"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Coverage of Lamont-Lieberman race: a case study in how anti-Dem narratives dominate political media -- even as political threat level for Republicans rises to "severe"
In the wake of Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont's primary victory over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Lieberman's decision to run against Lamont as an independent in the general election, the political media were awash in pro-Lieberman and pro-Republican spin about Lamont, Connecticut voters, and what it all means for this fall's congressional elections.
Faulty media storylines ranged from the laughable claim that Lamont supporters are "elites" (can a majority really be "elite"?) to the predictable onslaught of claims that the result helps Republicans because it demonstrates Democrats' weakness on national security issues.
That last one is likely to be among the dominant themes of media coverage of this year's campaigns. We've dealt with it many times before, and we will many times again. In short, many political reporters assume that, from both a policy and political standpoint, Democrats are weaker than Republicans on national security issues.
From a policy standpoint, this is simply absurd: the Bush administration and its allies in Congress, who decided to divert attention from pursuing the people who attacked us in order to invade a country that didn't, are supposed to be the strong-on-security party? That would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.
From a political standpoint, the simple fact is -- as we've noted again and again, and will keep noting until reporters start to catch on -- that national security issues are no longer winners for Republicans. Here's an example:
Three of the last four Washington Post polls have found that a plurality of Americans trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the "campaign against terrorism." Four consecutive Post polls -- and seven of the last eight -- have found that a plurality trust Democrats more when it comes to handling "the situation in Iraq." The lone exception found the parties tied.
[...]
Four consecutive Post polls had found that at least 62 percent of Americans disapproved of President Bush's handling of Iraq; 22 of the 23 most recent polls had found majority disapproval, and all 23 found that a plurality disapproved.
Here's another:
In a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation last week -- before the arrest of terror suspects in Britain -- terrorism topped the list of issues that voters said would be "extremely important" to their vote this year.
[...]
But among voters concerned about terrorism, slightly more said they would vote for a Democrat (50 percent) rather than a Republican (45 percent) for Congress.
Republicans still do better on terrorism than on any other issue except same-sex marriage, which is far less important to voters. But the Republican advantage on terrorism had vanished, at least before the news from Britain.
Why did that happen? Here's a clue. As of last week, only 31 percent of Americans believed the United States and its allies were winning the war on terror. That is the lowest figure recorded since 9/11. The prevailing view (45 percent) is that neither side is winning.
We'll come back to this topic in coming weeks. For now, news coverage of Lamont's victory provides several examples of the way media coverage of tactical skirmishes in campaigns often advances the agenda of the more conservative candidates.
At an August 10 campaign stop in Waterbury, Connecticut, Lieberman said: "I'm not saying we shouldn't have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it's just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American."
Apparently, he meant that for Democrats to use national security as a "political football" would be "unacceptable" and "un-American" -- but that it's just fine if he wants to do it. Because at the same campaign stop, Lieberman himself used national security to bludgeon his opponent.
Less than 48 hours after claiming in his concession speech that he "went into public service ... to unite, not divide," (sound familiar?) Lieberman said:
"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."
How did the media treat Lieberman's apparently hypocritical comments? Did they point out the contradiction -- that, by his own standard, he made an "unacceptable" and "un-American" attack on Lamont?
They did not.
The Associated Press, as Media Matters detailed, quoted Lieberman's attack on Lamont -- but omitted his condemnation of such attacks. (A later AP article by the same reporter included the condemnation, but did not point out the contradiction between the two comments or in any way link them.)
The New York Post and Chicago Tribune, among other news organizations, likewise reported Lieberman's criticism of Lamont without including the "un-American" line. Most incredibly, so did The New York Times in an article by Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina. Why is the Times' omission particularly noteworthy? Because Healy and Medina had previously included the "un-American" line in a post on the Times' Empire Zone blog -- though they did so several paragraphs after detailing Lieberman's criticism of Lamont, and without noting the hypocrisy.
The media's failure to report Lieberman's attempt to have it both ways is particularly startling in light of the fact that this is becoming something of a habit for him. His decision to run as an independent after losing the Democratic primary is only the most recent example: Lieberman famously rebuked Democratic critics of President Bush, saying, "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." Yet his spokesman, Dan Gerstein, argues that it is a "myth" that Lieberman has not criticized Bush's handling of Iraq, argues that he has done so "since the war started." He has been criticized for running for re-election in 2000 at the same time that he was running for vice president, which would have given then-Gov. John Rowland, a Republican, the opportunity to choose his Senate replacement had he become VP.
A common theme in media coverage of Lamont's victory is that Democrats will lose "centrist" voters as a result; CNN's Candy Crowley and Anderson Cooper went so far as to claim that the primary result indicates that centrists can't win Democratic primaries. These claims are based on the false premise -- promoted by Lieberman and Republicans and debunked repeatedly by Media Matters -- that opposition to the Iraq war is anything but "centrist." In fact, poll after poll finds that the Bush-Lieberman position on the war is the minority view.
