Fineman, others dismissed Dem comprehensive security plan without even noting its existence
SUMMARY: On The Chris Matthews Show, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman said he doesn't see "a serious answer from the Democrats of how to better make us safe in the world from terrorism," while Bloomberg reporter Janine Zacharia added that "[t]he Democrats have no alternative." In fact, the Democrats have released a comprehensive security plan.
On the June 11 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman said he doesn't see "a serious answer from the Democrats of how to better make us safe in the world from terrorism." During a panel discussion with Fineman, Bloomberg reporter Janine Zacharia, Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of The Atlanta Jounal-Constitution, and Time assistant managing editor Michael Duffy, host Chris Matthews noted that 10 of 12 of his regular panelists think it's too late for President Bush to rebuild lagging public support for the war in Iraq despite the recent killing of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He then asked Fineman: "What makes you think [Bush] has the stuff to get us back into this full-barrel?" Fineman replied "I'm not sure that the Democrats have an alternative answer. ... [Y]ou can't beat something with nothing." Fineman continued, "I don't see, except for the 'let's get out now' crowd, a serious answer from the Democrats of how to better make us safe in the world from terrorism." Zacharia then agreed that "[t]he Democrats have no alternative."
In fact, the Democrats have released a comprehensive security plan, which includes screening 100 percent of containers and cargo entering the United States, boosting the size of the U.S. Special Forces and National Guard, ensuring that troops have better body armor, providing more resources to first responders, and allotting greater funding for veterans benefits. On the Iraq war, the Democratic plan stated that 2006 would be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," allowing for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."
None of the panelists mentioned the Democrats' plan, apparently dismissing it as not "serious" without any indication to viewers that the Democrats had even issued a proposal.
Media Matters for America has documented other media outlets that have ignored the Democrats' national security strategy. For example, after repeatedly reporting that the Democrats lacked a plan, CNN barely covered the Democratic press conference announcing the initiative, instead devoting an hour and a half of uninterrupted coverage to a speech by President Bush on Iraq, his third in two weeks. Moreover, when CNN finally reported on the Democrats' national security plan, it omitted any details about the proposals put forth by the congressional leaders. Just days after the announcement, CNN host Wolf Blitzer and NBC host Matt Lauer simply ignored the release and allowed -- and even encouraged -- Republican guests to suggest the Democrats have no "agenda."
From the June 10 edition of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at our "Matthews Meter." We asked 12 of our regular panelists: "Is it too late for President Bush to rebuild support for this war, starting with Zarqawi's death?" This was not even close, however. With the death of Zarqawi, even with that, 10 say, "Yes, it's too damn late." Howard, I've gotta go to you. I'm pulled back to you on this because I know your view is "It ain't too late."
FINEMAN: It's not quite too late if he redefines it successfully, if he's able to convince people that patience there is required for us to make the world safer.
MATTHEWS: What makes you think he has that stuff to get us back into this full-barrel?
FINEMAN: Because I'm not sure that the Democrats have an alternative answer. The reason I answer this way is you can't beat something with nothing, and I don't see, except for the "let's get out now" crowd, a serious answer from the Democrats of how to better make us safe in the world from terrorism.
ZACHARIA: I was just going to -- I was going to agree with Howard. I mean, that's the key factor here. The Democrats have no alternative, and Americans aren't protesting in the street. There was another key two-thirds poll last week which said that two-thirds think, even in spite of Haditha, that American soldiers are trying to do the right thing there, that this is an exception to the rule. So until you have either a Democratic alternative or some other convulsing event to make them get out, we're going to stay there [unintelligible].
The Democrats plan is as bad as the Repubs.
I dont see this as misinformation.
to make a judgement, and seems you are as lazy as they want you to be.
---"I would agree with [Fineman] ... The Democrats plan is as bad as the Repubs."---
Fineman said Democrats have "nothing". Since you agree with Fineman, then you agree that Republicans also have "nothing".
They havent done anything for 6 years and got us into this horrible war.
I dont think my statement was defending Republicans, it was supporting Fineman.
I didnt think you were defending the GOP. Fineman STILL misrepresented an EXISTING Dem plan pretending there wasnt one.
Of Tommygraysonbuzz, apparently.
The laughable thing here is the assumption that anyone COULD make us safe from terrorism. Does anyone really believe that Bush and his clowns have made us any safer by throwing billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the Iraq rathole?
There IS a dem plan. Whatever YOU think of it. It exists you've got a pundit saying you cant beat something with NOTHING. How about with something. They were pretending it didnt exist. How is that NOT misinformation? Now they could have discussed what was lacking in the plan. The instead pretended there was no plan. That is classic misinformation.
- We believe there needs to be a transition, that the Iraqis need to take over and our troops need to come home and be REDEPLOYED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD TO FIGHT TERRORISM. - Howard Dean
It's no wonder some are confused about the democrat's position...sounds remarkably republican.
Dean agrees with Pres.Bush that there should be a transition...Iraqi's should take over...and we'll bring the troops home.
I'm just curious...after bringing the troops home from Iraq...Dean wants them sent back out around the world to fight terrorism. Have you got any idea where those spots are?
I am impressed.
How did Howard Fineman get that ferret to sit still on the top of his head the entire time he spoke? I honestly could not hear a word he said, I was so worried that the little critter was going to fall off and hurt itself.
Because of you, I had to pretend that it was something funny in the spreadsheet on my computer screen I was laughing out loud at.
If these rightwing-payroll pundits ADMITTED the Democrats have a plan, then they would have to explain, point by point, how the plan is not "serious".
In fact, the plan IS serious and workable. Workable, and in stark contrast to Bush's plan.
So, the only alternative is to just pretend that no such plan exists. That way, Democrats can be dismissed without actually discussing their ideas, and contrasting them with what the President has been doing.
The really nefarious aspect of this is that these are supposed to be REPORTERS (first, commentators second). As REPORTERS, they are supposed to be informing the public, giving the TRUTH, and exposing ALL alternative ideas put forth in the public forum. Instead, they are actively IGNORING one side of the discussion, and thus promoting a LIE that "there are no other serious ideas".
For this kind of dishonesty, they also, as Reporters, should disclose their conflicts of interest, i.e. "My opinions are the paid political view financed by the GOP." THEN, the people would have the explanation for why these guys are biased and selective in the NEWS they relate.
[link to www.democrats.org]