Media Matters’ Jamison Foser argued yesterday that, in the wake of [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag]’s primary victory this week, the “political [tag]media[/tag] were awash in pro-[tag]Lieberman[/tag] and pro-Republican spin about Lamont, Connecticut voters, and what it all means for this fall’s congressional elections.” If anything, that’s understating the case.
Consider these items from just the last 24 hours.
* Yesterday on CNN Headline News, anchor [tag]Chuck Roberts[/tag] discussed the political implications of this week’s thwarted terrorist plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, “How does this factor into the Lieberman/[tag]Lamont[/tag] contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the [tag]al Qaeda[/tag] [tag]candidate[/tag]?”
* Today, Congressional Quarterly ran a non-partisan election analysis of Senate races in the Northeast, and described Lamont, matter-of-factly, as a “vitriolic critic of the Iraq War.” As my friend NAR noted in an email, Lamont may be a vehement critic of the war, but “[tag]vitriolic[/tag]”?
* Yesterday, nationally-syndicated columnist [tag]Cal Thomas[/tag] argued, in print, that Lieberman primary defeat “completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.” The [tag]Taliban[/tag] [tag]Democrats[/tag], he added, “are willing to ‘kill’ one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party’s kook fringe…. Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political ‘fatwa’ that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.”
I can appreciate the fact that the Republican push-back against Lamont is “highly coordinated,” but it’s almost impressive how quickly the far-right attacks have been integrated into the national news.