack newsletter, Ancestor Trouble, if the name makes intuitive sense to you.