Joe vs. The Volcano

"The Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood – unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn."

Who said this statement? Don Rumsfeld? Condelizza Rice? George Bush? Bill Frist? Duncan Hunter? No. The author of that statement is not even a Republican. He happens to be Al Gore's 2000 running mate, almost-vice-president and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, returning from his 4th trip to Iraq in 17 months. While most of us know that Senator Lieberman has been a hawk on this war, he has been drowned out by the more liberal, dovish members of his party.

In the wake of Rep. John Murtha's full-frontal assault on the Bush Administration, combined with the many hairs split by Sen. John Kerry, the vitriol of the Democratic leadership, and the piling on by the media establishment, collectivley known as the Volcano ready to spew its lava and melt and burn down all aspects of the Bush Adminstration, it is an amazing act for Joe Lieberman to attempt. To be a nationally recognized Democrat who is running for reelection in 2006 and support George W. Bush on the Iraq War takes an act of political courage not seen in a long time.

What is interesting to me is the lack of notice to the senator's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Where was the media coverage that followed John Murtha? Lieberman has an established national presence, where Murtha did not. Murtha was a media creation after he came out for cut and run. Before, who knew him? Yet he got a media BLITZ. Does Lieberman, a Democratic senator since 1988 and former running-mate on an almost winning presidential ticket, not deserve the same coverage? Is he on CNN, or Fox, or on the Today Show? Does Lieberman lack the proper liberal qualifications to get noticed? So as Joe fights the Volcano, it must be incredibly lonely.

I think its an incredible contradiction in the way the media embraced John Murtha with open arms, yet seems to be ignoring the opinion of an equally repsected Democratic senator, who seems to be lonlier and lonier in the Democratic Party forest.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Shaun Kenney]

Heh! Great post.

[Mark T. Blair]

I think there are some explanations for the disparity in media coverage other than a liberal media bias.

Lieberman has a history of hawhishness so it's not surprising that he takes this position whereas Murtha is a well known hawk taking a remarkably dovish position. Also, the "stay the course" position has been taken by other democratic legislators while Murtha's proposal is radically different than anything we've heard so far. Finally, a tearful news conference from a 70 year old vietnam vet just makes better news than a WSJ editorial from Joe Lieberman - this may speak to the MSM's preference for sensationalism over substance but it doesn't reveal any bias especially since, as you point out, the disparity in coverage existed at Fox news as much as it did anywhere else.

Good post though, thought provoking.