Kissing Up

For some reason, this (courtesy of AmericaBlog) reminds me of the old joke about tenure being like a sea anemone ("The sea anemone begins life with a rudimentary brain, which it uses to attach itself to a rock. Once attached it has no more use for the organ, which it then consumes. The process is a lot like getting tenure.")...

Short version: David Sirota criticizes so-called progressives (he singles out the New Republic as a typical rock--see joke above) who play into the hands of the wingnut right. By way of example, he points to Ari Melber, who takes the idiotic position that Democrats are somehow weak on national security issues because they didn't wholeheartedly jump at the prospect of gutting the armed forces, which is one effect of Operation $350 Billion and Counting:

You see, the GOP feeds off of people who purport to represent progressives and Democrats, yet who carry the right-wing's most shameful lies/stereotypes. Conservatives have an entire infrastructure to get the criticism as far and wide as possible. It's why Melber's piece has now gone from the right-wing New York Post, to a prominent place in the fringe-conservative Washington Times today.

This is exactly how it's supposed to work for the GOP: they grab someone who calls themselves "liberal" or "progressive" (usually from a place like the New Republic). This person typically has little - if any - political experience in the real world outside of the Beltway, and is really only interested in promoting their name at the expense of others. Then they get that idiot to validate dishonest right-wing lies in the media. Finally, they then cite that self-proclaimed "liberal"/"progressive" as proof that the GOP's dishonest stereotypes are actually true, no matter how factually inaccurate. It's a brilliant machine, actually - but it is pathetic that so many people in the insulated Washington, D.C. Democratic Establishment play along.

Suggesting that we as a country should "tolerate more casualties"--or claiming that it's ok to not supply basic equipment to soldiers despite a military budget greater than the Gross Domestic Product of some 200 nations ISN'T being strong on defense.

"Strong on defense" requires a degree of maturity the GOP simply doesn't have. They seem to be fixated on the "Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business" idea--which is little more than geopolitical comfort food. To be genuinely strong on defense requires careful identification of the national and geopolitical interests, and multifaceted efforts to secure the same. It doesn't require a foolhardy war, based on lies--a war that's turned out to be quite a bit more than throwing "some small crappy little country" against the wall.