NY Times' Kornblut left unchallenged Republican claim that Lamont is "not mainstream America," his victory in Senate race would "show[ ] the extreme nature of the Democratic Party"
SUMMARY: New York Times reporter Anne E. Kornblut left unchallenged Republican Sen. Norm Coleman's claim -- which is unsupported by recent polls -- that anti-Iraq war Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont is "not mainstream America." Kornblut quoted only Republicans, conservatives, and representatives of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, with no response from the Lamont campaign or Lamont supporters.
In her August 19 New York Times article, "G.O.P. Deserts One of Its Own for Lieberman," reporter Anne E. Kornblut left unchallenged Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) claim -- which is unsupported by recent polls -- that anti-Iraq war Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont is "not mainstream America," and that a victory by Lamont would "show[] the extreme nature of the Democratic Party." Reporting on what the article said was the growing number of Republicans who have reportedly suggested they will support independent candidate and incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman rather than Republican candidate Alan Schelsinger, Kornblut quoted only Republicans, conservatives, and Lieberman representatives, with no response from the Lamont campaign or Lamont supporters. Lamont defeated Lieberman in the August 8 Democratic primary. In fact, while it is unclear exactly what led Coleman to allege that Lamont is "extreme" and "not mainstream," Lamont's high-profile opposition to the Iraq war is shared by the majority of the public according to recent public opinion polls, as Media Matters for America has noted (here and here).
While discussing Republican officials' "extraordinary decision to abandon their official candidate" and support Lieberman, Kornblut left unchallenged Coleman's claim that Lamont is "extreme" and out of touch with "mainstream America":
Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, said that from a political perspective, having Mr. Lamont triumph in Connecticut would be "good for Republicans because that's not mainstream America."
"So from that perspective, a Lamont victory shows the extreme nature of the Democratic Party," said Mr. Coleman, who is not making a formal endorsement in the race. "On the other hand, Joe Lieberman is a good senator. And from America's perspective, it would be a good thing for Joe Lieberman to be back in the Senate."
In fact, recent public opinion polls show widespread disapproval for the Iraq war. For instance, the most recent CBS poll, taken August 10-11, found that 53 percent of respondents felt that "[l]ooking back," the United States "should have stayed out" of Iraq; 41 percent disagreed. Additionally, 66 percent of the public, according to the CBS poll, "disapproved of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq." An August 18-20 CNN poll found that 61 percent of respondents "oppose the U.S. war with Iraq," while 35 percent expressed support for the war. CNN's previous poll, conducted August 2-3, found that 62 percent disapproved of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Similarly, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted August 3-6 showed that 59 percent of respondents felt that the Iraq war was "not worth fighting"; 62 percent disapproved of Bush's handling of the situation. Finally, a July 28-30 Gallup poll (subscription required) found that 54 percent of Americans believe the United States "made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq," compared with 45 percent who said that sending troops was not a mistake.
One more time: When a candidate {Lamont} holds a position on a issue {the Iraq occupation} that is shared by a MAJORITY of the public {that Bush FUBAR'd}, that is not "radical", "extremist", "fringe", or "out of touch" . . . that's called POPULAR OPINION. That is just one of the reasons he won the primary . . . these rightwingnuts need to get that simple fact through the cinder-block on top of their necks . . .
I think the only problem is that Lamont is now trailing Lieberman by 11 to 12 points in recent polls (link). If Lamont were really the voice of "popular opinion," he would be ahead in the polls!
My 2 cents. Thank you.
Your argument is invalid. Just because a majority of people prefer one person over another does NOT make either of them out of the mainstream. That would presuppose that ONE of them WERE out of the mainstream and they were choosing which one. A tautalogical argument. Since Coleman made the accusation it is his burden of proof to show exacly WHY Lamont is out of the mainstream. You might notice that he didnt even TRY to do so. Lamont is a bit left of center Democrat not anywhere near fringe or out of the mainstream. This is a Republican partisan trying to help Lieberman since he is the best the GOP can hope for in Conneticut which is simply NOT going to elect a Republican so actually by your logic that would make the Republican party out of the mainstream since they poll even WORSE than Lamont
1. Lamont is strongly pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. It also appears he favors increased government spending on a number of big governmrnt programs (e.g., education, health care). He also recently spoke of "what a difference good, progressive government can make in people’s lives." I'm curious (and breaking the rule of not knowing the answer to a question you're asking): What position moves Lamont to the center for you to label him a "left of center" Democrat?
