Weekly Standard Lies on Romney and Lieberman

As the Repulicans and the Press shift gears into general season (even while the Democrats by and large languish down in primary season), a number of oft repeated falsehoods are going to start zinging around like shrapnel.  The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes has written an opinion piece brimming with such statements.  Some of them are so obvious, it is extremely hard not to see intent on the part of the columnist.   (Emphasis Mine):

So how about Lieberman in 2008? He’s a pal of McCain, a brave backer of the war in Iraq, and now the most prominent Democratic supporter of McCain’s presidential bid. He would surely enhance McCain’s appeal to independents and moderate Democrats. He’s a political adult.

Joe Lieberman is an independent.  He left the Democratic party when he lost the nomination fight in the CT primary.  He then founded a sham party and went on to win on the wings of Republican votes.  He’s been a very prominent and visible supporter of President Bush, most notably on the Iraq war.

What does “political adult” mean?  Whatever it could mean would never apply to Holy Joe.  This is a man who has thrown temper tantrums and treated his Senate seat as a birthright rather than a responsibility to represent his constituents.

But he’s no Zell Miller. Lieberman is a liberal on domestic issues, including abortion.

His position on the pill suggests otherwise.

The next point applies to Massachusetts favorite mistake, Mitt Romney:

Romney has three other add-ons. He’s acceptable to conservatives and especially to social conservatives, who disproportionately volunteer as ground troops in Republican presidential campaigns.

Conservatives and Social Conservatives hate Mitt Romney.  His floppability quotient is preposterous, especially on issues like gay rights and freedom of choice.  Big Business Conservatives love Romney, because for all his other perceived faults, he’s one of them.  But that wasn’t enough to stop anybody but Romney voters from crushing him in the primaries.  There’s no way Huckabee’s crowd would go for Mitt.

Then there’s the Clinton / McCain angle:

In fact, Clinton has set up Obama to be attacked by McCain on this front.

Her TV ad raising doubts about Obama’s readiness to be president was critical to her victories last week in the Ohio and Texas primaries. She also said in a campaign appearance: “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience [to the White House] and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002. I think that is a significant difference.” In Obama’s 2002 speech, he opposed the invasion of Iraq. One can envision her comment in a McCain TV ad zinging Obama.

Sadly that much is true.  I could easily see McCain using that idiotic and needlessly divisive quote against Obama in the general.  Fortunately, as Clinton’s campaign slowly dies off, the failure to make effective use of experience as a wedge will hurt McCain’s ability to do so.  What could hurt Barack Obama is the press’s stubborn refusal to stop hanging on to the myths surrounding each of the candidates, and their insistence on taking packaged candidate prepared narratives at face value.  Media coverage of a Presidential race is like a group of young primary school students armed with crayons covering an election for the position of Santa Claus.  Each candidate’s myths are balanced against the other’s carefully, sometimes side by side without even the hint of self awareness about how ludicrously short of “objective” such actions fall.

%d bloggers like this: