WOULD EVERYBODY PLEASE JUST CALM DOWN???
Election coverage saw conservative columnists feverishly denouncing a "liberal inquisition against Lieberman; they attacked "Ned's nutcases" and "crazies." Given the invective aimed at Lamont's grassroots and Netroots supporters, it was fun to see Fox news pundit Mort Kondracke whining that Lieberman's defeat could mean the end of "civility in American politics" and a victory for "hatred politics" and "savage Internet-based attacks." Persecuted Lieberman was "The Last Honest Man," according to a Washington Post column…In the Washington Post, David Broder--the "dean of political journalists"--denigrated Lamont's "elitist insurgents" and argued that a Lieberman primary defeat could push Democrats "toward a stronger anti-war stand" and troubles in general elections.
Broder didn't mention the latest polling that shows 63% of Americans saying the war isn't worth the cost, and only 30% saying it is.
--Jeff Cohen, "Lamont's Victory--a Media Defeat," Buzzflash.com guest contribution, August 10, 2006.
"…a rejection of the Sunni-Shi'ite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachments to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency…the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi…"
--"Party No. 3," David Brooks, New York Times, August 10, 2006
Meanwhile, Republicans showed their determination to try to exploit the results of Tuesday's primary in the November elections by claiming that Democrats had been captured by the anti-war left. Vice President Dick Cheney IN A CALL INITIATED BY HIS OFFICE TO NEWS SERVICE REPORTERS (emphasis mine)…went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Queda types."
…Lieberman's campaign also confirmed an ABC News report that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove had called the senator Tuesday night…
--"Democratic Leadership Welcome's Lamont; Lieberman Shuns Calls to Drop Out," Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.
An article by New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney about Ned Lamont's victory over incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary stated that Democrats are "struggling to arrive at a unified position about the (Iraq) war," contradicting an article Nagourney wrote JUST EIGHT DAYS EARLIER (emphasis mine), in which he reported that "most of the Democratic leadership had unified around a position" on the war.
Which is it? Is the party "struggling to arrive at a unified position"? Or is there "little room…for Iraq war opponents"? Or are both statements simply mindless repetition of flawed anti-Democratic storylines?
"NYT's Nagourney Contradicted His Own Reporting to Suggest Dems in Disarray," MediaMatters.org, August 10, 2006.
Okay, boys and girls. Time for us all to step back, take a deep breath, and re-enroll in Deanie's Mythology 101 class once again.
At first, I didn't pay that much attention to the Lieberman-Lamont contest for the Democratic nomination for Senate because, well, it's up in CONNECTICUT and therefore should really only be of interest to people who LIVE IN CONNECTICUT and therefore VOTE FOR THE CONNECTICUT SENATE NOMINEE.
But, alas, yet again, the Republican spin-machine has taken hold of an issue and turned it into a matter of LIFE OR DEATH that should worry all of us, because if the candidate the Republicans don't support loses, well, AL QUEDA WILL GET US AGAIN!!!!!
I mean, it's bad enough when Dick Cheney inserts himself into Democratic politics. Or, God forbid, Karl Rove. (What the hell was Karl Rove doing calling a Democratic senator who had just lost a primary, anyway? Karl Rove and Dick Cheney care about NOTHING BUT PRESERVING THEIR REPUBLICAN POWER-BASE. They do not--repeat--DO NOT CARE about Joe Lieberman.)
Normally, for instance, I have a great deal of respect for conservative columnist David Brooks. I don't agree with most of what he writes, but his tone is usually measured and reasoned and well worth considering. Sometimes he even wins me over.
But I must say, that comparing a Democratic primary race in Connecticut with Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents and claiming that Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is a jihadist goes waaaay beyond the pale.
Mr. Brooks, my son just spent the better part of two years of his life trying to stay alive while REAL Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents tried to murder him and anyone else who disagrees with them. To compare ANYTHING in American politics with such bloody tribal retribution that goes back centuries is irresponsible and outrageous.
Shame on you.
And I would really like to know where the party who has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and on and on and on (not to mention Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney) gets off moaning about any Democrat, anywhere, of hatred politics.
How dare they.
Now, for a little myth-busting.
Myth No. 1:
The Connecticut Democratic primary race was all about the war in Iraq.
Boys and girls, if you think that Joe Lieberman lost a Democratic primary just because he supported George W. Bush's failed policies in Iraq, well, as my mother used to say, You've got another think comin', missy.
Here are some of Joe Lieberman's stands on various issues:
1. Along with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, Lieberman backed the conservative Republican stand on Terry Schiavo.
2. He favors school vouchers diverting American tax dollars to religious schools.
4. He has been silent on issues such as:
* the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo
*warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping
*the nomination of right-wing judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
5. He supported a decision by Connecticut's catholic hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
6. He was the first Democrat to speak out forcefully against Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky
7. He played the gentlest softball possible during the vice-presidential debate with Dick Cheney in 2000 and throughout the campaign. He also hedged his bets by retaining his senate seat--just in case Gore lost.
8. The White House has repeatedly referred to him as their "favorite Democrat," culminated by George W. Bush planting a kiss on his cheek after the State of the Union address last year.
9. As the war in Iraq has gone from bad to worse, with Bush administration mistakes mounting, costing more and more American casualties and completely destabilizing the region, making the U.S. LESS, not MORE safe--other senators and congresspeople on both sides of the aisle who once voted to support the war have come to temper their remarks and hold the administration accountable. Although Lieberman claims to have done the same, his most public remarks have continued to stubbornly support "staying the course." He has even stated that his defeat in the primary literally means that Democrats are weak on terrorism--the VERY CLAIM MADE BY CHENEY, ROVE, AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN MYTH-MAKERS.
10. He began collecting signatures to run as an Independent should he lose WEEKS before announcing that he intended to do so, hedging his bets against the Democrats yet again.
11. He has fired his entire campaign staff, including those who've been with him for years, and refuses to speak to old Democratic friends who chose to back Lamont in the primary. Apparently, however, he had no problem taking a phone call from Karl Rove.
Myth No. 2:
Lamont was a one-issue candidate who simply harped on Lieberman's stand on the war and let a bunch of hotheads in the blogosphere take it and run. It's the only reason he won.
Ned Lamont relied on two powerful allies to win this election: old-style grassroots politics and new-style netroots politics:
He tapped the Net roots to promote his cause--but the grass roots to win over voters.
…As the hype grew, the campaign stuck to the basics. It focused n building a file of likely voters, organizing a turnout effort and circulating Lamont at events, including small gatherings in living rooms.
"He went from town to town, house to house, for months. It defined grass-roots campaigning," said Tom Matzzie, political director for MoveOn.org…
…He decided to pursue both avenues for getting on the ballot: collecting signatures and wooing Democratic delegates at state conventions. Both required aggressive outreach and helped to expand his support base.
--"Lamont Relied on Net Roots--and Grass Roots," Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 9, 2006.
Consider the way Democratic politics has worked for most of the past 40 years. (The article goes on to describe the traditional courting of powerful interest groups such as unions.) Under this old model, Mr. Lieberman was an all-star. He was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan arctic, raising the minimum wage…
But over the past six years this old model has broken down…traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers--and their millions of readers…
The new gang doesn't care so much about any one issue; it wants Democrats to present a united…front.
--"The Lieberman Lesson," Noam Scheiber, New York Times, August 9, 2006
Lamont…has elaborate position papers, available on his Web site, on everything from civil liberties to the situation in the Middle East. (He thinks, for example, that Bush should have been censured over the NSA wiretapping issue; he thinks the president has squandered so much of the country's prestige in Iraq that it can't play the role of mediator anywhere else in the region.) They are the views of a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and a foreign-policy moderate.
"True Blue, or Too Blue: Senate Hopeful Ned Lamont is Challenging Joe Lieberman--And the Democratic Party," David Segal, Washington Post, August 2, 2006.
