You've probably noticed that it doesn't matter whether the Republican pundit is local, state, or national -- they all know their party's spin and they stick to the script.
Why it's almost as if they all belong to the same GOP Spin Club.
Just like the "club" at your favorite coffeehouse where you get one free latte after you buy the first seven, it's hard not to imagine there mustn't be a similar program for the Wingnut punditocracy. Something along the lines of, say, you get an autographed picture of Karl Rove if you use each and every GOP talking point in a column. We imagine that the president of the local College Republican Club checks to see that you've completed a "Perfect Spin" on a subject and drops by to punch your card after you've submitted your work.
With that in mind, we've decided to see how Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's own Ruth Ann Dailey scored on her Lamont/Lieberman piece in Monday's edition. So, sit back, kick off your shoes and let the spin begin:
1. "Unity" As in "The War on Terror is too important for partisan politics."
CHECK:
Ruth Ann comes right out of the gate on this one. Her opening sentence:
"If the greatest issue of our time is the war against terrorism, and if the issue is so important that it ought to transcend partisan politics..."2. Throw your own GOP Senate candidate in Connecticut under the train.
CHECK:
Still in her very first sentence:
"...then now is the time for the Republican Party to withdraw its candidate from Connecticut's race for United States Senate."3. Castigate Democrats for "throwing their own under the train." (Wait, didn't they just do that themselves in point 2? Yes, but remember that we're talking Republicans here, and internal logic and consistency need not apply. The shorthand for this is: "IOKIYAR" It's Okay If You're A Republican!)
CHECK:
Ruth Ann:
"Leftists claimed a big victory in denying Mr. Lieberman his party's nomination. Opposition to the incumbent was based solely, and viciously, on his support for the Bush administration's war in Iraq."4. Use some sort of Communist-sounding term to describe a democratic primary -- "purge" being the top choice.
CHECK:
Ruth Ann:
"Perhaps those pundits don't like what this primary proves their party of preference is: a place where dissenters are purged."5. Democrats are not the "Big Tent" party.
CHECK
Ruth Ann:
"Pro-lifers who would support more liberal economic policies than Republican administrations pursue, were chased from the Democrats' tiny tent a long time ago."(Willfully ignore that the Senate Democratic Whip, Harry Reid, is anti choice, and that in her own backyard, the Democratic Party nominated Bob Casey (also anti choice) to run against Republican Rick Santorum for Senate and Jason Altmire (anti choice) to run against Missy Hart in the House.)
6. Lieberman is really a "Liberal's Liberal."
CHECK:
Ruth Ann:
"More than one left-leaning pundit has suggested that Mr. Lieberman 'fess up, make his predilection official and join the Republican Party.(Even though that's not what GOP critics said when he ran with Gore: "Republicans say Lieberman voting record at odds with Gore agenda." They also ignore what The Courant said about Joe's record: "He broke with the region's Democratic senators on a key energy vote last year. He has embraced a position on Iraq that few Democrats share. He has questioned bedrock Democrat-backed programs such as affirmative action and Social Security. He voted against a filibuster that could have blocked the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.")
This is both wishful thinking and, given Mr. Lieberman's solid liberal voting record, a defiance of the facts."
7. The vote against Lieberman was only a vote against the war.
CHECK:
Ruth Ann:
"Opposition to the incumbent was based solely, and viciously, on his support for the Bush administration's war in Iraq."(Ignoring the fact that Joe had turned against his own party to such a degree that he was actually given time by Republicans to speak against his own party's proposals on the floor of the Senate.)
And, finally:
8. A vote for Lamont is a vote for the enemy.
CHECK:
Ruth Ann:
"This decision could also serve as an apology for demonizing liberals when, in truth, liberty's greater enemies are leftists and their pay-no-price-bear-no-burden fellow-travelers."
And there you have it.
We say Ruth Ann deserves to get her card punched.
Don't you agree?
10 comments:
Ruth Ann Dailey - Pittsburgh's very own Douchebag of Liberty. Yes, I agree she certainly does deserve to have her GOP Hate Monger Spin Card punched.
Can't wait until the new 'OffQ' season starts to see her fall collection of 'librarian on top - hooker below the waist' clothing.
Our Ruth Ann......do you think her current marriage will last?
Well, I don't know about her ensemble here being so much "'librarian on top" but those boots were definitely approved by Sex Workers Local 69.
I had blogged a bit on RA, because of the internal contradictions of her July 31 column. She called for people to be alert to and rein in their personal prejudices because these personal prejudices diminish public discourse. In the same column she suggested you could tell Clinton is a con artist based on his public behavior, and that liberals are Ivy League-ers, while republican conservative are simple religious and family types. The line from Monday’s column “Liberty’s greatest enemies are leftists …” is HUGELY insulting and inexcusable, especially after that July 31 column.
As for Lieberman himself, I can’t help but feel that he is correct in his assessment that he has a chance to win the general as an independent, so why shouldn’t he run. The results of the primary show clearly that this was essentially a referendum on the war, although a very specific one: a narrow majority of registered Connecticut democrats chose an anti war candidate over a popular incumbent (I am willing to accept RA’s numbers - that a few democrats were recently registered). The general will be more interesting, all the more so because Lieberman will have little money and no party machine. Of course the Connecticut republicans are going to do nothing, much like Pittsburgh’s city repubilicans.
It’s too bad that RA has to so consistently and so condescendingly insult liberals. But hey, you guys call Santorum “Lil Ricky”.
Right, because calling Santorum "Little Ricky" is sooooo on the same level as calling Leftisits "liberty's greater enemies."
Uh huh.
The results of the primary show clearly that this was essentially a referendum on the war
I disagree. Almost every election is a referendum on the incumbent and on the current state of the country.
If the only strike against Lieberman was that he supported the Iraq war, he probably would have won the primary hands down. There are quite a few Democratic incumbents who supported the Iraq war--most notably Hillary Rodham Clinton--who are not facing serious primary challenges.
Lieberman lost the primary not simply because supported the war, but because he went out of his way to criticize other Democrats who disagreed with his position using talking points that could have come from Karl Rove's fax machine.
This election is also a referendum on the Republican-controlled Congress and on George W. Bush. Dubya's approval ratings are at an all-time low--currently hovering around 37 percent and the general view of the Republicans in Congress isn't any better. This is ultimately what scares Ruth Ann and the rest of the right-wing windbags.
No Democrat is perceived as being closer to George W. Bush than Joe Lieberman which is why the single most effective visual used against Lieberman is the famous "kiss".
The war on terror is NOT the greatest issue of our time?
For the sake of argument, let us say that is correct. What, then, IS the greatest issue of our time?
“Right, because calling Santorum "Little Ricky" is sooooo on the same level as calling Leftisits "liberty's greater enemies." “
Well, maybe not “sooooo”. At the other end of the spectrum, but on the spectrum of condescension/nastiness. Not just because I am mostly liberal does RA’s statement piss me off *more*. (“mostly liberal” not unlike The Princess Bride’s “mostly dead”: a little conservative)
“Almost every election is a referendum on the incumbent and on the current state of the country.”
Um, not so much primaries, I think. I mean, incumbents are usually re-elected, but even more chosen as the candidate in primaries by the voters of their party. And if elections are referendums, then I guess the country is going swimmingly most of the time since we send those incumbents back time after time. But I would agree that this primary was as much about Lieberman’s style of supporting the war as the war itself. I honestly don’t think Lieberman is some sort of closet republican, just conservative on the war (and maybe some other issues). Some voters may see him as the closest democrat to Bush, but I suspect most Connecticut democrats see the man who ran as the democrat veep candidate in 2000, the Lieberman in total. Which maybe makes this primary results even more extraordinary, at least to me. My gut tells me, though, that this primary shouldn’t be extended as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the republican congress in general, after all, it was registered democrats that voted. Not that Bush and company don’t have something to worry about, I hope they do, but the Connecticut primary fits into that only very loosely (because of the intense national attention generating its own dynamic).
Anon,
Just a little confused -- where did anyone say "The war on terror is NOT the greatest issue of our time."???
We've said it wasn't the SOLE issue people voted on in this election.
Moreover, WE REJECT YOUR FRAMING that the Iraq war is helping "the war on terror" rather than, at the very least distracting from it, if not actively hurting it.
Ed,
"My gut tells me, though, that this primary shouldn’t be extended as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the republican congress in general,..."
It's the ALL the polls that tell us that! LOL
The issue on war is very sensitive. And please war indeed is an issue for all time!
Post a Comment