It seems some in the legacy media are entering into that next phase of narrative manipulation—a redefining of terms in order to 1) provide revisionary cover for its ideological fellow travelers, and 2) to fabricate and then facilitate a bandwagon effect. For instance, The New York Times this morning editorializes on the Lamont victory this way:
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction.
An “uprising” of “moderates”? Come now. Lamonts’ supporters are to moderates what Jeffrey Dahmer was to gourmands: just because they believe themselves to be the arbiters of political taste doesn’t make them anything more than simple partisan cannibals. And I doubt very much many of his supporters would even identify themselves as moderates—though if they believe adopting the label will help them regain power or take control of the Democratic party, they’ll almost certainly suck it up and wear it in the months and years to come. The ends justify the means, after all—and the New York Times has shown itself willing to equate the Kossacks with Bill Clinton Democrats. That is, they’ve signaled their willingness to help the netroots take control of the party (see the new Kossack directive for completing the purge here)—and the plan is to do so by massaging the narrative and finding labels for the players that strike just the right chords with Americans who don’t follow politics all too closely.
Still, it’s hard to get around the fact that during Lamont’s victory speech, standing behind him were such well-known “moderates” as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who joined a crowd of anti-war “moderates”—those who demand their party members speak in a “unified voice”—in chanting “bring them home.” Apparently, these “irate moderates” are under the illusion that 7% of Connecticut voters casting ballots in a blue state party primary provides them with a foreign policy mandate.
And I don’t think most Americans will see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and immediately think “moderate.” Though I could be wrong. After all, for 8 or 9 years a goodly number of Americans saw “Full House” and thought “I think I’ll watch this. Because it’s so funny.”
Which, speaking of Jesse Jackson, what a thrill for him last night, eh? To get to watch a truly religious Senator who’d be right at home in Hymietown get the boot from his own party? And all Jackson had to do for the pleasure was put up with a little minstrelizing! Way to take one for the team, Jesse!
But I digress.
Getting back to legacy media gamesmanship, the pushback against the “rightwing” sites who helped unmask the propaganda game being played by Reuters and others for the benefit of Hizballah has begun—and it uses the same kinds of rhetorical devices that the Times used in shaping the Lamont victory story. Here’s the WaPo, applying carefully-crafted descriptors—and constructing the story in a point / counterpoint way—to mitigate the ostensible offense:
In [LGF’s Charles] Johnson’s view, the news media haven’t adequately sounded the alarm about threats to Western societies posed by radical Islamic groups  something he says he seeks to redress through his politically conservative blog.
“My main take is that political correctness has kept a lot of the hard truth from being spread by the mainstream media,†says Johnson, 53, a professional musician in Los Angeles who spends most of his time maintaining his blog.
“The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else,†he says. “But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don’t want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by Middle Eastern countries, which are actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view.†…
Not everyone, though, is a fan. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization often vilified on Johnson’s blog, calls Little Green Footballs “a vicious, anti-Muslim hate site . . . that has unfortunately become popular.â€Â
The irony, Hooper says, is that if the same kind of “hatred†that appears on LGF appeared on Muslim sites, it soon would be used by LGF’s fans to justify their worldview.
Like many politically themed blogs, Little Green Footballs doesn’t always traffic in subtlety and nuance. Dissenting points of view often are dismissed as “idiotarian†or “LLL†(for “loony liberal leftâ€Â), and Islam is mockingly referred to as “RoP,†meaning “religion of peace.â€Â
Here, the WaPo manages several slights of hand: first, CAIR—who as Charles points out has had at least five employees and board members “arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities”—is identified as a civil rights group, with no mention given of its ties to terrorism, while LGF is depicted as an unnuanced hate site that brooks no “dissent”—the subtext being that somehow one must agree with “dissenting points of view,” because “dismissing them” as ludicrous, or labeling them as belonging to a particular political ideology, is just another form of intolerance.
Similarly, the WaPo is content to let Hooper’s depiction of LGF as a “hate” site stand—making no effort to separate the comments from the posts, nor making mention that, for the most part, what Johnson does is cull stories from the Muslim and Jewish press and excerpt them. Can one really call a site a “hate” site from shining a light on the rhetoric coming out of the Muslim or Arab press? Isn’t that a bit like calling, say, the Anti-Defamation League’s website anti-semitic for highlighting anti-semitic slurs?
