Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Joementum Hits the Trifecta

I was looking through the Eyewitness News website this morning, despite the fact that much of their copy reads like something written in a fourth grade grammar class (You can get away with that in a news story that's gone fifteen seconds after it's read--- Not so much with text that stays on a website).

Jay Ambrose of the Scripps Howard News Service wrote what amounts to a sad love song lamenting the loss of "Joementum" last week. It had a good beat, and you could dance to it, but it lacked the depth found in your average Pussycat Dolls song. He described Lieberman as a "good man" who lost "not because of scandal or something badly amiss, but because of integrity, because he put principle above party and his re-election interests."

Lieberman did indeed lose because he put something above party, but certainly not above his re-election interests. In fact, he was playing the same "50% + 1 vote" game that has led the Democratic Party to devastating losses over the last few election cycles. He ignores the Democratic base, seldom throwing them so much as a bone, to pander to a group of swing voters whose existence is as heavily disputed as a recent Iraqi nuclear program (Any similarity to a Tennessee Congressman with a political career alive or dead is purely coincidental.)

He doesn't come out and say that any effort to defeat Lieberman was anti-Semitism--- But why else would he call Cynthia McKinney anti-Semitic in the same piece, and refer to Mel Gibson's Julian Bolton-esque rantings when he was pulled over for drunken driving?

The reason for Ned Lamont's victory over Joementum is really quite simple; The people that Joe Lieberman had ignored during his right wing panderfest are precisely the same people that got to decide his fate last week--- Democratic voters.The people of Connecticut spoke. In a firm voice, they said "Get the hell out of here, you assclown. If we wanted a Republican, we would have voted Republican."

The problem with Joe is that he hitched his wagon to George W. Bush when his approval numbers were high, apparently not realizing that an egg salad sandwich could have had 90% approval in the days after 9/11 (Unfortunately, we couldn't find a decent egg salad sandwich, so we had George W. Bush peaking at 88%). And unlike most Republicans this year, Joe didn't have the sense to get off of a sinking ship. Not exactly the kind of intellectual might that the public looks for in a Senator.

And if you doubted Joe's credentials as an unofficial Republican, take a look at a couple of items that have crossed the Freedonian Newsdesk recently: Liberman's former chief of staff was an Enron lobbyist (The only thing shocking there is that Enron even needed lobbyists with guys like Dubya around). And a new 527 with ties to the CT GOP called Vets For Freedom has started airing ads "swift-boating" Ned Lamont.

Clearly, Republicans have a lot riding on keeping the Joementum going. And they're pulling out all the stops.

Enron, Swift Boats, and an accusation of racism from the "liberal media". It's the trifecta of Republican politics.

3 comments:

Wintermute said...

I like that "Freedonian Newsdesk" thing.

Freedonian said...

The Newsdesk (Okay, maybe recliner is more accurate) has been paying off. I expect to have enough to do a "From the Freedonian Mailbag" post soon.

Sarah said...

I think that Joe lost the election for the very reason that politicians should loose elections. He does not represent his constituency with his actions. I am glad that he has been called out on it, but I wish that it weren't such a shocking thing. It should be much more commmon.

As for the quality of local news vocabulary: I have a friend who used to work for the local Fox affiliate as a broadcast journalist. She would frequently tell me, "Oh, I could never use that word on the air. I would get in trouble." She had to keep her pieces accessible to the greater public, and that meant no words above a 5th or 6th grade level.

We learn words by reading them and hearing them used, but the news stations are more concerned that we change the channel when we hear words we don't know.