Sunday Discussion Group

July 9, 2006

Here’s the scenario: a long-serving Senate incumbent is facing a primary challenge from a rival more in tune with the party’s base. The incumbent is frequently willing to break party ranks, even on key political issues, but during the primary, the party establishment rallies behind the incumbent, much to the dismay of the party’s base, which wants nothing more than to have a more consistent, and ideologically reliable, senator.

Lieberman-Lamont? Maybe, but I’m also thinking of Specter-Toomey in Pennsylvania two years ago. And the Chafee-Laffey primary in Rhode Island right now.

I’ve been following the Connecticut primary with great interest, but I’m curious as to why the Lieberman-Lamont race has become an obsession of sorts with the traditional media. If memory serves, the Specter-Toomey didn’t generate dozens of opinion pieces at the major dailies about how the irrationally angry GOP base was trying to rip the party apart, or anyone talking about the “conservative inquisition.” It was a serious primary challenge that the Pennsylvania incumbent nearly lost, but it wasn’t characterized in nearly the same terms as Lieberman-Lamont. And I’ve barely heard a peep from the talking heads about Chafee’s race.

What, exactly, has created this dynamic? Why has the media made Lieberman-Lamont special? Chris Bowers offered a couple of ideas to explain the obvious imbalance.

First, as ineffectual as some reporters would like to claim the progressive blogosphere is, clearly the media and political establishment are obsessed with us. The Connecticut Senate primary is the race the progressive netroots are focused on, and so the political and media establishment are focused on it as well. Whether they love us or hate us, they are fascinated by the progressive netroots, and are clearly following our lead.

Second, the Connecticut Senate primary upsets the natural order to American politics over the last few decades. Progressives are not supposed to be on the attack. Progressives are definitely not supposed to be on the ascendancy. For a right-winger to unseat a moderate or a liberal, well, that is just how things are supposed to work. Thus, it seems perfectly normal for Ed Case or Stephan Laffey to pose serious challenges to more moderate opponents. The conservative movement and the DLC are supposed to win. Progressives are supposed to sit in the corner and enjoy losing.

What do you think? Why is it that the media couldn’t care less about a conservative challenging a moderate in a GOP primary, but the media can’t stop talking about a progressive challenging Lieberman in a Dem primary?

Update: It appears that Atrios posed almost the exact same question this morning, and posted it just minutes before I did. Great minds think alike….

OK, I’ll bite:

Because the media, the beltway punditocracy and the Washington political establishment for the most part would be happy to see the country veer even more towards rabid conservatism (which supports or at very least distracts us from the rising corporatism in this country) , whereas even a small victory for progressives is an existential threat to them.

  • semper fubar’s right. The media’s freaking out because they love Joe Lieberman. They were indifferent to Specter.

  • I wish people would stop saying(writing) that pundits like Bobo, et al “don’t get” dems’ beef with Lieberman. They do “get it” & they’re more than willing to take advantage of it.

    Repubs would love to see Lieberman run as an independent. They hope, by painting Lieberman as republican’s favourite liberal, to split the dem/ind. vote & perhaps give the seat to the repub candidate (& perhaps even affect some other races).

    Further, it advances some talking points: dems are in disarray, they’ve been overrun by the “radical left” who throw an elder statesman overboard for not hewing closely enough to their ideological guidelines, etc.

    As for why there’s so much media coverage, well I guess you’de have to ask someone in the “liberal media” about that (/snark).

    When rightwing pundits & bloviators shake their heads & tut-tut over dems’ treatment of Lieberman, they’re being coy, at best. These people don’t give a crap about Lieberman outside of how he can be used to their ends.

  • I think this looks past the issue that Lieberman already gets a lot of media coverage. He’s Al Gore’s running mate who supports Bush’s war…Bush’s favorite Dem, etc. The difference between Boltin’ Joe and Specter, is that whenever Specter veers from the party line, it’s only temporary. Lieberman not only veers from the party line, he regularly undercuts it. While this gets him a lot of attention from across the political spectrum, it serves him poorly with the Dem base. That he finds this unfair is pathetic. He’s the absolute worst kind of person to have in a minority party.

