NYT gets Lieberman all wrong
As little common sense and research as it takes to be a "real" reporter these days, maybe I should add a "slash-journalist" to the end of my resume title.
Here's what the paper has to say about Lieberman's willingness to cave in on privatization:
"[Some Connecticut Dems'] disappointment with Mr. Lieberman illustrates the difficulty of trying to be a centrist in an increasingly polarized political climate. Mr. Lieberman has gone from a possible Democratic heir apparent to a presidential primary footnote in 2004 to the conspicuous odd man out in his own Senate party caucus."
This should appear on Fox. As quite a few bloggers (including myself) wrote last week, this is the DLC line-- anyone opposed to Lieberman's policies is a radical-- which sounds a lot like saying that anyone opposing Rice's nomination is a racist.
But we aren't angry with Lieberman for "trying to be a centrist." Privatizing Social Security isn't something centrists want to do-- it's been a pet project of right-wing thinktanks for decades, and no one else took it seriously. Until they came to dominate the GOP. The fact that Lieberman has lately been making headlines for his willingness to cooperate with Republicans represents a man who is willing to support reactionary policy. As many have noted, Harry Reid is anti-abortion, but he's becoming extremely popular with Dems these days. Because he's fighting for Democratic principles. Lieberman has become an object of scorn because he's a Dem who gets lots of airtime, and uses it not to promote his party's agenda, but to sound like he thinks that GOP proposals might be quite sensible. Poof-- instant grist for the right-wing mill. "He listens to reason! What's with all those other fanatics?!?" Lieberman isn't a bad Democrat, but his primary role of the last few years has been to give Republicans another way to misrepresent our party.
Shame on the NYT for suggesting that there's anything centrist about the current GOP. And shame on Lieberman for still pretending that they're anything but corrupt robber barons. It's possible to be civil without being a pushover.
Here's what the paper has to say about Lieberman's willingness to cave in on privatization:
"[Some Connecticut Dems'] disappointment with Mr. Lieberman illustrates the difficulty of trying to be a centrist in an increasingly polarized political climate. Mr. Lieberman has gone from a possible Democratic heir apparent to a presidential primary footnote in 2004 to the conspicuous odd man out in his own Senate party caucus."
This should appear on Fox. As quite a few bloggers (including myself) wrote last week, this is the DLC line-- anyone opposed to Lieberman's policies is a radical-- which sounds a lot like saying that anyone opposing Rice's nomination is a racist.
But we aren't angry with Lieberman for "trying to be a centrist." Privatizing Social Security isn't something centrists want to do-- it's been a pet project of right-wing thinktanks for decades, and no one else took it seriously. Until they came to dominate the GOP. The fact that Lieberman has lately been making headlines for his willingness to cooperate with Republicans represents a man who is willing to support reactionary policy. As many have noted, Harry Reid is anti-abortion, but he's becoming extremely popular with Dems these days. Because he's fighting for Democratic principles. Lieberman has become an object of scorn because he's a Dem who gets lots of airtime, and uses it not to promote his party's agenda, but to sound like he thinks that GOP proposals might be quite sensible. Poof-- instant grist for the right-wing mill. "He listens to reason! What's with all those other fanatics?!?" Lieberman isn't a bad Democrat, but his primary role of the last few years has been to give Republicans another way to misrepresent our party.
Shame on the NYT for suggesting that there's anything centrist about the current GOP. And shame on Lieberman for still pretending that they're anything but corrupt robber barons. It's possible to be civil without being a pushover.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 6:15 PM
<< Home