But media figures aren't just granting a false premise when they speculate about Democrats losing "moderates" as a result of Lamont's victory. They're also ignoring a potentially disastrous result of Lieberman's continued candidacy. Blogger and Lamont supporter Chris Bowers has argued that it is important for Democrats to united behind Lamont. He explained:
Seeing all of the Ned Lamont's endorsements come in today reminded me of what it was like to be a Democrat during the Social Security fight in early 2005. Up and down the line, the Democratic leadership came through and did the right thing. By endorsing Ned Lamont and the primary process, Democratic leaders endorsed party democracy, and the will of the people they represent. This is how we keep our coalition from flying apart: by using mutually agreed upon, democratic mechanisms to settle our disputes.
Whether Bowers meant it or not, his post also suggests a danger to the party if Democrats do not unite behind Lamont. The people who supported, worked, volunteered, and voted for Ned Lamont chose to work within the Democratic Party rather than leaving it. They chose to abide by the results of the primary, win or lose. Now that Lieberman has decided not to do so -- and a scattered few Democrats have announced their support of his independent candidacy -- some Democrats may wonder why they should support future Democratic primary winners in other races. If Lieberman prevails, or even continues with the support of other prominent Democrats, how will Democratic Party leaders have any moral authority to urge moderates and progressives not to vote for the next Ralph Nader? How can they ask the party to unite behind conservative nominees? And how many Democratic candidates would win a three-way race that includes a candidate running to their left?
In short: why should some factions of the party continue to work and run within the party and support primary winners if other factions do not? And, if they chose to emulate Lieberman and his supporters, what are the possible electoral consequences -- both to the Democratic Party as a whole, and to the specific elected Democrats who back Lieberman?
All of those are hugely important -- and incredibly obvious -- questions raised by Lieberman's independent candidacy. And yet, journalists ignore these questions in favor of fundamentally flawed speculation, based on false assumptions, that "moderates" will find Ned Lamont's anti-Iraq war stance objectionable.
We recently noted the apparent double standard with which the media cover controversial figures on the left and the right, focusing in particular on coverage of bloggers. Attacks on progressives and bloggers have been a recurring feature of the Lieberman campaign -- and the media have covered them in a typically irresponsible and one-sided fashion.
As Media Matters noted in July, The New York Times printed Lieberman adviser (now communications director) Dan Gerstein's claim that "there is a growing tolerance" in the "progressive community" of a "perhaps anti-Semitic" faction. If Gerstein provided the Times with examples or evidence, the Times didn't include it. Nor did it include any of its own examples, or quote anyone disputing the assertion.
Despite the lack of evidence, the smear that progressives opposed to Lieberman are anti-Semitic made its way into other news reports. Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon.com's War Room:
Whatever the outcome is Tuesday night in the Lamont-Lieberman race, this contest should be remembered for the clear emergence of an ugly and alarming development -- namely, the unabashed and undiluted use of anti-Semitism accusations as a partisan tool to win elections. And that tactic is clearly part of a growing right-wing reliance upon the basest and most divisive tactics of identity politics and religious tribalism.
In recent weeks, as Lieberman supporters became more fearful that their candidate could actually lose, accusations that Lieberman opponents are motivated by anti-Semitism have become commonplace. Bill Kristol's latest column is titled "Anti-war, Anti-Israel, Anti-Joe," and Kristol claims that "Democrats have adopted a 'European' attitude toward Israel. And toward the United States. That is the meaning of Connecticut Democrats' likely repudiation of Joe Lieberman." A column on Hugh Hewitt's blog, promoted today by Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, alleges that there has "been a disquieting whiff of anti-Semitism in the anti-Lieberman campaign." Dean Barnett wrote in the Weekly Standard: "Some Americans believe that Israel should not exist. And these are the Americans that Lamont and other Democrats have so eagerly embraced."
[Democratic Leadership Council senior fellow and former Heritage Foundation and Christian Coalition employee] Marshall Whittman [sic: Wittman] Monday insinuated darkly that "the degree of left hatred (sic) toward Joe sometimes betrays something deeper," and then came right out with it: "Anti-Semitism will often not speak its name directly, but there is a distinct undercurrent that may explain some of the irrational venom." The Lieberman camp itself has blamed what it claims is a "growing strain of anti-Semitism" for opposition to the senator. As the New York Times put it in a recent article: "Some of Mr. Lieberman's supporters say there is a strain of anti-Semitism in the antiwar left that could make Jewish voters uneasy about supporting Mr. Lamont."
