Media critic. Invader of
SJW safe spaces.
For the ‘good of the party’ and ‘sake of democracy’ of course.
First up, there’s DNC Chair Howard Dean:
“I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but the truth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party’s nominee and I think that is what you have to do if you want to help this country,” Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The Dr. of Disology has apparently forgotten that he stayed in the hunt for the Democratic nomination well after it was clear he wasn’t going to get it.
More from Dean:
“The way to help this country is to limit Republican power.
Which makes no sense, considering that the polls show that Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger would garner only 6% of the vote if the elections were held now. The Republican party is not backing Schlesinger, and some have even asked him (prior to last week’s primary) to consider dropping out because of a gambling scandal. Schlesinger has refused to do so, but rest assured he won’t be getting any GOP support. The CT Senate race is going to be between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, and Howard Dean knows it. Not surprising that he would utilize a familiar DNC scare tactic – that ‘Those eeeeevil Republicans might retain control of Congress! They must be stopped!’ – by suggesting that Lieberman staying in the race and not abiding by the ‘will of the people’ might mean the GOP will pick up a seat. I guess he just considers CT voters too stupid and ignorant to know this.
Next, is Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy:
Cheney Paints Lamont Victory As Helping Terrorists
What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people – not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.
Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections – as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech – provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law – as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.
His opinion piece attacked Dick Cheney, but make no mistake about it: it was directed at Joe Lieberman, too, who has used similar rhetoric to Cheney’s in the last week in terms of talking about what Lamont’s victory could signal to terrorists. Kennedy’s implication: Joe, the ‘democratic process’ has taken place. No shut up drop out.
Finally, there’s Jonathan “I hate President Bush” Chait:
Moreover, it’s increasingly clear that Lieberman’s loss is his own fault. He was far too slow to recognize the seriousness of Lamont’s challenge. He ended the campaign with $2 million unspent. And his decision to now run as an independent was a disaster, confirming the central accusation against him, which was that he cared more about his own standing than his party.
Um, no. The ‘central accusation’ against him is that he’s not anti-war enough for the nutters in CT who supported Ned Lamont. That, and he doesn’t hate the President.
If he had just declared in advance that he would abide by the result of the primary, he probably would have won, and he’d have Lamont campaigning for him today.
Amazing! That’s all it would have taken? Newsflash, Chait: What it would have taken for Lieberman to win the primary is for him to assure Nutroots voters that he hated President Bush, that Iraq was a “mistake,” and that he was going to push for a pullout that would occur as soon as possible. Has Jon Chait been hiding under a rock these last few months? Is this deliberate obtuseness on his part or what? I can’t figure it out.
Once more from Chait:
Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent after contesting the primary is not illegal in Connecticut (unlike other states, which have “sore loser” laws prohibiting such a gambit), but it is poor form. The primary is an essential element of the two-party system, and the process is subverted when losing candidates feel free to circumvent it.
LOL … ‘subverted’? The ability to run as an Independent candidate after a primary isn’t a subversion of democracy. It’s a part of it.
Lastly, from Chait:
(Which is the problem with Ralph Nader-esque, suicidal third-party runs.)
Ah, there you go. Now just who is it who is trying to subvert the process of democracy here? Chait, by discouraging third-party runs via classifying them as ‘suicidal’ and equating Nadar’s third-party run with Lieberman’s for some bizarre reason. I’m not a fan of Ralph Nadar, but just how was he ‘subverting democracy’ with a third-party run? Oh yeah, third-party runs by Nadar have taken away votes that otherwise would have gone to Democratic candidates, who needed them (like Al Gore in 2000). That’s not a ‘subversion of democracy’, that is democracy. To Chait it seems, anyone who might take away votes from a Democratic candidate is ‘subverting democracy.’ What a crock.
Notice the popular theme here from Dean, Kennedy, and Chait? The ‘respect the democratic process’ angle is a subtle reminder of the 2000 presidential election, which we all know Democrats still believe was stolen by President Bush – which is the basis of the hatred we’ve seen almost everyday from the Nutroots since Bush was “selected.” By inserting subtle reminders about how the democratic process works here in America, thus making Democratic voters remember 2000, folks like Dean, Kennedy and Chait are hoping to appeal to the passions stirred up by the “stolen” 2000 elections. Bush ‘subverted democracy’ in 2000, and we mustn’t let it happen again!
The message is clear: Don’t let Joe steal the 2006 CT Senate race.
It’s dishonesty at its most potent, but did we really expect anything else from the Nutroots?
“I look forward to supporting Ned as he fights to help Democrats take back the Senate, and I call on Joe Lieberman to respect the will of the voters and step aside” Richardson said.
“Respect the will of the voters.” Oh yeah, the DNC talking points are definately out.
Read more via Paul and John at Powerline.
Hat tip on the Reuters link: Brainster