Combating CADS

Poor Richard Cohen. He seems to be the target of those with advanced cases of CADS—Colbert-Assurance Derangement Syndrome.

He made the mistake of pointing out five days ago that Comedy Central comedian Stephen Colbert wasn't very funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. The audience, many on the center right and even Colbert himself seem to remember it that same way.

Left wing bloggers, however, howled that Colbert was speaking "truth to power" and took great offense when Cohen showed that Colbert was something other than a hero:

…Colbert… is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

For raining on their juvenile parade with very adult reasoning, Cohen has been bombarded by vicious, hate-filled emails—3,506 at last count over four days—that stem from the angst of liberal bloggers that somehow feel Cohen betrayed them. Hateful bile is no stranger to the blogosphere—it exists on both the right and the left—but Cohen is quick to recognize the disproportionate seething on the leftward fringe of American politics, and fears what the left's "digital lynch mob" might portend:

The e-mails pulse in my queue, emanating raw hatred. This spells trouble -- not for Bush or, in 2008, the next GOP presidential candidate, but for Democrats. The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

And yet, incredible as it may seem, the left wing that spewed forth such hatred at Cohen insists—while calling him clueless—that somehow, Cohen owes them:

The 'angry' bloggers, the so-called Bush-haters, have played a pivotal and (dare I say) historic role during the Bush presidency. They've fought tooth and nail to protect the Constitution from an unprecedented power grab and they've stepped in and spoken the truth while so many in the media and the political establishment have abandoned any semblance of integrity and rolled over for the White House…

[snip]

Maintaining a healthy conscience, allowing ourselves to react with appropriate emotion (whether anger or frustration or relief) is an essential trait in the face of the apathy we've seen the past six years. With all their dripping disdain for bloggers, folks like Richard Cohen and his ilk owe the netroots a debt of gratitude for helping to preserve some shred of the America we all love -- their children and grandchildren will certainly appreciate it.

Sadly, Peter Daou was captured in an airmobile assault on his hidden Huffington Post bunker by agents of the FBI/NSA anti-Free Speech Strike Force just seconds after sending these revolutionary comments. It is rumored that he will be transported him to a "reeducation camp" outside Dallas and forced to watch team sports and drink domestic beer.

Oh wait, he won't.

Daou proves Cohen's original statement correct; the liberal speaking "truth to power" isn't, and their frustration often morphs into a self-implosive, ulcer-inducing rage. Cohen sees this rage immolating Democratic moderates, ruining the Democratic Party's chance to win, time and again. He is right, and we are all much worse off for it.

There needs to be balance ,or at the threat of balance to keep politicians "honest"... well, at least as far as that is possible. Without the threat of political consequences via electoral defeat, politicians, whether left and right, will seek to run roughshod over their adversaries, which is not often beneficial in a nation often best served by compromise.

Sadly, some Republicans apparently feel unthreatened because of the implosive tendencies of the Democratic Party in recent history, and now feel they are almost untouchable. The conventional wisdom in so much of the Republican Party seems to be that liberals will either defeat or so wound moderate or conservative Democrats (and there was once such a beast; I think I saw it in a museum) that they are at a distinct disadvantage when the general election comes around. To date, over the past several election cycles, they seem to be right.

God help us all.