Kristol: Democrats oppose Lieberman because he is "pro-American"; Coulter claimed Lamont supporters are "anti-American"
SUMMARY: William Kristol claimed that Democrats who oppose Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman do so because Lieberman is "unashamedly pro-American," while Ann Coulter asserted that those favoring Ned Lamont as Connecticut's U.S. senatorial candidate are "anti-American."
Commenting on the Connecticut Democratic primary race between businessman Ned Lamont and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol claimed that Democrats who oppose Lieberman do so because Lieberman is "unashamedly pro-American," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter asserted that those favoring Lamont as Connecticut's U.S. senatorial candidate are "anti-American." In his column for the August 14 issue of The Weekly Standard (posted on The Weekly Standard's website on August 4), Kristol wrote that "[w]hat drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American." Similarly, on the August 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Coulter asserted that Lamont's victory in the Connecticut primary illustrates that "the anti-American wing" of the Democratic Party is "absolutely in the ascendancy right now."
As Media Matters for America recently noted, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash twice uncritically reported that Republicans planned to cast the victory by Lamont over Lieberman as evidence that Democrats are "defeatist" and "weak on security" because of Lamont's criticism of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. Bash further reported that Republicans were "already licking their chops" over Lamont's victory, because they believe it shows that the Democratic Party is "being taken over by the left wing of their party. And from their perspective, that's not good for the country."
From Kristol's column in the August 14 issue of The Weekly Standard:
Well, one might say, at least most Democratic members of Congress haven't criticized Bush for his support of Israel against Hezbollah. But these members are lagging indicators. Consider the views of the Democratic Party at large.
Last week, in a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked the following (tendentious) question: "As you may know, Israel has responded to rocket attacks from the Lebanese group Hezbollah by bombing Beirut and other cities in Lebanon. Do you think Israel's actions are justified or not justified?" And these were the results: In all, 43 percent of respondents found Israel's actions "justified, not excessively harsh"; 16 percent "justified, but excessively harsh"; and 28 percent "unjustified." What was the party breakdown? Among Republicans: 64 percent justified, 11 percent justified but too harsh, and 17 percent unjustified. Among Democrats: 29 percent justified, 20 percent justified but too harsh, and 36 percent unjustified.
The Times also asked which of the following statements comes closer to your view: "The United States should continue to align itself with Israel," or "The United States should adopt a more neutral posture." Republicans: 64 percent say align with Israel, 29 percent want a more neutral posture; Democrats: 39 percent say align with Israel, 54 percent want a more neutral posture. So even with a centrist Israeli government that is responding to a direct attack and not defending settlements in the territories, 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. What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.
From the August 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Susan, let me direct your attention to what Israel is doing right now, which is this big push. It's one thing, you know, the argument goes, that it's one thing for Israel to defend itself against people firing these rockets. It's another thing to go all the way to Beirut. Do you make any distinctions?
ESTRICH: Well, but nobody's going all the way to Beirut. I mean, I think if they were going all the way to Beirut, that would be another thing. But what they're trying to do, from all I understand, is clear an area for a U.N. peacekeeping force to be there. And what we're seeing right now is they're getting hit with rockets. I got to add one point, though -- I can't let this whole time go by and have it be a little lovefest with Ann. I mean, that would be wrong. I don't think the whackballs have taken over the Democratic Party. I think something very exciting happened in Connecticut, and I say that as somebody who would have voted for Joe Lieberman. But I think we've got a tremendous amount of new energy in the Democratic Party. And I think that we shouldn't confuse what's going on in Israel right now with the war in Iraq, where we've got an issue against George Bush. I think there it was a tremendous vote yesterday against George Bush and against the incumbency. And I think you would agree, John Gibson, since you've come out against the war, you know, I mean, we just got that issue right there, John. Don't you agree?
GIBSON: When did I come out against the war? Ann, do you want to comment?
COULTER: Yes, Susan did an excellent job at sponsoring disagreements with that comment. No, I mean, it has everything to do with what happened yesterday. The free world is surrounded by hostile savages now, and the Democratic Party has had this McGovernite, anti-war, anti-American wing that pops up every once in a while, and it is absolutely in the ascendancy right now. And, unfortunately, I mean, the Republicans can't keep winning every election. The fall elections will probably be a very good year for the Democrats. They ought to be, just out of historical precedent, having nothing to do with George Bush, having nothing to do with the war in Iraq. We picked up a enormous number of seats in the last midterm election. And this wing of the Democratic Party is going to be coming out strong and with -- would like to preside over a humiliating defeat in Iraq, allowing the savages a greater foothold.
GIBSON: I'm gonna have to --
COULTER: I think these are perilous times for America.
GIBSON: I think I'm gonna have to make that the last word. Thank Ann Coulter and Susan Estrich. Thanks to both of you.
Jesus Christ! People exercise the voice of their vote and they are anti-American?
Mr Lieberman, if Ann Coulter is playing your friend in the media, watch out for the nuclear fallout that is surely heading your way.
What is it about Lamont's win that is driving these neo-hacks batty?
He's the long-standing, well-respected Voice Of Reason. Okay, he isn't, but everyone plays to him as if he is. He still can't understand that he got booted because his constituents don't feel he represents them.
Kristol and Koulter are absolutely right. I mean, organizing and working at a grassroots level to help a political novice defeat an entrenched Washington icon despite fundraising disadvantages is totally anathema to American democracy, and is consequentially, un-American.
Clearly, the American people who lifted Lamont to victory over Lieberman hate America and all that it stands for because they oppose: useless and self-defeating wars, pro-corporate trade deals that eviscerate the American middle class, and Social Security privatization, opinions completely out of the mainstream.
Rather, Coulter is the one who is anti-American, for she prefers stability and compliance to the neocon agenda over legitimate democratic activism.
"Clearly, the American people who lifted Lamont to victory over Lieberman hate America and all that it stands for because they oppose: useless and self-defeating wars, pro-corporate trade deals that eviscerate the American middle class, and Social Security privatization, opinions completely out of the mainstream."
And the attitude that a Senator is entitled to his seat and doesn't have to listen to the voters is pro-American. Suggesting Lieberman should support Lamont, the actual winner, is anti-American. Because we all know the founding fathers were all in favor of having representatives who were tantamount to royalty, and wanted elections that were only window dressing to provide an air of legitimacy. If Jefferson could see how Lieberman was beaten, he would be livid!
That's my stance. I'm anti-dumb people who conflate being an American with unquestioning obedience to an authortative President whose illegal, immoral war has made the world a less safe place to live.
"The free world is surrounded by hostile savages now"
I think she meant to say "infested by". Because that's how it feels when seeing Coulter and the other pro-death lobbyists speak.
I'd hardly call people who actually made the effort to vote "anti-American." They probably voted in the right district too, unlike some people I could mention.
Unbelievable. The state of Connecticut choses a liberal Democrat over a centrist/right-leaning Democrat and know Ann thinks we are headed for "perilous times."
Note to Republicans: Joe Lieberman, despite his support for the war, is still a Democrat who voted along liberal/democratic lines on many other issues.
I find it hilarious to see so many Republicans trying to make friends with someone who, aside from his support for the war, is STILL against everything they believe in.
-----
I truly hope that MMFA takes this opportunity to accurately document EVERY example of right-wing pundits and politicians who are trying to send out the message that a vote for an anti-war candidate like Lamont will someone make America less safe/embolden the terrorists. It's a dispicable, desperate tactic. Cheney pulled this bullsh*t in 2004 by trying to say that a vote for Kerry will lead to more 9/11.
[link to www.wnd.com]
"The fall elections will probably be a very good year for the Democrats. They ought to be, just out of historical precedent, having nothing to do with George Bush, having nothing to do with the war in Iraq. We picked up a enormous number of seats in the last midterm election."
Here is a GOP talking point that will probably be more prominent as November approaches and will be heard a lot after Republicans lose control of Congress. It is obvious that the reason Republicans will lose control BECAUSE of George Bush and the war in Iraq. They already have the need to allay their base's fears and tell them it is for other reasons. They will then ask what they are and will be given reasons such as their fantasies of liberals being anti-Semites, or anti-American, or anti-security. Yeah, that's it.
She should be calling Coulter out for making such statements.
Estrich should point out that such characterizations are dragging down any attempt at intelligent discourse in this country.
Coulter is right on one thing: "I think these are perilous times for America." And I would add that Coulter is doing absolutely nothing to help the situation. Absolutely nothing. She is actually making a bad situation worse.
I would think that anyone who continues to air Coulter knows exactly what she is about by now and they are directly contributing to the perilous situation we find ourselves in as well.
You are absolutely correct, Estrich is a spineless wimp lately; a female Alan Colmes. What gives?
And how long did Ann Coulter stay up at night to come up with her latest; saying the Democrats will win big in November because it's somehow their turn, historical precedent, and nothing to do with Iraq or Bush? Now that is rich. Talk about insulating Bush and diffuse any criticism? Where are the stand up Democrats we need in this country for good and substantive debate?
I cannot believe I am wishing for more backbone on the left, but it's never good for the country when one party dominates. No matter who it is.
Well said. Me agreeing with Tommy. So is this a sign of the Apocalypse or what?
Keep making sense and maybe I can forgive and forget the wriggling nightcrawlers of condescending bait you usually dangle about in your posts, bub.
Thanks, (I think).
I have no intention of being condescending in any of my posts however. My opinions are my own, if principled people disagree I welcome that, why do you think I am here? I have no interest in having my thoughts high fived by going to some conservative website and having a lovefest. I often disagree with them anyway too.
When I do come across as haughty, it's because someone makes a blanket statement about conservatives bashing them into one corner or another. I enjoy the back and forth and respect those that do it without personal attacks. Now I do enjoy the humor aka sarcasm too, but that's just my fun nature.
See, I may be wrong, but I honestly believe that much of the problem has to do with the corporate takeover of the press. I do hear a message, but I have to hunt for it because the press purposely ignores it. Ken Melman clears his throat and we get pages worth of deep insight, Howard Dean lays down an answer and we get crickets chirping. The only way we will really see what you ask for is for the government to bring back the fairness in reporting act.
Democrats oppose Lieberman because he is "pro-Bush" . . . what Crazy Annie REALLY meant to claim was Lamont supporters are "anti-Bush" . . .
Just callin' it what it is.
Only in Conservativeland can supporting a pointless war in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans are killed mean one is 'pro-American', and not supporting a pointless war in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans are killed means one is 'anti-American'.
My thought exactly. Going to war on false pretenses, destroying another country and killing tens of thousands of innocent people, putting your army into an unwinnable situation with no way to withdraw - these would be "pro-American"? Suggesting that maybe it's not a good idea to go to war just because you feel like it - that's "anti-American"?
Is it just my impression or are the right-wingers growing more rabid as November approaches? The list of items that MM is commenting on today seems more angry than usual. More name-calling and less rationale, not that the right-wingers ever empl0y actual reason, but at least they usually make a show of it.
bush is truth....bush is truth....bush is truth....bush is truth.... bush is... very good, here's your republican registration.
Conservatives can't seem to understand that the definition of "American" isn't "Republican."
A person can be unashamedly anti-Republican and still be fine, upstanding American.
There is so much crap being thrown around about who is Anti, who is Pro, who is Whatever...I am at the point that I am not sure what these words mean. These money-chasers will say anything to grab a buck. I believe that if you were to talk to any of these people long enough, they will forget what they said. Except Ms. Coulter, she'll just say what someone else just said and claim it as her own. HELP, which is which.
pro-American is codespeak for pro-AIPAC. Coulter's comments are classic McCarthyism.
The corporate lords are in full panic mode already, & have launched a desperate & brutal attack against the forces of democracy. Buzz words such as treason, anti-American, pro terrorist, appeaser, anti-semitic, nazi, islamofascist, anti-military, cut & run, cowardly, godless, anti-christian, far left, communist, jihad, infiltration, take over, blame America first, unpatriotic, & defeatist are beginning to fill the airwaves, like so much confetti on a new year's eve. In most cases, Democrats & progressives will be no where to be seen.
You can already see it happening on this website. Take a look around. Wingnut posters have decended through out today's threads, mindlessly braying out the usual necon talking points. Some are familiar handles, but many are new, & many of the new are, no doubt, proffessional wingnuts. I don't worry much about them: their comments are generally tired, dim-witted, error-ridden loads of crap, & have always been easily dispatched by the collective abilities of the members of this community.
MMFA is going to be a VERY BUSY place from here until NOVEMBER, because the intensity of neocon lies & invective will continue to rise as they perceive their iron-fisted control of the workings of government slipping further & further away. Their highly paid MSM lackeys will continue to parrot this disinformation, in an attempt to recast the debate in terms & imagery that is more favorable to the black shirts. Faux News, of course, will continue gnashing their teeth & spitting out shrill, fuming sound bytes completely devoid of any logic or reason.
Fasten your seat belts, everybody. Its going to be a very bumpy culture war.
They're so supportive.
I don't remember Liebermann getting this support when he ran for vice-president. So following their logic was the Republicans anti-American when they opposed him in 2000?
When Coulter says "these are dangerous times for the US" and we (I assume she means the US) is/are surrounded by dangerous savages, you have to wonder who she is referring to? The Canadians , the Mexicans , Venezuela, Cuba? I think she is making another oblique sweeping generalization or better yet "character assination" of the followers of Islam. The last time the GOP used the term savages this frequently our Government was justifiying a systematic genocidal round up of Native Americans onto reservations or outright genocidal slaughter. Surely I hope this is not she had in mind for the over one billion and growing followers of Islam. Language matters....by calling people savages dropping bombs or a nuke on a capital like Tehran is an easier sell to the american public.
Although the sentence is not a well-spoken one, I think by savages she means the Democrats. Don't laugh she has said worse.
This is typically from this man who has contributed to deaths of hundreds of thousands and should be treated as a criminal.