Either way—and regardless of what you think of LGF and its commentators—the question is, what does any of this have to do with the Reuters scandal? The fact is, the photos were retouched. The fact is, Charles and his commentators took note and began supplying evidence. And the fact is, Reuters has been forced to concede these first two facts, pull 900 photos, and—as we’re seeing happen now—will be under intense scrutiny for some time to come.
But the WaPo’s Paul Farhi felt the need to soften the blow against the establishment news service by trying to attack the credibility of the source of its embarrassment—even though he knew the source to be correct in this instance.
Which didn’t much matter, so long as the label was applied. Its all of a piece, in fact: begin the redefining of the right as extreme, and the hard left as moderate. Watchdogs are haters. And terrorist sympathizers are “civil rights” groups.
So. What did we learn today? LGF = extremists and haters for accurately reporting facts. While Lamont supporters—Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton / Jane Hamsher / Astrologers / and the netroots, who preach a unified message and whose “leader” has named the New Republic as part of the vast right wing conspiracy = “moderate”.
Up is down. Black is white. Eddie is the Cruisers.
Are “moderates” typically registered Democrats, or can just anyone vote in Connecticut primaries?
TW: They continue making this shit up.
Gee, attacking the messenger? Whoda thunkit?
I love the NYT/WaPo going to CAIR for an “unbiased opinon” on LGF. What’s next, asking Hassan Nasrallah if he supports Israel’s right to exist?
That’s a big N O, I’d wager.
It’s gonna be a long, dirty war boys, and the enemy isn’t going to turn out to be who you expected. Or even WHAT you expected.
So learn to expect the unexpected.
SB: anything
at all
The folks over at the Centrist Coalition blog are pretty upset that Liberman lost.
http://centristcoalition.com/blog/
Damn leftists purging moderates from their party.
You’ll never see the GOP doing something like that.
Well, yeah.
Except for that last bit.
Eddie really was the Cruisers.
My thoughts exactly on the WaPo story. LGF is a hate site for exposing the hate that pours forth from mosques, Middle East leaders, etc.
Heh… my what a big set of brass ones Mr. Hooper has. And he can afford to let them swing with media organizations like WaPo going to bat for him.
Jeff, I sincerely hope that eventually you’ll be back in a college classroom. You have so much to give, and you understand language and its power so well.
TW: I want to join your fan club.
Why should anyone be surprised that the WaPo damned Charles Johnson with faint (nonexistent?) praise? They couldn’t ignore him, so they have to minimize him.
The Thought Police are on the job. “Nothing to see here, folks . . .just another rightwing nutjob making trouble for us.. .”
Congratulations to the Dhimmicrats. How I love the sound of nutroots dragging a braying donkey to the far, far, extreme left.
TW: wonder who will be nominated chief nutroot and surrender monkey in 2008?
LGF is the most depressing site on the internet.
Story after story after story exposing the mindset, the total hatred of the islamofascists.
Some fun, eh?
No, idiot leftists. They keep copping a squat on the only Dems that are actually electable at a national level, then they’ll become less and less relevant as a party. I find Bay’s call for a McCain-Lieberman ticket in ‘08 full of intriguing possibilities.
T.W.: All of this talk of purges has me pining for the golden age of the Soviet Union. (I shit you not)
AJB,
Yeah, you’re right. A primary fight between two candidates who differ on a whole range of issues, one of whom is largely out of step with the Republican party on several key issues, is exactly the same as a primary fight between two Democrats who differ on 1 issue, a pacifist, anti-war agenda and who differ in one candidates lack of intense hatred of GWB.
Let me ask you a question AJB, can you define what it is that you think made Schwartz a moderate?
In any case I don’t think that Joe Lieberman was a moderate anyway. He got booted because he doesn’t have enough contempt for America, lust for power at all costs or hate for GWB, no other reasons. Otherwise his far left bonafides are intact.
Not McCain. But as I’ve said elsewhere, I’d vote Joe-Zell.
I seem to recall someone arguing that the universe had a liberal bias. And, I mean, who can argue with the universe? All they’re doing is helping it along a bit.
This has been going on at least since 1994. Most news outlets tend to use terms like “ultra conservative” and “hardline conservative” to describe conservatives that appeal to the base. The press doesn’t normally use any terms of extremity for Democrats except in primaries–like when Dean ran for president and they decided they didn’t like his chances. Meanwhile, those conservatives that appeal more to the left are generally known as “moderates”, implying that they’re more open minded and reasonable than their peers; while those Democrats who appeal to the right are usually referred to as “conservative Democrats”, as though they’re imposters or even traitors (see: Lieberman). You’ll rarely ever hear of either a “liberal Republican”, a “liberal Democrat” or an “ultra liberal” in the press. Even in the coverage of McKinney “ultra liberal” is avoided in favor of terms such as “firebrand” or “outspoken”, which implies that she is merely an overbearing advocate of otherwise sound policies.
So, if you believe what all this obviously slanted terminology suggests, then conservatives are all extremists unless their views have been tempered somewhat by the more moderate and sensible ideas of the Democratic party. Democrats, on the other hand, are high minded yet pragmatic, though some are occasionally corrupted by the presence of hardline conservatives. It makes perfect sense, then, that Joe Lieberman, a “conservative Democrat”, would be ousted by his party as too extreme. The only thing that is surprising is that the NYT would actually call any part of the Democratic party “moderate” rather than letting stand the assumption that the Party itself is the moderate voice in American policies. Such, I think, signals a new way of spinning that will likely become a them in this election cycle.
Maybe this is Vietnam again after all, though only on its effect on the Democrat Party.
As for “moderates” electing Ned, puhleeze. Low turnout primaries are dominated by the true believers in their respective parties, which tend strongly towards the distinctly unmoderate.
Personally, I am amused by the self-proclaimed big tent party’s purity purge.
Turing Word: anti
Yeah, let’s nip AJB’s line of “thinking” right in the bud.
No one is saying that its unique to the democrat party that primary elections result in incumbents being denied the party endorsement for re-election or that primaries sometimes result in more ideologically “pure” candidates defeating more “moderate” candidates.
What’s unique here is that Lieberman was “out of step” on one issue: the Global War on Terrorists/his inability to summon bile on command to spit in President Bush’s face. That’s it, folks. On everything else? He’s a progressive’s progressive.
That, and the MSM is willing to recast ideologues or “purists” as “moderates” for one side (see, the NYT) and “conservatives” or “extremists” in the case of another (see, the story linked by AJB).
That’s the story, and that’s what’s under discussion here, AJB. Chime in or fetch me a juice box. I really don’t care.
There’s something else in that news story that’s troubling. Note at the end of that section quoted:
This is accurate, as far as it goes, but leaves something out: blogs aren’t unique in this. Blogs use different terms, but “right wing extremist,” “militant” and other terms are all used by the legacy media in their stories. He’s leaving the impression that blogs are these over the top loons (and hey, a lot are, to be fair) while the media is above such shenanigans.
Excuse me while I duck that pistolwhipping from Captain O’Hagan.
I know the media has a pretty low view of bloggers as amateurish upstarts, and every time they get smeared by blogs or revealed to be incompetent, unprofessional, or even unethical that makes these guys even more annoyed. But this is just sad. Almost as sad as the NYT editorial about “moderates.”
I also wanted to congratulate the Netroots, MoveOn.org, and Kos for successfully deposing a Democrat incumbent and encourage them to keep fighting the good fight now that they’ve discovered that beating Democrats can be so much easier than beating Republicans.
Since 60% of Ned Lamont’s campaign expenses were paid for by …, wait for it …, Ned Lamont, maybe they could adopt the following as a slogan: Netroots: Helping rich white guys buy elections!
Turing Word: george, as in 6’20”.
Bring them home :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/9/5384/00552
One other thing. I seem to remember that when Democrats were first turned out of Congress in ‘94, this event was explained by what the press called “The angry white (male) voter” as though maybe blacks and hispanics like corruption and high taxes. There was no attempt to cast that as an angry moderate movement, even though it was driven in part by revulsion against a radical plan to socialize all healthcare in the country. Just the opposite, the “angry white voter” movement was portrayed as itself extreme and even racist.
But, of course, this isn’t bias. The facts are merely against us, right? Highly objective facts like how to define terms like “liberal”, “conservative”, “moderate”, and “extreme”. Our smug friend David misunderstood our complaints about media bias, contending (disingeniuosly no doubt) that we conservatives simply don’t like the facts reported. Oh no, we love the facts when all are presented. What defines bias is the decision of what facts to show and emphasize, and which ones to ignore or bury all together, and in what context–if any–the facts are presented.
Charles can’t be too sanctimonious where “attacking the messenger is concerned”. Afterall, any NYT story, for example, is suspect because the NYT is part of the “LLL” “MSM” etc.
And LGF hardly represents a moderating force in US political discourse. That said, the site is an excellent source for stories about Islamism and antisemitism that the “MSM” (there I did it) would prefer to avoid.
Except that Charles has a better record for honesty and openness to correction than the NYT has. That, I think, is the reason the LLL and MSM are reviled.
Do you think the NYT will ever admit it runs some of the crap it does because they want it to be true? Nope. They’ll just mutter something about “mistakes were made” and swear they’ll have more (like-minded) people watching what they print.
Are you kidding me? Charles is one person running a blog. First of all, blogs in general need not wait for a story to be verified before posting; as this is the nature of the medium. And the medium is designed for constant online revision and correction. Second, as one person, it’s not difficult for him to retract or correct a personally made statement. (And LGF has relatively little original content.) Neither of these facts is tru for the NYT. The NYT is a huge organization, with a daily corrections page. Lastly, blogs like Charles’ simply would not exist without a parasitic relation to large news organizations like the NYT. Comparisons like yours are ridiculous.
Dude. Eddie is the Cruisers. How could you blow your credibility over a throw-away line like that? Now instead of being able to trust you implicitly, I have to question your credibility vis-a-vis
the NYTReutersthe APCNN…. Dammit. OK, you’re still a lot more credible than those clowns. But I demand a retraction on the Eddie thing!In a few weeks, buried deep in the comments of an OT post will be fine.
I suspect Jesse Jackson would don blackface himself if he thought it would get him on camera.
And when the NYT never corrects errors (other than stuffing a small notice in the dusty corner somehwere) or alters its behavior, or is remotely honest about its orientation?
Charles isn’t saying that he or any other blog is a replacement for the MSM – simply a watcher, and one that shouldn’t be necessary if the press functioned correctly. All Charles has asked for is a little honesty and accuracy in reporting – I guess that is simply too much.
***
This is the same WaPo that shut off its comments for awhile to stem the tide Leftist bile flooding their site.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
tw: enough. Well, yes, actually.
Fringe leftists calling themselves “moderate” or something similar, is nothing new. A few years back there was a troller on Ipse Dixit (not a troll, but a regular commenter who trolled—small difference) whose BDS was full-blown seemingly before GWB got elected governor in Texas. He admitted the reason he opposed the Iraq war was because he hated Bush.
And he called himself a “centrist.”
Then there was that bunch in Russia 90 years ago or so, called themselves “the Majority.” What was the Russian word again?
Oh yeah: Bolsheviks.
It’s a steaming pile of bolshevik if you ask me.
I seem to remember a poll several months ago that listed “least respected professions.”
The top selections were trial lawyers, used car salesmen, and number 1, journalists. I read “MSM” into that.
A purge in the former Soviet Union? More like a putsch in an Albanian kaçkavall Co-operative.
My theory is more generational. The KosBat Gen-Xers are being manipulated by the Old Left Trotskyite Grey-Guard – those who were marginalized by Mainstream Democrats and who see using the X-ers as a tool to finally finish the Job of eviscerating the Party and pulling that dead sheep-skin over their wolf-bodies.
The useful idiot KosBats are Gen-Xers run amok, out of their cubicles and down the hall. They want to depose the Boomers that have been running things and keeping ‘em down on the Political Plantation – and in revenge for that, in the most dramatic way possible.
Their push-button is Attention, and this acting-up behavior gets it for ‘em. They are severely jealous of Boomers’ own self-attention and their power, to the point of depression and lying down in the fetal position—at least it explains why they demonstrate passive-aggressively, in lay-downs and die-ins. Attention sparks them out of it. It’s their post-nap juice and cookies.
The KosBats are Gen-Xers-Gone-Goth, have sprouted Vampire fangs and will devour their host Party and the old Red Wolves will see their work finally done.
The NYT is on the dark side.
Eddie is the Cruisers.
I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Another is to simply say his approach to fighting the War on Terror doesn’t reflect the dem platform for fighting the War on Terror. Leiberman supports Bush’s way. He took a position in opposition to his own party and constituency and got voted out. Simple as that.
Why the right feels the need to write articles and blog posts stating that the left shouldn’t vote against dem candidates that the right loves, is beyond me.
My piece is about how things were framed. Personally, I don’t give a toss who you all vote for in your primaries beyond what it augurs for the strength and direction of the opposition party (one I used to identify with, incidentally).