A New York Sun editorial that ran the morning after the Connecticut primary argued:
As these columns went to press last night, it was still too early to call a victor in Connecticut's Senate primary. One thing is sure despite the outcome, however: Senator Lieberman confronted more than just a hard-fought campaign. He was up against a jihad. If Mr. Lieberman is celebrating a victory this morning, it's a sign that there is still room for moderation in the Democratic Party. But any celebration will be clouded by the vitriol, resembling a perverse kind of religious fervor, he had to overcome.
[...]
To what do the attacks on Mr. Lieberman speak? As far as we can tell, to no concern more noble than anti-Semitism and racism, with a smattering of anti-Bush paranoia mixed in for taste. Just consider the rantings that have been directed at the senator in the left-wing blogosphere, as recounted by Democratic strategist Lanny Davis in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. One commenter on the influential blog DailyKos.com wrote, "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on." Or this: "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby."
But the Sun -- like Fox News host Bill O'Reilly -- erred in relying on Lieberman adviser Lanny J. Davis's claims. As Media Matters demonstrated, at least one of the quotes Davis and others used to buttress their claims of what Gerstein described as "growing tolerance" of anti-Semitism among progressives was, in fact, actually a repudiation of potentially anti-Semitic comments. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, Davis quoted a comment from a Daily Kos post by someone who goes by the name "tomjones" as saying:
right ... because as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on
Even without looking into the context, it seems clear the poster meant his comments sarcastically. But looking at the context, as Media Matters did, removes any doubt. It is clear that "tomjones" was rebuking another poster for a comment that tomjones apparently found inappropriate:
Why Should Joe Care ... about a bunch of goyim dying in Iraq? It's not like anybody he cares about is suffering as a direct result of the war.
by greenskeeper on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 01:53:09 PM PDT
right ... because as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on
by tomjones on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 02:04:20 PM PDT
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly and The New York Sun were taken in by Davis's misrepresentation of the comment and joined him in using it as an example of anti-Semitism on the left -- exactly the opposite of what the comment actually was.
Media Matters found no indication that Davis, O'Reilly, and the Sun have yet corrected their false smear of progressives in general and the Daily Kos poster in particular.
But even if "tomjones" wasn't being sarcastic; even if his comment was anti-Semitic, why would any news organization take a random comment by a pseudonymous poster on an Internet message board as indicative of any significant anti-Semitism on the part of Lieberman opponents?
The Lieberman camp is making an ugly allegation against, as Gerstein described it, "the progressive community," apparently based on nothing more than pseudonymous blog comments. The supporting evidence offered thus far seems less than compelling, but the allegations surely deserve closer media scrutiny. If true, they say something significant about "the progressive community"; if false, they say something significant about the Lieberman campaign.
But if news organizations aren't going to explore and explain this smear campaign, shouldn't the Lieberman camp at least be held to the standards it sets for its opponents? Shouldn't media outlets scrutinize comments made by the Lieberman camp and other Lamont foes -- particularly from those who have a much higher profile and greater significance than pseudonymous message-board commenters?
Lieberman, for example, has repeatedly suggested that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has taken over the Democratic Party. On the August 9 broadcast of NBC's Today, he said, "I am committed to ... bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters to the mainstream." On Fox News the same day, he added, "I don't want my party to be taken over by the Ned Lamonts and Maxine Waters."
Coincidentally, in a column attacking Lamont, Ann Coulter also attacked Waters:
Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.
In a Wall Street Journal column the day before the Connecticut primary, Martin Peretz, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic, attacked Lamont, arguing that "[t]he Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont."
Waters isn't exactly a household name. Why would Lieberman, Coulter, and Peretz all happen to invoke her, rather than a more widely known symbol of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party? Peretz's decision to add Jackson and Sharpton to the mix recalled Time magazine columnist Joe Klein's recent warning that White House senior adviser Karl Rove (who, coincidentally, called Lieberman on primary day to wish him well) would "play the race card, as Republicans have ever since they sided against the civil rights movement in the 1960s," by invoking Democrats such as Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), an "African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped by Republicans." Waters, like Jackson, Sharpton, and Conyers, happens to be an African-American. Even before the primary, Lieberman could have pointed out Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) endorsement of Lamont. Following Lamont's victory, Lieberman had a vast universe of prominent white politicians -- including the entire congressional Democratic leadership, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore -- with whom to tag Lamont. And, yet, Lieberman chose Waters. If they're going to repeat the Lieberman camp's ridiculous use of pseudonymous blog comments to suggest rampant liberal anti-Semitism, maybe The New York Sun should ask how it happens that Lieberman and company can't seem to think of a single white liberal with whom to scare voters?
While we're on the topic of the media mindlessly repeating Lieberman campaign allegations, maybe news organizations should follow up on the unsubstantiated claim that a Lamont supporter "hacked" Lieberman's website on election day?