    I’d be interested to see how MSM would treat a similar race with one of their other favorites: McCain. If the faux ‘maverick’ was in a tough primary fight, I suspect the MSM treatment would be similar to the Boltin’ Joe/Lamant race.

  • “The war against heterdox politicians has come home to Joe Lieberman”- David Brooks

    Another chapter in the continuing “war against saga” where strawmen have staw-wars against “feel good” icons. Heterdox polititians, however, aren’t going to generate the same traction as Christmas.

  • MSM is corporate, hence Republican. Boltin’ Joe Quisling serves the Republican cause already. So does Lamont’s probably ineffective challenge, by indicating Democratic disarray. On the off-chance that Lamont should win, you’d have another wealthy Democrat not beholden to the corporate donors (very distasteful to the GOP).

  • JoeW,

    You make an excellent point. Lieberman is a high-profile pol — elder statesman, former vp candidate, etc. — & this story is newsworthy on its own merits.

    But the thing is, this isn’t just being reported as a straight story — there’s all the (mostly rightwing) commentary, pushing the usual talking points: dems are fractured & weak, overtaken by the far-right, yaddayaddayadda. Brooks even creatively manages to sneak in a new twist: dems actually really dislike the netroots people, but put up with them to get their money & support (perhaps like repubs & the religious right?). Well challenged, Mr. Brooks.

    I’m sure, as you say, that if John McCain were in a simliar situation it would get just as much coverage. But the slant of the reportage would be much different. The MSM certainly wouldn’t portray one repub primary as a sign of weakness or internal strife for the whole party.

  • Say, Ed Stephan-6. I lurk at this blog a lot and one of the reasons is to catch your posts.
    Why do you suppose Lamont’s challenge is “probably ineffective” and that he has only an “off- chance” of winning?

  • Lieberman was the party’s VP nominee six years ago, and is now under attack at a time when his party is trying to take over the House and Senate. Also, Lieberman is considered a “centrist” and the pundits keep saying we need more of that. But the rank and file Democrats in CT and around the country are going against the punditry. Last, CT is a big state and Lieberman is a big name.

    No one has ever heard of Chaffee but us, and the Republicans already control the Senate. Rhode Island might as well be Fantasy Island for all anyone cares about it.

  • While it’ s true that the mainstream punditocracy’s Lieberman/Lamont meme is anti-progressive, this primary is still more newsworthy than the Specter, Akaka, and Chafee primaries because its about something we haven’t seen in awhile – resurgent progressivism. That’s news.

    Just because the pundits are focused on the wrong arguments doesn’t mean this primary is not more newsworthy.

  • I think Nathan’s got it exactly right – a lot of the media loves anyone who’s a whole known “moderate”, and Joe Lieberman is very well known nation-wide and is a frequent guest on a lot of the supposed news and analysis shows.

    No one could pick Chafee or Akaka out of a line-up, and no one really thought Specter would lose.

    Put that all together and you’ve got the fact that the media likes to cover what’s familiar to viewers and what it thinks it knows (I don’t even a lot of the most experienced political news producers in DC would really purport to know much of anything about politics in RI or Hawaii).

  • I don’t think the media attention has as much to do with who Joe Lieberman is or what he has achieved as it does with the sheer surprise that the liberal blogisphere wants him out and are at least willing to talk so vehemently about it, as Chris Bowers says “Progressives are not supposed to be on the attack.”

    Liberals are supposed to be tolerant, meek and mild. And the Re-bully-cans work as hard as they can to maintain that state. If we throw out Lieberman and Webb stands up to Allen, we frankly become a little scary to them.

