Over the last 24 hours I have seen our zeal to help Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman -- and believe me, this is a most noble goal -- reflect badly on the blogosphere.
Basically, there's enough of an argument to defeat Joe without making shit up.
So why are we making shit up??
The first story/front paged diary was this one:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
In this story, a set of events was described in sequence:
1. Joe votes for Oman Free Trade Agreement.
then... AFTER that vote...
2. Top democrats discovered, for the first time, that the agreement would approve foreign ownership of US ports.
from this we concluded that Joe supports foreign ownership of U.S. Ports.
at that point we can ask "why didn't Joe know about this? doesn't anyone read the legilslation before they vote?" well, turns out, maybe it's more complex than that, cause rep. Murtha only broke the news until AFTER the vote. why didn't he bring that up during floor debate?
and expecting a statement from Joe after the news broke is fair as well.
but. the fact remains.... if no one debated foreign ownership of US ports when deliberating on the bill. if it was a discovery that happened only AFTER the vote itself. then a conclusion that anyone who voted for the bill thinks foreign ownership of US ports is fine is... well... stretching the truth. it's bad reporting.
you know. maybe joe does think foreign ownership of US ports is fine, but if that fact of the bill is only made known to lawmakers after the vote, then the vote itself does not provide any indication at all of anyone's feelings on foreign ownership of US ports. it's as simple as that. if you're concerned about integrity, you have to dig deeper to find a better indication.
now today, we see this story...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
wherein some dude at TPMCafe (a very reputable site), Greg Sargent, claims to have asked the lieberman campaign about wether or not Joe is considering running as a republican.
apparently, according to mr. sargent, this question was posed to dep. press sec. Noah Kores.
here are two questions to Mr. Sargent, asking him to clarify:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/...
http://www.tpmcafe.com/...
neither of which were answered. I have not looked through all the comments in the dkos story itself, but, knowing how much Markos values his integrity, I safely assume if any clarification was given it would have been added to the story in an update.
the update given in that story is actually kind of funny.
between mr. sargent's "inquiry" and Joe's announcement that he would not run as a republican is 4 hours.
at Jul 19, 2006 -- 12:40:58 PM EST Sargent whispers "mulling."
at Jul 19, 2006 -- 04:40:44 PM EST markos writes.
Lieberman finally rules out running as a Republican.
well. i guess it should have been an immediate response. why should it have to take 4 hours.
but why, as much as i do not like joe lieberman, do i not trust Sargent or Markos's handling of this?
there may be proof that the Lieberman camp is unresponsive. sure. that makes sense. but there is simply no proof at all that Joe Lieberman himself EVER mulled over a run as a republican.
ergo. the story Headline
Lieberman mulls running as a Republican
is, well, -- shit -- running around calling Markos a liar is stupid. But it is, based on the information available at the time, a false statement as far as i can tell.
so. within the tradition of MSM/blogosphere reporting integritas, i have decided to send the Joe Lieberman folks the following email.
To the Lieberman Campaign,
Do you support impeachment of the president?
regards,
BC.
until i hear back, we must perforce conclude they are,... of course.... mulling it over.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i know we all want Ned Lamont to win.
In my opinion, a dialog that has little respect for the truth... while maybe it might help Lamont win.... only undermines the credibility of the forum.
Update: I just received a response from the Lieberman camp. Joe has finally decided not to support impeaching Bush.