Network morning shows provided forum for Lieberman's attacks, no forum for Lamont
SUMMARY: During their August 9 coverage of the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, the three major broadcast networks' morning news programs interviewed Sen. Joseph Lieberman but failed to host the winner, Ned Lamont, or any of his representatives. Additionally, NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show aired twice as much footage of Lieberman's statements following the election as they ran of Lamont's statements.
During their August 9 coverage of businessman Ned Lamont's victory over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, the morning news programs on the three major broadcast networks aired interviews of Lieberman, who used the airtime to attack Lamont and his supporters. But the morning shows failed to interview Lamont or any of his representatives, denying Lamont the opportunity to respond to Lieberman's attacks. The network morning shows' failure to interview Lamont came despite his apparent availability for media appearances -- he was interviewed on the August 9 edition of CNN's American Morning. Additionally, two of the three morning shows -- NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show -- aired twice as much footage of Lieberman's statements following the election as they ran of Lamont's statements or those of his supporters.
During his interview by co-host Matt Lauer on Today, Lieberman stated that if Lamont were to win the general election in November, "he would be just one more partisan polarizer" who would "get in the way of America and Connecticut doing anything about the real problems we have." Lieberman also accused Lamont of "very cleverly and ... deceivingly distort[ing] my record" during the primary race, and he suggested that Lamont's victory was due to support by "the margins" of the Democratic Party. Lieberman decried the "dominance of both parties" by their "margins," adding that "the parties ... are getting in the way" of good government. He said that in running as an independent, he would seek to "bring[] the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont and [Rep.] Maxine Waters [D-CA] to the mainstream."
Similarly, during his interview by co-host Harry Smith on CBS' The Early Show, Lieberman accused Lamont of "distortions" of his record and contrasted "Ned Lamont and his supporters ... on the margins of our party" with himself and the "mainstream" of the Democratic Party.
Additionally, on Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer offered Lieberman an open door to attack Lamont's supporters. She asked Lieberman to respond to comments by "some of your supporters" who have attacked pro-Lamont bloggers as "extremists" and accused them of "dirty tricks" and "bigotry." Sawyer also asked Lieberman if he agreed with the statement that "the extremists hijacked your party in your state." Lieberman responded by characterizing "some" of "the bloggers who came after me" as "full of hatred and vituperation," adding that "that is just not good for our politics." Lieberman also accused posters on "some of those blogs" of "the kind of bigotry that has no place in American public life" and asserted that Lamont's victory may "send a message ... that the Democratic Party ... has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America."
Although American Morning co-host Soledad O'Brien did interview Lamont about his primary election victory, she echoed others in the media by citing unnamed "[a]nalysts" who claim Lamont's primary victory has "given Republicans a platform ... to say the [Democratic] [P]arty has gone far to the left" and that "a guy who not long ago was on the verge of being elected vice president of the United States is not even enough of a Democrat today to win."
In addition to failing to provide any airtime for Lamont, Today and The Early Show each devoted more than twice as much airtime to clips of Lieberman than to clips of Lamont and his supporters in their initial reports on Lamont's victory. NBC correspondent Chip Reid's report on Lamont's victory featured 36 seconds of footage of Lieberman's remarks following his defeat by Lamont, but only 16 seconds of Lamont footage. CBS reporter Trish Regan's report on Lamont's victory contained 39 seconds of Lieberman footage, but only eight seconds of Lamont footage, as well as 10 seconds of footage of Lowell Weicker, a former Connecticut congressman, senator, and governor who supported Lamont. Weicker, a Republican during his terms in Congress, was elected governor as an independent.
From the August 9 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: I would imagine your phone is going to start to ring pretty early this morning, Senator. The likes of [Sen.] Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ] and [Sen.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] and maybe even [former President] Bill Clinton calling to say, "Senator, step aside. The voters have spoken." Are you going to take their calls, or are you going to screen their calls?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I'll always take the calls of friends, but my mind is made up. I'm going forward. I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done. If my opponent Mr. Lamont ever was successful, the fact is that he would be just one more partisan polarizer and get in the way of America and Connecticut doing anything about the real problems we have going forward.
[...]
LAUER: Let me go back to that line in your speech last night. I'll paraphrase it, if you don't mind. You said for the sake of your state, your country and my party, you will not let these results stand. It's a nice line in a speech, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of Democrats who think that now, going forward, you are putting your own personal ambitions above the good of the party. How do you respond to that?
LIEBERMAN: I think it's time for somebody to break through the dominance of both parties by the margins of the parties, which happens in primaries. I think it's time for somebody to break through and say, "Hey, let's cut out the partisan nonsense." Yes, I'm a proud Democrat. But I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. And the parties today are getting in the way of our government doing for our people what they need their government to do. So in the end, Matt, the great thing about America is that the people will have the last word.
LAUER: Let's talk about --
LIEBERMAN: I believe I have a message to go forward. And they'll judge it.
LAUER: Let's talk about the record. The records show you voted with your party 90 percent of the time.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah.
LAUER: Yet Ned Lamont succeeded in painting you as a lapdog for the White House. That famous picture of the president embracing you at the 2005 State of the Union address. I mean, how many times did we see that during this campaign? Ninety-four percent of Ned Lamont's supporters said they would vote for him because of your support for the war in Iraq and your failure to call for a deadline, a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops. So, did he paint an inaccurate portrait of you, or have you lost touch with the voters of Connecticut?
LIEBERMAN: Well, look, what I haven't lost touch with is fulfilling my constitutional responsibility as a senator to do what I think will protect our national security. I think it would be a disaster for us, our troops, Iraq, and the whole Middle East if we did what my opponent wants to do and pull all of our troops out by a deadline certain. But, look, the point here is, how do we go forward? How do we make our country better? How do we unite our people? And my opponent, I must say -- looking back at the campaign -- that he very cleverly and, in my opinion, deceivingly distorted my record. Yes, I believe it was right to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I have said along with [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] and others that the Bush administration made serious mistakes after Saddam Hussein was overthrown in Iraq. But now, the question is, how can we end our involvement in Iraq as soon as possible without leaving a disaster there? And I think as long as the majority of Iraqis are -- are trying to build a free and independent Iraq, it would be awful of us, and disastrous for our future as well as theirs, to do what Lamont wants to do and just pick up and leave. America should not do that, cannot do that.
LAUER: So you won't bend at all on the issue of a deadline for troop withdrawal. Senator, is there any phone call you could receive -- is there anyone in the Democratic Party who could call you today and ask you to drop out that you would listen to?
LIEBERMAN: Respectfully, no. I am -- I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters to the mainstream, and for doing something for the people of Connecticut.
From the August 9 broadcast of CBS' The Early Show:
SMITH: Incumbents do not get turned out of office, especially in primaries in this country. Do you understand that your support for the war is the reason you lost Tuesday?
LIEBERMAN: Oh, there's no question about it. I mean, every indication I had from the voters of Connecticut, including public opinion polls, said they agreed with me on most issues, that they appreciated all the work that I had done for the state of Connecticut. But my -- my opponent convinced them with a lot of distortions, I think, to use this as a referendum to send a message to -- of opposition and anger to President Bush and the war in Iraq.
[...]
SMITH: A final quick question. You will run as an independent at risk of losing the seat to the Republicans? You understand that risk? By splitting the Democratic vote.
LIEBERMAN: You know, I don't believe -- I don't believe that that is the actual risk. I think that for the most part and in the end, this is going to come down to round two, or the second half between Ned Lamont and me. Ned Lamont and his supporters on the -- on the margins of our party and Joe Lieberman, a mainstream Democrat who -- who can win and will win in November.
From the August 9 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:
SAWYER: Some of your supporters have gone very far on the bloggers. And they've said this is the first victory for the anti-war bloggers, and some of them have called them names like "extremists," saying that they've engaged in everything from dirty tricks to -- even "bigotry" was a word that was suggested. Do you think that the extremists hijacked your party in your state? Will you agree with that statement?
LIEBERMAN: Well, look, the blogs are a form of expression. There's nothing wrong with a blog. It depends how you use it. I will tell you that the bloggers who came after me are -- some of them were so full of hatred and vituperation that it's just not good for our politics. And frankly, on some of those blogs, there was the kind of bigotry that has no place in American public life. So I worry that this victory yesterday by Ned Lamont, which was a narrow victory, will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has taken -- has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America, and -- and that they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's Democratic Party anymore. And remember, Bill Clinton was a mainstream Democrat who was elected twice and governed with great success.
