...I linked to a couple posts in yesterday's blogroll that dealt with the media's obsession with 1972. Apparently since a Democratic primary in a heavily blue state led to a candidate who supports the wishes of over 60% of the electorate being chosen to sit on the blue ballot over an 18-year incumbent means that Democrats are defeatist hippies. No matter how sad that makes me, it was predictable.
What was not as predictable, however (to me, at least), was the face of Headline News (seriously, he's been there forever, hasn't he?) calling Ned Lamont the "al Qaeda candidate" (h/t Avedon). I actually didn't see that one coming at all. Karl Rove doesn't even have to put in the work anymore. They just do the work for him. What's even sadder is that Chuck Roberts truly doesn't even understand the words that are coming out of his mouth, and he says them anyway. Al Qaeda didn't have much of a presence in Iraq until we showed up. If we'd just pursued al Qaeda all along (in places like, I dunno, Afghanistan), then Lieberman would have won his primary unchallenged.
Really, this is one ferocious "If -> Then" statement. IF Lieberman supports a war that 60% of the public hates, and IF he's every bit as stubborn and obstinate as Dubya when it comes to changing course and actually finding a strategy that works, THEN Ned Lamont is the al Qaeda Candidate. Makes sense to me.
UPDATE 10:22am - Eric Boehlert has the best take yet on why the media seems to be going out of their way to paint the picture that 60% of the country is defeatist hippies (h/t Atrios).
The Lamont media flailing truly was remarkable. How else to describe longtime Lieberman pal and DC corporate lobbyist Lanny Davis, trolling online through liberal comment sections in search of random anti-Semitic slurs in order to prove thoughtful progressives opposed to Lieberman were really filled with "scary hatred." Davis also trembled theatrically for a liberal Connecticut buddy who confided that he might not return to the state to vote on primary day "out of fear for his safety."
Meanwhile, the New York Times's David Brooks lashed out at the "liberal inquisition" unfolding in Connecticut, the type of phenomenon that could be understood "only [by] experts in moral manias and mob psychology." ABC's Cokie Roberts sang from the choir sheet this Sunday morning, announcing a Lamont win would mean "a disaster for the Democratic Party."
...
What also drove a lot of the animus was the growing tension between the Beltway insiders and the bloggers, who continue to grab more political authority at the expense of ink-and-paper pundits who are scrambling to maintain theirs. It was no coincidence that Brooks and Broder and Klein and the crew at The New Republic have all in recent months taken public whacks at the progressive netroots, trying hard to undermine them. For instance, Brooks dismissed Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas as the "Keyboard Kingpin," while Klein proudly announced on CNN, "I bow to nobody in my disdain for bloggers." For the last few years mainstream media pundits and reporters chuckled over the bloggers' dismal 0-16 streak in backing candidates in previous campaigns. But the Lieberman stunner (stunning, in that four months ago nobody thought Lamont could prevail), changes everything. As of right now, the bloggers not only have juice, but represent perhaps the most potent force in progressive politics. You don't think that scares Beltway insiders who for decades saw themselves as the de facto king makers?
...
But what I think is essential to understanding the Lieberman media phenomena is that, for the most part, the pundits who assailed Lamont's rise during the campaign were the same ones who signed off on the disastrous war in Iraq and now appear spooked that voters in Connecticut finally decided to hold Lieberman, the de facto Democratic co-sponsor of the invasion, responsible for that foreign policy debacle. They're spooked because for the last three-plus years there's been something of a gentleman's agreement that nobody inside the Beltway, whether at the White House, Congress, the Pentagon, or inside the corporate media world, has been asked to pay any sort of professional price for backing the disaster that is Iraq. But suddenly Democrats in the Nutmeg state have decided enough's enough. That's not a trend Beltway insiders want to see spread nationally, which is why so many pundits were eager to marginalize Lamont and his anti-war backers as "crazies" and "elitist" "bomb throwers."
The problem for pundits is that the November elections will offer a lot more referendums on the war--and nervous name-calling might not be enough to stem that tide.
|