Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Lieberman/Lamont: How it’s going to be spun
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, August 09, 2006

At least by a particular segment of the left:
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended — and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake — and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me — while I'm glad they've seen the light — their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
Politically useful things like this will be filed away for the '08 elections roll around and the Democrats try to claim that the Lamont thing wasn't all about the war. It will be especially useful if there's been a positive change in the war at that time.

Be clear here, I'm talking about politics and I'm talking about spin. In that case, the Republican's best friend is the fellow who wrote that and a certain portion of the anti-war left. Make no mistake about it, that segment I'm talking about does think it was all about the war and they further think they are responsible for Lieberman's defeat.

It also means they're going to be pushing for a larger role in '08.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
MichaelW on this thread

with


these



links


Shows this tack:
"the Democrats try to claim that the Lamont thing wasn’t all about the war"
really just won’t work at all.

Are you sure the few Democrats that think will try this?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Yep, a 4% win in a primary is certainly a mandate for governing...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Too bad for them Bush isn’t running again....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I think it is fairly clear... this is a defeat for Bush....Connecticut will become a quagmire of Republican hopes and dreams.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Boy, this is fun.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So, it sounds like we will be debating the anti-war/non-anti-war factors in Lamont’s ascendancy for a while.

I am more tempted to agree with Jon’s previous assessment that this was more about purging the dissident voices from the midst of the Party and imposing ideological discipline. To that extent the war issue is but a current bellweather among many others.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
I’m not arguing against Jon’s previous assessment, D. I’m talking about how the situation will be spun. Check out this NYT editorial.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
D, how can that be. Lieberman voted with the D-’s 90% of the time. On a HOST of issues he took the Party line. He deviated on the war, mostly.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Heh, what I like is the people already making the presumption that winning the primary equates to winning the Senate seat.

Heh heh.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It probably will be spun that way, McQ. I guess I am just a little dense when it comes to reading that sort of thing.

And, Lieberman definitely did not tow the party line exclusively. Granted, his record is largely that of a classical FDR Democrat. However, his socially conservative stance on some morally-sensitive issues (stem cell research and same-sex marriage to name two)have antagonized the party faithful in much the same way the war has. And none of the "true-believers" can be terribly enamored with the way he wears his religious fervor on his sleeve; that is the domain of Right-Wing-Fundie-Bible-Thumping-Creationist-...you get the idea.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Here is how the right will spin it:

The left are all communists and socialists. They are enemies of all that is good and wholesome and decent. They are anti-semitic. They want America to lose in Iraq. They are in league with Al Qaeda. They are extremists. Karl Rove is a genius. Democrats are rigid, ideological purists. All they can do is hate Bush; their only ideology is hating Bush. Blah blah blah.

And that is how the MSM will spin it too.

Meanwhile, back in reality land, Lamont is a self-made millionare capitalist. When he was a small town poltician, he voted mostly Republican. He is a Friend of Israel. He represents, to the extent there is one, the mainstream view on the Iraq war.

The Lamont election is more a mirror on the right than on the left. The reason why the right is so enamored of Lieberman is because he likes Bush. That is the litmus test on the right - do you like Bush. Cuz, if you do, you are in the club. McCain can’t be trusted, Condi is weak, Frist panders, but Bush, boy oh boy, nothing can be better than Bush. And if Joe loves Bush, the right loves Joe.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The Nut-Roots are anxious, nervous, dismayed, very defensive and insanely angry that Lieberman is doing exactly what he said and running
as an independent. If Lieberman is no threat as they maintain in their emerging DNC talking points, then what’s the problem?

Could it be that the vast majority of polls they quote are completely fabricated or skewed at best and that this whole thing is based on smoke and mirrors?

While out of the other side of their mouth they are saying he’s done for, “Sore Loserman”, goose is cooked, “He’ll drop it soon” , “Liberman is not an issue at all”, etc.

So which is it? They are extremely confident they won and it’s a wrap andLamont’s a shoe-in? OR this all may not end up so great for the Nut-Roots and the Democrat Party as a whole?

Can’t have it both ways.
 
Written By: ImplodingCrats
URL: http://
MKUltra:
The left are all communists and socialists.

Well, not to put too fine a point on this, but the same grassroots fringe who vociferously supported Lamont also held socialized health care seminars at Yearly Kos, and discussed in depth why they were so afraid to just embrace the term ’socialism’ instead of running from it.

The Left are, by definition, socialists. But I’d be glad to hear any arguments refuting that not all Democrats are socialists (Lieberman).
 
Written By: rammage
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
So which is it? They are extremely confident they won and it’s a wrap andLamont’s a shoe-in? OR this all may not end up so great for the Nut-Roots and the Democrat Party as a whole?
According to one poll, 61 % of all Dems who voted in the primary said Lieberman shouldn’t run as an independent. Presumably that includes Dems who voted for Lieberman.

