How Journalists Lost the Connecticut Senate Race
By instinct and necessity, daily newspaper reporters are democratic, inquisitive, and therefore easy to talk to. But there is, as they say, another side of the story, and, wow, was it ever on display last week in two big New York Times profiles of Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, both of which read as if written by Lieberman's Senate campaign. Lamont seems likely to lose on Tuesday, and since I'm a Lamont partisan, you’ll assume I’m writing this from sour grapes. But no. Good journalism and civic-republicanism matter more than the outcome of this one contest. Judge for yourself how they're doing in this one.
According to the two big Times profiles, Ned, "a son of privilege," can't be a grounded civic-republican who taught awhile in an inner-city school; and Joe, an independent thinker toughened by the scourging of leftist bloggers and activists who've taken over the Democratic Party, can't have voted for the worst aspects of the Iraq War, the detainee bill, or the mauling of Terry Schiavo. At least the profiles don't break out of their own fixed ideas enough to report any of these facts.
Lamont, rather, "raised in a well-connected family" and "schooled in training centers of power," has been “flirting with the possibility of running for major public office" for some time, the Times tells us. But what does that mean? Don't most Exeter and Harvard grads actually become dray horses for corporate power who, by age 30, can barely finesse a civic-republican idiom? Lamont’s family legacy and personal decisions stand in rather admirable contrast, as I found last month.
The Times profile chose not to understand this and instead rode the "Greenwich millionaire" stereotype relentlessly. I’d told one of its writers to call The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who shared a Vermont farmhouse with Lamont decades ago as they and others worked on a weekly newspaper there. Mayer's is the one admiring quote that's not from a "country-club" friend of Lamont's, but the reporters, apparently obsessed with cars he has owned, make clear that he was driving an Audi even in Vermont. Somehow they don't discover that much more recently he taught poor, nonwhite kids in Bridgeport, for two years, although that may be corrected in a small item between now and Tuesday.
The Times’ Lieberman profile is straight out of the playbook of his old advisor Carter Eskew, who’s quoted twice. Lieberman's rejection by Democrats has “freed him to do and say exactly what he felt,” reporter Janny Scott tells us. But the question of what, exactly, Lieberman does feel is obliterated by quote after quote asserting that lockstep leftist Democrats have left him, because Joe thinks for himself:
"'He's always done whatever he wants to do. Why would anyone expect him at this point to become a good soldier?'"
"'To his credit, he did run in the primary. And, to his credit, he didn't trim his sails.'"
"'The last thing I would have predicted was that, to me, this genuinely spiritual, genuinely likeable guy would arrive at a point at which so many of the leaders of his own party felt insulted by him.'"
"'I think he came away with a resolve to answer to his country first and his party second.'"
These are representative, from four different speakers. And the other view? Reporter Scott offers that herself, sort-of: "[Lieberman] has long chosen to describe himself as 'independent-minded' rather than moderate. That quality has surfaced at every stage of his political career, apparently the product of a combination of upbringing, intellectual orientation, religion, experience, perhaps expediency. Where admirers see a man of deep principles, detractors see an opportunist."
And the supporting quote from someone to buttress that last assertion? There is none. Anywhere.
But what does Lieberman think when he's doing all this independent thinking for himself? Not only are there no Schiavo or detainee positions here; there is no evidence Lieberman thinks of anyone besides himself. No reporter asks him how many Connecticut soldiers have died in Iraq, as a Times editor did ask Lamont over dinner. Caught by surprise, Lamont didn’t know. Lieberman must, because a staffer sends out condolences and keeps a list; but would he really be able to answer, if asked on the spot? The Times doesn’t tell, because it didn’t ask.
What's going on here? A "news side" rebellion against the editorial-page’s Lamont endorsement? An effort to anticipate Lamont's likely loss to Lieberman? Not at all. Harried reporters, trying to think big, are reminding us that their "first rough draft of history" tends to see breaking news through the rear-view mirror of premises they haven't time to examine. They work under rushed conditions that prevent them from thinking beyond conventional story lines and cultural mindsets; rather, they have to play to them, collapse things into them, to write something equally rushed readers will understand.
Times journalists didn’t sit in some room wondering, “How can we take down Lamont?” If anything, it was “What makes this guy tick?,” and then they ran around trying to make a horse by committee, grasping at some concept – “son of privilege”; “hardened independent” – that gestures at something in each candidate but buries much of what’s true.
Really these two profiles should be read in their entirety and taught in journalism schools for years to come. They probably won’t be, not least because Lamont may lose, for reasons actually unappreciated in the profiles. For one, Lieberman, in public office since he was 28, feels to many Connecticut residents like an uncle or a comfortable old coat. “I know Joe,” they’ll say, still touched that he patted them on the back once fifteen years ago.
