Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Monday, May 22, 2006


WSJ Goes Off the Deep End

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial board goes off the deep end defending Bush's failed and unpopular Iraq policy in the wake of the events of Friday (McCain's reception in NYC and Lieberman's rejection in Hartford):

Take Connecticut, where the left is targeting Mr. Lieberman for political extinction because of his pro-war views. Their vehicle is Mr. Lamont, a rich Greenwich businessman who decided to run after the Senator wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal supporting U.S. policy in Iraq. Mr. Lamont--who was featured in our Weekend Interview on May 13--needed 15% of the delegates to get a place on the primary ballot, but in the event rolled up 33%....

The left's larger goal is to turn the Democratic Party solidly against the war on terror, and especially against its Iraq and Iran fronts. Mr. Lamont's performance will be noticed by Democratic Presidential hopefuls, some of whom (Al Gore, John Kerry) are already maneuvering to get to Hillary Rodham Clinton's antiwar left. Well before 2008, this passion will also drive sentiment among Democrats on Capitol Hill. If they recapture either the House or the Senate this fall, a legislative drive to withdraw from Iraq cannot be ruled out.

We doubt all of this will help Democrats with the larger electorate, which whatever its doubts about Iraq does not want a precipitous surrender. Americans haven't trusted a liberal Democrat with the White House during wartime since Vietnam, which is when the seeds of the current antiwar rage were planted. The great mistake that leading Democrats and anti-Communist liberals made during Vietnam was not speaking up against a left that was demanding retreat and sneering at our war heroes. Will any Democrat speak up now?

Refuting these hysterical (and insulting) straw-man arguments and complete misreadings of public opinion doesn't even seem necesssary.

The more interesting question is this: why do the Wall Street Journal, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney, Chris Shays, the right-wing blogosphere, and other influential Republican voices feel so invested in defending Lieberman in what is a closed Democratic primary?

Strategically, if they really wanted Joe to win (and I understand why they would, he is George Bush's Favorite Democrat after all), they'd be better off keeping their mouths shut.

As it is, their frantic defense of Lieberman every time Ned Lamont makes a ripple of news in this race only helps Ned's case.
This is the type pf hystery usually reserved for FOXNews (GOP-TV) and their talkingheads.

It's interesting to note, the WSJ nutcase piece doesn't offer a single reason "WHY" Joementum should be returned to the senate.

Wave buh-bye Lieberman, the party is over.
s/b: hysteria. That's what happens when I try to type before downing 2 cups of coffee!
"As it is, their frantic defense of Lieberman every time Ned Lamont makes a ripple of news in this race only helps Ned's case."


their defense of joementum makes our case that joe is a closet repub in Dem clothing, that joe is the radical right's favorite Democrat -
Might be real nice if the WST actually spent time doing real journalism by actually asking people why they are supporting Ned Lamont and not Joe Lieberman. This "It Is All About The War" meme is getting rather old.

If Krugman can get it right, why not the WSJ? Oh, silly me. Krugman actually spends time talking to people and the WSJ job is to promote their political agenda. Propaganda, anyone.

Sort of like the difference between Ned and Joe. Ned actually goes out and talks to people of CT and Joe talks to his DLC cronies and consultants.
Post a Comment

<< Home