    All to the good, especially before 2008. Now we just need a presidential nominee with balls, like Wesley or Hillary 😉

  • It’s one of those “fair-and-balanced” Foxist things. Roll out a singular, disparate Democratic problem as a whisper to drown out the raucous roar of an imploding GOP—just like Jefferson’s legal problems were rolled out to fill empty reporting-time—time that would otherwise have been invested in such “trivial” issues as DeLay, Cunningham, K Street, Illegal wiretapping, spying on people’s bank transactions, boasting about Iraqi electricity (3 hours per day), supporting college students by slashing their financial aid—well, you get the picture….

  • Well, I think the point that got made about the MSM being interested in/obsessed by the progressive blogs may have something to do with it. I notice today that CBS Sunday Morning did a thing about blogs, and while they showed pages for right blogosphere blogs (some of the worst, Malkin, StopTheACLU, etc.), nothing was said about them – all the conversation was about us, and that reporter was definitely defensive about getting “slammed” by the left blogs.

    So I think the other elements mentioned here today about Democrats in disarray, etc., are in play with the story, and there is – deep down – a hope on the part of theMSM that Lamont loses so they can hang the loss on the lefty blogs and show how impotent and powerless we “radical bomb throwers” really are.

    Oh, BTW – on the show, a professor who studies blogs made the point that the average blog reader is middle aged – didn’t give a specific age, but made the point it’s not young folks, as the CW would have everyone believe. (I bring this up because there was a discussion between me and someone whose handle I don’t recall over the issue of whether blog readers were “over 45” or not). Yep, we’re “middle aged, informed, opinion leaders.” Now I’ll admit that the only way I am still “middle aged” is using all the stuff about “60 is the new 40”, but the point is that the blogosphere is not a bunch of 20-nothings and 30-somethings.

    One last thing about that show, CBR was one of the lefty blogs that got “flashed” (if you blinked, you missed it), so that guy is at least paying attention to us.

  • Botch (#8) – Sorry it took so long to get back to you; I’ve been out for my Sunday morning walk and just got back.

    In saying Lamont’s challenge is “probably ineffective” and that he has an “off-chance” of winning, I was merely reciting the standard bit of wisdom that it’s nearly impossible to dislodge an incumbent. Several contributors here suggest points which make him even more formidable than run-of-the-mill incumbents: the media love him, he’s high profile, a former VP candidate, considered a centrist, appears on TV every time you turn around, etc. Somehow Boltin’ Joe always manages to pose as an underdog – I don’t know what it is: the whiny voice, the furrowed brow, the beaten pup look? Any, he manages to play on Americans’ sympathy for the underdog though he’s a three-term incumbent US Senator.

  • I think there is an element of jealousy with corporate media. They always get to select the “important issues” and frame the debate. With blogs such as this one, there is room for an alternative voice. I believe another outlet for information and discusson is something informed voters need and want. It is very hard to silence dissent if you no longer have control of all the microphones.

    I believe it is really a matter of control. If a couple of moderate republicans are knocked off in a primary, nothing changes. If Liebrman doesn’t win, then the “conservative” view of reality, in particular the Iraq war, recieves another blow to the head. The MSM finds that they are not in control of the debate and perhaps they lose market share. They might actually have to stop spinning events and discuss the news. They might have to spend some money on real documentaries and hire some independent voices. Not good for the bottom line. It always boils down to power and who can broker that power.

  • There are some differences between the Specter, Chafee and Lieberman primaries that I don’t think can be excused by a media bias against progressives. Lincoln Chafee is hardly a high-profile Republican Senator. His claim to fame is he sometimes votes with Democrats and was rumored to leave the Republican Party after Jim Jeffords did. Specter, prior to 2004, had a bit higher profile with his seat on the Judiaciary Committee, but he was largely a bit player.

    The Lieberman race has a lot of things that make it fascinating to watch. He’s a much higher profile candidate than either Specter was or Chafee is. His staunch and enthusiastic support of Bush’s Iraq war makes him a unique figure in the Democratic Party. And then there’s the fact that Lieberman, the DSCC and a few Democratic senators have made piss-poor decisions that can seen as the Democratic party falling apart. Had Lieberman approached things differently, Lamont wouldn’t be a credible primary threat.

