Washblog

I thought about posting on his "editorial," but you beat me to it.

He displays no intellectual curiosity about the relative risks and advantages of the two positions on the issue. Rather, he argues the pragmatism of one side of the argument while stereotyping those whom he would have represent the other side of the argument.

I do not exaggerate when I say that I have many high school students who could write better editorials. At least they know how to weigh the relative merits of two sides of a question.

by DWE on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:55:15 PM PST

---

jeesh, what nonsense.

without the mighty wurlizter lie machine spewing 'dirty hippies scare middle make dems lose' for 30+ years, AND

the pathetic-O-crats on ... "my" ...? side spewing their fear

joel would have a readership of his natural middle -
NOT the truely brain dead foot soldiers of the right,
NOT the truely middle 80+ %,
NOT the left of the left of the left (who the hell is that anyway? 6 people in seattle?)  

the terry mcaulliffe sell outs.

ugh.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:13:42 PM PST

---

   That I agree slightly more with Joel than RmdSeaBos.
   Like it or not, we (fortunately) live in a society of compromise, sometimes leverage, and only on rare occasions nation threatening crisis's. Such crisis's take more time to come to fruition than some of us, including me, would like.
   Like it or not, the incremental strategy now underway is the most that is possible at this time. And they are doing a good job at it. The next veto of the funding through July, and if the national Democrats get their framing act more together will be further progress (but no progress toward actual troops in the field reduction :(  GWB will drop more in the f$ polls and after the summer, more R's will jump ship.
   Like it or not, actual impeachment proceedings will actually detract. First off, they'd need to just pass some kind of long term funding resolution; otherwise, they really would be hanging the troops out to dry in the desert. That issue off the table opens the door to the rightwing radio, fauxers, and other wingnuts.
   Like it or not, there will still be US forces in Iraq until at least 2010. Even electing Kucinich isn't going to get them out much sooner.
   Like it or not, when we do leave, all fucking hell is going to break loose for a time.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:08:30 PM PST

---

those he disagrees with.  That appears to be what Joel Connelly is doing in this piece.

Some of Connelly's editorials are worthwhile.  On this one I think he gets lazy and gives in to his own  'ideological' ideas.  Or perhaps he is giving in to his hostility.  This reads like a hostile piece to me.  He accuses impeachment advocates of self-indulgence.  I think he may be self-indulging here in a little feel-good scorn of fellow citizens' serious concerns.

First, what strikes me is his uncritical quote of Larsen saying that all of the legislation they're working on is "impossible" if impeachment's in the works.  Second, is his wildly erroneous statement that it is the far left that wants impeachment.  Third is the way he equates the Clinton impeachment to the call for impeaching Bush.  As he points out, the first had to do with sexual misbehavior - and those who were at the forefront of the impeachment were no angels themselves in this regard.  The grounds for impeaching Cheney are lying to the nation on national security issues in order to bring us into war.  Quite different, eh?

Then there's the stereotypical way that Connelly portrays impeachment advocates -- as idiots.  He even uses that term (quoting someone else, of course, a kind of a cop-out way to insult other people but not take the rap for it).  Fourth, he leaves out central arguments of the pro-impeachment side.  He leaves out that this administration's alleged breaches of trust and law are so extreme that failing to impeach invites a new era of unaccountable leaders and lawbreaking in high office.  He leaves out the reality that impeachment puts pressure on Cheney and Bush so that impeachment and other investigations can have a synergistic effect.  He leaves out the reality that we may be on the verge of a new and unnecessary war with Iran and that impeachment will slow that down.

by noemie maxwell on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:20:01 PM PST

---

I don't get your poll.  Or I'd vote in it.  I mean I really don't understand it!

by noemie maxwell on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:42:58 AM PST

---

Say what you will about Joel and his views, but don't call what he writes in the P-I an "editorial".  He is not on the paper's editorial board, and his writings are not (necessarily) the opinion of the P-I.

Joel Connelly is a columnist, not an editorialist.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

by N in Seattle on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:21:41 AM PST

---