I do, however, care when a guy is blackfaced, or subjected to a host of anti-semitic remarks from self-professed champions of tolerance.
I find it worth commenting on. You, of course, are under no obligation to read.
Read that again. I suggest pure gasoline or turpentine for washing the irony off.
And Lamont voters are moderates. Direct injections of Cheez Whiz into the bloodstream are good for you. Osama bin Laden dreams of the day a synagogue will be built in Mecca. The Green Bay Packers really do have the most talent this year since Brett Favre has been QB. The French are good at war. The Pittsburgh Pirates will win the World Series this year. O.J. is looking for the real killers.
I could go on and on. It’s when they just make shit up that I get pissed.
*sigh* Eddie wasn’t the Cruisers. He was Springsteen. The banner behind him “proved” it.
Not as much as Jesse Jackson behind Lamont, but you catch my drift…
Why, I wonder, did the WaPo say this:
…instead of this:
…?
Yeah, like I’m really asking that question. Speaking of your framing there. “Johnson, who probably still lives in his parents’ basement a la Mike Myers in Wayne’s World, seeing as how he’s a 53-year-old professional musician with a blog.”
I don’t even read LGF and I was offended at the way the story was framed.
TW: The frame cut off the issue as neatly as my mother-in-laws pix of my kids cut off the tops of their heads.
*
Damn..I always thought Eddie was John Cafferty……
jg said
“I guess that’s one way of looking at it. Another is to simply say his approach to fighting the War on Terror doesn’t reflect the dem platform for fighting the War on Terror.”
I don’t think too many would call running away (while giving the terrorists Israel as a gift on the way out) and then laying down in the fetal position and promising to be a good little Dhimmi (Dem) a “platform for fighting the War on Terror”.
Rise of irate moderates? Nutroots are moderate like Bob Crane: I’m a normal, red-blooded American man.
Behold the beginning of the seperation of the Democratic Party. Now that the socialists/anarchist set have tossed out the mainstream we will now see the healthy purging of the Democrats from the Socialists. This is good for the country as a whole. Now the netroots/soros folks can “own” the label of Democrat while the union folks, blacks, Jewish groups can actively finance and recreate the Democrats. Maybe just maybe they might actually be patriots and proAmerica. This is truely a good thing for the country.
Karensky
Like dark matter and dark energy, this “platform” is theorized to exist but I’ll be damned if anyone can find it.
Ironically Andrew Sullivan was hoping such a “debate” would take place (at least back in 2003) within the Democratic Party. I wonder what he thinks now – but I shan’t go looking to find out, heh heh.
As for “moderates†electing Ned, puhleeze. Low turnout primaries are dominated by the true believers in their respective parties, which tend strongly towards the distinctly unmoderate.
Personally, I am amused by the self-proclaimed big tent party’s purity purge.
Turnout for the election was astonishing high. What we’re seeing is not a primary hijacked by extremists, but rank and file democrats saying “enough”.
Let’s face it. If a Republican made a career out of cozying up to the other side the way Lieberman has done, he would be ousted long ago. Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly (no extremist Kossack, he) made a good point that right-wingers special interest groups frequently oust moderate candidates for not conforming to their vision of political purity. Arlen Specter was almost toppled over the abortion issue. Republican moderate Joe Schwartz was defeated yesterday by a fundamentalist preacher supported by Michigan Right to Life and the Club for Growth despite the fact that Schwartz, like Lieberman, had the Republican establishment solidly behind him. So how come Mr. Goldstein and the right-wing blogs in general characterize the one as political cannabalism but not the other?
And Jeff,
I do, however, care when a guy is blackfaced, or subjected to a host of anti-semitic remarks from self-professed champions of tolerance.
I agree that the blackface incident was completely appalling of Hamsher and she should have apologized immediately. I posted about that incident twice, with nothing but harsh words for Hamsher. However, I fail to see how you can use one instance of bad judgement by one of his supporters to tar Lamont. Where are your condemnations for this?, or this?
Let’s not forget the fact that the Lieberman campaign tried to smear Lamont as a rightie with that bear-cub ad. He’s no rightie, he’s no crazed fringe leftie either though.
AFKAF:
No one is saying that its unique to the democrat party that primary elections result in incumbents being denied the party endorsement for re-election or that primaries sometimes result in more ideologically “pure†candidates defeating more “moderate†candidates.