2. It's spelled "tautological" (not "tautalogical"). (And I disagree with you that my position was that at all, btw.)
Cheers.
Any judgement about where someone is on the scale will be subjective but he is pretty right of me. His opinions are pretty much mainstream left of center exactly how left may be subjective but nothing you have shown makes him out of the mainstream IE fringe. Being pro gay marriage is left but not so far as to be out of the mainstream. There are many politicians and a strong minority of people support this opinion. Show me that he thinks we should abolish private property and you will have a point. The reason it is tautological is that for your argument to make ANY sense it would have to be that ONE of the two candidates was out of the mainstream and the election was to choose which. This means you have to accept your premise, that Lamont is out of the mainstream for your argument to reach your conclusion, that Lamont is out of the mainstream this is actually textbook tautology. As for my spelling I have done much worse it is not my strongpoint. However in my defense, my grammar, punctuation and typing are much worse.
And it's also spelled "government," not "governmrnt."
In other words, "heel" thyself.
Thanks again shoe for walking all over us as you piss your 2 cents worth. Glad to see you're spending you're spending your tax cut wisely...
Don't be dim. Ned Lamont would have voted for quick withdrawal from Iraq a la John Kerry. That would put him in the minority inside the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
Not to mention all the predictable liberal social positions like abortion on demand.
is "extreme"?
Lamonts position might be in the minority in the Senate but its in the MAJORITY in America. Therefore by definition NOT out of the mainstream.As for your weak assertion about liberal programs no one really cares what you think about them. Check out the PIPA website and see how those social attitudes poll in America they are popular.
Since mmfa is determined to portray the American voter as opposed to the war in Iraq...this is a no brainer.
To reclaim their deflowered kingdom the democrat party should make this a keystone of their election platform. Go for it democrats...it would be entirely senseless to abandon this obvious winner.
The midterms are just around the corner and they have plenty of time to enlighten the voters on the democrat's mainstream position on the war...so easy...like shooting fish in a barrel.
Lamont has the courage to lead the fight...will the rest follow?
Enough with the "abortion on demand" and democrat party crap. I pay taxes, I'm an American and a free thinking civically minded proud middle of the road liberal Democrat and I'll be damned if I'll sit idly by while a couple of troll kool-aid drinkers perpetuate this kind of un-American garbage. Why on earth people choose to cling to silly jingoistic phrases instead of engaging in productive reasoning and logic is beyond me. Wesley and other right wingers, when you say Democrat or liberal, say it with a smile on your face.
As for Wes and the other rightwingers its desperation time the right wing ideology has FAILED America has had enough of it and they are going down. I guess a little kicking and screaming is to be expected
Those are for you, Rush, Bush, and all of the others who have don't know how to turn a noun into an adjective. Let's see: Photograph----->photographic Catastrophe----> catastrophic Meteor--------> meteoric Democrat-------> DEMOCRATIC. Get it? Come back and post after you have finished grade school.
If it will be so easy for the scum on the Republican side to discredit Democratic ideas - "like shooting fish in a barrel", as you say, why is it that Democrats are doing so well in polls, compared to the sleeze on the right?
Oh...because "stay the course" gets us nowhere and does nothing but fill body bags...with the bodies of OUR soldiers. It's also because people are getting sick and tired of the nonsense coming from the do-nothing Republicans and the criminal NeoCons.
Santorum is going to lose. That's a "no brainer". Lamont beat the hell out of Lieberman because the Democrats in CT are tired of the "stay the course" policy that this administration has espoused. Even today, The Chimp conceded that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So tell me, are you going to continue to drink your right-wing kool-aid, or are you going to start thinking for yourself?
Don't worry, it's OK. You 're allowed to think for yourself. The Republican party might be authoritarian, but they won't spank you for thinking on your own - just don't tell them.
CSL
mmfa keeps the steady drumbeat that American's don't support the war in Iraq...that would make an excellent plank in the democrat party's election strategy...we'll see if they have the courage of their convictions...or succumb to the pressure of getting elected.
I would love to see democrats raise the issue of the war in Iraq as a bad idea...poorly run...and now it's time to quit...after all, mmfa keeps repeating that most Americans would agree.
Your passion is noteworthy but your facts are not. Lamont did not beat the hell out of Lieberman. He won the primary by a few thousand votes and now trails by double digits in the state wide race...to a candidate that supports the war in Iraq.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake
So I encourage you Republicans to talk up your committment to the War in Iraq right up to the midterms and see how that works out for ya.