From the August 9 edition of CNN's American Morning:
O'BRIEN: Analysts say what you have done now with your victory is given Republicans a platform on which to say the party has gone far to the left. That a guy who not long ago was on the verge of being elected vice president of the United States is not even enough of a Democrat today to win. What do you respond to that?
LAMONT: I think it's nonsense. I mean, take the war in Iraq. I think that's way outside of the bipartisan tradition of this country. I mean, do you think in a heartbeat that [former President] George Herbert Walker Bush in his administration would have had a unilateral attack on that country? I don't think so. We know Bill Clinton wouldn't have done that. You know, look at going from [former Justice] Sandra Day O'Connor to [Justice] Sam[uel] Alito on the Supreme Court. I think there's a sense that we have a rightward drift in this country right now. Look at the effort to privatize Social Security. These are things that are way outside of the mainstream of this country, and I mean to go down to Washington, D.C., and bring us back to our roots.
how Ned Lamont and his supporters are not in the "mainstream" of the Democratic Party, as Lieberman claims. My understanding is that the only major issue on which Lamont and Lieberman seriously disagree is the war, and on that issue Lamont is closer to the party mainstream than Lieberman is. How is Lamont not considered a mainstream Democrat?
Lieberman is pulling a page from The Party playbook called: I'm Not Bill Clinton. The play requires that the attacker skirts the issue at hand, by saying that his opponent is crazy/not mainstream/out of touch. It usually helps if you're a whiner and the news media is lazy, since it makes for great soundbites.
I think The Party's playbook has about 12 or so plays that invokes Clinton's name.
The Conservative Movement born out of the reaction from the New Deal, and accelerated by LBJ’s Great Society to bring economic equality of opportunity through a strong integrated education for all, a socio-economic safety net for the most venerable has evolved into a concerted strategy to evolve into an New American Fascism.
The Commie Scare has become the Terror Scare to have taken all branches of our government to effect a de-regulated media that has been dominated by Corporatist and Theology’s with no compulsion to the nation’s welfare, only the balance sheet assured by political allegiances.
A Fascist State is the Marriage of Corporate and Theocratic interests to form a government.
They think Americans are stupid and they are rubbing it in our angry face.
America! What are you going to do about it!! We Americans legally or not elected the Scoundrels, and the go unchecked by the very check and balances our Democracy is sworn to uphold, and protect. OVERSIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
Americans see the title of this post for the solution.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Knowing who owns the forums, surely MMFA understands the root cause for the "We-Love-Joe Fest" they've reported here.
From inception, broadcast news has been bullied, berated and browbeaten by the corporate kings and their political allies.
It's worse now - broadcast news is owned by mega-corporations who are supported and protected by the politicians sucking at corporate teats.
Once upon a time, there were people with the 'nads to stand up to the media and political power structures; people like Edward R. Murrow.
Now, nuts are hard to find.
...there were several Democratic primaries. In one of them, Democrats ousted Cynthia McKinney, seen by most people as a far left Democrat.
Yet, the only primary which is really talked about is Lieberman/Lamont.
My question is, if the right-leaning Lieberman losing is a sign of Democrats moving further left, why isn't the more moderate Hank Johnson's victory over Cynthia McKinney characterized as the party moving more moderate/centrist?
Besides rejecting the pro-Bush Lieberman, we also rejected a more radical (she supports Palestinian causes, and even stated her belief that Bush was behind the 9/11 attack) in McKinney, so why isn't media coverage mentioning that? Why aren't the overall primary results seen as a rejection of either extreme of the Democratic Party, and instead a move to a more moderate stance?
It is what the Right and the MSM, their support, want to make of it to marginalize those that would disagree with their agenda, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
a Senate race is seen as more important or bellweather-like (?) than a Congressional race? Doesn't necessarily make sense, but could be a reason.
It's about the ratings. There has been more national buzz about the Lamont-Lieberman race (because the media perpetuates its own topic of discussion). Thus, more people are in tune with it, which leads to higher ratings.
It's all about the money.
Lieberman was hand-picked by Al Gore to be the Democrat vice president.
The story used to be about how Lieberman was once at the top of the Democratic party. Now, he has been booted out of his own party. Big men fall. That's bigger ratings and more money. Now, it's about how stubborn Lieberman is, and how Democrats can change their minds.
You see, we're not supposed to change our mind.
The Party playbook: The Waffle. When discussing your opponent, you must illustrate that your opponent's change of mind by calling it "Waffling". The Waffle with Eggs. When confronted that you change your mind, you say: "I didn't have all the facts in front of me at the time." or "The information was given to me by (name some other government organization), and I didn't know that it wasn't correct."
I don't know if I agree with the ratings argument, because Cynthia McKinney has a TON of name recognition. She's a very controversial figure. After the incident where she reportedly struck a capitol police officer, you couldn't get McKinney out of the news if you tried.
I just think the conservatives have an agenda to paint Democrats as out of the mainstream, so they focus on the election they think makes Dems look out of the mainstream (Lamont beating Lieberman), and ignore the election that makes Dems look more moderate (Hank Johnson beating Cynthia McKinney).
Also, Lamont won by a tiny margin whereas Hank Johnson beat McKinney relatively easily, so wouldn't the larger margin be seen as more of a sign of the direction the party is taking?
To most people her getting voted out was not a shock. Look at the margin, no one wanted to touch her. It is like she is radioactive.
If Ohio beats a team on probation and was 2-10 last year it won't be the headline on the sports page.
The only one out of touch is this lapdog Lieberman.
Has anyone seen the record of the conservative "Club for Growth"? They are as extremist as they come and have bankrolled challenges to moderate Republicans who dare to compromise with Democrats or are not “conservative enough”. I counted 16 of their candidates that were extreme far right wing that challenged and won elections against moderate conservatives (there are probably many more). This extremist organization bankrolled the challenge to Arlen Specter by Toomey in the last PA election. They almost succeeded.
So can anyone tell me why Democrats are not pointing this out? Do not let these trolls and the conservative bias in the media get away with the spin and try and label Democrats the way they are while ignoring their own criminal incompetence and corruption in the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general.
Why don't the real "extremists" sitting in office and their coterie of RADICAL RIGHT-WING holy bankrollers get examined?
Lieberman like the rest of Congress think they rule by divine right and once there, there is no getting rid of them. What I don't understand is why the conservative Republicians think what has happened is so terrible, didn't they run on term limitations with the Contract with America platform in 1994 (of course, they dropped that immediately once in control). So the Democrats have spoken and they are for term limitations, go figure! GG
"Yes, I'm a proud Democrat. But I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. "
Translation from politican-speak to regular English:
"Yes, I'm a proud Democrat as long as they'll have me. But I'm more devoted to staying in power than I am to my party and respecting the results of the voters".
Lieberman is the sole member of his own party, the Liebercan party.
All for one and one for Joe.
The Internet Wire is an extraordinary communication tool; there's never been anything like it, ever; it exceeds all of the present "medias" combined; exceeds them in speed and accessability and the multitude (near infinite) of choices of sources of information.
Think of it: Just several years ago (and still today), your options for national news was, with regard to television, to wait until 7 pm and have the days events interpreted for you by brokaw and jennings and rather; then they were joined by a more round-the-clock bunch at CNN and Fox.
What a paltry few "media" hacks to hold so much power of information!
With regard to the newspapers (which would have been, and still are, a better source of information), while your choices might serve you better with the newspapers, your options were likely to be even fewer than the paltry few mentioned above; you'd have read a single newspaper on any given day, and if you were somehow obligated (or obsessed) to know more, you might have read three newspapers (like the NYT, the WSJ, and whatever else; I can't imagine many people reading four newspapers a day, unless they have to).
Still, a paltry few!
Look at the Internet Wire: Just three or so newspapers to access? On the Internet, you can hit a dozen newspaper sites in an hour, scan the entire front page and all the headlines, read several articles from each paper, or simply download the HTML pages onto your machine, to read later or to archive.
Did I say a dozen newspapers? Make it dozens of papers; go international; London, Paris, Berlin; the BBC, Rueters, the Associated Press.
Don't trust the hacks? Want to get your milk from the cow, instead of the carton?
