Kornblut: CT Senate race is "really a test of if taking a principled stand can work in a Democratic primary"
SUMMARY: On NBC's Meet the Press, New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut claimed that the Connecticut Democratic primary in August between Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont will be "a test of if taking a principled stand can work in a Democratic primary" -- suggesting that Lamont is not "principled" in his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. Kornblut later simply repeated a GOP smear against Democratic war critics, claiming that some Democratic senators "have made the calculation that it would be more dangerous to take ... the cut-and-run position."
On the June 25 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut, in discussing the potential effect of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (D-CT) support of the Bush administration's Iraq policy on his bid for re-election to the Senate, claimed that the Connecticut Democratic primary in August will be "a test of if taking a principled stand can work in a Democratic primary" -- suggesting that Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, Lieberman's challenger in the primary, is not "principled" in his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. Kornblut was responding to host Tim Russert, who uncritically read a quote from Lieberman suggesting that the senator might be the victim of "a kind of crusade or jihad [in the Democratic Party] ... to have everyone toe the line." Neither Kornblut nor Russert mentioned that Lieberman has been sharply critical of those who dissent from his views on the Iraq war.
Kornblut later simply repeated a GOP smear against Democratic war critics, claiming that Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) "have made the calculation that it would be more dangerous to take ... the cut-and-run position."
From the June 25 broadcast of Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT (host): So many elections turn on intensity, intensity, intensity, and Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, gave an interview to [Washington Post columnist] David Broder, and this is from David's column last Sunday. Let me read it. "I ... made a judgment," says Lieberman, "I would not invoke partisan politics on this war. ... I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party, but that is a challenge for the party -- whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that." August 8th, a primary in Connecticut, a tough holiday season, intense voters turn out. How difficult is this challenge for Lieberman?
KORNBLUT: Well, it's not only a challenge for Lieberman, but it's really a test of if taking a principled stand can work in a Democratic primary. Lieberman, as I said earlier, has been further out there than some of the other Democrats who initially voted for the war. But at the same time, his unwillingness to move at all is really what's on the ballot here, and it's actually -- I think it will forecast something for Hillary Clinton moving into 2008.
[...]
RUSSERT: What happens to Senator Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, others who have been supporting Lieberman? He loses a Democratic primary, potentially, and then runs as an independent. That puts them in a tough position.
KORNBLUT: A very tough position. I think, though, that they have made the calculation that it would be more dangerous to take, take the cut-and-run position. They are bracing incredibly for the Karl Rove cut-and-run accusation.
Kornblut and Russert simply accepted Lieberman's claim of a dearth of "diversity of opinion" in the Democratic Party, and his claim that he is the victim of "a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line." Either Kornblut or Russert could have noted that it was Lieberman, in December 2005, who attacked dissenters, saying: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Panelist and Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein indicated as much in responding to Kornblut:
BROWNSTEIN: Well you know, he -- what Lieberman said to David is right in the broad sense, that, that no party can be about purity. Democrats are not in power in the House, the Senate, or the White House. This should be a time they should be focusing on addition, not subtraction. But having said that, Lieberman may not be the best test case of his own proposition. I mean, he seems to have gone out of his way through this process to provoke the Democratic base. He -- you know, the entire idea of a primary had really wound down in Connecticut until he went out last fall and said the Democrats undermine -- that -- he criticized Democrats for criticizing President Bush.
The other day, MoveOn.org, the powerful online liberal group, was holding a 24-hour online primary to decide whether to enter the Democratic race, whether to join in against Lieberman. And Lieberman, on that evening, went -- was in Washington receiving an award from the Committee on the Present Danger, which is a conservative foreign policy group. Last week, he was the first speaker on the Republican time against the John Kerry amendment. So in the broad sense he's right, but he has provided a kind of a special case by seeming to revel in kind of putting a stick in the eye of his -- of his Democratic base.
Finally, Kornblut's suggestion that Clinton, Obama, and Schumer have broken with other Democrats is not true. While they did not support an amendment offered by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) calling for the withdrawal of all troops by the summer of 2007, which received 13 "yes" votes, all three senators voted in support of Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed's (D-RI) nonbinding amendment calling for "the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year," which the Republican National Committee smeared as "The Levin-Reed 'Cut And Jog' Plan." The amendment was defeated 60-39. Lieberman, however, voted against both amendments.
It boils down to how much these 'pundits' can kiss ass to the GOP, while manufacturing 'meaning' to these political races.
I heard Ned LeMont speak on Air America one day...and sent him $50 the next. I'm not even from Connecticut. For me, it boils down to some new blood with a little backbone who aren't afraid to stand up and speak out against this ridiculous and criminal administration.
The perpetual use of the term 'cut-and-run' by these guys -- like it means anything -- is further proof that these self-proclaimed non-partisan political analysts are shills for the Bush admin. I, for one, would be amazed if any of these cowards had the backbone to even ask the question..."What is the Bush plan for Iraq?" Simple as that. NOT ONCE, have we heard anything remotely resembling a plan, except for the standard bs rhetoric ('it's hard work', etc).