"This race wasn't about ideology. Ned Lamont succeeded because of participation politics--he talked plainly and honestly with the people of Connecticut, and his campaign engaged in the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor organizing that has reinvigorated our party across the country."
Howard Dean, M.D., Chairman, Democratic National Committee, August 9, 2006, in an e-mail letter to Democrats.
Myth No. 3:
A Lamont victory spells doom for the traditional centrist views of the Democratic party of Bill Clinton and heralds the party takeover by a far-left-wing group of radicals who will ensure that the Democrats will lose in future elections, particularly the presidency in 2008.
First of all, I'd like to calm down this entire hysterical Republican-led discourse by pointing out that Connecticut is a solidly blue state in a solidly blue part of the country. Many Connecticut residents work in New York, also a solidly blue state. Those who aren't educated Northern liberals are rust-belt factory union workers.
This is not the national party and not a national election, for heaven's sake.
Secondly, this is NOT, as the Republicans would have you believe, a referendum on Democratic politics.
It is, however, a referendum on the failed Republican policies that have led our nation from one disaster into another.
This is why they're all so scared. And we all know what Republicans do when they get scared.
They get mean.
Republicans have done their best to foster (the) division (between liberals and centrists)…
Lieberman could prove more successful than Republican Alan Schlesinger in the Senate contest at bringing out GOP voters to oppose Lamont.
--"Jury Out on Lieberman Effect: Independent Run Could Hurt, Help Democrats Seeking House," Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.
The attacks came as Republicans are openly alarmed that their party seems to be headed for big losses this November…
"It's right-wing propaganda," Mr. Dean said. "They are beginning to look ridiculous. A majority of Americans now believe that going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think this shows how far out of touch the Republicans are.
--"Democrats Back Lamont in Race in Show of Unity," Adam Nagourney, New York Times, August 10, 2006.
In fact, this whole idea that wild-eyed raging liberals have run off with the good Democratic party is a Republican-made-up myth. And an editorial in the New York Times entitled "Revenge of the Irate Moderates," absolutely nailed what is REALLY going on in Connecticut:
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, IRATE MODERATES. (emphasis mine) They are the voters who have been unnerved over the past few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Mr. Lieberman told the Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crises and started subverting the nation's best traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take the lead in fighting back.
--"Revenge of the Irate Moderates," editorial, New York Times, August 9, 2006.
I rest my case.
Broder didn't mention the latest polling that shows 63% of Americans saying the war isn't worth the cost, and only 30% saying it is.
--Jeff Cohen, "Lamont's Victory--a Media Defeat," Buzzflash.com guest contribution, August 10, 2006.
"…a rejection of the Sunni-Shi'ite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachments to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency…the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi…"
--"Party No. 3," David Brooks, New York Times, August 10, 2006
Meanwhile, Republicans showed their determination to try to exploit the results of Tuesday's primary in the November elections by claiming that Democrats had been captured by the anti-war left. Vice President Dick Cheney IN A CALL INITIATED BY HIS OFFICE TO NEWS SERVICE REPORTERS (emphasis mine)…went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Queda types."
…Lieberman's campaign also confirmed an ABC News report that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove had called the senator Tuesday night…
--"Democratic Leadership Welcome's Lamont; Lieberman Shuns Calls to Drop Out," Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.
An article by New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney about Ned Lamont's victory over incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary stated that Democrats are "struggling to arrive at a unified position about the (Iraq) war," contradicting an article Nagourney wrote JUST EIGHT DAYS EARLIER (emphasis mine), in which he reported that "most of the Democratic leadership had unified around a position" on the war.
Which is it? Is the party "struggling to arrive at a unified position"? Or is there "little room…for Iraq war opponents"? Or are both statements simply mindless repetition of flawed anti-Democratic storylines?
"NYT's Nagourney Contradicted His Own Reporting to Suggest Dems in Disarray," MediaMatters.org, August 10, 2006.
Okay, boys and girls. Time for us all to step back, take a deep breath, and re-enroll in Deanie's Mythology 101 class once again.