Lieberman's website became unavailable to visitors sometime on the night of Monday, August 7. By Tuesday, his campaign was claiming that the Lamont campaign had "hacked" the site, forcing it off-line. And news organizations credulously repeated the claim as fact. Here's a typical CNN report:
BETTY NGUYEN (CNN anchor): On the day of the Connecticut -- it's the Senate primary, Joe Lieberman says his web site has been hacked and that it's causing major disruptions, not only with the web site but with his e-mail. And he blames his challenger, Ned Lamont, for causing these problems.
Let me just read you a statement from the Lieberman campaign, this from the campaign manager, saying, "For the past 24 hours, the Friends of Joe Lieberman's web site and e-mail have been totally disrupted and disabled. We believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the U.S. attorney and will be filing formal complaints reflecting our concerns."
Also goes on to say, "This type of dirty politics has been the staple of the Lamont campaign," referring to Ned Lamont, the challenger, "from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our web site."
After this web site was attacked, the Lieberman campaign called the Democratic state party chair and ask that the Lamont campaign call off its cyber allies.
Now, all of these claims, mind you, Kyra, coming from the Lieberman camp. Again, on today, the primary, where voters are, you know, placing their votes on who they want to represent them, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont.
We do have to tell you that CNN has tried to contact the Lamont campaign. We're making those calls as we speak. This information just coming to us now. We do have correspondents on the ground to get to the bottom of this.
Lieberman says Lamont is responsible for this web site attack, shutting down not only the web site but the e-mails. We'll see if that's true or not. As soon as we get that information in, we'll bring it to you.
The Lieberman campaign's complaints have prompted federal and state investigations. And it's certainly possible that the extensive coverage the Lieberman campaign's allegations of Lamont "dirty tricks" were given by the media may have given a boost to Lieberman in the first post-primary poll, which shows him with a slim lead over Lamont in a three-way general election campaign.
But while the cause of the website's unavailability is not yet known, there are increasing indications that it was something other than a hack by Lamont supporters -- and that if a "hack" of any kind or source was the original cause, it was not to blame for the extended downtime:
- Political Wire noted that the site was still down two days after the primary, concluding, "there's no reason the site should still be down. At this point, it's obvious no one is trying very hard to get it back up." (At this writing, the site was still "down," with a message from the campaign reading, "Watch for our re-launch -- and thanks for coming by!" -- which meant that the campaign is able to post to the site; it just chooses not to.)
- TPM Muckraker reported that it is possible that, contrary to the Lieberman campaign's claims, their email may never have been down, noting that the campaign sent out emails during the supposed downtime. (TPM Muckraker also noted an alternate possibility: that the emails in question were sent through "a marketing email service" on a separate server.)
- Blogger Greg Sargent has pointed out that the Lieberman campaign admitted it had no evidence to substantiate its claims that Lamont supporters were behind the matter.
In light of all this, blogger and Lamont supporter Matt Stoller wondered why there isn't any follow-up from the news organizations that rushed to report the Lieberman campaign's baseless allegations:
Now that the accusations that the Lieberman campaign spokespeople made -- Dan Gerstein in particular -- turned out to be false and dishonest, it's time to point out how pathetically dishonorable the press was in perpetuating the story. First of all, it wasn't hard to figure out that this was incompetence and not malice. I raised enough doubts within two hours to call into question the whole story. Joe2006.com is after all still down, which is all the proof you need about this primarily being about incompetence.
But that's not really the point. You see, on the day of the election, the news cycle was buzzing with this false and misleading story put out specifically by the Lieberman campaign as an obvious cover-up of their own incompetence. The story could have swung the election, even though its basis was false. Now, if a reporter puts out information that is false without checking it, that reporter should be severely disciplined or fired. I don't care if he or she is just quoting someone else. Quoting a verifiable lie is wrong, and it doesn't matter how many qualifiers there are in the story. It. Is. Wrong.
Now let's take the consequences for Sue Haigh, who reprinted the lie. I don't believe there has been one story on how the Lieberman campaign outright lied about the Lamont campaign hacking their site. There hasn't been a retraction or clarification of AP reporter Sue Haigh's disgraceful piece on the issue. There hasn't been an examination of the Lieberman campaign's use of dishonest tactics to create fake controveries. There hasn't been a a [sic] story about how the website is still down, and how the Lieberman team blamed its own operational problems on its challenger, and used the FBI's time to politicize its own incompetence.
No, Lieberman's election night lie about his web site being hacked is still on the record, unchallenged by the disgraceful pest Sue Haigh. Dan Gerstein is still the spokesman, and he'll be quoted by journalists as if he has credibility as anything but a professional liar.
