Hadn't seen that post of yours, Ezra. Do you have some for little kids saying Santa isn't real?

JK. Of course, I agree with you. But I wouldn't blame WW for the failures of the left -- WW just reflected them. And damn, it was so entertaining!

It's funny. I too love that show, yet I also got annoyed with its sanctimony about the Honorable Democrats, the Honorable Republicans, the Honorable Journalists. You could be bad at your job or have reprehensible policies, but the only unpardonable sin for anyone was being a big dishonest meany.

And yet the post-Bush people on the Left who are solely interested in winning regardless of any principles or dignity, and who like the idea of imitating Fox News and Rush Limbaugh--I'm thinking of Daily Kos, Keith Olbermann, the whole Air America crowd--I find totally insufferable and intellectually devoid. So I think Sorkin had a good point there after all, even if he made it with a surfeit of self-righteousness.

I think the McGarry model is James Baker.

He has several similar elements to the McGarry character.

of course, it's a dude playing a dude pretending to be another dude!

Having lived in the US for 5 years, I can only observe that there seems to be a kind of enforced civility and deference in official forums (Congress, press conferences, mainstream media interviews) coupled with a sickening incivility and venality behind the scenes (and on many cable channels and on blogs). It makes for an exciting political life. But I still yearn for the parliamentary system I'm more familiar with: that's the place for thrilling, rude invective, and where leaders have to respond on their feet. Biden would be a great parliamentarian. Bush would never make it. I'd also like to see just one mainstream interviewer here have a knowledge of policy and go on the attack, Jeremy Paxman style. Having dedicated public forums for official "incivility" seems compatible with a more civil society overall. The US is easily the most uncivil place I've lived despite its maddening enforcement of civility in official public forums and spaces.

agree with Hank. Baker is the model. I think baker was mooted as a vp for dubya, which is why the santos-mcgarry ticket made sense.

You wrote on your article on The West Wing:

It laid bare a peculiar, and possibly temporary, quirk of liberals: their aching desire to believe the best of their opponents.

That's just silly. It should be clear from your comments and the comments on your posts as the Keith Olbermans and DailyKoses of the world (and Democrat Underground and anything on Alternet and Bartcop and . . . ) that folks on the left have no desire to see their political opponents as having honorable intentions. It might reflect Sorkin's personal view (and perhaps it's just a view that things would be better politically if we tended to view our political opponents that way: good intentions, if terribly wrong on policy).

But I've seen no indication that folks on either side having an aching desire to see their opponents as anything but the enemy. Aaron Sorkin may not look at it that way, some politicians in Washington--especially in the senate--may hold collegiality and bi-partisanship as the highest ideal, but, generally, depicitions of Bush as a chimp and a Nazi, movies and books fantasizing about the assassination of Bush, depictions of neocons and blood-thirsty, oil-addicted lunatics . . . those aren't the product of an aching desire to view Republicans as well-intentioned.

Liberal pundits and bloggers in general, including Ezra Klein, absolutely have a tendency to attribute good faith to their political opponents when it isn't really there.

With Ezra this often takes the form of a seemingly genuine befuddlement that someone on the other side has made an argument that is so patently stupid. This befuddlement presupposes intellectual honesty and integrity on the part of one's opponent. Usually this presupposition is wrong.

Democrat Underground

WTF is "Democrat Underground"?

In any case, Kevin, Democratic politicians and wonks of various sort absolutely refuse to "go for the jugular." This was on display particularly during the leadup to the war in Iraq when the Dems refused to attribute anything but good faith to the Iraq war resolution, and the Dems got steamrolled for it, especially in the midterm elections when supporters of the war like Sen. Max Cleland got whacked and singled out for attack by Republicans because supporting the Iraq war mean he was weak (and thus was attacked alongside Osama Bin Laden in ads).

Dems -- and the Clintons were an exception to this -- tend to regard the dirty work of kneecapping their opponents as beneath them and expect legislative wrangling and elections to be about a negotiation of common interests held in a debating society. Now, it may be that they only believe that this is "the ideal," and accept that it isn't reality, but even their belief that this is an ideal gets in the way of their ability to do the difficult work necessary to win elections.

Proudly, I have not seen a single episode of "The West Wing."

I can understand the idea of "suspending your disbelief" when viewing entertainment, but the premise of that program was so far fetched from the debased and idiotic nature of American politics that watching it struck me as an exercise in self-masochism.

I had little interest in The West Wing for the same reason I stopped watching South Park: I have no desire to be preached at by my television after coming home from work.

WTF is "Democrat Underground"?

Democratic Underground. My bad.

In any case, Kevin, Democratic politicians and wonks of various sort absolutely refuse to "go for the jugular."

There are certainly cases where this is true, and individuals for whom it is always true, but as a global phenomenon? I just don't see it. The reality is, folks on the right and in the Republican party always see their guys as being too nice and getting steamrolled. Liberals and Democrats seem to feel the same way. Can they both be correct?

I dunno. I know the Republicans aren't above playing a little dirty pool, and I don't care for it. But the idea the liberals really want to see their ideological opponents as honorable just strikes me as absurd?

Do you want to see Bush and Cheney as honorable, but misguided? I don't get that sense. Does Ezra want to see McCain as wanting what is best for the country, but supporting mistaken policies? I know he doesn't, he characterized McCain as hating America and Americans.

Some politicians may not have mounted a real challenge on issues such as the Iraq war (although they've certainly attacked Bush publically for everything about it since, even though continuing to vote to fund it), but are the Dems generally overwhelmed with a desire to see Republicans as honorable and good, just misguided?

No. They don't feel any more disposed to see conservatives as good folks, just a little wrong on the issues, any more than you do.

and individuals for whom it is always true, but as a global phenomenon?

As a global phenomenon, no. I would say some of the most adept campaigners on the Democratic side are found leading up city machines or running state legislatures: your Richard Daleys, Willie Browns, and Tom Finnerans.

When it comes to national politics or even state-wide politics, particularly when the Republican party is a formidable rival, I see a lot more weaknesses from the Dems' campaign strategies.

That is what was so shocking about McCain's houses gaffe and the Obama campaign's coordinated determination to talk about it in the press in organized conjunction with surrogates-- it was described as "almost RNC-esque in their ability to amplify" it.

Certainly in the House and Senate, the Democrats constantly seemed outplayed and outmaneuvered when they'd negotiate a "bipartisan" compromise on a bill only to see the concessions to Dems stripped out by Republicans negotiating the House-Senate agreements on the bill later. The Dems thought they were negotiating in good faith, assuming the good faith of their Republican peers, while actually getting shafted. Reading the Dems' speeches while voting in favor of the Iraq war (and writings of liberal war-supporters), you get the impression that they thought that voting in favor of the war gave them a "say" in trusting the the President would only use war as a last resort and take the advice and warnings of liberal war supporters, rather than botching the whole thing and being clueless. All the while, the liberal hawks had no idea that they were getting played for chumps. Why? They assumed "honorable" intentions from the white house.

On the other hand, Sorkin does expose the true nature of the modern Republican party in The American Presidnet when he puts the following into the mouth of President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas):

For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character. For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question: Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the Constitution? If you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago. America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free". I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character. And wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them, she's to blame for their lot in life, and you go on television and you call her a whore. Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.