Principled stand? You've got to be kidding me.
This story got her on meet the press.
That was only purpose of the story.
If the only people in the state who are supporting Joe, are his family and friends, you know he is in trouble.
It's more like a principled crawling about on all fours combined with a principled licking of Republican jackboots.
"They can't break you if you don't have a spine."
Of course you can take a principled stand. Kudos to Lieberman for standing by his principles. However, if the people are in disagreement with your principled stand then they will make an equally principled stand to vote against you and for the person whose principled stand matches theirs. This is the dumbest “thesis” I have heard in awhile.
It is an attempt at a more civilized version of a Coulter argument. She simply DEFINES her position as principled and Lamonts as unprincipled. In fact the two have different positions. The democrats of Conneticut get to decide which is more in line with their philosophy and therefore comes from a man they want REPRESENTING them. This is known as our version of DEMOCRACY. Her argument boils down to the ignorant masses have no place making that kind of decision, they ought to allow those decisions to be made by their betters and how DARE they vote against one of their betters if they disagree.
Liberman is ignoring is constitunents and it is the fabric of our democracy that those in CT have the right to challenge him and choose someone who represents them. Many of our politicans forget that their jobs are not about them but about US. I think it was in a country song about being treated like a mushroom by politicians. They keep feeding us BULL and keep us in the DARK. Heaven forbid ever get the idea that we matter in anything but the ballot box.
I guess Kornblut is now saying that taking a strong stand on immoral issues is OK as long as you take a strong stand.
This person is a working reporter for a national news paper? Does she cover cooking, travel, or what?
..the "jihad" and "crusade" analogies. Seriously. Lieberman might as well stop acting and just become a full-time Republican.
"Some Democrats are on a jihad against America! Oooga booga! Foreign Arabic word! BOO!"
It just seems so OUT OF THIS WORLD IMPOSSIBLE that ANY Democrat - be he the butt-kissing Lieberman or the outsider challenger Lamont - can take a "principled stand." The latest Rove talking point in action: any Dems that step up to challenge - either their own who side with the GOP on the war or who challege the GOP outright - during this election season must have their "principles" called into question.
I wonder how did standing up for their "principles" work for Tom DeLay and Randy Cunningham . . .
How dare this "journalist" assume that Joe Lieberman has principles. After all, based on Joe's sanctimonoious, self-righteous outrage during Impeachment-O-Rama over President Clinton's lie about oral sex, he should be far, far, far, far, far more outraged at a leader who lied the country into a war. After all, those lies led to the deaths of tens of thousand of people, including 2500+ American military personnel.
A while back, I read an article that pinned down Joementum's guiding principle: He has no principles other than taking whatever position is most likely to get him face time on TV.
More evidence of the NYT's 'liberal bias.'
Unfortunately, even with the signs that more Americans are catching on to what a buncha tools this administration is, politics is still a race to be the most average.
While many on the right aren't afraid to be "extreme" on some issues, it's an extreme that doesn't offend much of America.It's an extreme that doesn't take chances, just denies other people rights to ensure the "average American" (and I mean that in the worst sense) doesn't have to be scared of things changes.
Nothing makes me happier than being told that I'm out of touch with mainstream America.That means I don't think Hometown Buffet is the best restaurant in the world, and I can find Canada on a map.
Rightys like Lieberman. He's way too candy-*ss conservative to get true liberal votes, too bright(and Jewish) to get the core conservative vote, and trying so hard to be average and non-offensive he can't do much but be a spoiler.
Is that a principle?
Gosh, Joe, I'm having trouble thinking of a recent successful political party that forces its members to toe the party line.
The most frustrating thing about Lieberman is that he has gone on all the right-wing talk shows over the last two years and praised Bush repeatedly, and he criticized anyone (mostly fellow Dems) who disagreed with Bush. On one of them, the host (I think it was Hannity but I am not 100% sure) asked him if George Bush would go down in history as a "great" President, and Lieberman said he thought he would! Then the right wing shows constantly held up Liebermen as the one "courageous" Democrat amongst a sea of lefty traitors. Contrary to how he is now trying to portray himself, Lieberman did not just take a "principled" stand on a single issue, the Iraq war. Rather he allowed himself to be used by the right to undercut the entire Democratic party, and now he acts hurt that any Democrats want him gone. Lieberman and Zell Miller are cut from the same cloth, and I would not be a bit surprised to hear Lieberman give a speech at a future Republican convention.
let's see if joe is principled enough to walk away and accept defeat if beaten in the primary. we all know he won't. he'll risk taking down the party, so long as he can hold on to his incumbency.
how MMFA links to Ned Lamont's campaign website, but doesn't link to Lieberman's...wonder which horse they are pulling for??
Your constant attempts at reading the minds of others and coming up illiterate as always.
Why e-mail NBC or MTP when you can e-mail Kornblut directly. Nicely ask her since when is having an opposing, principled view, to be described as 'Jihad'?
Here is the link:
[link to www.nytimes.com]