The NYT had a decent story today regarding the flood of money that Joe Lieberman has been getting from traditionally GOP-specific sources. Really no surprise given how often Holy Joe serves as the GOP's "bipartisan" fig leaf for their policies and initiatives, but it's good to see it in print. Unfortunately, that's not all that Times writers, Mike McIntire and Jennifer Medina, put in print. From their introduction to the story (emphasis added):
"...But that donation and others like it have fed a perception, stoked by the Lamont campaign and its supporters on the Internet, that Mr. Lieberman is too cozy with Republicans. It is a vexing assertion for Mr. Lieberman, whose centrist politics and pragmatic style, once a source of pride, are now being held against him by liberals and antiwar Democrats."
Once again, an all-too-popular fiction about the Lamont-Lieberman primary repeated as if it were fact.
Centrism and pragmatism have nothing to do with the reason so many democrats--of all stripes--have a serious problem with Joe Lieberman.
Taking to the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page to scold the administration's critics that their doing so imperils the nation, is neither centrist, nor pragmatic. It's contemptuous of dissent and--in a day where the charge is thrown around baselessly--truly unamerican.
Refusing to support Connecticut Democrats' nominee in the primary and choosing, instead, to run as an independent should he lose, is neither centrist, nor pragmatic. It's an exercise in unrestrained ego and entitlement demonstrating his low opinion of the will of the voters.
Voting to oppose Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court after voting for the cloture measure that would ensure it, is neither centrist, nor pragmatic. It's a cowardly attempt to have his cake and eat it, too, avoiding rocking the boat while still keeping nominal claim to his pro-life bona fides.
Telling rape victims that it shouldn't be a problem to take "a short ride" to another hospital if the one they arrive at won't dispense emergency contraception on so-called "moral" grounds, is neither centrist, nor pragmatic.
That one's just fundamentally repugnant.
The Times carries with it a certain stature, a stature that it imparts to the stories contained within. The inclusion of this mischaracterization of Lieberman's opposition in the article only helps perpetuate a falsehood and legitimize it as conventional wisdom. As such, it has no place in "The Paper of Record."
No comments:
Post a Comment