By comparison, Lamont was dry as a stick in debates, even if very decent and principled. He’s been a jejune campaigner, than which there is no greater sin to a savvy reporter. He doesn’t balance an instinct for the avuncular with an instinct for the jugular that would have shredded Lieberman’s folksy charm by hammering on his positions. When Lieberman called last month for doubling the number of troops in Iraq, it seems not to have occurred to Lamont to demand to know if Lieberman was calling to reinstitute the draft, which Joe somehow avoided back in 1967, when he was of age and the Vietnam War was raging.
“Lamont admits he wasn't ready” to mount that kind of attack. ‘I watched [Lieberman] with Cheney,' he says of the vice presidential debate six years ago. 'It was all "My worthy adversary, my esteemed colleague." It was right out of the House of Lords. Some people say I should have pushed back a little harder, but my nature is my nature.'
“Asked if maybe obnoxious just isn't his style, he rolls his eyes a bit. He knows where nice guys finish, and it isn't in the Senate. 'Oh, I can see the headline now,' he says. 'Ned Lamont: Too Decent for Politics.'
But the preceding two paragraphs are from a Washington Post profile, by David Segal of the paper’s Style section, from back before Lamont won the Democratic primary. Maybe the Times will get there by November 8.
Comments (46)
The PRESS isn't losing Lamont's campaign for him.
Lamont's campaign is doing that on their own. His advisers, his compatriots, his bloggers should be given full credit.
Partisan gridlock is destroying the effectiveness of congress, yet Lamont's team, backed by assertive Progressive bloggers, aligned him with their desires and values. Progressives do not have a big-party tent, they have and want their OWN tent and if you don't toe the progressive line, you're an enemy of their ideology, an enemy of the people.
The debates, with Schlessinger calling Lieberman a Liberal, and Lamont calling Lieberman a Republican, put Lieberman squarely in the center. Centrist Lieberman, who has pledged to work for the people by refuting partisan practices, is reinforced in the public's eye as the bipartisan capable of working for the people.
Schlessinger was encouraged to paint Joe as a Liberal so that he (Alan) could gain Republican votes, while he did pick up a few points in a bounce, the largest effect was reinforcing Lieberman's point of being in the middle and non-partisan.
Bloggers, who gleefully embraced and promoted Schlessinger as their hope to pull off voters from Lieberman, only created more bipartisan alure for Joe and effectively assisted in identifying both Alan and Ned as partisan idealogues.
To the public, disenchanted with a do-nothing congress, partisan ideology is the great destroyer of their hopes and dreams. Lamont, painted as a far-left Progressive, cannot be effective to help break the gridlock that is in congress. Partisanship is the primary reason why Republicans will lose the House and likely the Senate too. Voting in another partisan politician over a seasoned centrist does not make sense.
November 5, 2006 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point of my piece is that while it's true Lamont hasn't campaigned as warmly or wisely as he could and that some people have tried to cast him as the candidate of Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and Move.on (not a good way to carry Connecticut), the authors of the Times profile should have told us who he really is. They simply replaced one stereotype -- the mad blogger -- with another: the rich kid from the country club. Above, I linked an American Prospect piece of mine that's about where he comes from in family tradition and values, though it's not about him personally. Jim Sleeper
November 5, 2006 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can someone who doesn't know about blogs be a mad blogger? Remember--it was Lamont himself who decried "I don't know anything about blogs."
My point was you seem to be avoiding that newspapers can't write until they have something to write about. Their viewpoints are swayed by what they witness.
The NYT editorial board has given the nod for Lamont, but the paper, as you say, does not support him wholeheartedly and has given the nod to Lieberman.
Why the disconnect?
Who doesn't know about blogs? Or is it--Who doesn't WANT to know about blogs? Is it the paper or the editorial board?
November 5, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Times has been consistently biased in favor of Lieberman. The Medina/Kornblut piece on how Joe Lieberman supposedly criticized the President, and his policies, while completely failing to mention the reality was so bad the Times had to run a lengthy correction. Lamont stumbled after winning the primary, yes, but the Times and the local press has turned a critical eye on Lamont while fawning over Lieberman. The people in Connecticut are tired of a do-nothing Congress that has been dominated by partisanship. Joe Lieberman has ennabled that partisanship and failed to represent the views of his citizens. He has been more interested in maintaining his self-image of "bipartisanship" and has allowed this country to reach a very dangerous place. The media, and the Times in particular, have facilitated this disgraceful politician.
