Tuesday, July 25, 2006
NPR Shills for the DLC
Today's Morning Edition featured back-to-back reports about Joe Lieberman and the DLC. Fair and balanced reporting? Neither, thanks. David Welna's report on Lieberman was all about "the unexpected rise of Ned Lamont and the sudden danger Lieberman found himself in of losing his job." Welna tells us "This has caused a sense of indignation among Lieberman's supporters." Indignation is the response to offensive behavior. If Welna has accurately characterized the supporters' feelings, they obviously feel that giving the voters a real choice about whether Lieberman remains their Senator is Just Not Right. Jim Amann, speaker of the Connecticut House, clearly is indignant, even downright outraged: "Shame on all of us if we allow a shrieking minority in our party to hijack this primary." Shrieking minority. Nice way to talk about the voters. I hope lots of Connecticut voters heard that description and tell their friends. Mara Liasson's report on the DLC was longer, and even more dismissive of the Democrats who dare to reject the DLC:
"In the blogosphere, the DLC is attacked as centrist sellouts and shills for big corporations, but the fight really boils down to one issue: the war in Iraq."No, the fight boils down to the DLC being centrist sellouts to the Bush agenda and shills for big corporations. The DLC wants the fight to be about the war in Iraq so it doesn't have to answer for its collaboration with the protofascists who are destroying our democracy. To present what passes for the blogosphere's side of the story, Liasson interviews quotations from Elaine Kaymarck — a DLC operative who provides us with this insight:
"The blogosphere also has been really pushing the notion that Democrats have to have firm and decisive stands on issues, and that we cannot afford any more flip-flopping candidates a la John Kerry."Why is a Democrat repeating the GOP smear against Kerry? How many times did the
"We're not a grassroots organization."And he says it like it's a good thing. Vilsack goes on to say that the DLC can serve to "unify" the party, but somehow I don't see that happening, because, according to Liasson, what the Democrats have to do is
"...get the passion of the netroots and the policy ideas of the DLC working in harness so they elect Democrats rather than tearing them apart."In other words, the DLC calls the shots and the netroots activists shut up and obey. This report supports the observation by Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, and others that the defining characteristic of Lieberman and his DLC allies is a sense of entitlement: that Senate seat belongs to Lieberman, the Democratic Party belongs to the DLC. Why is that so? Because they say so. They've got the power and that means they're entitled to keep it. The DLC is different from the GOP exactly how?
Um... um... gimme a minute, I'm sure I'll think of something....
Not me, you understand. Not in a million years. Al From gives me a rash.
But, like, for example, the woman standing against Marilyn Musgrave, Angie Paccione, is a a DLC Dem
Wikipedia describes Marilyn Musgrave as follows:
Musgrave is very conservative, even by Republican standards. She opposes abortion, even in cases of rape or to protect the mother's life. She strongly opposes gun control, and is the founder of the 2nd Amendment Caucus. According to her website, she believes that government intrudes too much on family affairs (except regarding gay civil rights) and instead favors empowering parents. She also advocates changing the laws to lend more support to families who home-school their children.
She is a Pentecostal, and is one of four Pentecostals serving in the 109th Congress. The others, all Republicans, are Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Tim Johnson of Illinois and Todd Tiahrt of Kansas.
Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ARMPAC. After DeLay was indicted on charges related to another political action committee, TRMPAC, Musgrave refused to return the money or donate it to charity. [2] Noting that the Congresswoman had not received any money from TRMPAC, Musgrave spokesman Guy Short said, "Every dollar she's received is legal". [3]
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington recently labeled Musgrave one of the "thirteen most corrupt members of Congress" [4]. She allegedly used her district office to run her campaign, and also reportedly used the franking privilege accorded to House members to send campaign material for a candidate she favored. Both allegations, if true, would violate House rules. Musgrave has denied these charges.
Stand up Paccione side by side with Musgrave, and I can tell the difference.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
