The arch conservative National Review Online has never been one of my favorite magazines exactly, but Jim Geraghty's utterly idiotic article on Mark Warner ("The Mark Warner-Deaniac Courtship: Is the Virginia governor wooing the Kossacks?") truly takes the cake. Where do we begin?Exhbit A: The title and subtitle. According to Geraghty, there's a "courtship" going on between Mark Warner and the "Deaniacs," whoever they are exactly. Whoops, it's not the "Deaniacs," it's the "Kossacks," as in the hundreds of thousands of readers of the Democratic blog, Daily Kos. Wait a minute, Jim, which is it? "Deaniacs" or "Kossacks?" Or are they all the same to you? Whatever. And I presume you're going to provide us with evidence as to this "courtship" and "wooing," right? Uhhhh....think again.
Exhibit B: The first three paragraphs. According to Geraghty's brilliant, ground-breaking investigative journalism, it turns out that Mark Warner is - gasp! - a centrist Democrat! In fact, I bet you never knew that Warner "support[s] the death penalty...welfare reform, a ban on partial-birth abortion (with exceptions for ?the health of the mother?) and parental notification on abortion." Or, that he "signed every piece of NRA-backed gun legislation that crossed his desk." Or, that he "opposes same-sex marriage." Anyway, it's all true, and Jim Geraghty lays it all out there for us.
Exhibit C: The fourth paragraph, and several others. Uh oh, trouble in centrist paradise. It turns out, according to Geraghty, that Warner - once again, gasps are in order - "has actually been winning praise from liberal blogs." Evidence for this? Not much, but the author does cite four "recent Warner-related Kos headline," three of which are simply diaries written by one of the thousands of registered Daily Kos users. Shockingly, those three diaries contain analysis and polling data that Mark Warner would defeat George Allen for President in Virginia and that Warner could potentially stop Hillary Clinton. Also, one - count 'em, ONE - of the three diaries actually is somewhat pro-Warner. Wow. Then there's Markos' diary, in which Kos writes that Warner is the "one to watch" right now, although with the caveat that Warner "has to worry about peaking too early."
Such enthusiasm and "praise" in the liberal blogosphere. It's mindboggling, frankly. Then there's the straw poll that Kos conducted in November 2005, in which Mark Warner finished third, just ahead of John Edwards and behind Wes Clark and Russ Feingold. Amazing, huh? OK, so maybe the liberal blogs aren't all THAT enthused for Mark Warner after all.
Exhibit D: Dumber and dumberer it gets. In paragraph 5, Geraghty makes the powerful (not!), incendiary (not!) charge that because Mark Warner has hired top blogger Jerome Armstrong as internet director for his "Forward Together" PAC, that MUST mean that Warner isn't really a centrist. This, despite the rather conservative record described in paragraphs 1-3 (see above). Evidence for Geraghty's argument? Well, you see, Jerome Armstrong worked at one point for - biggest GASP of all! - the Howard Dean campaign!
OK, so that's it then, case closed. Armstrong once worked for Dean, now he works for Warner, therefore Warner=Dean. Gotcha! Of course, political consultants never EVER work for different candidates in their careers, and certainly not two former centrist governors of their respective states. Uh, uh, uh...but anyway, the point is that Warner hired Armstrong, and because Armstrong was "one of the architects of the Dean campaign?s web-based insurgency," that means that Mark Warner is really a DEANIAC! Or something. Who the heck knows. As I said, this article is really, really stupid.
Exhibit E: Alright, well, this one's not in Geraghty's article, but it's worth pointing out anyway. You see, since November, Mark Warner has been replaced from his third-place status at Daily Kos by a NEW "flavor of the month," that being Al Gore. Or maybe it's John Kerry. Or not. Regardless, Geraghty's main point still holds, namely "that Mark Warner shouldn?t be caricaturized as the 'conservative,' 'centrist,' or 'moderate' candidate in the race when he's willing to associate himself with the fervent antiwar left for his support." Ahhhh....I see. This is all so clear now.
The bottom line here is that this is a really, really stupid article by a conservative. So what else is new, you ask? Ha! But my guess is that there's a method to the madness. Could it be, perhaps, that the right wing is scared shitless that Mark Warner - a successful, wildly popular, centrist Southern governor - might get the Democratic nomination in 2008, not their dream candidate, Hillary Clinton? And could it be that the right wingers are flailing around, looking for some angle with which to attack Warner? Hmmm.
Alright then, let's try out some Geraghty "logic" ourselves. If Mark Warner's not a centrist because he hired a "liberal," then George Allen is not heterosexual because he hired several gay men as staff members. So many, in fact, that Allen's office came to be known as "the gayest place on Capitol Hill" (according to Joe Glover, president of the right-wing Family Policy Network). You see how really REALLY stupid this can get? Don't say I didn't warn you!