We’ve spoken several times in these spaces as regards Joe Liberman, and the treatment he’s been getting at the hands of Democrats for supporting the Iraq war effort. We’ve also mentioned many times that the Democrats and the mainstream media seem to be in lockstep at least since Jimmy Carter was in office, and likely, before that.
This morning, William Kristol over at the Weekly Standard [1] puts another example of lockstep between left and the press, this time directly involving Joe Lieberman himself:
[2] If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on “the politics of national security.” The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it.
I will urge you to go read the whole thing. However, here’s a taste of what Mr. Lieberman had to say;
Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.
[3]But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.
Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . .
Certainly, you can imagine why the Democrats wouldn’t be very happy with Joe Lieberman just now. The actual ramifications as regards the any future political aspirations of Liberman, are nearly nil. As Jules Crittenden [4] points out this morning:
Lieberman’s obviously figured out for himself a Dem run is a no go, and an independent run could be destructive, and he’s opted not to go all the way and switch sides. Probably too late at this point for an independent run intended to underscore the single most important issue of our time, say a lot of things like he just said about the Dems very loudly, and bow out with a GOP endorsement or a veep slot at the opportune moment. Lieberman appears to have decided to be useful in the Senate instead, which measure such as the al Quds terrorist-designation amendment.
So, Joe was going nowhere, politically, with this one. At least, in the short term. And yet, the question at the top of Kristol’s column becomes more pronounced by this apparent lack of motion, given the demonstrated fear on the part of the Democrat Party. Well, about that…If Joe doesn’t plan to gain any more power at the expense of other Democrats, what is it they fear? What is the threat the Democrats see in Lieberman?
For that matter, if the press were as it claims unbiased, why on earth would there be complete silence as regards this speech from Lieberman?
The only conclusions to be drawn is that the press are not unbiased, but rather are working in concert with leftist Democrats. Democrats who, demonstrably, would rather not see the kind of message that Lieberman is sending, here, to get any traction in the mainstream.
That, dear reader, is the take- away from this ;
It’s not Lieberman, per se’, that the Democrats and the press fear… Rather, it is the message he is sending. HIs choice of wording on that is correct; they are paranoid about it. Clearly, the contents of that message gaining serious traction in anywhere but among staunch Republicans, particularly heading into an election year, is the Democrat party’s worst nightmare. And the press, being the willingly obedient dupes that they are, simply follow along… as they have since… well… Jimmy Carter.
More, Memeorandum
Also, Swamp Stomper Sister Toldjah [5]