Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The New Republic's anti-semites for Lieberman

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 8:21 AM on August 8, 2006.


Readers have spoken.
149059
Lanny!

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

I take my cues, not from Kos or the Democratic Party but from Joe Lieberman's friends, like Lanny Davis, who smears Ned Lamont -- and the blogs as a whole -- with his deft use of comments on blogs that refer to Lieberman.

Got that? Comments on blog posts that refer to Lieberman.

(Davis, by the way, is a friend and frat brother of one George W. Bush who was once branded by the prez in a not homoerotic ritual -- as well as being a current Bush appointee. So, you know, he's the perfect guy to be commenting on what the Democratic Party should be comprised of.)

So, given that commenters on blogs that refer to something comprise a fair and balanced assessment of that something, I thought I'd try my hand at this nifty trick.

Here goes.

For my maiden voyage I thought I'd take the leap from Lanny Davis' Wall St. Journal rant for Joe Lieberman to the pages of those perennial Lieberman backers, The New Republic.

In all honesty, I'm just impressed that TNR even has comments, something the National Review's blog doesn't deign or dare to do.

So I sifted through TNR's straw poll for comments on today's Lieberman/Lamont race and found some interesting things that can irrefutably be tied to TNR and Lieberman supporters. Except, whoops, TNR supports Ned Lamont. You know how you can tell? It's right there -- in the comments. By about a 2-1 margin (though I didn't have the patience to read every comment and count -- please correct me if I'm wrong).

But here are some other comments that can be read as reflective of TNR, and therefore Joe Lieberman (or, GAH!, have I ruined my own experiment and they can now be read as representative of Ned Lamont!)

  • A vote against Joe Lieberman is a vote for the anti-American, pro-Hizbollah, pro-Hamas, pro-UN, anti-Semitic wing of the Democratic Party. It is as simple as that.
  • Lieberman... I receive my directives from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
  • And, it is the Jewish Democrats who backed Likud over Labour to sabotage Oslo and to re-build the IDF on the Anglo-American model.
  • btw, after it appeared in the news today that Lieberman is closing the gap in a new poll released this morning, the Lamontsters seem to have perpetuated a denial of service attack against his site, causing it to crash. They are trying to smear that as Lieberman's staff not paying their internet bill. Real class acts. (Ahh, unsubstantiated accusations, the likes of which I haven't seen since, since, since, The National Review's blog from today.
  • And finally, this sensible fellow shows how TNR is finally getting some sense in the editorial noggin: I don't have the time to address all the "a vote for Lamont is anti-semitic/anti-Israel/a purge/a defeat for Democrats" nonsense. Lieberman undermined his party's ability to act in loyal opposition to an administration run amok. Period. He deserves to lose his seat.

Lesson: comments can, and often are, made by anyone with the ability to type. They have something to do with the blog, but not a hell of a lot. Smearing a blog based on the commenters has about as much relevance as smearing a speaker based on a heckler...

Digg!

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.


Enough Psuedo-Feminist War-Mongering in the Name of Islamic Women
Really.
Post by Joshua Holland. July 9, 2009.
Will the Dems Ever Grow a Spine?
Can you imagine if the Republicans had the White House, the House of Representatives, and a 60-vote majority in the Senate?
Post by Jill Hussein C.. July 9, 2009.
Welcome to Post-Racial America! (No Black Kids Allowed)
A private club booted a group of campers for fear that they'd "change the complexion" of the facility.
Post by Staff. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sounds Rovian to me...
Posted by: catnapping on Aug 8, 2006 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't put it past the GOP to hack Lieberman, and then plant evidence framing the true patriotic progressives voting against him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hazing? Brand? Nonhomoerotic?
Posted by: Domokun on Aug 8, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's too bad...just when I'm getting turned on.

So, does this mean Bush got a brand, too (cigarette burn)? Was there extry touching, you know, down there after they drank all that beer during the hazing?

Maybe when this branded Big Gay Lanny (even his name is gay) makes a snarky comment here about me being for Lamont (wasn't before or cared since I don't live there, but I sure am now), I'll get my answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OY
Posted by: sui_generis on Aug 8, 2006 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What really pisses me off about this whole Lamont thing is that I heard NOT ONE WORD about Lamont taking the lead over Smokin' Joe when it happened (remember when nobody knew who Lamont was and he was 50 points down?), yet despite that, EVERY NEWS STORY I COME ACROSS this week has the headline "Lieberman narrows Lamont's lead" !!!

WHAT LEAD? When did anyone outside the lefty blogs ever acknowledge Lamont had pulled so far ahead, or that the race was even competitive? If they had given as much coverage to that as they are giving to Lieberman's "comeback" of 5 points, Lamont would probably have enough name recognition already that this "comeback" wouldn't have happened at all.

Oh, and on top of all that, every time the mainstream media says Lamont's name, they append the word "millionaire" in front of it. Really? If a Republican has money, he's an entrepeneuer, or a "successful businessman". If a Democratic candidate has money, he's a "millionaire". (And aren't MOST Senators millionaires, by the way? Is Lieberman not a millionaire...?)

Sheesh. The nonsense that journalism has become boggles the mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OY Posted by: PEEK
» RE: OY Posted by: sui_generis
madashell
Posted by: abby on Aug 9, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am glad to see the end (hopefully) of Lieberman, let's not be too hasty to embrace Lamont. He is an adamant supporter of Israel and its current tactics in Lebanon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: madashell Posted by: jcutler9
Joe's loyalty
Posted by: Bbear41 on Aug 9, 2006 6:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberman's loyalty seems clear now. He is going to run as an independant evidently with the idea of spliting the Demo vote and giving Bush another senate vote. It occures to me - he might split the Repub vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]