Cameron asserted that Democrats' anti-war stance "plays right into Republican hands"

On the August 8 edition of Fox News Live, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron asserted that "every time Democrats talk about pulling troops out of Iraq," they "play[] right into Republican hands" and give the Republican Party "an opportunity to say that Democrats aren't being serious about protecting the United States, protecting the world, and stopping terrorism." Further, he reported that Democratic "centrists" are concerned that the hotly contested Connecticut Democratic between incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and businessman Ned Lamont is evidence that "the anti-war left is ... pushing Democratic candidates further to a liberal extreme anti-war position that could hurt them in the long run by raising questions about whether or not they're serious about security." Cameron wrapped up his report by citing the "big question" facing the Democratic Party: "Are they nothing more than the anti-war party? Or can they get into a substantive debate about how to deal with Iraq and other problems around the world?"

Cameron's report is yet another example of the false storylines currently being perpetuated by the media in their coverage of the 2006 midterm elections, and in particular, in their coverage of the August 8 Connecticut primary. Indeed, Cameron repeated several of those storylines -- that it is an "extreme" position to believe that the United States should plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, that Democrats are weak, "unserious," and politically vulnerable on the issue of national security, and that they do not want to "finish the job" in Iraq.

From the August 8 edition of Fox News Live:

BRIGITTE QUINN (anchor): Whichever way it goes -- a litmus test for other races this year?

CAMERON: Potentially. Mr. Lieberman told us yesterday that he is afraid that if Lamont wins and Lieberman loses, it'll send a signal that there's no room in the Democratic Party for lawmakers with strong security bona fides. That is the concern among centrists in the Democratic Party -- that the anti-war left is essentially taking hold of the party here in Connecticut and it could sweep across the country, pushing Democratic candidates further to a liberal extreme anti-war position that could hurt them in the long run by raising questions about whether or not they're serious about security. It plays right into Republican hands. The GOP, the Bush administration, [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove, and others have been encouraging Republican candidates to focus on the need to finish the job in Iraq and to stay strongly committed to winning the war on terror. And every time Democrats talk about pulling troops out of Iraq -- and, in some cases, immediately -- it gives Republicans an opportunity to say that Democrats aren't being serious about protecting the United States, protecting the world, and stopping terrorism.

QUINN: And I guess a lot of people also watching this race, Carl, to see if Lamont were to win on this anti-war platform, what might that mean for the future campaigning of [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY], right?

CAMERON: Oh, there's a -- in fact, they're -- one of Hillary Clinton's draft supporters is actually here in Hartford today -- he's one of the folks who's been trying to get Mrs. Clinton drafted for the presidency for some time. The Lieberman campaign didn't want him in his hall tonight with signs for Hillary Clinton because if Mr. Lieberman loses, it will be yet another illustration of the division in the Democratic Party. Republicans are getting beaten up on the campaign by Democrats who are screaming for change. How bad do those Democratic voters want change? They're willing to toss a three-term incumbent Democratic senator -- the vice-presidential nominee in 2000 -- overboard to facilitate that change. If that spreads across the country, it could be further signs of worry for Republicans, and, to a lesser extent, a big question about what happens to the Democratic Party. Are they nothing more than the anti-war party? Or can they get into a substantive debate about how to deal with Iraq and other problems around the world.