It's a trade. It has rules. It has requirements. It can be GRADED, and high-school level journalism classes often apply a PASS/FAIL standard to articles which violate any of several requirements.
One requirement is to look at BOTH SIDES of a controversial issue; political issues are ALWAYS controversial.
Therefore, this article was EITHER a failing effort from the gitgo, or the editors simply edited out any balance, leaving ONLY rightwing "opinion" for the reader to digest.
It reminds me of Colbert's simplistic test: "George W. Bush: Great President, or GREATEST President?"
Again we see proof of the MYTH of a "Liberal Media", with this example of one-sided, partisan, and severely misleading "reporting". Is the NYTimes receiving advertising payments from the RNC? If not, WHY not? These kinds of "articles" are instead straight advertising for a certain political party, filled with LIES, falsehoods, and partisan talking points.
In other words, rank PROPAGANDA.
For you to suggest the NY Times is a wing of the Republican party is one giant falsehood in itself. This is one article in a newpaper that tilts decidedly to the left. Any reasonable person who reads it regularly, rather than a few threads brought in here, will confirm it's long historical liberal leanings. After all, it's in New York City for crying out loud.
Leave the Bush cheerleading to the NY Post, the NY Times is hardly that.
Is Tex claiming that the New York Times is a "wing of the Republican Party"? I don't see it. But you want us to believe that is what he is saying so you can attack an argument he is not making. Classic straw man. I don't want to speak for him; however it seems to me that he is pointing out, among other things, that the idea of a "liberal media" cannot be substantiated. The fact that conservative misinformation is reported as fact, frequently without correction, is only one factor that vitiates this unsupportable argument. Whether one can or cannot "confirm" the "long historical liberal leanings" of the NYT is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is they regularly participate in what appears to be a co-ordinated campaign of spreading disinformation; disimformation that is based less on accurate reporting of fact than the circulation of conservative talking points (memos from the desk of Karl Rove?). This tendency, he quite correctly characterizes as propaganda. This may as you state, be "only one article" but it is one example of hundreds of gaffs that documented on this website ( [link to mediamatters.org] ). That NYT may (or may not) be considered a "liberal" institution does not buy them a pass on this or the numerous other derelictions of journalistic duty they have committed at great expense to public discourse and the body politic. The Judith Miller fiasco comes to mind because of its currency but there have been many other egregious examples. Tex is right.
Power to the people baby.
the n. y. times was the biggest cheerleader for the bush wmd propaganda in the run up for the war. and they allowed judith miller to use her "anonymous" source, because they knew if they had revealed his identity her stories would have been revealed for the fraud they were. and there was no reason to keep his identity secret.
Tex, for you to suggest the NY Times is a wing of the Republican party is one giant falsehood in itself.
The giant falsehood is yours, since Tex didn't make that suggestion.
This is one article in a newpaper that tilts decidedly to the left.
Decided by you, obviously. (See the bottom paragraph.)
Any reasonable person who reads it regularly, rather than a few threads brought in here, will confirm it's [sic] long historical liberal leanings.
Sometimes you are reasonable, Tommy, which is what makes you so unpredictable. But here it doesn't work. Rather than "a few threads," MMFA has documented examples of conservative media misinformation from this allegedly liberal source hundreds of times. A quick search for "New York Times" in the search bar (did you use it?) reveals 961 hits. Just how many more examples will it take to prove to you that the Times is not the left-leaning paper that you claim it is?
After all, it's in New York City for crying out loud.
Now you're becoming unhinged. New York (the city's proper name, by the way), which hasn't elected a Democratic mayor since Dinkins in 1989, is--as you incongruously admit in your next sentence--also the home of the Post. With that one admission, you disproved your own point. Thanks for saving us the trouble.
Leave the Bush cheerleading to the NY Post, the NY Times is hardly that.
And others have pointed out just how much Bush cheerleading the Times actually does, even to the point of criminally espousing his little pet project in Iraq (it's Miller time!).
Tell you what, Tommy. If you can actually come up with as many legitimate examples from the Times, and within the same timeframe, of liberal misinformation, as MMFA has of the opposite, then maybe we can accept the notion that they don't actually lean to the right. But you have to give us more than that to convince anyone but the already-convinced that the Times leans to the left. But until you do, we have MMFA's evidence versus your opinion, and I don't see much reason to put faith in the latter.