It will be close, but Lamont will win. It’s not as if the Iraq war is going to get any better.

Plus, Lamont is a hell of a campaigner. He went from 19% three months ago to over 50% last night.

It would seem those most in fear should be incumbent Republican Senators running in 2006. As the Iraq war worsens, it is clear that Dems can hang Bush and the War around the necks of these Republicans. Remember, the last election was November 2004, a mere 20 months into the Iraq War. November 2006 is 44 months into the war, with no signs of any real progress and much more death and chaos than in 2004.

Missouri, Montana, R.I., Ohio, and Pennsylvania could all easily swing Dem. It will be close.
The left are all communists and socialists.
And the right are all fascists and Peronists. Thanks for making my point.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra - Meanwhile, back in reality land, Lamont is a self-made millionare capitalist.
Ah, yes, mukultra reality!

Where self-made Ned of the Wall Street Lamonts toiled and worked his way up the ladder and actually expanded his multi-million inheritance and trust funds though agreeing to ink cable TV contracts his banker uncle offered him a "first opportunity" piece of. At least he is better than John Forbes Kerry, who along with his father, had largely bungled away his familiy money before his great Gigolo moment arrived.

His grand-uncle was also a millionaire capitalist, and a Stalinist. And for years served as a willing Gentile schill frontman the ACLU love so.....serving eventually as an ostensible "now I hate communism after Stalin was denounced by the Politburo but love criminal rights and Negro uplifting" Director then President of the ACLU.

Ned appears to the right of his uncle.
mkultra - The reason why the right is so enamored of Lieberman is because he likes Bush. That is the litmus test on the right - do you like Bush. Cuz, if you do, you are in the club. McCain can’t be trusted, Condi is weak, Frist panders, but Bush, boy oh boy, nothing can be better than Bush. And if Joe loves Bush, the right loves Joe.
M appears more correct on this one than on her first "humble Ned up from poverty" post.

After 9/11 a Cult of Dear Leader Worship definitely did arise around Bush on the Right. And he was able to keep Open Borders, refuse to name the enemy, loot America’s wealth to transfer it to the richest few, spend worse than LBJ, create massive new entitlements, and engage in a generally incoherent domestic and foreign policy program while the Right avidly bootlapped his shoes and proclaimed him the Lincoln, the Washington of our times...And Lieberman was loved because he rallied behind All-Wise Maximum Beloved War Leader.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
The left are all communists and socialists. They are enemies of all that is good and wholesome and decent. They are anti-semitic. They want America to lose in Iraq. They are in league with Al Qaeda. They are extremists. Karl Rove is a genius. Democrats are rigid, ideological purists. All they can do is hate Bush; their only ideology is hating Bush. Blah blah blah.
You say that as though it were not true.
And that is how the MSM will spin it too.
you mean like Chris Mathews? Not a chance.
Meanwhile, back in reality land, Lamont is a self-made millionare capitalist. When he was a small town poltician, he voted mostly Republican. He is a Friend of Israel. He represents, to the extent there is one, the mainstream view on the Iraq war.
Cut and run is not mainstream. But even if he is a moderate on many issues so what? that does not inobviate the view that the party was purging its membership.
The Lamont election is more a mirror on the right than on the left. The reason why the right is so enamored of Lieberman is because he likes Bush. That is the litmus test on the right - do you like Bush. Cuz, if you do, you are in the club. McCain can’t be trusted, Condi is weak, Frist panders, but Bush, boy oh boy, nothing can be better than Bush. And if Joe loves Bush, the right loves Joe.
That is just beyond silly, go to any right wing site like Red State, or Right wing News. Most of the posters are either fed up with Bush, or wish he were not so bi-polar. The only reason it might look to you like they love him so much is because he has been attacked with such vitriol and hate for so long that most right wingers have felt that they had to defend him at least a little.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
while the Right avidly bootlapped his shoes and proclaimed him the Lincoln, the Washington of our times...
Where was that? I missed it, maybe it was in the National Review, which now has called for an end to Iraqi occupation? Or maybe it was all the Republicans in the House who handed Bush his ass on the immigration issue and made him do a 180?
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
According to one poll, 61 % of all Dems who voted in the primary said Lieberman shouldn’t run as an independent. Presumably that includes Dems who voted for Lieberman.
He won a Democratic primary, MK. And even the Dems who voted for him might understand that if he runs as an Independent Dem, that means millions of dollars in funds for Lamont that might be spent on other Senate campaigns by Chuck Schumers group.

And of course, the largest group in the state, independents, not to mention Republicans, neither of whom voted yesterday, are who will decide the vote in November. So other than scared Dems, I’m not sure what your poll result demonstrates.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
The reason why the right is so enamored of Lieberman is because he likes Bush.
And the sentiment is mutual. Bill Kristol made only one (his largest) campaign contribution to a Democrat in the last ten years. Guess to whose campaign that was?