At first, I didn't pay that much attention to the Lieberman-Lamont contest for the Democratic nomination for Senate because, well, it's up in CONNECTICUT and therefore should really only be of interest to people who LIVE IN CONNECTICUT and therefore VOTE FOR THE CONNECTICUT SENATE NOMINEE.
But, alas, yet again, the Republican spin-machine has taken hold of an issue and turned it into a matter of LIFE OR DEATH that should worry all of us, because if the candidate the Republicans don't support loses, well, AL QUEDA WILL GET US AGAIN!!!!!
I mean, it's bad enough when Dick Cheney inserts himself into Democratic politics. Or, God forbid, Karl Rove. (What the hell was Karl Rove doing calling a Democratic senator who had just lost a primary, anyway? Karl Rove and Dick Cheney care about NOTHING BUT PRESERVING THEIR REPUBLICAN POWER-BASE. They do not--repeat--DO NOT CARE about Joe Lieberman.)
Normally, for instance, I have a great deal of respect for conservative columnist David Brooks. I don't agree with most of what he writes, but his tone is usually measured and reasoned and well worth considering. Sometimes he even wins me over.
But I must say, that comparing a Democratic primary race in Connecticut with Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents and claiming that Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is a jihadist goes waaaay beyond the pale.
Mr. Brooks, my son just spent the better part of two years of his life trying to stay alive while REAL Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents tried to murder him and anyone else who disagrees with them. To compare ANYTHING in American politics with such bloody tribal retribution that goes back centuries is irresponsible and outrageous.
Shame on you.
And I would really like to know where the party who has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and on and on and on (not to mention Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney) gets off moaning about any Democrat, anywhere, of hatred politics.
How dare they.
Now, for a little myth-busting.
Myth No. 1:
The Connecticut Democratic primary race was all about the war in Iraq.
Boys and girls, if you think that Joe Lieberman lost a Democratic primary just because he supported George W. Bush's failed policies in Iraq, well, as my mother used to say, You've got another think comin', missy.
Here are some of Joe Lieberman's stands on various issues:
1. Along with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, Lieberman backed the conservative Republican stand on Terry Schiavo.
2. He favors school vouchers diverting American tax dollars to religious schools.
4. He has been silent on issues such as:
* the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo
*warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping
*the nomination of right-wing judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
5. He supported a decision by Connecticut's catholic hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
6. He was the first Democrat to speak out forcefully against Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky
7. He played the gentlest softball possible during the vice-presidential debate with Dick Cheney in 2000 and throughout the campaign. He also hedged his bets by retaining his senate seat--just in case Gore lost.
8. The White House has repeatedly referred to him as their "favorite Democrat," culminated by George W. Bush planting a kiss on his cheek after the State of the Union address last year.
9. As the war in Iraq has gone from bad to worse, with Bush administration mistakes mounting, costing more and more American casualties and completely destabilizing the region, making the U.S. LESS, not MORE safe--other senators and congresspeople on both sides of the aisle who once voted to support the war have come to temper their remarks and hold the administration accountable. Although Lieberman claims to have done the same, his most public remarks have continued to stubbornly support "staying the course." He has even stated that his defeat in the primary literally means that Democrats are weak on terrorism--the VERY CLAIM MADE BY CHENEY, ROVE, AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN MYTH-MAKERS.
10. He began collecting signatures to run as an Independent should he lose WEEKS before announcing that he intended to do so, hedging his bets against the Democrats yet again.
11. He has fired his entire campaign staff, including those who've been with him for years, and refuses to speak to old Democratic friends who chose to back Lamont in the primary. Apparently, however, he had no problem taking a phone call from Karl Rove.
Myth No. 2:
Lamont was a one-issue candidate who simply harped on Lieberman's stand on the war and let a bunch of hotheads in the blogosphere take it and run. It's the only reason he won.
Ned Lamont relied on two powerful allies to win this election: old-style grassroots politics and new-style netroots politics:
He tapped the Net roots to promote his cause--but the grass roots to win over voters.
…As the hype grew, the campaign stuck to the basics. It focused n building a file of likely voters, organizing a turnout effort and circulating Lamont at events, including small gatherings in living rooms.
"He went from town to town, house to house, for months. It defined grass-roots campaigning," said Tom Matzzie, political director for MoveOn.org…
…He decided to pursue both avenues for getting on the ballot: collecting signatures and wooing Democratic delegates at state conventions. Both required aggressive outreach and helped to expand his support base.
--"Lamont Relied on Net Roots--and Grass Roots," Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 9, 2006.
Consider the way Democratic politics has worked for most of the past 40 years. (The article goes on to describe the traditional courting of powerful interest groups such as unions.) Under this old model, Mr. Lieberman was an all-star. He was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan arctic, raising the minimum wage…
But over the past six years this old model has broken down…traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers--and their millions of readers…
The new gang doesn't care so much about any one issue; it wants Democrats to present a united…front.
--"The Lieberman Lesson," Noam Scheiber, New York Times, August 9, 2006
Lamont…has elaborate position papers, available on his Web site, on everything from civil liberties to the situation in the Middle East. (He thinks, for example, that Bush should have been censured over the NSA wiretapping issue; he thinks the president has squandered so much of the country's prestige in Iraq that it can't play the role of mediator anywhere else in the region.) They are the views of a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and a foreign-policy moderate.
"True Blue, or Too Blue: Senate Hopeful Ned Lamont is Challenging Joe Lieberman--And the Democratic Party," David Segal, Washington Post, August 2, 2006.
"This race wasn't about ideology. Ned Lamont succeeded because of participation politics--he talked plainly and honestly with the people of Connecticut, and his campaign engaged in the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor organizing that has reinvigorated our party across the country."
Howard Dean, M.D., Chairman, Democratic National Committee, August 9, 2006, in an e-mail letter to Democrats.
Myth No. 3:
A Lamont victory spells doom for the traditional centrist views of the Democratic party of Bill Clinton and heralds the party takeover by a far-left-wing group of radicals who will ensure that the Democrats will lose in future elections, particularly the presidency in 2008.
First of all, I'd like to calm down this entire hysterical Republican-led discourse by pointing out that Connecticut is a solidly blue state in a solidly blue part of the country. Many Connecticut residents work in New York, also a solidly blue state. Those who aren't educated Northern liberals are rust-belt factory union workers.
This is not the national party and not a national election, for heaven's sake.
Secondly, this is NOT, as the Republicans would have you believe, a referendum on Democratic politics.
It is, however, a referendum on the failed Republican policies that have led our nation from one disaster into another.
This is why they're all so scared. And we all know what Republicans do when they get scared.
They get mean.
Republicans have done their best to foster (the) division (between liberals and centrists)…
Lieberman could prove more successful than Republican Alan Schlesinger in the Senate contest at bringing out GOP voters to oppose Lamont.
--"Jury Out on Lieberman Effect: Independent Run Could Hurt, Help Democrats Seeking House," Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.
The attacks came as Republicans are openly alarmed that their party seems to be headed for big losses this November…
"It's right-wing propaganda," Mr. Dean said. "They are beginning to look ridiculous. A majority of Americans now believe that going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think this shows how far out of touch the Republicans are.
--"Democrats Back Lamont in Race in Show of Unity," Adam Nagourney, New York Times, August 10, 2006.
In fact, this whole idea that wild-eyed raging liberals have run off with the good Democratic party is a Republican-made-up myth. And an editorial in the New York Times entitled "Revenge of the Irate Moderates," absolutely nailed what is REALLY going on in Connecticut:
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, IRATE MODERATES. (emphasis mine) They are the voters who have been unnerved over the past few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Mr. Lieberman told the Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crises and started subverting the nation's best traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take the lead in fighting back.
--"Revenge of the Irate Moderates," editorial, New York Times, August 9, 2006.
I rest my case.
posted by Deanie Mills at 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home