. . . are we still in denial?
I've gotta ask one thing: all these Republicans who say they'll support an Independent Lieberman rather than Schelsinger . . . were they as supportive of Lieberman when he was the Dem VP candidate in '04?
Considering he was attached to Al Gore, the answer is probably, ahh.........No.
He will most likely join the Republican party. That will be the price he has to pay for their support.
This, of course, reveals him to be a liar. Remember, before the primary, how he claimed to be such a "good Democrat"? His only loyalty is to that cushy Senate job. If he were a good Democrat, he would drop out of the race and give them a chance to take back the Senate.
It is probably the best thing for Lieberman to stay in the race. If he wins and the two parties are near parity in the Senate (a definite possibility), he can play king-maker. He can make a deal to be chairman of some committee or such in return for his vote on procedural matters.
As far as the people of Connecticut(sp?), it is always better to have three choices than two as far I am concerned.
The only real loser is the Democratic Party. They deserve to lose, because they have backed Mr. Republican Light all of these years.
I am rooting for Lamont, but I find he has a much better chance than most would think in a three-way race. The Republican is only drawing like 6% of the vote, which really shows how dreadful their party is in CT.
then why do you want three people in the race. lamont would walk away with it otherwise. and lieberman was not the extremist he's become in the last couple years. moderately to the right but not repeating the gop talking points. what connecticut has now is a choice between two republicans and a democrat.
This is Democratic Republic and I would think it is much worse to take away choices (by advocating Lieberman's withdrawal) than to give the people more choices.
I just associate calls for Lieberman to withdraw as a form fascism. Why should he leave the race if he thinks he can win? Would you or I? I don't blame him for that.
What does Lieberman or anyone owe the Democratic Party. This is up to the people to decide.
Facts are facts. Lieberman is in this thing and he is the frontrunner. Lamont would do well to frame the race (like you did) as two Republicans and a Democrat.
I would rather have a real race where Lamont has to prove he is indeed worthy as well.
That Republican isn't really a factor at all other than drawing a small amount of die-hard Republican voters from the Lieberman campaign. He must be a real loser to get only 6% of the vote according to polls. He wouldn't be much of a real test for Lamont.
because he ran in the democratic primary and lost. he should do the honorable thing. i don't trust him for a second. i think it's more than likely he will vote with the republicans to organize the senate. and whether people are good candidates doesn't mean they win.
Evince the timing of Bush's press conference. His voice was often shrill, so much so that all the shills/reporters laughed when he shrieked "Helen" at the end of a rant, addressing Helen Thomas, Tony Snow's recent victim. What currently passes for mainstream is heretical.
The same pattern is being played throughout the corporate media. Republican talking points are the starting place for all media discussion of the occupation of Iraq, the so-called War on Terror, & the concentration & application of power in our nation. It is done as if Republican authority has been mandated by God Himself, leaving all Democrats in the assumed position of being political heretics.
For sometime now, the MSM have been presuming that the neocon position is the Revealed Truth, & that the public at large must be brought around to this neo-orthodoxy. The Constitution itself has been reduced in their eyes from America's unifying thesis to some sort of ponderous anachronism that the country can no longer afford. Americans, they are subtly telling us, must accept that this is the post-9/11 reality. We now live in a world that can no longer be troubled by the issues of individual rights, of peace, of tolerance, & of liberty. 'Our' enemies are too, powerful, too ruthless, & too devious for that. We must be able to root them out... as well as their treasonous allies... at ALL costs.
And it is the Democratic Party & political progressives that are being portrayed as extreme.
Fascism is once again on the rise, & it is the corporate media that is heraling its return.
and enabling it as well.
Mainstream (meaning average) is constantly changing as the various opinions of any group change.Those that think and change, anyway-flip-floppers, to the brain-dead.
It seems the media took the nations temperature somewhere in 2001, when fear and confusion had a majority ready to attack anyone with a similar complexion to the 9/11 Hijackers.
Mainstream became pro-war, anti-muslim(i.e., Christian), security over freedom.
While a large number of those initially duped have seen the light,changing what mainstream is, the media likes the definition it's been working with.Your average American is a 70 year old church-going warmonger with 6 deadbolts on the door.
Those of us who didn't fall for the scam in the first place, and the rest who have figured it out over a few years, are a crazy fringe group that outnumbers the medias camera friendly flag-waving chimps.
If anyone reliable ever tells me I'm mainstream, I'll know it's time to lay down and die.