The Congressional Record online, updated daily; all the websites of all the Departments and Agencies of our Federal government (and the States too), online; the House and the Senate, and all the members, online; the Laws, the Codes, and the Regulations; the briefings and the press releases; the pollsters; Supreme Court decisions; election results, as far back as you like...
I say who the frig needs those paltry few media hacks any more?
Who cares to hear what brokaw and jennings and rather think and say, always a day late and many dollars too short?
Who the heck would access those hacks at all, if you had acess to the Internet Wire?
I hope everbody knows (everbody on the Internet Wire that is) that the old hack "media" is already dead, they're just too rigor-mortified to lie down and be buried!
But that's not why I post:
This item has one of the more bubble-headed of all the hack "media" walking-talking corpses, diane sawyer, saying...
SAWYER: ...the bloggers. ...they've said this is the first victory for the anti-war bloggers, and some ...have called them names like "extremists" .
First off, the guy got voted off the Democratic ticket by the voters of Connecticut, not by "bloggers"; I don't know how many "bloggers" live in Connecticut, but it would have to be tens of thousands in order to say they tossed the guy off the Democratic ticket; the voters of Connecticut did that, and I imagine there wasn't more than a couple dozen "bloggers" at the most, among them.
Or perhaps the bubble-head cited meant that "bloggers" persuaded the voters of Connecticut?
...that everybody who posts on the Internet Wire (lightning quick, and with a 24 hour reach all around the world) shouldn't interfere with the flow of information in this country, that all the information should be left to the paltry few hack "media"?
It reminds me of when Bruce Springstein was confronted by a hack on CNN a few weeks ago, on this matter; perhaps you saw it: The hack started asking The Boss about his politics: "Do you think it's right for performing artists to be expressing their political opinions in public?"
The Boss just laughed; "Right" he said, "we should just all be quiet and leave the political opinions to those idiots on cable TV, present company included."
Right, the "bloggers", they should just be quiet, and leave the political opinions to bubble-heads like diane sawyer.
Me, I'd rather seek my information from the Internet Wire, from sites like MMFA, even from the posters here, than from the hack "media"...
...than from bubble-heads.
It was the VOTERS who put Lieberman out of the Democratic primary not tens of thousands of bloggers. From what I understand, the Lamont campaign is fueled by grass root supporters who are motivated and inspired to promote his candidacy for FREE unlike Lieberman's paid help.
These morning shows are a disgrace and these "bubble" headed walking toothpaste commercials are out of touch with much of mainstream America even as they attempt to define it.
It's sort of funny, the way the Democratic primary in Connecticut is being spun.
One of the more pervasive characterizations of the electorate in this instance is that they're "angry"; as a matter of fact, the "bloggers" are "angry", the "left" (whatever the heck that is) is "angry"...
While we're at it, the Chairman of the Party nationwide is "angry" (or least he's been heard to shout), the former Vice President is "angry" (or is he "crazy"? I have to start writing all these labels down), the Senator from New York is not only "angry", she's a "shrill, angry bitch"...
But I digress: So the electorate in Connecticut is "angry", eh?
Well, I got two things about that. First, I just finished reading an article about how Democratic leaders nationwide are promising to campaign and raise funds for the winner of the Connecticut primary; the article, by the well known (here at MMFA at least) New York Times hack Adam Nagourney, has this as it's sixth paragraph:
"But most Democrats said they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and noting that as of now, the Republicans do not have a strong candidate who could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field."
"...he was too angered by his loss..."
Wow, sounds to me like just about everybody is "angry" (or "crazy") these days!
Now that I think of it, just about every time I hear anything out of the mouths of the president or the vice president, it either sounds "angry" or "crazy" or both.
But that just brings me to the second thing I want to note: What's so wrong with being "angry"?
I mean, I'm talking about a person's emotions, not their behaviour; for people to start shouting at others (Dean was at a rally, and he had no microphone), or threaten one another, or start shouting profanities or insults at one another, all of that is behaviour...
...Bad behaviour in public, but never as far as I know, exhibited by any of those who are so often today characterized as "angry" (I thought Dean was just being "enthusiastic", "excited" even").
Again, what's wrong with being "angry", as a feeling that makes no inappropriate behaviour?
Who doesn't get angry at Injustice?
Who isn't angry at Corruption in government?