But a big part of the focus on Lieberman/Lamont is the fact that a narrow political group that cares about a single (or close to a single) political issue led to Lieberman’s ouster. Groups that have led the charge on the right in a similar manner includes the Club for Growth and various single-issue prolife groups on the right. They unseated Schwartz and damn well near got Arlen Specter too.
What’s unique here is that Lieberman was “out of step†on one issue: the Global War on Terrorists/his inability to summon bile on command to spit in President Bush’s face. That’s it, folks. On everything else? He’s a progressive’s progressive.See above. Single-issue advocacy is not the exclusive province of the left.
That, and the MSM is willing to recast ideologues or “purists†as “moderates†for one side (see, the NYT) and “conservatives†or “extremists†in the case of another (see, the story linked by AJB).
That all depends on your definition of “extremist” and “moderate”. The MSM is also excoriated on the left for the same thing in the opposite direction. It’s a mug’s game that they can’t win. For me, it’s a meaningless discussion. I think Howard Dean is a moderate. You probably think Rick Santorum is a moderate. They can’t please us both.
It would seem to me that lamont supporters are a majority of connecticut democrats. You know. the type of people that kept on electing lieberman.
The majority of Connecticut democrats who vote in primaries. Big difference.
I’ll give battlepanda this: he’s at least being honest in admitting that the single issue that defined the primary battle was Lieberman’s support of an aggressive war against the terror masters. Lieberman has critiqued aspects of Bush’s handling, and battlepanda conceded that on all other issues, he’s a true Leftist.
But they can’t get past his support for taking the fight to the enemy and, to a somewhat lesser extent, supporting Israel’s right to self-defense in its current fight with Hiz’bollah.
For those sins, there is no redemption on the Left, and so we see the viciousness of the campaign to deny Lieberman the endorsement of the party that just six short years ago, nominated him as it Vice-Presidential candidate.
As a partisan Republican, I’m thrilled that the far-left has captured the Democrat party as this tends to clarify positions. And where there’s ideological clarity, the GOP kicks the Left’s ass, every time.
As an American, I’m dismayed and disheartened that signiciant percentage of my countrymen espouse a position of weakness and self-hatred that could see many die, both here and abroad if their asinine policies are ever implemented.
The comparison to Specter is just dumb, though, because Specter pisses of the rigth on a wide variety of issues. Lieberman can be said to piss off the left on only one issue: he wants to defend the country. With guns and stuff.
As far as “labels” its all well and good to just throw up your hands, battlepanda and say everyone’s definitions will vary, but I don’t buy ink by the barrell and call myself an “impartial” and “objective” news source like the NYT. Now do I?
Oh? Like John McCain?
Or Olympia Snowe?
Hate to break it to you, AFKAF, but the anti-war viewpoint is getting more and more mainstream. Now a clear majority say that the war was not worth fighting for when polled. Hardly the extreme leftist position, unless you want to posit that most Americans are extreme leftists.
Two things—first of all, I don’t think Lieberman is a true leftist at all. He pushes lots of the correct buttons, but when push comes to shove during voting time, you can’t count on Joe. Moreover, it was not enough for him to support the war, he had to insinuate that the democrats who do not are disloyal. No. This is America. We don’t stifle dissent under insinuations of disloyalty. When it comes down to it, he is a selfish poll who is more interested in his own political fortunes than his party or his ideals. Remember when he refused to give up his senate seat to run for vice prez? Well, we do.
As for Spector, he might displease righties in a variety of ways, but he was specifically targeted for one issue—abortion. They almost got him too.
Unless you want the NYT to completely eschew any labels of any kind, which would make it a damn useless newspaper, you’re going to have to acknowledge that it can’t please everybody all the time.
As for McCain, I’m surprise that he’s mentioned because him and Bush has been so chummy chummy of late. Yes, McCain also works hard at his moderate maverick image, but he knows not to cross the line. Look at this Bush/McCaine hugfest—this is despite all the dirty push-polling McCaine had to endure in the primary.
I don’t get it. Are you claiming that the NYT has no corrections page, or that a corrections page is proof that it makes errors?
And now there was a tough primary challenge with a crappy GOP candidate. I don’t see much of a problem. It still looks like its going to be state that elected lieberman that elects lamont.
[…] to bring about its desired ends, and given that it is an ideological movement based solely on will, “contingency”, and manufactured consent, it must be beaten back by the very liberal principles it pretends to […]