November 5, 2006 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am an registered Independant, decided to support Lamont after the primary and I will be voting for him on Tuesday...but he will not be the Junior Senator from CT when the new Congress is sworn in.
That is the fact. As is the fact that Ned is a political neophyte who was never comfortable with campaigning for an important higher office and it showed. It looks like he gonna got his clocked cleaned by an experienced and polished campaigner. That is/was Lamont's problem...AND NOT THE NYT's SUPPORT FOR LIEBERMAN.
I live in CT and to be honest nobody here is going to be swayed by an endorsement made by an out of state newspaper. Ned Lamont disappeared after the primary and let Lieberman get a running start on campaigning for the general election.
We like Joe up here, regardless of "The Kiss". To be honest I won't be devastated if Joe is our Senator for the next 6 years even though my vote will go to Ned. But the bottom line is no matter who wins on Tuesday Ned Lamont helped redefine the race nationally and gave national dems a message, a bully pulpit and momentum...and it appears they are poised to regain the House and have a shot at the Senate partly because of Lamont's success in the CT primaries.
But to blame the NYT's for Ned's apparent electoral woes misses the mark badly...unfortunately he just ran a very flawed campaign.
November 5, 2006 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Partisan gridlock is destroying the effectiveness of congress...
What planet have you been inhabiting the last five years? There hasn't been any gridlock. A Republican House and Senate have rubber stamped every god awful thing Cheney and shrub wanted to pass, from this disastrous war in Iraq to Bush's obscene torture bill.
And "bipartisan Joe" has been part of that rubber stamping.
November 5, 2006 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The people in Connecticut are tired of a do-nothing Congress that has been dominated by partisanship. Joe Lieberman has ennabled that partisanship and failed to represent the views of his citizens.
If that is the case why does it appear we are going to re-elect Joe? If the people of CT wanted change so bad they will vote for Ned...and nothing the NYT could do or say would change that. Blaming the NYT fluff pieces about Lieberman, for Ned's problems, is setting up a strawman...CT voters, if they take into account what an editorial board says, listens more to The Courant than the NYT.
November 5, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"CT voters, if they take into account what an editorial board says, listens more to The Courant than the NYT."
My point was that coverage of Lieberman has been excessively fluffy. How are people to hold an informed opinion if the state newspapers and the NY Times present consistently biased reporting on the race? If they were randomly biased I'd still be critical, but the fact that the pieces tend to sound as if they were constructed from Lieberman talking points is disturbing. I'm not surprised that Lieberman is ahead in the polls, and I won't be surprised if he gets sent back to Washington, but to claim that the voters of CT have done so because they've made an informed choice is problematic.
November 5, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am in full agreement with your critique of the MSM (print in this case). I am a big critic of how the MSM does their jobs...and am very disturbed to see how they seem to push for the status quo, in this case Lieberman. But vis-a-vis the CT Senate race I don't think the MSM has had that much of an impact. The voters of CT are accutely aware of Joe's positions, especially his position on the Iraq War and that is the issue driving this election cycle. I don't think the MSM's coverage of the race is in any way shaping the race. And in a sense I am mystified why CT is bucking the national "anti-Iraq War" trend...
November 5, 2006 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good example of what he means when he makes his point that the press runs with a script and has neither the time nor the energy to find what lies beneath.
Partisan gridlock isn't destroying the effectiveness of government, it is saving the bacon of the American people. Without partisanship we'd be scrambling to fill out paperwork for our new privatized social security accounts. Medicare and Medicaid would have been completely dismantled, rich people would pay no taxes at all, abortion would be outlawed and christianity would be mandatory. The "public disenchanted with a do-nothing congress?" The public has no idea of what's going on in congress, and certainly doesn't think that partisanship is destroying their lives, if people think they're lives are being destroyed, nine times out of ten, they'll blame their bosses and/or their mothers-in-law and a partisan congress wouldn't even make the list.
The reason people like Lieberman are elected over and over is pure apathy on the part of the voters. They either vote republican or democrat or for name recognition and "partisan gridlock" has nothing to do with it - "oh yeah, I read somewhere that Lamont is just a rich kid and Lieberman has always been our senator."
The press doesn't lose elections for candidates? What in the hell do you think they did to Gore, what do you think they're doing to Kerry, or Lamont or any other candidate they've scripted - which is why "we all would like to have a beer with George Bush."
Vox populi, vox bullshit.
November 5, 2006 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
A month, two months ago, blaming the papers would have been gotten the poster a "concern troll" harranguing. This topic is an apologist blunt to the finger-pointing that's about to crash into the blogosphere like an out-of-control car screeching through the coffee-shop window.
November 5, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to argue that CT is bucking the "anti-Iraq" war trend when CT got that trend front and center last August by choosing Lamont as the Democratic nominee. My guess is that voters here are thinking "Joe's a Democrat, he's experienced, Lamont is a newcomer, why change?" And they are aided and abetted in that thinking precisely because coverage of Lieberman has been so uncritical. Lamont lost the momentum after the primary because his campaign went dark, and the local, and national media settled back into familiar coverage of Joe. Not much has changed since.
If Lieberman were a moderate Republican, I think he'd be getting clobbered in the polls right now simply because of "Republican" in front of his name. But he's a Democrat (at least in name) and therefore, on the "right" side (so people deceive themselves) on the issue of the Iraq war. His cheerleading of Bush and Bush policies gets mentioned only by the Lamont campaign, and is hardly featured in the press. Who can blame CT voters for being lulled into a false belief?
Or maybe I'm completely wrong, and voters want Joe because they've reflected on his positions, and support him. I doubt that, because CT has one of the lowest approval ratings for Bush in the entire country. So it's a failure by the Lamont campaign to capitalize on the Bush-Lieberman connection, and this failure has been ennabled by the coverage of the race.
November 5, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, well, well. "Harried reporters...tend(s) to see breaking news through the rear view mirror of premises they haven't had time to examine."
Might it be suggested that they cease and desist from writing the story altogether, or at least burn the midnight oil and examine some premises?
November 5, 2006 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The LA Times has an editorial about how the Dems aren't really running with an agenda to get out of Iraq anyway. Maybe people in CT just figure, "What's the difference?" I mean is Lamont going to DO anything about Iraq? Joementum still has whatever it was that persuaded the state to vote for him before.
I'm fed up with both parties, but nothing is going to change until we have a party with attractive, credible candidates who can present a clear alternative to the miserable collection we have in Washington today. (I mean really, can you watch Schumer and the collection of has been political hacks that joined the pundits this Sunday and say you are PROUD to be a Democrat. They make me want to pull the covers over my head and go back to bed. They certainly don't make me want to get up early Tuesday and vote!)
This is REALLY tough. But I tell you, we are not going to go there by voting for centrists running to the right of Richard Nixon.
Lamont isn't the answer but the question is still out there.
November 5, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The press doesn't lose elections for candidates? What in the hell do you think they did to Gore, what do you think they're doing to Kerry, or Lamont or any other candidate they've scripted - which is why "we all would like to have a beer with George Bush."
And which is why "Greenwich" "millionaire" and "Lamont" have practically morphed into one word. Why Bush is "resolute", not mindnumbingly out of touch. Why Democrats are perennially in "disarray". Why atrocious poll numbers are in fact GOOD for Republicans. You read the same descriptors over and over, and you start to believe them. It's happened here in CT, and all over the country.
November 5, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You tell it straight anyway.
I find it less than appealing that this Democratic New Yorker is represented by two awfuls in Clinton and Schumer but then neither is an obvious narcissist.
I wouldn't trade you my two gawdawfuls for your one horrendous.
It has always been difficult for me to understand why really sick people can be regarded so well by even those who get kicked around by the bastids.
It would not surprise me if Saddam Hussein would win an election in Iraq if they weren't about to hang him despite all his murders. Pol Pot died peacefully in his sleep despite atrocities even a Stalin or Saddam couldn't match.
Enjoy, my friend. You can have your Holy Joe. I think there has been no worse in the Senate - ever.
Just my take.
Oh sure. Blame the victim.
It will be a great day for America Tuesday but there will be some results that are appalling. There always will be those. Later people will blame the good guys for their bad votes.
I haven't failed to note, Libertine, that you said you would vote for Lamont. Much to be said for you but I wish I could understand you better.
Best, Terry
November 5, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The press doesn't lose elections for candidates? What in the hell do you think they did to Gore
Gore did not in fact lose the election in terms of votes cast. He lost it on a constituitional technicality which the Supreme Court exploited to anoint George Bush president. The media is guiltless on
this one.
And by way of an observation, the rightwingers hate the media no less and are aboslutely convinced that it is liberal to the core and out to get them. I'm almost convinced by the mutual hate of both left and right for the media that the media may be doing something right after all.
November 5, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has covered both campaigns, I'll just add this: the Lamont press operation is dismal, while the Lieberman team is highly professional. Reporters seeking to cover Lamont are often rebuffed, or get very little cooperation. Nobody's suggestion retaliation, but it does make it harder to provide comprehensive coverage of the candidate.
