Once again, another unintended consequence of the attempted insurrection within the Democratic Party by the netrooters.
Here's the main point to consider:
"The Lamont ascendancy, if that is what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying, and in places succeeding, to take back the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont. As I say, we have been here before. Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true. If he, and others of his stripe, carry the day, the Democratic party will lose the future, and deservedly."
But we knew that already, didn't we?
Shades of 1972!
Oh, please.
ReplyDeleteI've got a lot of family and friends up there, and for a lot of the Democrats among them, it all boils down to Ned Lamont came to their town hall/church supper/high-school basketball game and Joe Lieberman didn't even respond to the invite.
For those more politically active, it's less about the war per se than about their belief that if THEY oppose the president (on WHATEVER issue), then their senator ought to as well.
And in Connecticut, even a lot of Republicans oppose the president. As states go, it's pretty blue.
Not that I have a dog in the fight, being neither a Connecticut voter nor a Democrat. Just sayin'.
So don't vote for him, Lex.
ReplyDeleteBut also do not rationalize away the detestable tactics used against him for the sake of payback because of a particular politicized issue.
If the state's Democrats are that narrow minded enough to make this primary a one issue race, then they deserve the disaster of a potential Lamont win.
What detestable tactics, Bubba? Jane Hamser (?)'s loathesome blackface cartoon aside, what "detestable" tactics have Lamont's supporters engaged in?
ReplyDeleteIt's a primary, for cryin' out loud. Lieberman has been running around acting like he's entitled to renomination w/o having to make a case to the voters. If Howard Coble were to behave the same way (very unlikely, I'll grant), it would be just as wrong and stupid. The Constitution guarantees no one an election victory.
My larger point is this: I've read the national media coverage of the race. And I've talked to people who are actually, you know, involved in the situation and therefore have firsthand knowledge. And without exception (and irrespective of political outlook), those people say the media are (surprise!) getting it wrong on almost every key issue related to the race.
".....those people say the media are (surprise!) getting it wrong on almost every key issue related to the race."
ReplyDeleteSuch as?
They've said it's all about the war. It's not. They've said it's all about wanting the party to be "more liberal." It's not; it's about wanting it to be less supportive of Bush, which is not necessarily the same thing. They've said it's about a mob mentality. It's not. It's about Lieberman's entitlement mentality: He behaved like a petulant child when challenged, and a lot of voters decided that that alone meant he'd been in the job too long. They've said it meant the party was hostage to blogging extremists. It didn't; bloggers helped raise money and organize, but this race was still Lieberman's to lose and he ran a crappy campaign, right down to spending only $15/month for a minimal level of Web hosting and then screaming "hack!" when his site was (predictably) overwhelmed on election day.
ReplyDeleteThere's more, but I'll end with this: After everything else was over and done with, Lieberman had the resources to win this primary, and if he had run even a halfway competent campaign, he would have. He didn't. End of story.
Lex, it sounds like you're saying that if a candidate (Lieberman in this case) doesn't toe the far-leftist's line (and they're running that party now) then he'll be abandoned at the side of the road like just so much trash because he's not helping destroy Bush and the conservatives? In other words, to hell with 'ol Joe's morals and values, if he's not totally against Bush then he's worthless?
ReplyDeleteI'd say that's pretty detestable.
Congratulations, Lex.
ReplyDeleteYou managed to misinterpret the whole thing.
If you don't like Lieberman, that's fine. But for pete sakes, don't let your personal opinions cloud your ability to analyze the situation objectively.
Your posts on this matter indicate that you have done just that.
jaycee, did you read a word I wrote?
ReplyDeletebubba, w/r/t to the issues, I'm relaying what the people I know in Connecticut (mostly independent, the rest Dems) were telling me. What they were telling me differed greatly from what I was seeing on CNN and reading in, say, The Washington Post. I didn't write about what *I* think about those issues, so I haven't interpreted, or misinterpreted, anything.
W/r/t my characterization of Lieberman's campaign as lousy: I stated why I thought so. You don't have to agree, but Lieberman certainly appears to, inasmuch as he has fired his entire campaign team.
Oh, and jaycee, for good or ill, the "far-left liberals" now constitute 60% of the country.
ReplyDeleteLex, maybe I missed it in that jumbled up link of attitudes people have after being influenced by the liberal news media, but where was the question about the respondent's political party affiliation?
ReplyDeletejaycee, buddy, listen to yourself.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you're accusing the "liberal" media (which has been pro-Iraq War for most of the time we've been in Iraq) of being able to sway the opinions of a majority of the country. If that were true and if the media truly were "liberal," Bush wouldn't be president now.
Second, you presume that the party affiliation is relevant to my point. YOU said, " ... if a candidate (Lieberman in this case) doesn't toe the far-leftist's line ... " implying that anyone who wants us to get out of Iraq is a "far-leftist." But by definition, the FAR left cannot constitute 60% of the country. An idea that draws the support of 60% of the country is MAINSTREAM by definition.
Perhaps you didn't read your own lies, so let me quote YOU: "the "far-left liberals" now constitute 60% of the country."
ReplyDeleteDo you have any evidence of your preposterous claim, or is this another of your infamous "opinions?"
You know that's a lie and so does anyone intelligent enough to read it. You call yourself a journalist and write lies like this for the public to read?
Lex, the media indeed influences everything we know about events which we do not personally witness. All we know of the war, earthquakes, politics, etc., we learn from the media unless we're there to witness the event ourselves. Can a continual liberal bias in the majority of the news media shape the public's opinion of those events? You betcha, and you do it yourself. Look at the furor over your biased TRC coverage that resulted in your public crucifixion and being forced by your boss, N&R Editor John Robinson to apologize to your readers.
And I did not say the liberal media sways "a majority of the country," you're trying to put words in my mouth. Why not stick to the truth when you write for a change?
jaycee, buddy, read 'em and weep.
ReplyDeleteAnd to clarify, since you obviously wouldn't know irony if it bit you in the rear end: People who want the U.S. out of Iraq have been criticized by certain Republicans as "far-left liberals." But people who want a timetable set for withdrawal from Iraq now constitute 60%+ of Americans, as do Americans who disapprove of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq. Given the mathematical impossibility of 60% of America's being "far-left liberals," I was saying that far more than just far-left liberals want America out of Iraq. Clear now?
Oh, and I wasn't crucified for anything, nor was I "forced to apologize" for anything. Stop rewriting history. Or stop lying. Whichever it was.
Lex, you wrote "the "far-left liberals" now constitute 60% of the country."
ReplyDeleteThat's a lie, and you've shown no evidence to prove that 60% of Americans belong to the Democratic party.
The "poll" you quote covers everything EXCEPT political party affiliation. Please support your claim.
All of us that read your apology at the request of John Robinson recognized it for what it was, regardless of your claim to the contrary.
jaycee, honestly, can you read?
ReplyDeleteThe reference to "far-left liberals" was to people who want us out of Iraq, not to registered Democrats. And the polling report to which I linked more than adequately documents the claim.
As for my so-called apology, I'm happy to let anyone who wants to wade through that whole thread and decide for themselves.
They way you write things presents them as facts when they aren't. Once again, you made a claim you can't back up. And you wonder why people think the N&R is worthless??
ReplyDeleteA lot of people DID wade through your senseless meanderings on that thread, and came to the conclusion you wrote the "news" article heavily flavored with your personal liberal bias. Some complained to John Robinson. JR made you come in and explain yourself. You failed, it was more gobbledy-gook. However, most saw through your blubbering and know how and why you write the way you do.
A lot of people DID wade through your senseless meanderings on that thread, and came to the conclusion you wrote the "news" article heavily flavored with your personal liberal bias.
ReplyDeleteOh, really? Name some.
JR made you come in and explain yourself.
Made me come in? No, the end of my vacation made me come in. Please get your facts straight.
You failed, it was more gobbledy-gook.
Well, that's your opinion, and I guess it's still a semi-free country, so you're entitled to your opinions.
However, most saw through your blubbering and know how and why you write the way you do.
BUUUUT ... you're not entitled to your own facts. By all means, provide some factual basis for this factual claim.
Lex wrote:
ReplyDelete"Oh, really? Name some."
Name some?
Me, Jerry Bledsoe, Fred Gregory, Sam Spagnola, I could go on and on...
"Made me come in? No, the end of my vacation made me come in. Please get your facts straight."
It was clear from your blog and JR's blog that he "asked" you to revisit the subject and try to address issues raised over your liberal bias on that story.
"Well, that's your opinion, and I guess it's still a semi-free country, so you're entitled to your opinions."
You wrote paragraph after paragraph and didn't really say anything differently, though.
"BUUUUT ... you're not entitled to your own facts. By all means, provide some factual basis for this factual claim."
You write from your bias, it's apparent to anyone reading your articles. You're consistently the most liberal writer at the N&R. That's why people complained to JR about your biased coverage.
You make claims of "facts" that don't exist, such as the false allegation that "60% of the country are far left liberals." If you're going to tell a fib, you should stick to facts that aren't so easy to disprove.
[[Me, Jerry Bledsoe, Fred Gregory, Sam Spagnola, I could go on and on...]]
ReplyDeleteOh, by all means, do. Bledsoe's credibility w/r/t me is profoundly suspect given his insane rantings about the N&R's Randolph Community College story. (No, I haven't read his book. I WAS THERE, present at all the important newsroom conversation after the story ran, unlike any of Bledsoe's newsroom sources, so I don't need Jerry to tell me what happened, thanks very much.) Sam Spagnola's credibility is also questionable at best, inasmuch as he tried unsuccessfully to discredit my reporting on the TRC. And if Fred, a neighbor with whom I talk literally every day, had a problem with it, he sure didn't bother to tell me, and he generally doesn't hesitate to tell me when he has a problem with me.
[[It was clear from your blog and JR's blog that he "asked" you to revisit the subject and try to address issues raised over your liberal bias on that story.]]
Yeah, when I returned from vacation he asked me how he should respond to Spagnola's question. I said I'd be happy to respond myself. And I did. And if he had a problem with my response, he never said anything to me about it. YOU said he "called me in." He did no such thing. You are factually, objectively wrong on this point. Suck it up.
[[You write from your bias, it's apparent to anyone reading your articles.]]
Again, prove 1) that my biases are what you say they are and 2) that they affect my writing. Saying "it's apparent to anyone who read your articles" doesn't constitute proof.
[[You're consistently the most liberal writer at the N&R.]]
By what POSSIBLE standard am I "the most liberal writer at the N&R"? More liberal than Allen Johnson? Rosemary Roberts? I favor guns and the death penalty, which facts alone make me more conservative than three-fourths of the freaking newsroom. Helpful hint, jaycee: Your projecting your beliefs onto me does not make your beliefs true.
[[That's why people complained to JR about your biased coverage.]]
Spagnola complained and you complained. No one else did that JR told me about.
[[You make claims of "facts" that don't exist, such as the false allegation that "60% of the country are far left liberals."]]
OK, jaycee, ONCE AGAIN: I WAS BEING SARCASTIC. I was pointing out that because pundits covering the Lamont-Lieberman primary were claiming that Lamont was purely a get-out-of-Iraq candidate AND were claiming that Lamont was backed ONLY by the "far-left liberals" (i.e., people who want us out of Iraq = far-left liberals), then BECAUSE 60% of America wants us out of Iraq, then 60% of America must be "far-left liberals." The point isn't that 60% of America is far-left liberals, the point is that Lamont's supporters, and people who want the U.S. out of Iraq, constitute FAR MORE than just "far-left liberals" precisely because "far-left liberals" DO NOT constitute 60% of America. They constitute maybe 5% of America; therefore, the other 55% who want us out of Iraq must be something to the RIGHT of far-left liberals.
Is it clear now? Because this is at least the third comment in this post in which I have explained what I meant, and you've continued to claim I said something I didn't actually say.
LOL
ReplyDeleteOh, Lex...you asked me to name people and then whine because you don't LIKE the people I name! That's precious...
jaycee, you have no credibility. But at least you didn't lie this time around. I guess that's a start.
ReplyDeleteBubba, sorry to have abused your hospitality.
Lex, you have yet to EVER prove I've stated a lie in any of my responses to you. Yet I've proved you a liar over and over again.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you about that?
Welcome to the world where your word ain't the gospel.