Stoller is more certain than we are that the site went down due to "incompetence." Frankly, we have no idea why it went down. And he's more certain than we are that the word "lie" is appropriate here. But he's absolutely right about one thing: the news organizations that breathlessly reported the Lieberman campaign's allegations have dropped the ball in following up. Was this really a Lamont campaign "dirty trick"? Did the Lieberman campaign itself play such a trick by taking their own site down, then blaming the opponents? Is it all an innocent mistake? The result of negligence by the Lieberman campaign's hosting service? These are questions the media should be exploring -- but isn't.
have to do with a n y t h i n g? you can find millions of anonymous comments posted on websites. to pick out one, even if it should be a bigoted comment, and say that this represents the left is absurdity piled on stupidity. these things would be laughable except for the mindless dittoheads and wingnut lemmings who buy this garbage.
I saw this same headline by both Yahoo News and ABC News websites after Ned Lamont won the Democratic Primary:
"Democrats Abandon Lieberman; Back Lamont"
A man W I N S his Democratic primary. The loser rejects the voter's decision and leaves his party to run as an Independent. Who abandoned W H O ?????
I expect this junk from the yahoos at Yahoo. I didn't expect it from ABC.
p.g.
One cannot deny that anti-Semitic statements show up on Liberal blogs in relation to Lieberman, the Israeli/Palestinian/Lebanon conflict and Zionist conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Why assume that these statements are coming from Liberals or Progressives? Anybody can post more or less anonymously on Liberal blogs. I contend that many, if not most, of these kinds of comments are coming from other sources. Their intent is two-fold:
1. To perpetuate their anti-Semitic ideologies. 2. To divide, disrupt, distract, and discredit the left.
Some of these groups are as follows:
1. Neo-NAZIs from StormFront or other related groups. 2. Lyndon LaRouche followers 3. Libertarians (Some from antiwar.com. That is not to say that the site is explicitly anti-Semitic, but many of its followers are quite inflamed. As well, some Libertarians subscribe to old Jewish banker conspiracy theories to explain why laissez-faire capitalism isn't working) 4. Republican trolls posing as Democrats
None of these groups have the best interest of the Democratic party at heart. Their tactics are similar to those used by the FBI in its COINTELPRO operations. As well, neo-NAZIs, LaRouche followers and Libertarians have all had a history of trying to piggy-back their ideologies on anti-war movements.
[link to www.publiceye.org] 17.html <[link to www.publiceye.org]
good point. it's like taking one of the posts of "Tommy" or "Shannon" off this board and passing it off as a thought of the "progressive community" simply because it appears here. these devils are full o tricks.
It's all corporate interest from here. What curious editor in their right mind wouldn't want to explore the Lieberman whining over the website? Oh I forgot, they're told not to. The power in newspapers now is the lackey that delivers all the "no-no's" to the editors from the board of directors. I picture a Smithers type from the Simpsons.
The public should ignore right corporate TV and print media. In the afternath of Lemont's victory and approaching November elections, they have begun to intensify their propaganda and disinformation campaign in support of GOP and other right wing candidates. CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and other channels are alike in their corporate proganda.
discredit, yes.
Mainstream media consistently states that Lamont is a millionaire, always neglecting to mention Lieberman's affluence. For ex, CNN says "Lieberman lost Tuesday's primary to Lamont, a millionaire cable executive..." (URL [link to www.cnn.com] )
[quote]If Lieberman prevails, or even continues with the support of other prominent Democrats, how will Democratic Party leaders have any moral authority to urge moderates and progressives not to vote for the next Ralph Nader?[/quote]
In all honesty.. I dunno if that's such a bad thing. Of course, I sure as heck don't want Lieberman to win.. but a viable 3rd party would be refreshing. Atleast something to force the so-called "liberal Democrats" to start acting more like it.
The Repubs, the party of the excess (to quote GWB, "the haves and the have mores") love millionaires if they are on their side, but cross the club and suddenly you are a "robber baron" billionaire (George Soros) or a "cable company" (the middle class is always fighting with "cable") millionaire like Lamont.
Yet the middle class still vote Repub, which hurts them.
Shouldn't the media also point out that Bush and his family are multimillionaires that John Kerry is a millionaire that Reagan was a millionaire (a Hollywood millionaire) that the majority of politicians are millionaires that that they themselves and their bosses are millionaires?
Does being a millionaire somehow negate a person's ability to think critically or act ethically? Dunno, there are probably solid arguments for and against.
"Outing" millionaires is an effective stealth weapon in class warfare.
by the radical left ignores two things. one, there is nothing radical about lamont. two, there are moderate democratic candidates in this year's senate races. harold ford in tennessee is one. bill nelson of florida had no primary opposition. the st petersburg times said this on march 28: "in his five years in the senate, nelson has compiled a moderate voting record, consistently appearing in national rankings as moderately left of center, usually among the 10 or 12 most conservative democrats in the senate." he is ahead of katherine harris by a two to one margin in the polls.
there is nothing radical about lamont.
The radical aspect has to do with dumping a three term Senator, who has voted on virtually ALL issues with Democratic desire with the exception of the war, who was the Vice Presidential Candidate in 2000 and if polled, might have the highest "favorability" rating of virtually ALL politicians for an UNKNOWN. It's a far left hissy fit and there is NO UPSIDE for Democrats. It's an absolute GIFT of gigantic proportions to Karl Rove. I've ALREADY heard Lieberman say that "he is not going to let the Democratic Party be taken over by the Maxine Waters, Ned Lamont far left wing of the Party." And......"With Ned Lamont, you'll have ANOTHER (wonder who he's referrring to here) partisan, obstructionist what will keep the countries problems from being solved." Now this is just after a couple of days and Rove already has a couple of GREAT soundbites FROM A DEMOCRAT!! It was a monumentally inane move by the far left to dump ALL their frustration on Lieberman and set up this political fiasco for Democrats and hand this GIFT to the Republicans.
Where should Rove send the thank you note?
"The radical aspect has to do with dumping a three term Senator, who has voted on virtually ALL issues with Democratic desire with the exception of the war..."
BS. One-term, three-term, ten-term, he does not have a right to his seat. If his views don't match those of the voters, especially on a BIG issue like the war, he's going to get kicked out. Democracy is not radical. And remember, he was in on the Schiavo fiasco, didn't fight the supreme court nominees, thinks christian hospitals should be able to turn away whoever they want, etc.
"It's a far left hissy fit and there is NO UPSIDE for Democrats."
BS. If that's the case, then why do we ever have primary elections for incumbents? At least during wartime? 60% of America opposes the war, and over 80% of Democrats. How is allowing the people of Connecticut to vote for an anti-Iraq war candidate a no-win situation? Gee, if we have a candidate who supports an increasingly unpopular war, I guess we can't dare put up opposition? Why do you hate democracy?
"It's an absolute GIFT of gigantic proportions to Karl Rove."
And if nobody had run against him, it would be a huge GIFT to Rove because then they would claim it showed support for the war. Letting it be known that the people are going to vote out pro-Iraq war candidates is not good news for Rove. You guys spin everything, so everything is a "gift" according to you. You're full of it.
"Now this is just after a couple of days and Rove already has a couple of GREAT soundbites FROM A DEMOCRAT!!"
And Rove offered to help Lieberman. And he has the backing of Coulter, Hannity, and Tom Delay. Wow, he's really liberal, huh?
If his views don't match those of the voters, especially on a BIG issue like the war, he's going to get kicked out.
Leaders are there to lead, Lieberman's charachter and convictions, which were NEEDED by Democrats in 2000, are what distinguish him. He followed the Democrat line on virtually EVERY OTHER issue and the truth is, assuming Lamont had been there 4 years ago instead of Lieberman, there would have ONLY been 78 votes authorizing the war in 2002, and 10 votes supporting a timetable for troop withdrawal in 2006, hence, THERE IS NO UPSIDE.
What really drove this is that Lieberman gave Bush "cover" to an extent when he released that supportive statement about Iraq about a year ago, and it incensed those Democrats that are more driven by hatred of Bush, than sound foreign policy.
Leaders are there to lead? Sounds like a government knows best rationale to me. leaders are there to represent the views of their constituency aka voters.
Sound foreign policy? More like deaf foreign policy. How does invading a nation that had nothing to do with or intention of doing anything in collusion with Al Queda have to do with "sound foreign policy"? If it is not obvious that the invasion of Iraq had everything to do with showing the world what a mighty military the U.S. has then you are working overtime to ignore reality.
As for hatred of Bush, cry me a river. As if he is some persecuted innocent, nothing but a bunch of damn victims coming from the right these days. Victims, relativists and whiners. Take responsibility for the criminal acts of this administration and get them out of office like the liberals are doing with their party.
"Leaders are there to lead, Lieberman's charachter and convictions, which were NEEDED by Democrats in 2000"
That was then, this is now. I don't care how good he was in 2000, if he doesn't conform with the views of the people they can and should kick him out. I have yet to see anything, anywhere that comes close to addressing that point.
"assuming Lamont had been there 4 years ago instead of Lieberman, there would have ONLY been 78 votes authorizing the war in 2002, and 10 votes supporting a timetable for troop withdrawal in 2006, hence, THERE IS NO UPSIDE."
What the bloody hell are you talking about? You were talking about the recent election, not revisionist congressional voting. When were we talking about him being there four years ago? Again, the upside to electing Lamont is that it sends a message through the right that pro-Iraq war candidates are in trouble. Are we really supposed to believe that you righties are having a hissy fit over this because Lieberman's a good liberal? Furthermore, right after this you say exactly why Lieberman was so bad;he provided cover for Bush and a model of Democrats that dishonest Bush supporters could point to and say "that's what a Democrat should act like".
Another big part of what drove it, in my opinion, is his declaration that he would run as an independent. That arrogant sense of entitlement and disrespect for both the voters and the process is difficult to accept.
Again, the upside to electing Lamont is that it sends a message through the right that pro-Iraq war candidates are in trouble.
Sending messages is NOT the objective. Winning a governing majority used to be the objective. Put whatever color lipstick you want on this pig of a strategy, but all this will likely accomplish is losing YET ANOTHER senate seat for Democrats. I find myself agreeing with Bill Clinton when he called this strategy, "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."
All this far left hissy fit has done is take a Senate Seat that was ABSOLUTELY SAFE to stay in Democratic hands and make it a possible LOSS to an independent that will have SCORES TO SETTLE if elected. He'll be LESS inclined to toe that Democrat line because if he wins, he will have won as an INDEPENDENT, and elected by ALL the people of Conn, having been betrayed by party activists, aka, the far left.
Oh, so electing someone anti-Iraq war doesn't really help those who are anti-Iraq war. Brilliant.
As for endangering the seat, you are completely out of line. Lieberman is the one who's doing that, PERIOD. We have a system, you see. It's called democracy. When Lieberman loses the primary, that's the people speaking. He has no inherent right to his seat. It is his choice and his alone to display this arrogance and try to win it as an independant. Blackmailing the party and saying "you might as well vote for me or I'll just win as an indepenant" is not acceptable You suggest people should vote for him because otherwise he'll do that and make us "lose a seat". Isn't that just buckling in to a threat...isn't that appeasement, really? Shouldn't people instead stand up for the system and their right to vote? You know...American values and all that? I find it hard to believe you're too stupid to grasp this basic concept.
And which is it? Is Lieberman a liberal or not? Your suggestion is all this time he's been voting with the people's interest in mind or the party's interest, but yet he defies the people and betrays the party to run as an independant? And he's going to change his voting pattern...to what, reveal he's really not that liberal (which we really already know)? Or just for "settling scores"? Either way, that's just more of a threat that you expect people to cave in to. The people want someone better, so quit whining about it. If you don't like Democracy, move somewhere else.
Bottom line;if Dems lose a seat and Lieberman keeps voting with the Repubs, that shows that he wasn't a real Democrat anyway, and it's his fault we lost the seat to begin with. People aren't supposed to challenge unpopular incumbents because the incumbent might hurt the party in retaliation? And that's everyone elses fault if he does? Jesus Freakin' Christ what a twisted mind you have!
Wish I would have thought of that.
The only reason Gore chose Lieberman in 2000 is that Lieberman was a Dem that piously moralized against Clinton and Gore was trying to distance himself from Clintons sex scandal. Lieberman does NOT follow Dems on virtually every other issue. NOT on Schiavo, not with them on Bushs warrantless wiretapping, we have been over this list on other threads what is it with you guys that we put the FACTS out there then you completely ignore them and try to peddle the already discredited LIES.
And translating from wingnutese your last assertion translates into something more in the reality based universe. That Dems favor a rational foriegn policy over Bush idolotry
But its up to their constituent voters if they LIKE WHERE THEY ARE BEING LED. When they dont they get what Lieberman got. NO VOTER has an obligation to support ANY politician if they no longer believe in them they dont HAVE to vote for them. All you conformity junkies hate democracy with a passion
The frustration dumping has only just begun. We liberals have five frustrating years of senseless war and six years of homicidal economics to exorcise from our democracy.
As far as obstructionists go, it is not radical for voters to demand that our leadership reflect actual american values(peace, justice and rule of law.)
It must be nice to truly believe that reality is evolving around and from the verbal fantasies one projects upon the sentient universe.
And when there is forgiveness of these transgressions and arrogant posturings, Rove can send his gratitude to all the bleeding heart liberals who rejected his hateful demagoguery.
When are the Democrats going to realize that they have been the target of Republican reverse psychology of the basest kind for decades. Republicans are our POLITICAL OPPONENTS! Do you really think they're looking out for our interests when they give us "friendly advice": "You're going to alienate the moderates", "You're committing electoral suicide", "You're handing us a GIFT". Whenever you hear these phrases, or anything like them, coming from Republican mouths, KEEP DOING WHAT YOU"RE DOING. It means they're terrified. Think about it: if our current strategy were really so beneficial for them, and harmful for ourselves, why would they want us to stop? Why would they alert us to our mistake, and try to help us correct it? The real truth is that Republicans have been able to convince Democrats NOT to pursue winning stragtegies with a kind of schoolyard reverse psychology. They have been telling us for decades that we can only win by being meek, centrist, polite and agreeable, while at the same time seizing all three branches of government by being angry, ideological, combative and obstinate. Isn't time we started watching what they do, rather than listening to what they say? We need to realize that we can't believe a thing they tell us, and if they ever try to offer us campaign advice, ASSUME THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
there are moderate democratic candidates in this year's senate races. harold ford in tennessee is one.
