Ron Brownstein focuses some attention on the much-neglected subject of hard-right opposition to any hints of reasonableness on the part of Republican Party politicians. When Joe Lieberman faced a primary challenge for the sin of relentlessly supporting a catastrophically failed policy, the political establishment reacted as if this was the End Times. Now that Chuck Hagel is facing a primary challenge for the sin of mildly gesturing toward the idea that maybe we should avoid catastrophically failed policy, nobody seems to care.
« Maliki and Iran | Main | Sunday Pastrami Blogging »
The Hard Right
12 Aug 2007 11:29 am
Comments (18)
I think the difference is supposed to be that Joe Lieberman made credible runs for the presidency, while Hagel has not. The actuality, of course, is that our media establishment is hard-right verging on lunatic fringe.
Not just credible runs for the presidency, he was Al Gore's frigging Vice Presidential nominee. I realize that recognizing this is inconvenient for the many people who now love Gore more than ever and also believe that Lieberman is Zell Miller, but of course a credible primary challenge to the recent VP nominee of the party was bigger than a challenge to Hagel.
The right wing challenge to Lincoln Chafee got some attention, but it was not as credible nor with as much out-of-state support as the challenge to Lieberman.
The idea that this is some ideologically driven media story is absurd. Does anybody here think the media have done anything but make Hagel look heroic for challenging the president on the war?
Ah, the framing of a Master Carpenter (and his young apprentice)! Norm Abrams will be along shortly to admire their work.
Supporting a massive amnesty is not in any way a "moderate" position for endless reasons; for just one example, giving the MexicanGovernment even more political power inside the U.S. - as Graham would have done - is extremist and extremely foolish.
"The idea that this is some ideologically driven media story is absurd. Does anybody here think the media have done anything but make Hagel look heroic for challenging the president on the war?"
Well, McCain's persona is very much a media construction, in part because the Straight Talk Express gave away the best free booze to the media in 2000. In the Senate, he was a bit of a joke because he didn't know how to work with people and had the worst attendance. People in the media could have chosen to anoint Hagel the McCain of this time go round, yet they gave him less attention. I guess Hagel isn't down with Grey Goose. If you look at the Sunday talk shows, solidly anti-war Democrats and liberals are among the least likely to appear, but pro-war Democrats like Leiberman and Republican hawks practically have their butts' glued to the seats.
Joe Lieberman faced a primary challenge for the sin of relentlessly supporting a catastrophically failed policy
Don't forget his relentless demagoguery attacking Democrats as being unpatriotic (talk about the pot calling the Formica black).
I think part of it may be that Hagel's challenger is a Serious Person—a state official—whereas Lieberman's challenger was not sanctioned by political insiders, only by the voters. So the GOP challengers have the stamp of the political establishment.
I won't deny that the media coverage of the Lieberman race was absurdly elitist - how dare those plebians differ with their august, long-time senator!- and this is coming from someone who doesn't mind elitism. (at least I prefer it to populism)
But I have to take Bill's point to heart.First, Hagel as been treated with a good deal of reverence by the mainstream press; second, Hagel is not the Republican equivalent to Joe Lieberman as far as party status in concerned; and last, I think giving any press to Ned Lamont boosted his campaign anyway.
Also, Hagel is from Nebraska, pretty far removed from the existence of a MSM reporter. A rather large percentage of the MSM has probably lived (or does live) in the NY/CT region. "Joe is one of us!" In more ways than one, unfortunately.
I agree with everybody else, but just want to add that the plain old bias for hawkishness/war/violence is at work here too.
Hagel is from Nebraska, pretty far removed from the existence of a MSM reporter. A rather large percentage of the MSM has probably lived (or does live) in the NY/CT region.
Yeah, but PA and RI are pretty close to that region as well, and both saw primary challenges to moderate GOP senators, without too much fanfare. And Hagel is hardly an obscure figure.
and also believe that Lieberman is Zell Miller,
Surely that's hard to deny at this point? If Lieberman's not talking about how the Democrats are trying to arm our boys with spitballs at the 2008 RNC, I'll be quite surprised.
John,
Fair enough, I guess, given Lieberman's latest tendencies w/respect to Iran, let's say. But he's still over his career a Northeastern Liberal who was VP nominee, and quite distinguishable until the last couple of years from Zell.
I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion though that Hagel has not been on Sunday talk shows; he's practically a co-host with George S. on ABC over the last few seasons.
I must say, I find it perplexing that people here think the media lean toward making Iraq look less than disastrous. I do think they maintain a basically hawkish orientation, but after all, so do the main democratic nominees.
If I were looking for conservative bias in the media, I'd say health care coverage is much more deceptive than Iraq war coverage.
And Hagel is hardly an obscure figure.
Of course Hagel is not an obscure figure - he's the media's favorite Republican because... he loves to bash Republicans. Therefore, he's on the Sunday shows all the time, he's quoted in the paper all the time, etc. If there's a media bias at work here at all, it is that the media has made him famous, instead of simply living in obscurity like, I dunno, Craig Thomas or someone.
It's a bit early, and it's a Presidential election year. Secondly, it's doubtful this primary challenge will succeed. Nor at this point are the right-wing blogs all over it the way the left-wing blogs were all about boosting Lamont.
So there you have three reasons why this isn't getting much attention.
Hagel isn't even a candidate for re-election yet. Just wait, if he becomes one, you might see more coverage.
The soft bigotry of low expectations?
Here's the key point from the Brownstein article:
"Centrist Democrats aren't immune to these trends. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, for instance, lost a Democratic primary last year (before winning reelection as an independent). But for all the fulminating against centrists on liberal websites, the internecine warfare isn't burning as hot among Democrats.
This difference is rooted in the fact that the Democrats today are much more of a coalition party than the Republicans: Polls show that only about half of Democratic voters consider themselves liberals, while three-fourths or more of Republicans call themselves conservatives. That means to win elections, Democrats depend more than Republicans on the votes of moderates -- which compels them to accept more dissent from party orthodoxy."
I think Brownstein's wrong.
One of the biggest debates this last week was between Harold Ford of the DLC and Markos Moulitsas of the Israel-bashing Daily Kos.
The radical left by no means occupies the center of the political spectrum. The country is a moderate-conservative nation, and one ill-informed Brownstein piece, even published thirty times - with some ill-considered Hullabaloo ranting thrown in - won't change that.
Comments closed August 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well, that's the liberal press for you.
Posted by frank | August 12, 2007 11:42 AM