  • I’d agree with comment #14. The issue is less Lamont v Lieberman than it is netroots v Lieberman. I don’t read many rightie blogs but I doubt the Chaffee or Specter challenges have created the volume in the right wing blogs as the Lieberman challenge has on the left. The story is the rise of the netroots rather than Lamont v Lieberman itself. The media is simply echoing the noise you guys have made yourselves.

  • kali (#5): “The war against heterdox politicians has come home to Joe Lieberman”- David Brooks

    And in today’s WashPo Outlook section, Dana Milbank’s The Zeitgeist Checklist refers to the situation as “fratricide”…

    I think, in addition to all the points mentioned above, there’s also sheer surprise. It’s not just that the progressives should be the meek lambs, shut up and eat s…. as it’s dished to them and when they don’t, it’s news. It’s also the surprise that a minority party would risk rocking the boat. We have a secure seat in the Senate and we’d risk losing it because of principles? How utterly absurd! And unexpected…

  • Why is it that the media couldn’t care less about a conservative challenging a moderate in a GOP primary…

    Seems to me the media is controlled by the same forces that control the Republican party. Those forces know that whoever wins in the GOP primary is already in their pockets. As is Lieberman. The idea of a progressive mounting a challenge and winning is bad enough. The idea of a progressive mounting a challenge and winning with the support of a genuine grass-roots movement is even more so. Hence, the forces that control the media use that control to depict a threat to them as a threat to the nation.

    Or so it seems to me…

  • I wonder how much of it has to do with Lieberman saying he would run as an independent if he loses the primary.

    Did Specter say he would run as an independent?

    Has Chafee said he will run as an independent?

    I was a supporter of Lieberman before he refused to support the Democratic candidate. I think he is wrong about the war but it wasn’t until he bolted from the party that he lost my support.

  • Yes. Chris Bowers’ second point comes closes to what I’ve been thinking. Lieberman represents what many of us find the scariest about what America seems bent on having: a permanent, establishmentarian government dominated by two parties which overlap politically. Anyone who challenges the status quo ante is dangerous.

    We fix elections. No, I don’t mean just our own elections; the US fixes elections in other countries and has been doing so for decades. Why? Because the left in any nation challenges the notion of a world in which commerce — dominated by the US — rules.

    And the media obsession with blogs? I think the truth about blogs, who has ’em and who reads ’em, may have given them heartburn. CSpan coverage of YearlyKos, showing a huge range of people with “middle age” predominating, must have been very disquieting. A whole lot of people on the left, already probably better educated than most, are self-educating and getting involved and are noticeably more independent politically and intellectually than bloggers on the right. My god, we’re (we on the left) are the real toad in the imaginary garden. A nasty shock if you live in the imaginary garden!

  • Frankly, I think that the reason that this is being portrayed as an inter-party conflict is to deflect from the real issue — this is a referendum on the Iraq war, which is Lieberman’s biggest bugaboo with the progressives – nationally and in CT. It isn’t just that Joe voted for the war, and hasn’t denounced that vote. It’s that he is so verbally in favor of this kind of military intervention.

    There must be a helluva lot of interest, both in R circles and in the media that this vote NOT be a referendum on the war. It HAS to be one more graph in the ongoing “dem’s in disarray” storyline.

    The American people are extremely against Bush’s excellent Iraq adventure, and most of the talking heads don’t want to recognize that.

  • Actually, the Republicans, the official Democrats, the mainstream media, the lobbyists, the advertisers, the corporations — you name it, it’s all part of The Establishment.

    Blogs are something new. Right-wing blogs spout The Establishment’s line so they’re no problem. The only thing which challenges their creativity is finding cruder and more visceral ways to re-phrase what is basically fascism (think Limbaugh, Coulter). Blind emotion is their bread-and-butter.

    Left-wing progressive blogs are highly individualistic. They appeal to people who value thought. Thomas Edison had posters plastered all over his workshop, so no one could miss it: “People with try anything other than the ultimately difficult task of thinking”. That’s us … and The Establishment fears and hates real thought.

