Shooting Wide of the Mark

Toranto of the WSJ this morning:

“But the speech was badly received among the media elite. Especially scathing was blogger Andrew Sullivan:

“You see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes. His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man’s speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.”

Sullivan’s blasting Miller as a “Dixiecrat” is simply bizarre. The term Dixiecrat refers specifically to supporters of Strom Thurmond’s third-party presidential bid in 1948 (when, as Glenn Reynolds notes, Miller was not even old enough to vote), and more generally to the segregationist Democrats who succeeded in blocking most civil rights legislation until 1964. How in the world could Miller’s speech last night have been “a classic Dixiecrat speech” when it not only did not defend segregation (a question that was settled long ago), but did not even remotely allude to race? The speech was entirely about national security.

Jimmy boy, your first problem was that you tried to take Sullivan as a serious commentator. He lost that stature over a year ago, and has been relegated to comedy relief status. I’m starting to think the same way of Josh Marshall, as well, who apparently Toranto is also still trying to take seriously, for some unfathomable reason. Marshall can’t figure for the life of him why the Republicans would put him in the keynote slot. That point alone speaks volumes to me about the disconnect between the voters and Marhsall in particular but also the others pundits such as Sullivan, and for that matter Democrats as a whole.

On the other hand, perhaps their “stupid’ act is simply trying to minimize the damage done by a staunch Democrat going public with his non-support for the candidate, and in turn, the direction the party has taken the last 25 years. IN either case, the picture being painted here is not good.

It gets no better, indeed it gets worse, as you move up the leftist pundit ladder. Toranto points up part of the exchange between Miller and Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball:

Matthews: Do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

Miller: That was a metaphor, wasn’t it? Do you know what a metaphor is?
Matthews: Well, what do you mean by a metaphor?

Those city folks sure are sophisticated, aren’t they?

What did you expect from a party that tries to redefine the word “is”, Jim?