« "Democratic Realism" | Main | TV Time »


My new print Prospect piece about the movement to dump Joe Lieberman is available online for subscribers and already. In addition, my story from the previous issue about Democrats and the politics of national security is now available for non-subscribers to read, and despite being older really isn't outdated. Ah, the monthly magazine life. Well, enjoy.

March 21, 2005 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Self-Promotion:


Y'all really need click-thru free links like TNR has for subscriber-only stories...

Posted by: Petey | Mar 21, 2005 2:55:10 PM

You are right that Krauthammer is terrible. But where in that article do you see praise for Pinochet?

Posted by: David J. Balan | Mar 21, 2005 3:00:39 PM

Tell us about the McCain-Feingold astroturf campaign, Matthew.

Posted by: ronb | Mar 21, 2005 3:23:05 PM

You know, I started out worrying about how Democrats needed to be tougher on "national security" some time ago, but over time I've grown kind of disillusioned with that whole discussion, because the dirty secret is that we're not really talking about "national security" a lot of the time. We're really talking about which party has a more convincing pitch on how America can best run the world, which is a different matter.

Posted by: praktike | Mar 21, 2005 3:58:43 PM


You just got the CNN blog treatment. Thousands of Larry King fans from Roanoke, VA will be flooding the site. . Or maybe not. And is it just me or is the faux "edgy" handheld camera work in CNN's blog segment the most annoying thing on television these days.

Posted by: john | Mar 21, 2005 4:24:32 PM

Framing, framing, framing. Matt, I believe you're quite a fan of this angle, and reading your article on national security, I couldn't help but notice the title of the House Homeland Security Committee minority staff’s report : "Winning the War on Terror". Yuk!

That very expression, "War on Terror", is probably a part of the Democrats' problem. It has been forged by and 100% associated with GWB's White House. And every mention of it by a Democrat legitimizes Bush as a "war leader". Pretty tough when Democrats need to show that Bush has been a disaster so far (Osama still on the run, handing over Irak to Iran all expenses payed, porous borders, [insert list of Shrub's ineptitudes here], yada yada ). Not to mention the expression is completely the target, terror not being the issue per se (do we care about the Tamil Tigers ?) and "war on terror" way too open ended. There must be a a clear enemy and a foreseeable end to any war.

It's time for the Democrats to reframe the issue, and, as a start, to give it another name. What about "war on Al Qaeda", or broader and may be better, "War on fundamentalism" (short version : "War on fundies"). It's much more what the actual problem is about. I really like "War on fundies" : start to call Dobson, Fawell and alter fundies and that's 2 birds with a single stone :)

Posted by: Fifi | Mar 21, 2005 4:41:23 PM

keep working on framing fifi, and the republicans will keep working on winning.

Posted by: hm | Mar 21, 2005 5:10:03 PM

As a Connecticut resident, I took a look at the Joe Lieberman article. Matt, we still need to work on your spelling. The town of the person you quoted is "Branford" not "Bramford."

Posted by: John | Mar 21, 2005 6:59:30 PM

"My new print Prospect piece about the movement to dump Joe Lieberman is available online for subscribers and already."

Um, what? What the heck does that mean?

Posted by: Gary Farber | Mar 21, 2005 7:49:50 PM

I agree with Fifi: the "War on Terror" sounds nuts. It's like, after Pearl Harbor, declaring "War on Surprise Airborne Attacks". But this is where Republicans have staked out an advantage w/ Iraq: most Americans probably understand the real enemy is Arab (not Muslim) Islamo-Fascism, even if they can't say it, and they perceive that Bush is fighting it. But there's plenty of room for Democrats to stake out a position: why are we sucking up to Saudi Arabia? Why don't we push hard for a Palistinian state now? Why don't we push Quwait for democratic reforms since we saved their ass 12 years ago? It's a big weakness, however, to only focus on "protecting America". Again, it's as if, after Pearl Harbor, we focused only on defending our territory. Americans want the fight taken to the enemy, whoever the enemy is.

Posted by: Alan | Mar 21, 2005 7:56:35 PM

Joe Lieberman needs to go, despite his decent voting record on some domestic issues, because he can't resist the impulse to do damage to his own party just to get his ugly mug on the talk shows. Also, his record isn't as good as it looks, because he has a habit of voting with the lobbyists on the votes that count, and then backtracking on final votes to look good with his blue-state voters. His recent trickery with the bankruptcy "reform" bill was a prime example: the vote for cloture was the one that counted: he gave his backers in the financial industry what they wanted, and then voted against the final bill, and put out a deceptive statement, to save his own ass.

His decent record on environmental issues is meaningless, as even a Republican from Connecticut will be pro-environment. You can't get elected otherwise.

Lieberman probably appears on Fox News more than any non-southern Democrat. There's a reason that they give him the air time.

Posted by: Joe Buck | Mar 22, 2005 1:43:37 AM

Excellent article, Matt. I am sorry I skipped it the first time, got a hattip from Kilgore at Marshal's. Like praktike, I think about Democrats and NatSec a lot, but my opinions are very colored by growing up in the Midwest during the 50s & 60s. "Militaristic Democrats" was not an oxymoron back then, and the country got a pretty fair domestic and economic policy as part of the package.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 22, 2005 10:21:16 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.