November 5, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know exactly what I mean and if you want to be precise, he did lose in terms of votes cast - by the electoral college. If you think the media is guiltless in that election, you weren't paying attention. And no, he didn't "lose it on a constitutional technicality" because there was no "constitutional technicality". There was a complete and utter disregard for the constitution, state rights (which the cons are always screaming about) and civil decency - they exploited their power, not some law. And the media instead of exposing their mendacity, called repeatedly for Gore to concede.
Do you really think that Jack Welch, in the studio the night of the election, pressuring the newsstaff at NBC to call the election for Bush, or Fox News taking orders directly from the White House to call the election, might not be considered a tad irresponsible at the very least? I wouldn't call it an Edward R. Murrow moment in media integity, and that's when I'm optimistic. How many people in this country think that Gore is a serial liar who said he invented the internet? How many people in this country believe that Kerry insulted the troops, or Clinton was a murderer or any of the other canards that trip so easily from the mouths and keyboards of the media in this country?
I don't "hate the media", I despise their lack of ethics, their dependence on scripted narratives and their lack of responsiblity in reporting. This notion that because both sides hate them, they must be doing something right is nonsensical to say the least. You don't measure someone's performance by the level of hate engendered by it. If a reporter is pissing both sides off, it doesn't mean he's doing a good job, it means he's pissing everyone off.
November 5, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was only a few months ago that Joe Lieberman was accusing Ned Lamont of being a Republican.
But Republicans and Iraqi occupation lovers from Sean Hannity to Mel Sembler know a valuable fifth columnist when they see one.
Which makes me wonder, are you a Republican, seed freak?
I don't hear comments like I doubt these citizens died so they could be used to win votes for a liberal pacifist from many Democrats.
Joe Lieberman has fudged his Iraqi war positions in the last few months, because he will say anything to win.
November 5, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you're right. I'm a journalist, but I don't cover politics. Even so, and even knowing that I don't cover politics, I've found myself in a friendly email exchange with Marion Steinfels, formerly Lieberman's spokesperson. Even when you disagree with them (and I contacted her basically to vent about Lieberman's behavior) they do engage. Sometimes (well, often) Dan Gerstein seems to fly off the handle (as he did after the NY Times endorsement) but he's also, always very willing to engage, even with people to disagree with him vehemently.
The Lieberman press people know how to work the press -- you work them by engaging.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 5, 2006 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that part of this is explained by familiarity and by a reluctance on the part of reporters to taking a risk. It looks as if Lieberman will triumph in the end. If he does, he becomes the BIG story in what will be a closely divided senate, no matter which party is in control.
I think part of the coverage is explained by reporters being familiar with Lieberman. More of it is explained by reporters anticipating a Lieberman win and not wanting to be shut out if that happens.
I think this is one part "write what you know (or are comfortable with) and another part "don't alienate a future source."
Hopefully, Lamont will surprise the press on Tuesday with another upset victory.
What makes me sad is that if Lamont loses on tuesday, the press will likely forget just how groundbreaking and important his primary victory was.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 5, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a silly thought that the NYT should actually ask Lieberman himself to explain his troubling conduct in the Shiavo matter or his unwavering support for the war and his insistance against all reason that the war is going well. I still subscribe to the grey lady but like many others get more and more news from TPM and other trusted blogs.
Yes, I fully agree with your dismay about the portrait painted of Liberman and Lamont using quotes from people whose opinions I have no reason to credit. To me this is all non-news news or make up news. If they want to do a profile on a candidate why don't they just interview the candidate and ask them what they want to know? Seems pretty simple to me.
The business about the Audi also annoys the crap out of me because it reminds me of our friend David Brooks and his constant phoney baloney charges of elitism against people he seeks to bring down. What does Brooks drive or the NYT reporters who put out this garbage. Let's get real. Who gives a darn that Lamont drives an Audi?
Today's NYT Public Editor column discussed the issue of the NYT's correction of its flawed article claiming that Lieberman never said "stay the course" when in fact he had done so several times. Again who cares about the NYT's database search. The real news is that Lieberman has against all logic and against all credible news accounts claimed that the course taken by president was correct and that we are winning the war. But why ask for an explanation from the horse's mouth when you can spew paragraphs of nonsense about databases and "gotcha politics."
A sense that I have about the NYT's reluctance to take on Lieberman has to do with its war reporting failures. The NYT took the administration's claims supporting the need for war at face value. If Lieberman is viewed as a reasonable person then his views about the war must have some reasonable basis. If that is true than perhaps the lapses by the NYT can more easily be excused.
David Pincus
November 5, 2006 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm suggesting retaliation.
