On one of Charlie's loonies

Charles Johnson's final posting last night was a link to a 'fisking' performed by a certain Jeff Harrell on Markos Moulitsas' web column for the Guardian. Going straight to Harrell's piece, we get the following pretty early on:

Notice, please, the preemptive whine that Markos slipped in when he thought you weren't paying attention: "all the flaws in the US electoral process." The reason the Democratic Party can't get a dog catcher elected these days doesn't have anything to do with the party's increasing self-marginalization, its fervent hold on positions that America soundly rejects. And it doesn't have anything to do with the Democrats' universal denial of the single most important issue to voters: the war. And it doesn't have anything to do with the overall climate of unpleasantness that the Democrats have created over the past four years.

Now correct us if we're wrong, but isn't Harrell making the grave mistake of trying to slip something in while his readers are still too alert to miss it?

"the Democratic Party can't get a dog catcher elected these days" - with 205 Democrats (vs 227 Republicans) in Congress and 48 Democrats (vs 51 Republicans) in the Senate, the Democrats aren't doing too badly, not to speak of the dead heat that is the current US presidential elections. Who cares about dog catchers?

"its fervent hold on positions that America soundly rejects" - now hold your horses: Harrell claims to know that 'America', as a whole, all of it, every US citizen, rejects the positions of the Democratic Party? Bullshit.

"the Democrats' universal denial of the single most important issue to voters: the war" - The DEMOCRATS have been denying the war? Jeez, and we thought it was Georgie and Co who were sticking their heads in the sand over the miserable failure that is the Iraq campaign, let alone the War on Terror.

"the overall climate of unpleasantness that the Democrats have created over the past four years" - as in voter intimidation in Florida practised by the Republicans in 2000? As in smear campaigns against the Democratic candidate's wife (reminiscent of those against Mrs Clinton)? As in warning that if Kerry is elected there will be more 9/11s? As in bombing the hell out of civilians and claiming you're doing it in the name of freedom? Unpleasantness, it seems, lies in the eye of the beholder...

Harrell doesn't get much better as his piece goes on. Read it and send him friendly comments if you must, but it's not exactly a tour de force of political argumentation. You're better off getting involved with the Guardian's swing state project.