  • An additional thought:

    Reporters in Washington know a lot of things that never (or rarely) get reported.

    They know, for example, that among people who work on or work with the Hill, Specter is known as an asshole — the epitome of Senatorial arrogance, one of the worst people in Congress. Chafee is known as an eccentric non-entity. No one will be sorry to see either go.

    Lieberman is known as a good guy who generally treats people well.

    When Specter breaks with his party, it is perceived as a fit of arrogance. When Chafee breaks, it’s because he’s a flake, or because he’s not really a Republican to begin with. When Lieberman breaks, it’s perceived (as it is with McCain) as a politician putting country over party.

  • Lieberman has stated that his principles are more important that his commitment to any party.

    Fine.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    THAT MEANS HIS PRINCIPLES SHOULD RULE:
    FIRST AND FOREMOST.
    EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN.

    Everything else is bullshit compromise.

    IN SHORT:

    Lieberman should run as an independent.

    It is that simple.

    Unless…
    Unless…
    I missed something?

    Oh yeah:

    I forgot:
    LIEBERMAN is a WEASLE…

    MY BAD!

    I should have known better:
    His principles only count if he LOSES the primary….

    You see…
    That is how we define a “man of principles” in 2006.

    Wooden men and iron ships… anyone?

  • “clearly the media and political establishment are obsessed with us” -CB

    The blogging process is unregulated, dynamic, interactive and changes the marketplace where public ideas are born, grow and die.

    MSM is accustomed to running the idea exchange podium with scripted talking heads safely under management control. Thought there is shaped to comfort those in power.

    But with the blogoshere, anything goes. A creative independent thought can impact thousands who post to thousands more, all outside of the supervision and monetary gain of our power brokers.

    I suspect that anyone who blogs regularly is changed by the experience.
    Massive personal transformations are not welcomed by those who rely on the status quo, especially when the nature of the social change sweeping the country isn’t exactly clear to them.

  • I agree with #21. It’s an anomaly for a senior member of a political party to behave like Lieberman and threaten to run as an Independent if he doesn’t get the primary victory that he feels he’s entitled to.

    What’s more disturbing is the number of Democratic office holders who say they will support Lieberman, instead of the winner of their own party’s primary. The MSM clearly sees this for what it is: Democrats losing the last vestige of a cohesive identity.

    And it’s too bad nobody’s paying attention to Akaka vs. Ed Case. Akaka, besides have a sterling liberal voting record, authored a good Democratic measure to counter the Bankruptcy Bill. Ed Case has voted with Bush on the War, the Patriot Act and other administration bills. He doesn’t even identify himself as a Democrat in his campaign literature. I’d rather see Lieberman re-elected than Case.

  • It’s not a big puzzle. Lieberman is a national name because he ran for VP in 2000 and Pres. in 2004. Also he is constantly on the talk show circuit. The people in Alaska do not have national name recognition. He has gone to great effort to be the go-to guy for quotes press quotes from Dems. The press KNOWS him, he is one of the D.C. gang. Spector might have some national juice because of his position on the judiciary committee and Chaffee has some recognition in New England but that’s all.

    It’s not something to get worked up about.

  • The Corporate owned media are also WAR PROFITEERS and part of the Military/Congressional/Industrial complex.
    ———

    For your own self-education – Watch or Rent –

    “Orwell Rolls in His Grave” – it will answer many media related questions.

    or

    “Why We Fight” – About the terrible rise of the Military/Congressional/Industrial Complex, complete with Eisenhowers famous speech – just released on DVD –
    —————–

    The media can say what they want – THEY OWN IT.
    They know EXACTLY what they are doing.

  • I agree, Devildog…. I blog some more about it on my blog: http://krisschultz.blogspot.com

    Akaka is the one to support. He’s clearly the progressive. It’s a reverse Lieberman/Lamont, especially on views on Bush’s war in Iraq. Ed Case rubberstamped Bush, while Akaka wants to bring the troops home.

    • Comments are closed.