Fat Ginger Tosser

Normally I'm a huge fan of the Wall Street Journal's news reporting (who isn't?), but they really dropped the ball on this front-page story on MoveOn (sub. req'd). The thesis of the story is familiar and tired: MoveOn is a crazy fringe lefty group that's taking over the Democratic party and causing it to become crazier, fringier, and leftier. But the reporter, Jeanne Cummings, does a terrible job of making the argument. Let us count the ways:

1) The headline of the article is "In a Key Primary, MoveOn's Revolt Divides Democrats." When I saw the headline I was curious--what primary could they be talking about? It turns out that it's Lieberman vs. Lamont in Connecticut. Now, I don't think I've ever heard anyone else make the argument that Ned Lamont's success was produced by MoveOn, or even that MoveOn has played a really significant role in his campaign, and this article, try as it might, can't persuasively make that connection either. Cummings talks about the fact that MoveOn endorsed Lamont and has directed contributions and volunteers his way, but she gives absolutely no evidence that their support has been decisive, or that they've shaped the race in any way. Instead, she relies on insinuation to make the connection, and the result is an awfully flimsy front-page story.

2) Cummings is also very deep into the idea that Lamont is a crazy fringe lefty candidate, but doesn't really provide any evidence. You'd think she'd realize that she'd have to work a bit harder to substantiate that claim after the New York Times endorsed Lamont, but apparently not.

3) Right up top, Cummings gives us this:

The price MoveOn is asking for [supporting Democratic candidates] is a bigger voice in what Democrats would do with their power. The group that made its mark opposing Mr. Bush's 2004 re-election is now trying, over the objections of some Democratic leaders, to push its own party leftward, particularly on Iraq. Party leaders worry that such a shift would imperil moderate and conservative Democrats whose appeal in Western and Southern states is critical to winning back Congress. It could also alienate swing voters, who polls suggest are shifting back to the Democrats this year. Says moderate Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu, who supports Mr. Lieberman, "I don't think it's a winning strategy or a smart strategy."

But the only example she has of this is MoveOn's support of Lamont--and, as we've already seen, this is a pretty tendentious example. Cummings's other example of MoveOn's nefarious involvement in Democratic politics is its involvement in House races against weak Republican incumbents in Connecticut (Nancy Johnson), Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio -- a pretty mainstream strategy. That Landrieu quote above (which, independent of its context, could really be about anything) is the only evidence Cummings has for her claim that MoveOn is pushing an overall move to the left. Furthermore, apropos of that...

4) What the hell is "the left" in this context, anyway? Apart from a small aside on trade, "pushing the party leftward" for Cummings seems to mean being more aggressive on the Iraq war. But, as every liberal blog reader knows, withdrawl from Iraq is a mainstream position. Those crazy fringe lefties who didn't want to invade have been proven right on every issue. The country has acknowledged it. Reporters who actually cover foreign policy have acknowledged it. I'd guess that most people in the Republican political establishment have acknowledged it (although they're in too deep to admit that publicly). The only people who refuse to acknowledge it are the Democratic political establishment and the political press establishment.

In summary: bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit.