Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Snow Spins Lamont Victory Over Lieberman (After Advising White House Had "No Comment")

Tony Snow's press briefing today began with a sentiment we can all agree with:

SNOW: As for -- the President has no comment on the winner or loser of the race, that is for the Democratic Party and Democratic voters in the state of Connecticut. But it also clear, because of the attention being paid to it, that there is a significant political argument underway, and it's one that I think it is important for the American people to have. I say, I think, that the administration thinks it's important for the American people to have.

Bravo.

Then, Snow offered a few less appetizing thoughts on Ned Lamont's primary victory over incumbent Joe Lieberman. Those thoughts followed a broad theme played up by the conservative media over the past few weeks -- that those who support Lamont are "cut and run" McGovernites who lack the cajones to stay the course in a dangerous world.

Snow also implies that Lamont was helped by his wealth (code: he's a limousine liberal) and suggests the possibility that pre-election polls were "rigged."

Ironically, Snow talks about how "some elements" within the Democratic Party have made the Iraq War a with us-or-against us issue -- a charge that has often been made about the Republican Party and the greater conservative noise machine. For example, Mark Levin, on today's radio show, said he had no time for liberal Republicans like Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) when it came to discussing the war.

And Snow disses Democrats who have a "timetable" mentality -- a more sophisticated way of knocking what they call "cut and run." Clearly, the administration wants Americans to forget that the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, had briefed the administration on a similar plan, or that a majority of Americans support troop redeployment out of Iraq.

All that spin, just for a Democratic primary victory in a blue state? Remember: The White House had "no comment" on a race that Snow then proceeded to spin for several minutes. Don't tell me that Lamont's victory doesn't scare the jeepers out of the Republican intelligensia.

Some snippets from the press briefing:

Q On Lieberman, are you telling us you now want to make the November election a referendum on the Democrats' position on the Iraq war?

SNOW: No, I'm saying that there are some Democrats who have said that the key issue is leaving, and that there are some elements within the Democratic Party who are pushing hard to say, look, if you don't agree with us, you no longer belong in the party. ...

There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. ... And it's really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror: do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date-certain; do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere. Or do they want to acknowledge that fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it take persistence.

Q Tony, just to follow up on that. Does this shake up the political landscape conventional thinking of how November midterms are going to go and strategy looking forward to '08?

SNOW: I don't think so. ... One of the interesting things that happened in this Connecticut race, by the way, was there appeared to be some buyer's remorse as election day approached. Maybe the polls were rigged; maybe the polls were bad. But at least the lead that Mr. Lamont had went from 13 points to six to four on election day. That indicates that even in a fairly liberal state like Connecticut, where this is the one issue, where you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent, that you still had a 50-50 split more or less within the Democratic Party on this issue.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Republican math fun? Lamont won 52-48, but it's a 50/50 race.

In 2004, Bush won 51-48, but it was a mandate.

2:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ah,the false choice/strawman approach. It's served the right so well all these years.

One point - "you had a well-financed candidate who had more money than the incumbent"

didn't Lieberman outspend Lamont by something like 3:1?

/vic silverfish

2:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard Snow and Cheney yesterday.
When are Bush Administration and the Bushies going to get it?
The majority of the country opposed to Bush's ill-conceived and bungled foreign policy in Iraq does not equate to opposition towards a strong national security position.
I think the tired talking points have become to most people like bad eighties pop songs that no one wants to hear but the radio keeps playing them anyway.

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Tony Snow is an idiot, and as usual, he presents nothing but false choices. Meanwhile, how ludicrous is the background that actually reads, "The Western White House"? What the heck?

Either way, they're in for a big surprise this time out.

10:52 AM  
Anonymous Paul Watson The Cranky Brit said...

That has to be one of the longest "No comments" I've ever seen.

11:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Snow: The Lamont win in Connecticut is of concern only to the Democratic voters in the state. It's therefore not appropriate for me to comment, so I'm not going to comment.
But(wink wink) be forewarned the victory reflects the Democrats moving from the center to the far left-radical-Michael-Moore-wing of the party. They have absolutely no tolerance (wink wink) for the war on terror...blah...blah...blah

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Sandy said...

No one cares about any of this. We just avoided having some of our major cities hit by terrorists.

NY, FL, DC, CA and possibly others were to be hit by exploding planes.

