Here's the lede, you decide:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has once again inserted himself into the middle of an inflamed partisan debate, raising questions about his motives, his ego and his fickle allegiance to the Democratic Party, which forgave him after he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president.
Paul Mirengoff explains:
There you have the Washington Post's take on Lieberman -- bad faith politico, egomaniac, and ingrate. Oh, and serial liar too. Romano and MacGillis claim, based on the say-so of "health-policy experts" that Lieberman has made "serial misstatements about reform proposals." The one expert they quote is Jacob Hacker, who "helped craft the initial proposal for the public option."
The Post reporters write that Lieberman "argues that the proposal lacks public support, although polls show a majority favor the concept," but Mirengoff points out that "The poll results are actually more ambiguous than [the Post's] Romano and MacGillis care to admit." Rasmussen found that only 35 percent support the public option. A 60 Minutes poll found that only 26 percent of Americans can describe what a "public option" is.
Do the Post's reporters know that the facts are actually more complicated, or do they intentionally leave them out to maintain their "Lieberman Bad/Public Option Good" narrative?
What I really wonder is whether Lieberman's questionable motives, ego, and penchant for partisan betrayal would have prevented the Washington Post from trying to sell access to him as part of their short-lived plan for a series of off-the-record "salons" at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth -- not that such salons would raise any questions about the motives of the Post, or the egos at that institution, or the paper's loyalty and faithfulness to its readers.
