Monday, January 15, 2007
Blaming the Victim?
It's a bit of a stretch to call Mary Landrieu a victim, but it is amusing to see the reaction of famed DINO hunter Atrios (and some other liberal bloggers) to the latest example of Joe Lieberman's perfidy:
Prior to his re-election, Lieberman called for investigation of the federal governments role in the Katrina crisis and Mary Landrieu campaigned for Lieberman. Now that he's been re-elected, Lieberman's changed his mind. So does Atrios blast Lieberman on this issue? Does he even call for Landrieu to respond (as oyster does)? Not exactly. Instead he gives us:
And:
What a dipshit! He seems to be forgetting who elected Lieberman. Atrios has put up several posts blasting Lieberman for his support of the troop surge, but I've yet to see one saying:
I'm not the first to note the contrast between the liberal web's portrayal of Landrieu as a closet Republican and Louisiana Republicans' portrayal of Landrieu as a baby-murdering socialist, but does Atrios even realize that Landrieu's supposed liberalism was cited as a reason to vote against her brother in our recent mayoral election? He probably doesn't care. Whatever, it's utterly absurd for a Philadelphia blogger to blame a Louisiana senator for the actions of a Connecticut senator. Personally, I'd like to see a more liberal Democrat in Landrieu's seat, but it ain't gonna happen.
However, yesterday on Meet The Press, a Nebraska Republican did put the Connecticut Independent in his place.
Second Thoughts: I Don't want tone down the above too much. Two months ago, when posting on William Jefferson, I was struck by something on one of the links that made to The Black Commentator:
At the time I thought that was a consideration that some on the liberal web seem to forget; i specifically thought of the difference in some of the posts I had seen at Atrios and at Daily Kos. I can certainly understand the point of view at My Left Nutmeg, but Atrios took two swipes at Landrieu for Lieberman's vote in the space of two hours Saturday night, with only one other post in between.
Atrios didn't even call on Landrieu to demand that Lieberman keep his word. I'd like to think that's she pressuring Lieberman privately, but if that doesn't work, she should be prepared to do so publicly. With that in mind...
Lastly, the above is an example of the pitfalls of posting from memory without checking your facts. Landrieu was one of the few national Democrats to support Lieberman in the general election, the leadership that I recalled supporting Lieberman supported him in the primary. Of course, the support of national Democrats for Lieberman in the primary made their support for Lamont in the general election meaningless.
One More Update:
On the same day that I posted the above, A conservative Louisiana blogger ran a post with the title:
Landrieu lies cannot cover up liberal voting record
I know that the Connecticut bloggers cited are angry because of Landrieu's support of Lieberman; I understand that. The post wasn't directed at them.
Bush's Best Democratic Buddy
Joe Lieberman gives the president a pass on Katrina.
Prior to his re-election, Lieberman called for investigation of the federal governments role in the Katrina crisis and Mary Landrieu campaigned for Lieberman. Now that he's been re-elected, Lieberman's changed his mind. So does Atrios blast Lieberman on this issue? Does he even call for Landrieu to respond (as oyster does)? Not exactly. Instead he gives us:
Great Job Mary Landrieu!
Certainly doing what's best for the people of your state.
And:
Landrieu Memories
Nice judgment, senator!
What a dipshit! He seems to be forgetting who elected Lieberman. Atrios has put up several posts blasting Lieberman for his support of the troop surge, but I've yet to see one saying:
Great Job Connecticut
I'm not the first to note the contrast between the liberal web's portrayal of Landrieu as a closet Republican and Louisiana Republicans' portrayal of Landrieu as a baby-murdering socialist, but does Atrios even realize that Landrieu's supposed liberalism was cited as a reason to vote against her brother in our recent mayoral election? He probably doesn't care. Whatever, it's utterly absurd for a Philadelphia blogger to blame a Louisiana senator for the actions of a Connecticut senator. Personally, I'd like to see a more liberal Democrat in Landrieu's seat, but it ain't gonna happen.
However, yesterday on Meet The Press, a Nebraska Republican did put the Connecticut Independent in his place.
Second Thoughts: I Don't want tone down the above too much. Two months ago, when posting on William Jefferson, I was struck by something on one of the links that made to The Black Commentator:
They bowed to George Bush's declaration of permanent, unilateral war for no remotely defensible reason. Their fear is self-generated, automatic.
Ford, Jefferson and Wynn represent safe, solid Black-majority districts, dependably anti-war and anti-Bush. Only Bishop's district is less than majority-Black, although it is also considered safely Democratic.
At the time I thought that was a consideration that some on the liberal web seem to forget; i specifically thought of the difference in some of the posts I had seen at Atrios and at Daily Kos. I can certainly understand the point of view at My Left Nutmeg, but Atrios took two swipes at Landrieu for Lieberman's vote in the space of two hours Saturday night, with only one other post in between.
Atrios didn't even call on Landrieu to demand that Lieberman keep his word. I'd like to think that's she pressuring Lieberman privately, but if that doesn't work, she should be prepared to do so publicly. With that in mind...
Lastly, the above is an example of the pitfalls of posting from memory without checking your facts. Landrieu was one of the few national Democrats to support Lieberman in the general election, the leadership that I recalled supporting Lieberman supported him in the primary. Of course, the support of national Democrats for Lieberman in the primary made their support for Lamont in the general election meaningless.
One More Update:
On the same day that I posted the above, A conservative Louisiana blogger ran a post with the title:
Landrieu lies cannot cover up liberal voting record
I know that the Connecticut bloggers cited are angry because of Landrieu's support of Lieberman; I understand that. The post wasn't directed at them.
Comments:
<< Home
It might be "utterly absure" if Mary hadn't gone out of her way to campaign for Lieberman, but she did and that makes it perfectly reasonable to fault her for her having trusted him to do the right thing for the Gulf Coast.
Brian Boru
Brian Boru
# posted by 
: 9:38 AM
: 9:38 AM
In months of Lieberman criticism, I've yet to see Atrios blame the people of Connecticut for Leiberman's actions. But he takes the first opportunity to slam Landrieu. How many Connecticut votes did Landrieu sway? You can blame her as part of the Democratic leadership that backed Lieberman, but it's wrong to single her out. I'd like to know what motivated all of them. Was respect and affection for Holy Joe? I doubt it. A Machiellian desire to discourage challenges in their own states? I hope not. Hedging their bets against a Lieberman win? That would be understandable, but cowardly IMO. In landrieu's case, she might have taken Lieberman at his word on the investigation and thought that it put the state Republican party on the defensive; they have done a good job of blaming everything on Blanco.
As I said, I'd rather a better Democrat in that seat, but we're more likely to get a Republican or a John Kennedy who might change parties. Atrios should read the papers and listen to the radio in the home states of senators like Landrieu before he goes on his next DINO hunting safari.
As I said, I'd rather a better Democrat in that seat, but we're more likely to get a Republican or a John Kennedy who might change parties. Atrios should read the papers and listen to the radio in the home states of senators like Landrieu before he goes on his next DINO hunting safari.
To add to that last comment, I can understand that Conn. Dems are angry at the rest of the party, I just don't see the reason to single out Landrieu. In general, I think that Atrios' criticism of "conservative" or "moderate" Democrats is misguided, although it's certainly valid in some cases -- if Dems aren't going to act like Dems on issues like the bankruptcy bill, there's no point. In this case, it's particularly misguided. Lieberman should be forced to explain his current position more than Landrieu needs to explain he past one. If he called on Landrieu to demand an explanation from lieberman, I'd agree. As it is, he's just further marginalizing her and making that Dem seat more vulnerable, if he's accomplishing anything at all.
Mary Landrieu deserves all the grief she is getting. She backed Lieberman, at the expense of Ned Lamont, who, by the way, WON the Democratic primary for the Senate. She did, as your first comment indicates,"go out of her way" to support the moron Lieberman. &, as far as provincialism goes, New Orleans means a great deal to the WHOLE country & Mary Landrieu's centrism is helping to destroy it. Yes, I'm a blogger from northern Wisco, & have a every right to make sure Landrieu is held accountable to all Americans for her disastrous decision to back Lieberman.
# posted by : 9:56 AM
: 9:56 AM
As I indicated in the second thoughts, my reaction was to the fact that Atrios used Lieberman's position to attack Landrieu twice in the space of three posts. I've never been a Landrieu fan, but that was ridiculous IMO. Esp. since his point wasn't to pressure Landrieu to take a stand, but merely to undercut another Democrat that he doesn't like. He does that too often for my taste. I should say he does it to an extent that I think is couterproductive. Anyway, does anybody think that Landrieu's endorsement made any difference? I suspect that the carry over effect from the endorsements of more well known Dems in the primary had more effect, even if many later endorsed Lamont.
Post a Comment
<< Home