You people never cease to amaze me.

You can deny the war on terror all you want. We will keep fighting it.

3:16 PM  
Anonymous Muther of Invention said...

Please people, let’s set the record straight. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are two seperate and distinct issues. All of the Bush-it about Iraq has been translated into the war on terrorism, but we faced no legitimate threat from Saddam and that has been underscored numerous times by subsequent investigations and analysis of his regime since the invaision. It was inevitable that an anit-war candidate would eventually be selected, but this does not translate into the entire Democratic party moving to the left fringe. Comparing Iraq to the war on terror is like comparing apples and oranges. One can still support our efforts to confront terrorism while not supporting the war in Iraq.

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suggest Sandy watch a Frontline special "Dark Side" which was rebroadcast on PBS a few nights ago.
This completely objective report provides overwhelming and comprehensive evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally twisted and turned available intelligence while ignoring dissenting intelligence from the CIA and other sources to fabricate a connection between 9-11 terrorism and Iraq, as well to place WMDs in Iraq.
Can we somehow mandate viewing for all brainwashed Bushie conservatives, please?

5:01 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Sandy - This is to you and all Repuks reading this. What you do not get is that the left, liberals, democrats and the independents all understand that there are crazy people in this world that hate the US enough that they want do the most imaginable harm to us that is hard for normal people to comprehend. Believe it or not we get it!! If you remember for a few months after 911, you could hardly tell who were Republicans and who were Democrats.
But, roll your eyes,this administration decided to use the "fear", "terrorist" and "Christian" factor to start consoladating their power. They started down the path of becoming the "King" or a "dictator" and currently have built up a powerfull head of steam. They are like a hugh train with struts sticking out the side rambling down the tracks, picking up any passenger that wants to hop on and running over or spattering anyone that does not want to hop-aboard or that gets in the way. They have gained momentum because they have the support of the Right-Wing and many Repuks. If they had been truthfull about their fight against the "terrorist", been uniters for this freight train ride, then non-Republicans would have been more supportive of this Administration. They had such an opportunity to unite our nation toward the common goal of fighting "terrorism". Instead, they chose to consolidate power to give every benefit they could to the wealthy, to the lobbyist, to BIG BUSINESS, increase their own wealth and screw the little guy.
I am amassed that so many Repuks believe they are providing security for our nation. Yea, we really have secure borders, secure ports, trained first responders, secure airline travel(today they do something about it - IMO to get more support for their power goal), secured electric power grids, secure food distribution network, secure water supplies, many friends that would come to our aid if we were attacked and above all we all of the brave republicans that will defend our nation.
I have asked this question many, many times! If the Repuks are so patriotic, then why if over 59,300,000 voted for Bush in 2004 have so few of them not enlisted in the military to fight this war on "terrorism" that they believe so strongly about?? If only a measly ( very tiny) 1% of those voting for Bush were to enlist, that would have been another 590,000 more troops! So now, all you Pukes in your sarcastic manner tell me how patrtiotic you are compared to me.
I love my country enough that I do not want a band of people that do not have my best interest and the best intertest of our nation at heart to be my leaders. I want to vote them all out and get a new slate of real patriotic Americans, even if a few are honest Repuks.

9:57 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Attention Bushies:
If you want to look at the London-U.S. terrorist plot in the context of Bush's failed War in Iraq, here is the way to do it.
The terrorist plot, involving alleged Al Queda members from Pakistan, demonstrates the total irrelevance of the Iraq conflict in fighting the war on terror (other than perhaps significantly contributing to stirring Al Quaeda's anti-American juices. The only Islamic terrorists in Iraq are the ones Bush policy has created there just as the only connection of the terrorist plot to Iraq is the one in Cheney's head.
It shows how the Bush Administration is continuing to divert resources on Iraq when clearly the threat lies elsewhere.
Got it?

10:38 AM  
Anonymous David G. said...

"You can deny the war on terror all you want. We will keep fighting it."

Sandy. Please grow a brain.

What we object to is the misuse of our fighting capabilities with this disastrous war in Iraq, and that the invasion of Iraq has worsened our standing in the world, which in turn hurts our ability to fight terrorists and secure our borders.

2:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Muther of Invention said...
"Please people, let’s set the record straight. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are two seperate and distinct issues......


