I'm sticking to my guns on this one


Lately, whenever I diss the Day I get an email setting me straight, if straightening I need.

Yesterday I asked why the Day continues to put a D after Lieberman's name and taking it to task for not covering his post election turnabout on Iraq, and I got an email pointing me to this article about Joe and his relationship to top name Democrats. Unfortunately, it will cost you $2.25 to read it, but my correspondent sent the text in an email.

I don't think the article undermines my central points: First, that Lieberman is no longer a D, despite the wishful thinking of some of these people. (In one way or another, each person interviewed was vested in Lieberman prior to the election. Many supported him, implicitly or explicitly, against Lamont, and it's now difficult for them to acknowledge that they've been had. Not so with the rank and file) He is a self proclaimed independent and he should be denominated as such. No one calls Bernie Saunders a Democrat, though he's a more reliable member of the caucus.

In fact, the article supports the point:

Wasn't he sending a message to Democrats by refusing to back the party's presidential candidate, or swear that he would "die a Democrat," as he did to New York magazine while competing for the party's nomination in August?

"Yes, that's right," Lieberman said, "because that's where I'm enjoying being an independent. Parties are important in our country, but in some ways, for a lot of people, the party has become more important than the country."

The article doesn't undermine my second point either-that the Day has not sufficiently covered Lieberman's hypocrisy since the election.

All that being said, I will readily concede that there are folks at the Day that have tried their best, including the author of the referenced article.
Posted: Wednesday - April 04, 2007 at 07:01 PM          

©