Aside from that, I really don't understand what you mean by the statement "little cooperation." What do you expect from the candidates? (And I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to know.) Isn't it your job to dig for the story, to seek the truth, to find the facts and report them as facts? What we usually get is an extrapolation of the daily handout with comments made by the candidates without any kind of verification of their statements.
Reporters are either complaining that their access is limited or they will have their access taken away, but the real problem is that you don't have any access at all.
November 5, 2006 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Do you really think that Jack Welch, in the studio the night of the election, pressuring the newsstaff at NBC to call the election for Bush, or Fox News
Fox News is beyond the pale and none of my comments applied to them.
I don't recall the election of 2000 being called for Bush; in fact I recall it being called for Gore.
November 5, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
JPF, here is a an article in the Nation about the call.
FOX called it for Bush, and all the other monkeys jumped in the barrel right afterwards...including NBC.
November 5, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media plays a role in all elections. They certainly played their part in 2000 when they portrayed Gore as a boring, unemotional robot. However, Gore did do things to make himself look like a a boring, unemotional robot. The candidates and their staff have an impact on the election too, some might argue even more so than reporters.
Perhaps Lieberman is a better candidate than Lamont. Lieberman's campaign may be operating more effectively than Lamont's. It could be that Lieberman's campaign is able to effectively communicate with reporters while Lamont's campaign struggles to get their message out.
On the other hand the media really does have a pack mentality. When Howard Dean raised his voice during the 2004 primary, he was labeled a nutcase. There was no debate about it, Dean was a lunatic. John McCain's a maverick, even though he bows to Bush every chance he gets. John Kerry was the weak east coast liberal and Bush was the tough guy. Kerry served in Vietnam and Bush pretended to be a fighter pilot in the Guard. The media can influence elections.
In the end, I think candidates need to know how to manipulate the media to their advantage. If you're message isn't getting through, maybe you don't have a message or you not communicating effectively.
November 5, 2006 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is apologist in my book too SeedFreak.
But like I said in the Lamont victory is a success in the big scheme of things. It provided a message, a bully pulpit and the momentum for the dems to attack the GOP on the national stage...and is partly responsible for the good position the dems are in heading into Tuesday. Ned might have lost in CT but the dems and the blogosphere hasn't.
Peace...
November 5, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well unless Phil Rosenthal of the Chicago Tribune was lying, yes, I believe it. Henry Waxman investigated the charges and issued a report on Sept. 10, 2001 about it and considering the date, it would explain why few people have heard about it. The way I recall it, it was first projected that Gore was the winner, and then called for Bush. If you remember, Gore was getting ready to concede about 1 am.
November 5, 2006 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like his record or not Joe had a record to run on and Ned didn't. There is something more to the story and I think you are right if Joe had a (R) next to his name he would be getting creamed in the polls. Joe was an effective AG for CT, has served 3 terms in the Senate, helped save the sub base, has enjoyed significant support of republican voters in CT throughout his career and was his party's VP nominee in '00. I felt it was the right time for a change but maybe CT voters refused to just look at the Iraq War as the reason to vote him out.
November 5, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only message it provided is that once again the left and the blogosphere aren't serious enough to play hardball or stay the course long enough to fight for meaningful change or a coherent agenda. The (Neo)Dems may be in a good position. The country isn't.
November 5, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor has a good point about dialoguing with the public. Lieberman is comfortable talking with anyone and everyone, in his heart he really is a very friendly person--nothing elitist about this person in anyway.
The "audi thing" IS important because Lamont wants to make an impression that he's just a man of the people, like everyone else. There are numerous, NUMEROUS accounts of him talking about energy savings and driving a hybrid car with great mileage yet in reality, his garage is parked with high-end gas-guzzlers--the cars he preferred to drive prior to the campaign. The hybrid is a prop or a fascade hiding the reality. Lamont Bloggers rallied against Lieberman for driving a mercury, they were angry at the gas used for his tour bus.
Honestly, where's their complaints now against Ned's Gilded Bus? Where's their indignity over his fleet de elite of gas-guzzlers? There's a HUGE amount of hypocrasy associated with Lamont and his bloggers and there's hypocrasy too with blaming the NY Times for his doomed campaign when the Times isn't in charge of Lamont's campaign.
Hypocrasy, they name is Ned Lamont. Blame him, not the Times, for his problems. Blame his bloggers for placing Alan Schlessinger on a totem pole for comparison because doing so solidified Lieberman as a non-partisan centrist. Partisans, in the public's eye, are gridlockers and as such, are useless to the American people. Ned Lamont and the far left blogosmere can be thanked for making Joe Lieberman one of the most powerful Senators in the history of the United States. Joe Lieberman, Uber-Senator.
Thanks!
