« The Difference Between Us And Them | Main | New Weekender »

April 21, 2006

Klein v. Klein

You've really got to read Digby's excerpts from Hugh Hewitt's interview with Joe Klein. Klein desires -- aches really -- for Hewitt's approval, and it leaves him a quivering mass of eager-to-please. The interview primarily consists of Klein parading all his points of agreement with George W. Bush and proudly bragging about his White House nickname -- Mr. Faith-Based, in case you were wondering -- which he hastens to add is just "one of Bush's nicknames for me." It's pathetic.

Klein, you'll remember, is supposed to be Time's in-house liberal, so maybe he feels the need to keep is identification slippery (in which case, speaking as a liberal, I assure him it's worked). I wonder, however, why you never see Charles Krauthammer on the Rhandi Rhodes show prostrating himself for her approval and slamming his party. He seems perfectly comfortable in his political identity. Klein , meanwhile, is prancing about, saying Bush is an "an honorable man," who "I really like" and Newt Gingrich is a "man of honor" who "I've always really respected", while Michael Moore is a "disgraceful", "reprehensible" being who "I don't want to be associated with" and the Democratic Party needs to distance itself from bloggers.

But it's hard to get too mad at Joe. I've a soft spot for folks who achieve their dreams. Come the interview's end, Hewitt, the sort of respectful, sober guy who writes books entitled "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It," promised Joe that "I would love to continue this on. In fact, as often as you want, you've got the open invitation to be our responsible Democrat on the show, because they're hard to find."

What an honor. Maybe next year, Hewitt will invite him to prom.

Cross-Posted from Tapped

April 21, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83484b40453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Klein v. Klein:

Comments

Klein's behavior seems sooo much like the ugly ducking teenager (the shunned one) who suddenly gets to hang with the cool-kid swans for a night (while they laugh at him behind his/her back), and swoons all over his new found 'friends'.

It is bad enough to see that among the often cruel high-school set, but really is disgusting when played on the DC scene.

I wonder how many Republicans are going to buy his book, and how they will review it.

I hope the Dems remember his performances lately when and if they regain some power in DC. He should be welcomed by the Dems like Helen Thomas is by the Repubs.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 21, 2006 4:33:16 PM

"Klein desires -- aches really -- for Hewitt's approval": The way I read it, it's Bush that Klein would let finger him on the first date.

Posted by: Steve M. | Apr 21, 2006 4:49:12 PM

This is really hard to gauge. I suspect that, confronted with an honest to goodness host, Joe would just as quickly trot out some different, progressive bona fides. He's using his connections with Bush like a fake ID to get in good with the current ruling set.

Posted by: Jas | Apr 21, 2006 5:00:48 PM

Question for "Time" and Joel: How can you be both "liberal" and say Bush is an "honorable man"? What exactly, coming from a liberal perspective, has Bush been honorable about exactly? I would like one example, but even that would counterbalance the 800 examples of him being dishonorable.

Posted by: J. Puckett | Apr 21, 2006 5:08:15 PM

Here's what pisses me off about Klein and other so-called liberals in the press and in Congress: they are apparently the only people in the whole world that think "bipartisanship" is more than a slightly more subtle way to stab your opponents in the back. So you have Klein, Lieberman and the like who are all too willing to show how "intellectually honest" they are, how "fair and open-minded" they are by pissing on their colleagues and allies whenever they get the chance. Apparently being "fair" means always having something negative to say about your side, even when you don't say anything positive.

Look at the other side of the aisle. They've got their moderates, their RINOs. But they play the game entirely differently. Look at McCain. He's built an entire political career upon being a "maverick," but just a few seconds of looking over his record will show that he is, and has always been, extremely conservative. And his bipartisanship is always designed so that the public sees only his hand of friendship while the hand with the blade moves in for the kill. I think he's overreaching, finally, with his current bid for president. But you don't see him on Air America talking about how stupid and mean and nasty and smelly all the Republicans are. No, you see him humping George Bush's leg whenever he gets a chance - just like Lieberman, Cuellar, Zell Miller, Joe Klein and the rest of the faux-liberals running around.

There are limits, of course. Any Democrat in Congress found to be linked to Abramoff's schemes - HA HA HA - needs to be removed from office and prosecuted. Period. My partisanship only goes so far, and I would appreciate it if the same could be said of the GOP dead-enders who currently support the Worst Administration of All Time. But if you're conservative, then be conservative. And if you're liberal, then be a damned Liberal!

Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 5:24:23 PM

Can we revoke his "L" card?

Posted by: Cal Gal | Apr 21, 2006 5:35:23 PM

New hardcore french writer:

"Idéologiquement Cash/Chiotte

L'aplat de niaiseries répandu sur le texte a empêché de dévoiler la puissance colérique des propos en général. Une sorte de philosophie en parfaite adéquation avec l'époque. Ni avant-garde, ni conservatisme."

To be continued: http://hirsute.hautetfort.com

Posted by: Andy Verol | Apr 21, 2006 6:41:28 PM

Ezra,

Off topic, but I'd be interested in your response to this;

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042106.shtml

Posted by: Rob G | Apr 21, 2006 7:21:46 PM

Ezra is going to suffer the confusion of Joe Klein versus himself all through the publication and hype of Joe's new book, and perhaps beyond. Even Bob Summersby's Daily Howler piece referenced by Rob G above left me confused at points about which Klein he was referring to.

The Howler post does raise my eyebrows on the favorable/unfavorable poll numbers for Gore, and the previous and current attitudes of the mainstream press toward Gore. JOE Klein played his role in that slash and burn media attack in 2000, to his shame, but, if anything, he seems more prone now to play the anti-Gore role than in 2000 - book in all considered.

Maybe for the season we need to always use the Good Ezra Klein and Bad Joe Klein terminology to avoid confusion.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 21, 2006 9:35:27 PM

Jim, I'm sure you remember Highlights magazine in doctors' waiting rooms, and of course Goofus and Gallant. In that vein, and to pay tribute to all of the gushing over Ezra's recent C-SPAN appearance, I suggest we call them Dreamy and Dipshit.

Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 10:42:09 PM

Highlights! I wonder if they still have that today.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 21, 2006 11:31:16 PM

The shill is shilling a book, give him a break. BETTER YET, IGNORE HIM. The f%&ker is irrelevant. RIP.

Posted by: daudder | Apr 21, 2006 11:38:48 PM

Rob: What's their to say about Somerby's piece? I appreciate his kind words when they come, but I don't think the only relevant issue with Gore right now is the media's treatment of him in 2000. Given that the C-SPAN appearance barely touched on Gore, there was neither the time nor context to go into the portion of it.

Posted by: Ezra | Apr 22, 2006 1:38:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.