"How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?"
Roberts comes by this meme courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney, lamenting Lieberman's loss to Lamont by saying that it was "disturbing" that "the al-Qaeda types...clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task." Translation: the anti-war Lamont is a boon to al-Qaeda.
Then there's Ken Mehlman, RNC chairman, saying that Lamont's victory "reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a 'blame America first' attitude by national Democratic leaders." Then Time's Mike Allen picks it up. Voila! A meme.
This is not entirely unsurprising — this is what the Republicans do, and do well. But it's up to the media to recognize that, and call it out.
Which is why Chuck Roberts' question is so appalling. Instead of questioning the spin, Roberts advances it, calling Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate" — in this country, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of September 11th, going into heated midterm elections, does it get more smeary than that? Furthermore, Roberts doesn't question that appellation; on the contrary, he validates the position further by suggesting that it might actually be legitimately argued.
This is irresponsible at best and totally partisan spin dressed up as journalism at worst. Take your pick: either Roberts is so stupid that he doesn't recognize post-election rhetoric for what it is, so lazy he can't be bothered to examine its context, or so agenda-driven that he sneaks it on to the air in its advanced and strengthened form (it's not a particularly flattering trifecta, but in fairness to Roberts, I'm going to assume it was merely stupid and lazy). Similarly, Allen's column was sharply — and rightly — criticized by Eric Boehlert and Josh Marshall for reporting Republican spin of the Lieberman loss as fact in stating that the Lieberman loss was a boon to Republicans and that Democratic candidates were "on the defensive" — without actually citing any Democrats, only Republicans like Cheney, Mehlman and Tony Snow. The article also spun the spin further, characterizing DNC chair Howard Dean saying voters were "energized" as "trying to look on the bright side." As the kids say, WTF?).
Allen's column and Roberts' question are both egregious examples of an uncurious and non-rigorious press slurping up GOP talking points and dutifully spitting them out as conventional wisdom or worse, fact. Lieberman's loss to Lamont isn't bad for Democrats, it's bad for Lieberman. It's also bad for the voters who didn't vote for him, but they're in the minority and hey, that's how it works in a democracy. Irresponsible, unquestioning journalism, on the other hand, is bad for everybody.