Who isn't angered by a lieing "media"?
There's nothing wrong with the emotion "anger", just with the way you express it. Ask any cop, ask any prosecuter, ask any soldier, ask any football coach (ask the Chairman of the Democratic Party, who sounded like a football coach that day!)...
If they all answer honestly, they say that anger fuels their work: Against Crime, Injustice, Hatred, Lies, Corruption, and Failure...
Anger fuels a man, when he needs such fuel to do his work.
So the Senator who lost the primary is "angry" now?
So what; I'm angry too.
At the Lies that got us into Iraq, at all the Death that has resulted, at the $8 billion dollars per month being reaped for the same...
At the Lies in the "media"...
So what if I'm angry; who wouldn't be; it's my fuel, and as long as it fuels me without making me Invade anyone, or Insult anyone, or Occupy anyone who did nothing to deserve it, then so what.
Tell me what's wrong with that; tell me what's wrong with being angry today; but be sure not to address the emotion, if you find fault; address the behaviour...
Find fault with my speech, not with the anger that fuels it.
Lots of work to do this summer; lots of fuel shall be spent doing it.
(So you're not "angry" about all the lies and death that surrounds Iraq? Then you must be "crazy" for sure; either that, or you're in on a slice of the $8 billion dollars per month that Iraq is generating for it's authors.)
[link to www.nytimes.com]
...in which the hack Adam Nagourney shares with his readers that the Senator who lost the Connecticut primary is "too angered by his loss to accept such counseling".
Righteous anger is normal and it ought to be expected from a people disenfranchised by their own government. In the hands of nonviolent heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi, righteous anger is the fuel towards a better society, towards a promotion of fairness and peaceful resolution.
The media displays no such emotion practically, except perhaps Anderson Cooper in his moment of exasperation during Katrina (what happened to your moral outrage Anderson?). The deadness of their wooden perceptions fuels no fire, contrarily it dampens democracy with zombie-like aplomb.
Just so there's no doubt, my post above, which was attached to your's Pick of the Litter, asks rhetorically (confrontational even)...
"So you're not "angry" about all the lies and death that surrounds Iraq? Then you must be "crazy" for sure; either that, or you're in on a slice of the $8 billion dollars per month that Iraq is generating for it's authors."
...which of course was not meant as a question to you, Pick of the Litter, but was meant rhetorically (confrontational) to all those who accept all the death and lies and profit of the administration's Iraq scheme; accept it, and even pick up the banner of "patriotism" in defending that scheme...
All of which is such a disgusting display of the manipulative power this administration holds over so many Americans today.
If the lies and death and profit of Iraq, and the corruption of this administration, didn't make a man "angry", then he either must be in on the scheme itself, or be senseless, or be perhaps dead to any sense of Justice and Injustice...
All of which would make him a worthless Citizen in these times (a worthlessness compounded in the case of joe lieberman, by the fact that he is a U.S. Senator).
And so again, the rhetorical "you" of my question, was not at all meant for the poster to whose comment I attached mine.
Demo2020, thank you for your concern. Of course I understood your point to be rhetorical and not aimed at my moniker personally.
I just happened to see this and be here now anyway, catching up by cruising the items and forums which I missed lately.
I enjoy the poetical and inspiring cadence of your posts very much and I share your appreciation for that genuis Stephen Colbert.
Cheers!
I have to agree that the lack of outrage over the Bush administration's "governship" reflects poorly on American citizenship. That is why many of us are "sheeple", mindless flocks, herded by wolves, assisted by zombies.
Pretty sad, but perhaps the "sheeple" are wiping the sleep from their eyes, it would be easier to awaken if the media would stop playing sandman.
The Chicago Tribune (who has never endorsed a Democrat since its inception thus wearing Nixon and BushieCo around their paper necks) also started in with the attacks in their main editorial, blaming Democrats for practicing democracy.
Plus there were two Karl Rove talking points "Letters" to the Editor that have such an arrogance of "I'm right" you'd think they have a pork barrel that Lieberman set up for them in Connecticut. I just can't believe that these "ordinary folks" would write the papers in such a way, conveniently the day after the election. The Repub strategists are oily and despicable.