- mefirst
---------------------------------------------------
"The traitor-in-chief is Harold Ford, Jr., congressman from Tennessee, who wants to be a senator. He is the worst Black congressman in the House, based on his voting record. If he becomes a senator, the corporate media will make him our leader, and proclaim that his politics of betrayal are a model for future Black politicians....In our cover story of March 30, 2006, we exposed Harold Ford for what he is: a degenerate who tried to make his Black grandmother white." The Black Commentator, August 3, 2006, Issue 194
was me responding to the charge that the far left has completely taken over the democratic party. i used ford and senator bill nelson of florida as examples of candidates that were not "far left". any problem you have with him is your own.
Reality conveniently fits into their reality.
33% of America approves of the President's job.
More than 95% of Fox News anchors and contributors approve of the President's job.
MMFA has documented the media distortions very well this past week in the wake of the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Lieberman's disgraceful plunge into dark politicking, ala Rovian Republicanism, is showing the rest of the country that too many politicians and their media allies don't respect democracy. The myths of perception are perpetuated by lazy political reporters who base assumptions on false premises.
If the majority of Democrats disapprove of the state of the Iraq war today, then the representative elected by voters ought to reflect the majority of its party's sentiment. The majority is not a fringe. The majority of the American public disapprove of the war too. Should pundits continue to lump the majority into the "leftist" "fringe"? They insult our intelligence.
Speaking of media unfairness, I want to share a few paragraphs which I recently noticed on the last page of the latest "Consumer Reports" (sept 2006, pg 60), titled "News mergers threaten local coverage":
"Despite 24-hour news channels and thousands of Web sites, most of us still turn to our local media outlets to find out what’s going on in our communities. We expect our hometown newspapers and TV stations to cover the events that affect our daily lives, and to aggressively compete to offer us a wide range of views. To make sure that happens, the government has generally required that media outlets in our communities remain independent of each other, with different owners.
But the Federal Communications Commission is considering changing the rules, which may leave consumers with far fewer independent media voices. The threat is real; in 2003 the FCC issued new rules allowing one company to own a daily paper, a TV station, and up to half the radio stations allowed in a market that has four to eight TV stations. "
----------------------------------------------
"Diverse ownership of media should promote higher-quality journalism, as outlets compete for a larger share of the audience. That’s essential in a democracy, where the media act as critical checks on the government and watchdogs of industry. If competition declines, the amount of original local news is likely to fall and the diversity of editorial opinion will suffer.
Over the next few months, the FCC will be hearing from the public about how local media should be owned. Before federal regulators come to a decision, they should consider your views carefully. An independent media is essential for an informed public and a healthy democracy. "
( see for complete article: [link to www.consumerreports.org] )
This is an important media matter Please speak up and be heard if you care about the giant mass media consolidation's corrosive effect on democracy.
[link to www.hearusnow.org]
It's very nice of the wingnuts to visit and point out how we're helping the repigs. shoot ourselves in the foot? By electing a moderate millionaire as a Senator? Maybe, but only because he isn't really a lefty, and true liberals are bound to be disappointed by some of Lamont's positions. He is right in the mainstream on Israel, for instance, so all of your anti-semite BS has to go right back to the racist, bigotted right wing, where it belongs and originates. Lieberman has just, over the years, become a crappy Senator and a kissup to the worst president in history, excellent reason to remove him, apart from the fact that he's still supporting a war already lost. He's turned quite stupid, and really should have gone over to the Republican Party, which stands for and welcomes stupid every day in every way. I'll be glad when they're back in the wilderness come Jan. '09.
I'm really getting ticked off at being called a racist by racists. Really, has anyone reading these posts actually heard about anti-semitism in the last, say, 20 years? Mr. Lieberman's religion didn't appear on my radar until the punditocracy began accusing me of anti-semitism. Now I realize that Mr. Lieberman's politics are defined by his religion. He supported the war in Iraq because he's Jewish and pro-Israel. I'm amazed, and disappointed beyond words. Is it really true? Are Mr. Lieberman and his supporters so Jewish and so pro-Israel that he thinks anyone who doesn't support him is an anti-semite? If that's truly what they think, OK, fine. Just remember it is Mr. Lieberman and his supporters who gave his religion political weight. For me, Mr. Lieberman is a politician, a politician that I used to support until he actively supported the war in Iraq. I've never been an anti-semite. However, these and other recent events have made me very, very, very anti-Israel as an entity that affects U.S. politics while receiving millions (billions?) of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Now I feel it's time to cut the entire Middle East loose, including Israel. I hope Mr. Lieberman gets trounced this November for supporting an illegal war, and for bringing up an issue that was long dead.
What mediamatters should be doing is showing all the hateful and nasty stuff that the Righties were saying about Lieberman in 2000 until he started eating the crap sandwiches ... If I remember correctly, the KKK (who thinks that the Republicans are too liberal) doesn't like Jews either ...