Wednesday, August 09, 2006
CNN: "Lieber-TV".
Or, on the other hand, Lieberman could lose and refuse to acknowledge it:
Actually, Joe, what happened was: you lost the election.
Lieberman may figure the only way to continue his pro-Bush agenda is to split the Democratic vote in the general election in the hopes that a Republican will get the seat. Surely the man who clothes-lined former S.E.C. Commissioner Arthur Leavitt -- a Bill Clinton appointee who attempted to curb Wall Street's increasing power in Washington -- would find a Republican preferable to an actual Democrat, who might advocate for Democratic voters over the objections of the corporate interests that Joe has represented for 18 years.
If he does, he'll find no opposition on "Lieber-TV" -- formerly known as CNN -- whose coverage of the primary last night veered between frustrating and surreal.
To begin with, CNN, which we haven't watched in months, recognizes no story other than "CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST", which is to say, the one between Israel and Lebanon. For hour after hour CNN reminded its viewers who was really responsible for the war (hint: it wasn't George Bush, nor the invasion of Iraq, nor the war-mongering neocons in Washington and Israel, nor our ridiculous and inexcusable dependence on oil), and paraded a gaggle of talking heads to vehemently disagree over whether we should pursue Option A or Option A-subset-2 (since options B-Z would be helping the terrorists.)
Much, much later -- after the Red Sox had lost in Kansas City, even -- Anderson Cooper mentioned the war in Iraq in passing before going to yet another commercial for yet another pharmaceutical product about which we should ask our doctor. We have no idea if he got back to Iraq or for how long, but somewhere along the line he dropped in on CNN's resident campaign liar Candy Crowley, who paused between heavy breaths to repeat the GOP talking points on the Connecticut Senate primary: that Lieberman was the "centrist", that "lefty bloggers" and "anti-Bushies" had propelled the neophyte Lamont ahead, that it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic party if Lamont was elected, and would be evidence only of the "deep partisanization" of politics (instead of an expression of popular will completely in accordance with polls on the views of all Americans), and that if Lieberman ran as an Independent he'd win.
It never occurred to Crowley to consider reporting that a candidate's refusing to drop out of a race after losing a primary would be a stunning slap in the face to his party, to voters, and to democracy.
Which is what everyone but Candy Crowley and whoever the hell she represents was thinking.
Crowley, by the way, had earlier told CNN viewers that Lieberman might have been ahead (due to "cheers" she said she'd heard in the room) when every newspaper and wire service on earth was reporting that Lamont was winning and, in fact, had never trailed.
During Lieberman's "concession" speech Crowley gave a report -- inexplicably from a cell phone; she may have popped over to Burger King -- talking over his speech to report to viewers that Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" -- presumably the ones she knows, not the ones who actually voted -- as a step in the wrong direction for the party.
Later, when Lamont gave his acceptance speech, CNN covered it not at all, instead running a pre-produced Crowley piece in which she reported to viewers that -- you guessed it: Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" as a step in the wrong direction for the party.
It will be months before we watch CNN again -- if ever. Screw them.
- Senator Lieberman, a national party leader and the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, conceded defeat in a phone call to Mr. Lamont shortly before 11 p.m. But then, in a combative speech to supporters in Hartford that was carried live on television news, the senator declared that he was not dropping out of the race, but would instead run for re-election as an independent this fall.
"As I see it, in this campaign, we've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead, but in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Mr. Lieberman told cheering supporters.
Actually, Joe, what happened was: you lost the election.
Lieberman may figure the only way to continue his pro-Bush agenda is to split the Democratic vote in the general election in the hopes that a Republican will get the seat. Surely the man who clothes-lined former S.E.C. Commissioner Arthur Leavitt -- a Bill Clinton appointee who attempted to curb Wall Street's increasing power in Washington -- would find a Republican preferable to an actual Democrat, who might advocate for Democratic voters over the objections of the corporate interests that Joe has represented for 18 years.
If he does, he'll find no opposition on "Lieber-TV" -- formerly known as CNN -- whose coverage of the primary last night veered between frustrating and surreal.
To begin with, CNN, which we haven't watched in months, recognizes no story other than "CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST", which is to say, the one between Israel and Lebanon. For hour after hour CNN reminded its viewers who was really responsible for the war (hint: it wasn't George Bush, nor the invasion of Iraq, nor the war-mongering neocons in Washington and Israel, nor our ridiculous and inexcusable dependence on oil), and paraded a gaggle of talking heads to vehemently disagree over whether we should pursue Option A or Option A-subset-2 (since options B-Z would be helping the terrorists.)
Much, much later -- after the Red Sox had lost in Kansas City, even -- Anderson Cooper mentioned the war in Iraq in passing before going to yet another commercial for yet another pharmaceutical product about which we should ask our doctor. We have no idea if he got back to Iraq or for how long, but somewhere along the line he dropped in on CNN's resident campaign liar Candy Crowley, who paused between heavy breaths to repeat the GOP talking points on the Connecticut Senate primary: that Lieberman was the "centrist", that "lefty bloggers" and "anti-Bushies" had propelled the neophyte Lamont ahead, that it would be a terrible thing for the Democratic party if Lamont was elected, and would be evidence only of the "deep partisanization" of politics (instead of an expression of popular will completely in accordance with polls on the views of all Americans), and that if Lieberman ran as an Independent he'd win.
It never occurred to Crowley to consider reporting that a candidate's refusing to drop out of a race after losing a primary would be a stunning slap in the face to his party, to voters, and to democracy.
Which is what everyone but Candy Crowley and whoever the hell she represents was thinking.
Crowley, by the way, had earlier told CNN viewers that Lieberman might have been ahead (due to "cheers" she said she'd heard in the room) when every newspaper and wire service on earth was reporting that Lamont was winning and, in fact, had never trailed.
During Lieberman's "concession" speech Crowley gave a report -- inexplicably from a cell phone; she may have popped over to Burger King -- talking over his speech to report to viewers that Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" -- presumably the ones she knows, not the ones who actually voted -- as a step in the wrong direction for the party.
Later, when Lamont gave his acceptance speech, CNN covered it not at all, instead running a pre-produced Crowley piece in which she reported to viewers that -- you guessed it: Lieberman was a centrist who would win if he ran as an Independent against the lefty-blogger-and-anti-Bushies-propelled Lamont, whose election would be seen by "Democrats" as a step in the wrong direction for the party.
It will be months before we watch CNN again -- if ever. Screw them.