November 5, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with you bluebell. And nothing aggrevates me more than "finger in the wind" democrats who never take a stand and try to be everything to everybody. I am not a dem but I have voted for their candidates in every national election in the past 20 years. But this year I am as hopeful and pleased as I have ever been. There has been a new crop of dem politicos who have taken it to the GOP every chance they've had...finger in the wind dems notwithstanding. So I do see it as the glass being half filled right now even if all the politicos we liberals support haven't figured out the answer to the question yet...
November 5, 2006 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
What are your thoughts about Lieberman sending groups of, well, thugs is the only word I can think of, but I guess you could say "aggressive supporters", to physically block and disrupt Lamont events? My understanding is that today a group of "aggressive Lieberman supporters" surrrounded Lamont and tried to push him out of the stream of a parade that both Lamont and Lieberman were marching in. I know those tactics were common in the 1880-1940 time period; is this something Lamont needs to get more comfortable with?
Also, any take on the $420,000 in petty cash dispensed by Lieberman in the last week of the Democratic Primary, vs. an average of $3,000 petty cash per candidate in all other Senatorial campaigns? Should future _Democratic_ candidates also be prepared for this kind of thing? Where do you suggest they get the cash?
sPh
November 5, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose if you're a Lamont partisan, the two Times articles might piss you off in that they don't make the points you want them to make. But if you're a partisan, the media almost NEVER emphasize the points you think deserve it.
But the idea that Connecticut is going to re-elect Joe Lieberman because of the Times coverage is ludicrous in the extreme.
The Connecticut Senate race boils down to one simple issue: Lamont's candidacy was built around the proposition that Lieberman was insufficiently partisan. That was the whole gist if his argument. And while that message resonated with partisan Democrats during the primary, partisan Democrats are a small minority of general election voters. Lamont never took his message beyond just "Joe has to go", which is what would have been needed.
November 5, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh sure. Blame the victim.
It will be a great day for America Tuesday but there will be some results that are appalling. There always will be those. Later people will blame the good guys for their bad votes.
I haven't failed to note, Libertine, that you said you would vote for Lamont. Much to be said for you but I wish I could understand you better.
So Terry, you consider Ned a victim? So you buy into the theory that what has gone wrong with his campaign is not his fault, it is the MSM's? The MSM made Lamont look like a deer caught in the headlights during the 1st debate? It is the MSM's fault that Lamont took a powder and disappeared for a couple weeks right after winning the Democratic Party primary? While I was sitting up here in CT saying "C'mon Ned seize the momentum".
Like you noted a couple times I am supporting Lamont but I can also be a realist and read the writing on the wall about who is going to win the CT Senate race...and if Lieberman wins I'll be disappointed that the man I voted for didn't prevail, but it won't hurt the dems chances of taking control of the Senate. And that is why I won't be "devastated" by it...
November 5, 2006 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well what happened up here wasn't pretty sPh. Lieberman has been constantly serenaded by Lamont supporters at every public event he is at...including the last full debate. And Lamont, as you pointed out, has been constantly harassed by Lieberman's people. And I would hope that every cent should be accounted for. I find it all very distasteful but after all it is politics...
But all in all the national democratic candidates seem to be doing just fine...seats we never thought would be in play are. And part of the reason they are is because of Lamont winning the primary in CT. So even if Ned loses the general election he has had a VERY positive effect on the dem's chances this year...
Ned's got my vote but I still say it appears he was outclassed by a much more experienced campaigner. And it appears the CT voters have settled on the more experienced politico...and as liberally "blue" as we are CT voters can be a very quirky bunch, lol.
November 5, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: If you remember, Gore was getting ready to concede about 1 am.
Well, I went to bed at 11 when it looked like Gore was going to pull out a narrow squeaker of a victory (Florida was still going his way). At about 3 or 4 I woke up and turned on the TV only to discover the quandary about Florida was in process and no winner was projected (I think this was on ABC; for sure it was not on Fox, which I do not watch).
In any event why should it matter who projected what at midnight or so? The polls were closed everwyhere so nothing on TV was going to influence voters. And TV does not "call" elections; their projections have no validity in terms of establishing and certifying the official outcome.
There is a strong degree of paranoia on this thread, bolstered by some excruciating nit-picking.
Let's agree that Fox News is a GOP propgaganda organ, but the rest of the networks seem to me to be fairly neutral, or even at times a bit anti-Bush (And I can excuse the latter since one cannot really check one's brain at the door and the Bush administration's innumerable screw-ups and deliberate acts of malice would make it impossible for a god to remain impartial.)
November 6, 2006 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I can think of when I read this is how it sounds like Liebermann has been given a litmus test by the far left, much the same way the far right gives candidates a litmus test on certain wedge issues. I have never been a big fan of Joe, and I am a moderate / independent minded person. However Joe has always been a Democrat first and formost and Democrats fueled by the extreme end of leftist bloggers ate their own back in the primary over a litmus test. Our party should be better and must be better on this going forward. If we want to be the party that wins the White House in 08, then we must be open to many different points of views and ideas and no longer put extreme left wing litmus tests on candidates. Watch what happens in Ohio and PA on Election day. Centrist ideas and kitchen table issues will rule the day.
November 6, 2006 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
To think that the N.Y. Times lost the election for Ned Lamont illustrates the reason why the Republicans have had such success in recent elections. LaMont was a one trick pony, and a very bad one at that. Whenever the Democrats suffer losses, they believe that it is always due to some external cause, Darth Vader Rove or a New York Times endorsement, rather than giving any consideration at all to the idea that mainstream America might possibly reject their policies (if you can find them).
PenDragon
November 6, 2006 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine didn't vote for Lamont in the primary, and I am pleased to hear that he/she is voting for Lamont this time around. Surprised, too.
I voted and will vote for Lamont. I don't think people should count out the Republican candidate in this race, he certainly shined in the debates, and I'd hope more Repubs would vote for him. We'll see what happens tomorrow.
I figure if Libertine is voting for Lamont despite their pre-primary position, maybe the other 36% of Dems that are supposedly voting for Joe will think better of it as well.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 6, 2006 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that it was even close is the fault of the feckless Media.
Gore was clearly superior to G.W. in every way. As far as "constitutional technicalities" would you care to quote what part of the constitution was used to justify the Feds trampling over the State of Florida?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
November 6, 2006 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to me there is a bit of a difference between being "serenaded" (or even being 'forced' to look at a float one finds obnoxoius) and being physically muscled out of campaign appearances by squads of thugs. The latter reminds me more than a bit of Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and Karl Rove.
I suspect that if the Dems take either house tomorrow there will be a Constitutional crisis sometime in the next two years. When that day arrives I hope that CT voters are happy with the Senator they have chosen to see them through it.
sPh
November 6, 2006 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
he/she
LOL...he. ;-)
Libertine didn't vote for Lamont in the primary, and I am pleased to hear that he/she is voting for Lamont this time around. Surprised, too.
Well I didn't vote for either in the primary because I am a registered Independant who feels the democratic party is not liberal enough for me. But going into the primary I was up in the air about who to support but leaning towards Lieberman. After Lamont won the primary and Bush/Cheney/Rove said that a vote for Lieberman was like a vote supporting Bush I made up my mind...Ned had my vote.
But you hit the nail on the head workerbee why Lieberman will win and that is the 36% of the dems who say they are going to vote for him. Unless I am allowed to vote about 20,000 times, lol. :-P
November 6, 2006 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if mainstream America rejects Democratic policies as much as they reject their candidates. Let's face it. Gore didn't run a good campaign. He screwed up the debates, royally. I remember sitting their with my jaw dropping to the floor, "What the hell is he doing? Lockbox?! Come on man!"
John Kerry followed Gore's lead to defeat. Rather than letting himself debate and campaign like a winner, he pussy-footed around all the issues. Kerry let himself become labeled a flip-flopper.
Gore and Kerry lacked passion and it showed in their campaigns.
As an aside, wouldn't it be perfect to have the Democrat in the presidential debate throw down the gauntlet at the beginning of the first debate. Their answer to the first question could be, "I request that we throw out all the silly rules and have a real debate. A no holds barred debate. What do you say Mr Republican? Are you game?" The Republican couldn't say no.
As for Lamont, I don't know much about him, but I'm guessing he's not running a very good campaign. However, Lamont losing doesn't mean that Americans are rejecting Democratic policies. It means they reject Lamont.
November 6, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Lieberman has been constantly serenaded by Lamont supporters at every public event he is at...
Well, no actually. Those people at the full debate were not Lamont supporters, but rather LaRouche supporters. At the first event, they did wear Lamont buttons, but Lamont supporters were calling for their outster from the event louder than anyone.
Lieberman Hears Encore
November 4, 2006
By MARK PAZNIOKAS And ELIZABETH HAMILTON, Courant Staff
Writers Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's musical nightmare, the singing hecklers who have twice disrupted his public appearances, returned Friday to lend a surreal note to the closing days of a long, eventful campaign season.
Like Whiffenpoofs from Hell, the followers of Lyndon H. LaRouche surrounded Lieberman at a campaign stop, harassing him in harmony.....
November 6, 2006 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink