Fear is the foundation of most governments.
-John Adams
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
DOUBLE AGENT
EVERYTHING'S BAD FOR DEMOCRATS DIVISION
There were some who questioned Joseph Lieberman's commitment to the Democratic Party when he refused to back down after losing the nomination in the Primary. When it was announced that he would become an Independent yet remain firmly committed to his Democratic principles, some were skeptical. When it was revealed that Mr. Lieberman would retain some Committee seats, some thought he would purposefully oppose Democrats.
"Many Republicans and some Senate Democratic committee chairmen said that the goal of 100 percent inspections was worthy, but that they were not convinced that mandates should be included in the bill."
So, a lead-in paragraph states that "many Republicans and some Senate Democratic committee charimen" want to take mandates from the bill. Who could these people be? We would expect the next paragraph to tell us about either a Republican or Democrat opposed to the mandates.
Our only clue is a curious one. The next paragraph goes like this:
“Airplane passengers must be assured that any cargo on a passenger jet will not pose a terrorist threat,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, who now leads the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. “But we must achieve these goals in an efficient manner to allow for the free flow of commerce without placing undue economic burdens on importers or bringing air traffic to a standstill.”
There's Joseph Lieberman. But he's neither a Republican nor a Senate Democratic committee chairman, as the lead-in paragraph mentioned. He's an Independent - they say it right there. Sure, he chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, but we were expecting a Senate Democratic committee chairman or maybe one of many Republicans.
All of which gives cover for the doom-and-gloom headline. Apparently Mr. Lieberman's doubts are enough to earn a headline.
Not to mention that nebulous word, "some." We used it in our opening paragraph. It's a slipshod word, used all the time in these situations to give the appearance of more dissent than actually exists.
In the case of our opening paragraph, the problem is that "some" should read "everyone."
In the case of the New York Times article, "some" should read "Joseph Lieberman, Independent."
In fact, the only other mention of a possible Democratic critic is Daniel Inouye. But no quote is given, only that he is in agreement with Mr. Lieberman that the security department should complete its testing of the new technology before employing mandates.
That's it. The other person they dredge up for a quote is from the Heritage Foundation. Was it necessary to talk to those clowns? Of course they would oppose the bill - it was created by Democrats.
Then there are "some security experts."
So, there you have the definition of "some": Joseph Lieberman, James Carofano of the Heritage Foundation, unnamed security experts and Daniel Inouye (who possibly would support the measure provided tests on the technology are finished).
We expect to see much more of this narrative. Democrats pass legislation only to come under fire from "some" dissenters.
And first on the list every time will be Joseph I. Lieberman. Just like always.