Muther of Invention, although I personally disagree with that statement, I realize that there are many on your side who sincerely do feel that way about the Iraqi War. I think you're all very wrong, but it seems you cannot be convinced otherwise, so I won't even try.

Of course, that does not change the fact that most every Democrat in Congress did overwhelmingly sign on to the war in Iraq. Predictably, however, many have tried to distance themselves from it, once the going got tough.

Another point. Each time the Dems are given an opportunity to vote against further funding of the war, they decline to do so. Why is that, if they truly do not believe we are doing the right thing? Shouldn't they stand on principle, and cut off funding for a war they believe to be so wrong?

Muther of Invention said...
"One can still support our efforts to confront terrorism while not supporting the war in Iraq.


I suppose that might be true, but the problem remains that liberals do NOT support our efforts to confront the broader problem of terrorism. If you did, then you would not fight the Patriot Act, the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program, and every other aspect of the Bush Administration's strategy for protecting this nation against further attacks from militant Islamo-Facists.

You want to come out smelling like a rose either way, but you can't have it both ways. If you guys had your way, we would be left with virtually no effective tools with which to detect these plots before they occur. This latest scheme that was foiled is an excellent example of nations cooperating with one another to avoid another 9-11. Yet time and time again libs do nothing but undermine President Bush.

3:40 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sandy said...
"No one cares about any of this. We just avoided having some of our major cities hit by terrorists.


I absolutely agree with you, Sandy. As far as that "grow a brain" comment is concerned, I trust you will take it from whence it comes. ;)

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently, somone cares about this. Look at all the comments!!!

5:11 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Trinity, how can you defend Sandy's silliness?

We didn't just avoid "having some of our major cities hit by terrorists."

The British foiled a plot. How far along the plotters were isn't clear. And the planned attack would have blown up planes over the Atlantic, not hit our major cities.

This is not to say that the people shouldn't have been arrested. It's a serious thing even to plot some horrible terrorist attack.

But the guys in South Florida who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower had a plot, but apparently no means to execute it. The nut who wanted to blow up an Ohio mall had a plan, but no means to execute it. Jose Padilla wanted to have a dirty bomb go off in NYC, but was nowhere near being able to make that happen.

I'm not denying the seriousness of the arrests yesterday. But let's stick to what we know, rather than what we fear.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

FWIW, Scotland Yard just announced one of the 19 people arrested has been released.

5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity said:
"If you did, then you would not fight the Patriot Act, the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program, and every other aspect of the Bush Administration's strategy for protecting this nation against further attacks from militant Islamo-Facists"

Interchange a few words, such as replace "Islamo Facists" with "Communists" and you have something similar to what Nixon said.

7:12 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"I'm not denying the seriousness of the arrests yesterday. But let's stick to what we know, rather than what we fear."


Rob, I have no problem sticking to what we know, and what we know is that a very serious terror threat seems to have been thwarted last week. Whether the planes were going to be exploded over the Atlantic, or over our cities, either way there is a very real reason to fear such a thing. The targeted flights from England had U.S. cities as their destinations. Also, it's believed that this was only one wave of intended targets.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"The British foiled a plot. How far along the plotters were isn't clear."


Well, if the reports coming out are accurate, it is pretty clear how far along the terrorists were, rob. It's being reported that the Brits intercepted a phone call from Pakistan, and the order was to "go forward" with the plan. The dry run was to take place in two days, to see if they could indeed board the planes with the components necessary to make the bomb, and the actual operation to follow within another few days.

rob of wilmington, del. said...
FWIW, Scotland Yard just announced one of the 19 people arrested has been released.


Actually, I believe it was one of the 24 people arrested that was released.

3:39 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"Don't tell me that Lamont's victory doesn't scare the jeepers out of the Republican intelligensia."


I really don't think it does, David. Bottom line is that this was just the primary race, and it's more than just a little possible that Lieberman will win in the general election.

What probably helped Ned Lamont was enough independents switching over at the last minute to vote for Lamont in the Democrat primary. I'm not sure they represent the will of the majority of Connecticut voters.

Bottom line is that a new Rasmussen poll in Connecticut shows Sen. Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont 46 percent to 41 percent.

3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lamont not only represents the will of Connecticut voters, but that of the majority of the population of entire country who are opposed to the Iraq War and want a pullout.

6:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares