CNN's Roberts asked Duckworth if her primary victory signaled failed strategy
CNN correspondent John Roberts asked Democratic congressional candidate and Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth if her "narrow victory" in the recent Illinois primary election indicated "that maybe this idea of running Iraq war vets for the Democratic Party isn't as hot an idea as some Democrats originally thought it was?" Roberts later noted that some political analysts -- whom he emphatically described as "very smart" -- "don't think that the Iraq war veteran thing is going to work for the Democratic Party, that you're not going to win the overall race, and that you're being held out there as sacrificial lambs just to get the Democrats a little more credibility."
On the March 24 edition of CNN's American Morning, CNN senior national correspondent John Roberts asked Democratic congressional candidate and Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth if her "narrow victory" in the recent Illinois primary election indicated "that maybe this idea of running Iraq war vets for the Democratic Party isn't as hot an idea as some Democrats originally thought it was?" Later in the interview, Roberts noted that some political analysts -- whom he emphatically described as "very smart" -- "don't think that the Iraq war veteran thing is going to work for the Democratic Party, that you're not going to win the overall race, and that you're being held out there as sacrificial lambs just to get the Democrats a little more credibility."
Duckworth garnered 44 percent of the vote to win the March 21 primary for the Sixth Congressional District. Her opponents, Christine Cegelis and Lindy Scott, took 40 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
From the March 24 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: Iraq war veterans could make their political mark on the midterm elections. Ten of them are running for Congress, all but one of those are Democrats.
Major Tammy Duckworth, an Army pilot, helicopter pilot, lost both legs in Iraq and the partial use of one arm. She won the Democratic primary this week in the race for the House seat held by Illinois Republican Henry Hyde, who is retiring this year.
Tammy Duckworth joins us now from Chicago. Good morning to you, and thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.
DUCKWORTH: Good morning, John. Thanks for having me here.
ROBERTS: Good to talk with you. Hey, a tough question right out of the box, here: It was a very narrow victory that you had in your Democratic primary contest. Is that an indication that maybe this idea of running Iraq war vets for the Democratic Party isn't as hot an idea as some Democrats originally thought it was?
DUCKWORTH: Well, I've had 44 percent in a three-way race. That's pretty darn good. I think that the results at the race more reflected the dynamic personalities that were in the race. Christine Cegelis, the -- my opponent who got 40 percent -- was a vibrant, dynamic person. And I think it was just more a wealth of great candidates.
I think this is the first time this district has a chance to elect a Democrat. The first time in 32 years for the Republicans to finally lose their grip on this district. And, you know, I think it's more a referendum on that than it is on anything else. It was an exciting race. People were excited by the fact that there were two strong candidates. And, you know, I'll take a win wherever I can get it.
ROBERTS: Right. Well, certainly the Democrats are looking for some credibility on this issue of national security because polls historically, and particularly over the last few years, have shown that Republicans score much better on the issue of national security than Democrats. But there are some very smart political analysts who don't think that the Iraq war veteran thing is going to work for the Democratic Party, that you're not going to win the overall race, and that you're being held out there as sacrificial lambs just to get the Democrats a little more credibility and get that antiwar message across in this election.
DUCKWORTH: Well, you know, I'm going to let the pundits who get paid to analyze this race on a national level go at it. I'm just worried about the Sixth Congressional District. And I think the fact that I did win on Tuesday was a referendum from the voters for the issues that I'm fighting on -- health care.
I've been talking about health care this whole time, you know. I mean, these are issues that affect the people in this district. The fact that there are kids who don't have access to health insurance, we need to be expanding S-CHIP [the State Children's Health Insurance Program]. The fact that there are 25 percent of Americans between 50 and 64 who don't have access to health insurance, we need to let them buy into the federal employee health care system. And we certainly need to fix the entire mess made out of Medicare Part D by this administration. So that's what I'm worried about.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Here we go again: SOME very smart etc. Who?
Her narrow win is probably due to a strong input from republican voters.
Roberts question suggests that Duckworth don't want to run, but is placed there by other 'some' strategists, denigrating her victory.
Do not ask though questions to Bush, but just attack anyone else.
Why doesn't he just use the patented Fox News phrase "some people" say......
... HE and the "SMART PEOPLE" think that this woman can't win, hasn't won, and has already lost any future elections. All that needs to be decided is if the Democrats are just hopeless losers, or if they are losers who exploit and USE our military vets in hopeless runs for office.
Of course, it's entirely possible that this woman will WIN. Roberts never gave an instant of consideration to this possibility. BIAS in the news? Bah!
nit picking.
Was he suppose to kiss her ass during the interview? Isn't his job to question, to play "devil's advocate"?
All he's saying is that maybe this whole "fighting Dems" thing isn't as hot as some are hoping it might be.
I hope she kicks *ss and I hope people realize soldiers, sailors, airmen and of course marines are real people, they are truthful, and of course they have our best interests at heart. Hopefully they will stand up in congress and on the senate floor to tell the truth and not spin bull feces. Tammy has more right to congress than all the money that the corporations can pay for. I hope she wins! God Bless Her!
I never knew that you could win a primary with a "failed" strategy. I guess John Roberts knows something the rest of us don't.
Troops come back from the Iraq war and when they run for Congress, Robert treats their effort as a gimmick. So much for Support the Troops. Even if the Democrats strategy is to get more veterans to run for office, ultimately, the veterans are making the decision to once again serve their country.
It seems to me that people running for office should be looked at for the ideas that they bring to the table, and that individual characteristics: where they worked, what they look like, etc... should be secondary. Just because this woman served in the military this fact should not define who she is. I can just imagine someone asking Max Cleland after a narrow win in a primary: "So, was it a mistake for the Democrats to run a cripple for Congress?" Of course, Cleland is no longer in office in part because the Republican spin machine turned Cleland, who was crippled in combat by a grenade, into someone who was soft on the military in the public's eyes.
Unbelievable! Seriously, this may not garner the kind of attention O'Really?'s rabid rants do, but this is a glaring example of how irresponsible the media has become.
What was that movie? The Shipping News? I didn't see it. I only remember the trailer, in which a reporter tells a trainee(?) to spontaneously create a headline for the scene before his eyes on a beach. The trainee mutters something to effect of, "um, clouds seen over ocean?" Says the reporter, "No. 'Imminent Storm Threatens City.'" "What if the storm never comes," asks the naive trainee. "Easy," says the reporter, "'City Saved from Imminent Storm.'"
I'm picturing: Ok, so when Duckworth loses, we'll report on how her loss proves that the fighting Democrats strategy can't work. / What if she wins? / Easy, we'll say that her slim margin of victory proves tha the fighting Dems thing can't work. / What if she wins the general election by 70% / No problem, we'll just say that her wide margin of victory shows how easily the 6th district can be duped into voting for someone the party is only really using as a sacrificial lamb, someone who'll have no real influence in Congress. / What if she does gain influence in Congress? / Well, we're getting ahead of ourselves, but no worries, we'll think of something.
You left out the part where, in the general election, SOMEBODY will begin "SwiftBoating" this brave woman, challenging her courage and patriotism and fitness for office.
It's the Republican WAY: BASH the vets. Ask Kerry, Gore, Clelland, Murtha, or even that notorious "maverick", John McCain. NO service has been honorable, if the decorated veteran is a Democrat. And it will be in support of a platoon of Republicans who RAN when it was time to serve in combat.
Nobody would believe this would happen if you put it in a book. But we have REALITY, and it shows that this attacking of vets by the non-serving chickenhawks HAPPENS, and in many instances, IT WORKS.
Make no mistake, the Rightwing has NO respect for the military. Those in uniform are seen as SUCKERS, to the right; First cannon-fodder, then fools to be ridiculed and smeared.
I wish I could disagree with you, but alas, I cannot.
We treat our veterans miserably. They agree to risk life and limb for us, discover that they actually lose life and limb for some fanatic in pursuit of profit, see unspeakable horrors, and are not merely discarded upon returning, but blamed for their own problems and charged for their hospital bills.
When some of them maintain enough composure to run for office, thereby demonstrating that they STILL want to serve their country, it is their patriotism that is questioned by the likes of the cowards that put them in harms way in the first place.
Poor John Roberts, At one time he was being considered for the anchor chair on "The CBS Evening News". His future looked promising. Now, he's had to settle for CNN. And the sad fact is, he's replacing Bill Hemmer, who is now at that bastion of journalistic integrity, Fox News.
But there is hope for him. I mean he's getting off to a good start. He's already trying to write off Tammy Duckworth. Can his "Swiftboating her be far behind?