Yes, I just read the editorial and letters to the editor and cannot excuse the Tribune for its unashamed right bent. Lieberman votes his conscience? What a load of bull! He's a career politician who has told the voters, "What, I can't hear you! You'll have to speak up! I'll see ya again in November, when I split the vote and hand over my seat to a Republican. That's how much of a team player I am."
A team player for the Republicans.
When did this guy become a Republican sweetheart? They all but tied him to a stake in 2000. No, wait. That was me. I HATED this boob when he was Al Gore's running mate and I hate him now. Good riddance to lobbyist friendly rubbish.
Also: dumping McKinney was a good idea, too. I saw her on Bill Maher. That woman is nutty.
Lamont stands against the overwhelming lobbying going on in Congress and that is one of many reasons that Lieberman lost.
The dirtier the Republicans and media allies try to play this race, the better for Lamont to come out smelling clean.
Lieberman's arrogance won't win him any new friends for sure.
NOT SURPRISE AT THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA, AND MARK MY WORD NOW THAT THIS TERRORIST ATTACKED WAS INTERRUPT WATCH THE RNC, NETWORKS NEWS AND THIS WHITE HOUSE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ALL YEAR HAS BEEN TELLING US THAT THE TERRORIST WERE DOWN AND UNABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE 911 AGAIN WILL BE ON THE NEWS TELLING US HOW STRONG THE REPUBLICANS ARE ON SECURITY AND DEMOCRATES ARE WEAK BECAUSE THEY ARE AGAINST THIS WAR AND WANT TO BRING HOME THE TROOPS. LOOK OUT HERE COMES KARL ROVE. FOX AND CNN ARE ALREADY SPINNING THIS LINE.
i can't stand this guy. everyone against him or bush's war is "partisan". hey joe it's called politics, people take positions, the voters decide if they like those positions. they didn't like yours. doesn't mean you're good, they're bad.
the politics of power and privelege is on the wane, and the elite are freaking out. Diane Sawyer needs to retire before she decomposes on-air. Lieberman needs to do the same before he spontaneously combusts.
It would me...especially if I voted for Lamont...to wake up in the morning and hear Joe Liberman...the loser...on TV calling me a radical and vowing to save the party from the party....
The people of Conneticut should make a big stink about this. Liberman is obviously not beiing genuine about his intent. Since when does the loser get more air time than the winner in order to smear him?
Liberman realized he was in trouble a long time ago...he probably wants to retire anyway and this way he gets to tip his hat to the Republicans and retire with the respect of the slime at the top.
What an outrage that this Trojan Horse Lieberman is apparently getting advice from Rove on how to split the Democratic Party and smash this emergent anti-war movement! What a traitor.
Lieberman may be positioning for an Independent Presidential run in 2008 (since he would never get the Democratic nomination). It could be part of a Rovian style strategy to siphon votes from the Democratic nominee, especially if the nominee is anti-war. After all, this Connecticut thing is the runup to the presidential race.
I was watching the morning shows and CNN, MSNBC, and even Fakenews and NOT ONE OF THEM spoke to Ned Lamont. You would have thought Lieberman had won the primary from all the coverage he was getting.
The ABC and NBC morning shows were carrying Tailgunner Joe constantly and at the same time. NOT A WORD about Lamont and in fact Lamont was almost always referred to as YOUR OPPONENT and not even given the acknowledgement of his existentence with a name.
It was shameful beyond all belief. Ned was asked about his non appearances and he said they were not interested in speaking to him, only Tailgunner Joe.
Unbelievable.
Tailgunner Joe has GOT TO GO. I can only hope the democrats get to him within the next month or so and convince him to leave with some shred of dignity before this is all over.
Tailgunner Joe is only in this for himself. His ego is all that matters, and nothing else. He loves the life he lives as a Senator and his way of being treated as royalty and he just isn't going to give up the Easy Life without a fight.
As far as he is concerned" SCREW democracy, I am in this for ME, MY AND MINE!"
I hope you rot Tailgunner Joe.
Everyone in the whole realizes by now that the U.S. corporate media is decidedly right wing and would do anything to push for right wing politicians, majority of whom are the Republicans. It will distort facts and stories, chose what stories to cover or not cover, when to air them and how often..in other words, it will do everything, including engage in outright lies, to help the right wing candidates.