Lieberman was targeted by many Democrats for the same reasons Kristol loves him.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
No, the right is enamored of Lieberman because he is for continuing the war in Iraq, and the larger War on Terror.

Plain and simple.

He’s a liberal hawk. That’s it, that’s all. Could care less about anything else.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
KyleN - The right gave Beloved Maximum War Leader Bush their total fealty from 9/11 until the non-WMD discovery and the hidden role of his Neocon advisors was "a bad sign" like lipstick on a collar....Then they rallied around their Churchill, their Lincoln until he was re-elected, swallowing Billy Tauzin’s 13 trillion new entitlement/Big Pharma welfare program.

After the election, more Iraq deterioration, the Teri Schiavo fiasco, Harriet Miers, his arrogant blow-offs on immigration enforcement, then Katrina ——and the Right turned on him.

But Bush had 3 years of unquestioning lickspittle devotion from the right where questioning the All-Wise Bush, Rove the Genius, War Stud Rummy, and the Man Behind the Curtain was likened to treason.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Oh C.Ford a little GRUMPY with us Republicans, are we? "Lick spittle" it is to laugh! Throw in "slugs" and "Hooligans" or "Goggle-eyed oafs" too. CFord I’m betting your the reverse of many people here, you’re a PALEO-Con... face it dude, YOU LOST THE FIGHT ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE... Conservative. Pat Buchanan and his ilk are on the outside looking in, permanently... UNLESS you’se guyz can engineer some kind of electoral alliance witht he likes Lenora Fulani and Susan Faludi and some other Marxists who want to turn the clock back to the happy golden days of 1939.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The reason why the right is so enamored of Lieberman is because he likes Bush.

And the sentiment is mutual.
Mona, I doubt that you recognize not only how little creditability your words carry, but how much of a caricature you’ve become.

The right is most certainly NOT enamored with Lieberman, and it most certainly is NOT mutual. But that’s the story told to you, the way you want to hear it. Mostly, the right is relaxing in the lazy-boy, with popcorn and suds, enjoying a match between two disliked opponents. Almost an "It’s a shame someone has to win," scenario. But from this situation, there most definitely will be one side that benefits and one side that does not.

Best case for the left is replacing a ranking senate member with a freshman who lacks any political coin. And you can be certain that Lamonts baggage will not be forgotten. In the middle is a Lieberman win due to an implosion on Lamonts part i.e. without the likely fratricide that will occur with a full blown three candidate race. The second to worst likely outcome is a bloody Lieberman win from which he returns to DC with a huge chip on his shoulder, not against the GOP, but against those who so whimsically discarded him. The worst of course is if the GOP were to win his seat - plausible but rather unlikely.

Like I said, the right is enjoying the show. But there is lingering realization that of the two, Lieberman is the adult and Lamont the dupe whose thus far successful candidacy has been propped up by the myopically petulant far left. If there were no consequences, even your incredibly lame ’proof of enamorment,’ Kristol would be paying Lamont for the show. But as grownups know, there are real, and potentially deadly consequences.

And that, and nothing else, is why, when coin has to be laid upon the table, you see the right rooting for a Lieberman win.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
No, the right is enamored of Lieberman because he is for continuing the war in Iraq, and the larger War on Terror.
Joe Lieberman is a nation-building neocon. Max Boot, a contributing editor of The Weekly Standard, identifies Lieberman as one of a handful of Democrat neocons, for foreign policy purposes. Bill Kristol contributes to Lieberman campaign coffers. Kristol would never support anyone who is not a neocon.

Joe Lieberman is a neocon. And that is why so many Bush supporters love him, and so many Democrats and libertarians do not.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Joe Lieberman is a neocon. And that is why so many Bush supporters love him...
caricature indeed!
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Joe Lieberman is a thorn in the side of the establishment Democratic Party...

What’s not to love about him?
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
caricature indeed!
Oh, you mean Max Boot did not identify Joe Lieberman as a neocon, and Bill Kristol did not contribute to Lieberman’s campaign?
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Oh, you mean Max Boot did not identify Joe Lieberman as a neocon
Cite please.


 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Just for clarity Keith, there are those who populate these comment strands that seem disturbingly (perhaps even purposefully) obtuse, the ’love’ is for what Lieberman is stirring into the Dem cauldron, not actually a real, you know, love for Joe. Well other than he seems to be a decent person – but that’s respect, not love.

While I might support him for his foreign policy views, he’s a far cry from anyone I’d like around the deciding vote on domestic policies.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Mona says (paraphrased):

Because Bill Kristol donated HUGE sums to Lieberman’s re-election bid ipso facto not only is Lieberman a neocon, but neocon ALL neocons must really really LOVE Lieberman.

Yeah, caricature.

as in -

"boy-o-boy the story I just heard really comports with what I already believe."
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Bains,

I must have missed that lesson in logic. ;)

Socratics is a man, All men are Socrates
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider