["Plastic Jesus" written by Ed Rush and George Cromarty, and sung by Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke." h/t Driftglass.]
25 documents found in 0.001 seconds.
- American history
- Blue Gal
- Chuck Todd
- Conservative Talking Points
- Democratic Party
- Dick Cheney
- EJ Dionne
- Hurricane Katrina
- Media Bias
- Media Criticism
- Mike's Blog Round Up
- Ned Lamont
- Off the Beaten Path
- Open Thread
- The Senate
- Tony Blair
- al Qaeda
- beaten path
- traditional media
He's turned into Zellieberman now. Zell Lieberman. What ever you want to call him---the fact remains that he's an embarrassment to himself and to his politics. The media should be howling about his own flip flop. He said this in '06 because he wanted to still be Senator. What lie will he tell next?
"I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Ned Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that." --07/06/06, Connecticut Primary Debate
It looks like Zell Lieberman is the one working to defeat the hopes and dreams of the Democratic Party.
Mia Culpa caught this little gem at MSNBC.com:
(R)ight now on MSNBC, this is what a paragraph states in the article on the Senate backing the March '08 deadline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq:
"The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an anti-war insurgent."
Lieberman's continual hackery and slavish devotion to neo-con ideals, reality be damned aside, can I just say anti-war INSURGENT???? I'll take "Loaded Terminology" for $1000, Alex. So Ned Lamont (with his netroots support) should be viewed as an insurgent? Nice of the traditional media to finally (albeit tacitly) admit to what we've been saying for some time now: there is a war going on here at home too. The war between the truth of how everyone outside the Beltway perceives this country and her actions and those inside the Beltway desperately trying to hang on to the status quo.
Screen capture of the article (in case they scrub it) below the fold:
Picking up on Jane's post, it is really interesting to see 37 pages of negative comments against the last honest man's call to send more troops into Iraq. The internets are certainly having an impact...
Ned Lamont took a lot of abuse because of his anti war stance, (the GOP had him on their front page for weeks) but it was his presence on the campaign trail that helped to create a huge shift in our country towards this fiasco. Thank you Ned. And as for St. McCain---I'm sure he's not too happy to see Hillary beat him in some of the polls now. His plan to out Bush--Bush on the war is backfiring and well it should.
Empire Burlesque: Operation Iraq Bug-Out quietly begins. Will Bush and his bootlicking warbloggers now denounce Tony Blair for cutting and running?
The Enigmatic Paradox: Lamont vs Lieberman...Dead Man Voting
Just Plain Bother: The lamest Joementum apologist yet.
The Existentialist Cowboy: Terrorism has been worse under GOP regimes since 1980
Beggars Can Be Choosers: Which is a better source of news...MSM or the blogosphere?
skippy the bush kangaroo: A CNN anchor calls Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate." Fight back!
Demarcated Landscapes: 2006 was hottest Jan-July period in recorded history
Videos coming...Feingold, Dean, Lamont and the "Talking Point Action Figure" Ken Mehlman too
Duncan is so right.
Look, it's simple. Every time the Democrats do anything Republicans run to reporters and say how wonderful this is and how it means the downfall of the Democratic party and blah blah blah. Hell, when Dick Cheney shot a man in the face they were claiming it'd be good for poll numbers. The press always believes it, and too often, Democrats do too.
If Lamont had lost, then the Republicans would have had a new talking point to give to the stenographers. Just pick your own. It doesn't matter. Then check out Chuck Todd's column.
Digby on EJ Dionne
Digby is right again, as usual. E.J. Dionne repeats a piece of conventional wisdom that irks the hell out of me every time I hear it - if Lieberman loses the primary and runs as an independent it will distract everyone from the true villain, the GOP, and therefore we should just give him a pass.
Balderdash. Lieberman has been an integral part of the GOP’s bully machine for the past six years, the Democrat useful for his willingness to dicipline his own kind. Ned Lamont is running a legitimate primary contest and Joe is refusing to abide by the results of that primary...read on
"Ned Lamont said he'll support whoever wins the primary. Isn't that the type of character trait you want in a senator who represents you in Washington?"