American politics and the main stream media in this country sickens me. Not only are we making the same mistakes in Iraq that we made in Vietnam, we're also starting to treat the veterans of the Iraq war with the same indifference. They're being written off. and if they're able to survive the indiffernece of the press, they'll have the chance to Swiftboat them the closer it gets to the election.
I can't imagine how Edward R. Murrow or Walter Chronkite would be able to find work in the media today. Both of these men were war correspondents during World War II. Both fought against the attempts of the government to prevent them from doing their jobs and getting the truth to the American People.
Today in the media, we have bullies who do the bidding of a foreign national. This man owns one of the world's biggest media empires. This media empire has led the charge to war. His network, working with the present administration, has sold us all of the RNC talking points, and most of us, bought in.
Not only have we sold our souls, we've lost our hearts and minds.
"Some people say..." "There are those who say..." "Some very smart people think..." "Some people would say..." "Many experts think..." "It's obvious to some people that..." "Most experts agree that..."
Ah, the wisdom of the MSM.
A premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference. It is "assumed" as fact in order to frame a statement or question.
A reporter's FIRST job is to establish the validity of premises. Once established, THEN it can be used to frame more in-depth questions. The use of a FALSE premise, stated as FACT and assumed to be true, is the tool of a partisan, not a reporter. Let's examine John Robert's (JR) performance.
JR: Iraq war veterans could make their political mark on the midterm elections. Ten of them are running for Congress, all but one of those are Democrats. Major Tammy Duckworth, an Army pilot, helicopter pilot, lost both legs in Iraq and the partial use of one arm. She won the Democratic primary this week in the race for the House seat held by Illinois Republican Henry Hyde, who is retiring this year.
ANALYSIS: These are all FACTS, verifyable by research. So far, so good.
JR: It was a very narrow victory that you had in your Democratic primary contest.
ANALYSIS: Partisans characterize "VICTORY;" it's a subjective judgment. Some "very narrow" victories are portrayed as MANDATES. Other VERY NARROW victories are portrayed as LANDSLIDES. To characterize a victory as VERY NARROW indicates a partisan desire, in this case, to belittle and discount the VICTORY.
JR: Is that an indication that maybe this idea of running Iraq war vets for the Democratic Party isn't as hot an idea as some Democrats originally thought it was?
ANALYSIS: The PREMISE here is that there is an "idea" of "running Iraq war vets" by the Democratic Party. Could it instead be that citizens wishing to run for office have thrown their hats in the ring, and some of them are war vets? Not only COULD this be, it's more likely than JR's PREMISE that this is some sort of conspiracy theory PLAN and PLOT, a thing that would not happen if not purposefully orchestrated. What an insult to our War Vets, that they cannot be expected to think for themselves, to take their own actions and make their own decisions, to run for public office unless coerced by some sort of master plan! A FALSE Premise at work here.
JR: Well, certainly the Democrats are looking for some credibility on this issue of national security because polls historically, and particularly over the last few years, have shown that Republicans score much better on the issue of national security than Democrats.
ANALYSIS: This PREMISE is simply false on its face. Which party is better on national security issues has gone back and forth, depending on circumstances. From Democrat FDR, who was widely trusted with our national security, to Republican GW Bush today who is NOT trusted by the majority to defend this nation, neither party can CREDIBLY lay claim to being "best" at "national security." Certainly PARTISANS will TRY to make this claim, and present this false PREMISE. JR presents it as known fact/conventional wisdom that the Republicans hold this dominance ... a partisan act.
JR: But there are some very smart political analysts who don't think that the Iraq war veteran thing is going to work for the Democratic Party.
ANALYSIS: As a PREMISE, the opinion that this "thing" (the FALSE PREMISE of an organized Democrat plan rather than individual initiative) will not work, is an opinion about a false premise. A Republican or a Democrat will win the election. It will be on the merits of their candidacy. It will hopefully be on the ISSUES. To speculate that a VICTORY by one side or the other will show if a "plan" WORKED or DIDN'T work is intentionally dehumanizing and dismissive of the candidates themselves, as well as implying that ISSUE STANCES will NOT be the determining factor. What could be more cynical? And it is utterly partisan to dismiss Ms. Duckworth as part of a PLAN, rather than a candidate with dignity and merit.
Partisans of course HOPE for victory on their side. In this case, it is a partisan attempt to bolster this opinion to claim it is held by "VERY SMART PEOPLE". JR, by this partisan taking of sides, is inferring that those who hold a differing opinion are NOT "very smart". This question also infuses the previous FALSE PREMISE that this is a concerted PLAN by the Democrats, rather than individuals running for office on their own initiative.
JR: (Continuing his PREMISE which is the opinion of "very smart" people, "...that you're not going to win the overall race, and that you're being held out there as sacrificial lambs just to get the Democrats a little more credibility and get that antiwar message across in this election."
ANALYSIS: Perhaps the most insulting PREMISE of all. JR suggests that this woman, who is a combat vet and has just won a primary victory for public office, is somehow a pawn and a symbol, being "USED". If he could be more insulting and dismissive of this woman of great character, it's hard to imagine how.
JR could have gotten the answers for all his questions, without resorting to the partisan FALSE PREMISE mode. He could have simply ASKED, rather than assuming the premises. I.E. "Ms. Duckworth, do you see the infusion of Iraq War Vets into the Democratic Party this election cycle as a deliberate plan?" This is a question that IMPLIES a premise without stating it as a FACT. This is a reporter's question, while JR chooses always the PARTISAN's form of questioning. Further, the use of the anonymous "very smart political analysts" is a STRAW MAN signal.
CONCLUSION: John Roberts, with his questioning form and consistent use of FALSE PREMISES, presented as the "assumed true" basis for a RESULTANT question, brands him as a partisan, who is in opposition to Ms. Duckworth and the party in which she is running.
"...you're being held out there as sacrificial lambs just to get the Democrats a little more credibility."
Well, too late, Mr. Roberts. She was already a sacrificial lamb who lost BOTH LEGS fighting Bush #43's incredibly stupid, pointless war.
Someone please extract the cheese clogging Robert's brain cavity. It's obviously tainted.
John Roberts has never tried to hide his conservative slant either on CNN or CBS but then, he's not the real problem here.
CNN has been undergoing a transformation for a while now. It was kind of slow at first but it's become more and more noticeable of late. This week alone has seen almost its entire schedule taken up with missing persons and crime stories. It may just be because Congress is out of session but if you factor those stories in with CNN's entire primetime line up of nothing but fluff talk shows, then it starts to sound an awful lot like that other network we all know and love; you know, the one that starts with F and ends with X.
Of course, CNN has always been hamstrung by the same corporate directives that keep all mainstream news media on a leash. Whereas before, however, they had a bland, we-offend-no-one approach to its coverage, they're starting to pull a few more conservative cards out of the deck.
I'm not a huge fan of any MSM news outlet, but if CNN goes, there's really no other place to turn for actual news. There's a serious problem when Larry King starts doing tougher interviews than Wolf Blitzer.
The fair & balanced portion of CNN disappeared loooong ago.
It'll be interesting if and when cable goes full blown al la carte. If they seperated CNN out of the bundle it's in now I wouldn't order it, I just couldn't justify paying for CNN when the internet beats it hands down EVERYTIME for news.
CNN has made me so sick of politics.
Tammy Duckworth's narrow victory was because she was brought into a district where she doesn't live to run against the woman who almost beat Henry Hyde in the last election and is bacially responsible for his retirement. There was a strong grassroots support for Christine Cegelis and quite a lot of resentment that she would be treated so cavalierly by our Democratic "leaders". It would have been far wiser to put Duckworth in another race and support the candidate who had already shown she had very strong support in the area.
we actually get along, but she listens to rush and bo, and when hillary got elected she said that was only because the liberals voted for her. to which i replied, whoever voted it was enough to give her the seat.
ROBERTS: It was a very narrow victory.... Is that an indication that maybe this ... isn't as hot an idea as some Democrats originally thought....
What I wish she had said:
"First off, I campaigned on health care. Don't you tell me that I'm just some kind of android carrying out someone else's grand strategy. That's insulting and condescending both to me and to those who voted for me.
"Second, what are you talking about, 'not so hot an idea?' In case it slipped your mind, I won."
And when Roberts came back, as he would, with something about "narrow," she would say:
"My margin of victory in a three-way race, where margins are often smaller than in two-way races, was bigger than that of George Bush over John Kerry. After that election, did you ask George Bush if the narrowness of that margin meant that maybe it wasn't 'so hot an idea' that he ran for re-election? Or did you, like most of the rest of the media, portray the closest presidential election in decades as a 'mandate?'"