Update: The man himself promotes the "it's all about the war" lie. Hypocrite! Are lying and bs smears moral, Joe?
Another bonus entry based on a Joseph "Independent" Lieberman, or rather, an article on him. Before I go into that, it is to be noted that one of his "things" is his strong belief about the role of religion in public life. Fine, but (to repeat myself) there are many forms of religion. For instance, a reply to my Declaration essay (why wasn't 1776 on the tube?), noted that natural law suggests a certain morality behind the law.
And, I fully accept that -- one reason I am so passionate about some public issues of the day is because they seem to me simply immoral. Equal justice, for instance, is a form of public morality. As is treating people with dignity and respect, such as not mistreating or torturing them. It's more than pragmatic or legalistic, though it is that.
Putting aside public morality, they simply do not match my way of life, what guides and gives it some meaning. Or, as Sen. Obama said: "a sense of purpose, a narrative arc." Lieberman and others disrespect me by implying their way is better ... that they are superior, while others quite moral in their own fashion are not really "religious." Or, as much as they. They simply do not truly honor principles of religious equality that are among the "self-evident truths" we honor today.
BTW, good win by the Mets with a nice performance of God Bless America by three members of the local USO.
The NYT has another story that frames the Lamont/Lieberman race as about the war. The analysis piece is entitled: "Senator's Plan B Creates Quandary for Democrats" with the subtitle on the paper's webpage providing the spin: "Party leaders who had hoped to make Iraq the president's problem may have to choose between Joseph I. Lieberman and an antiwar Democrat." The article does not note that the "quandary" is apparently if the party will support a candidate that matches the stance of a majority of the party's voters. Furthermore, even while refuting the frame, it keeps up the idea that this is all about the war:
The challenger, a Greenwich businessman, has deftly turned the Senate race into a proxy fight over the war, to the chagrin of national Democrats who want to batter the Republicans - rather than each other - over Iraq this fall. One Lamont commercial shows Mr. Lieberman's face morphing into President Bush's as an announcer says, "Joe Lieberman may say he represents us, but if it talks like George W. Bush and acts like George W. Bush, it's certainly not a Connecticut Democrat."
Again, Ned Lamont did serve in local government. But, more importantly, the very commercial referenced deals with his turncoat ways. The article basically states this fact, in he/she said fashion, including with a final quote from Kos:
"An interesting kind of 'Democrat,' Lieberman thinks he is," he wrote. "One who doesn't respect the wishes of his state's Democratic voters, one who will split his state's vote on the left and potentially hand the election to a Republican."
Exactly. I also saw a few Lamont commercials, since people like Atrios post them online, and they also are not just about "the war." Basically, they focus on his ability to represent the interests of the people of the state. Lieberman has been accused of becoming more a national figure than one concerned with his states' interests, especially since 2000. The blogosphere and so forth has made this race "a proxy" for true progressive values, against faux Democrats ... those who provide aid and comfort to the Republican Party, Bush in particular. It is in no way simply about the war, which the article itself shows.
The facts simply do not fit the framing, no matter how much some in the media appear to try.