Media uncritically repeated false GOP attacks on Lamont, Democrats
SUMMARY: ABC News' George Stephanopoulos and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, among others, repeated, without challenge, the false attacks from Tony Snow, Ken Mehlman, and Dick Cheney that Democrats "purged" Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party and that Ned Lamont's primary victory over Lieberman represents a takeover of the Democratic Party by the far left.
In reporting on Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont's victory over Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the August 8 Connecticut primary, a variety of media outlets repeated, without challenge, the false attacks from White House press secretary Tony Snow, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, and Vice President Dick Cheney that Democrats "purged" Lieberman from the party. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos went further, simply repeating as fact the Republicans' assertion that Lamont's supporters "represent the far left of the Democratic Party," while MSNBC's Chris Matthews announced that he "agree[d]" with Mehlman's false assertions.
During an August 9 press briefing, Snow said: "I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president; I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you." In an August 9 speech to the City Club of Cleveland, Mehlman said: "But like the proud history of so many Democrats before him, Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense. And for that, he was purged from his party. ... It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a 'blame America first' attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous." Cheney leveled a similar attack during a conference call with reporters on August 9. Though he did not single out Democratic leaders, he claimed that it is "a perhaps unfortunate and significant development" when "the Democratic Party ... in effect, purge[s] a man like Joe Lieberman."
But as blogger Greg Sargent of The Horse's Mouth noted on August 10, Snow's statement "is not only a lie; it's an easily demonstrable lie. Most of the Democratic Party's key leadership figures backed Joe Lieberman, not Lamont. This is a matter of public record. It's a point which can be made in half a sentence." Also, exit polling of Connecticut primary voters conducted by CBS News and The New York Times found that, in addition to "intense objections" to the Iraq war, "a view of Senator Lieberman as 'too close' to President Bush account[ed] for Mr. Lamont's victory." As Media Matters for America has noted, Lamont's opposition to the war and his calls to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq appear to be in line with the majority opinion of Democrats and of the American public, which, as polling indicates, disapprove of the Iraq war and favor setting deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawal. Polls also show that the majority of Democrats and of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance (58 percent of Americans, according to an August 3-6 ABC News/Washington Post poll, with 46 percent strongly disapproving), indicating that Connecticut voters, who were motivated by their disapproval of Bush, might very well represent the mainstream.
Nevertheless, as Sargent noted, Snow's comments were presented without challenge in an August 10 Los Angeles Times article, an August 10 Associated Press article, and Time magazine White House correspondent Mike Allen's August 9 column (which, as Media Matters had noted, was little more than a patchwork of Republican talking points presented as news analysis).
A separate August 10 Los Angeles Times article reported Cheney's comments, adding: "Whether such remarks would help or hurt the senator as he fights for his political life was unclear." August 10 articles in The Washington Post and USA Today also reported Cheney's comments without question. The Post also noted Mehlman's remarks, but rather than noting that they were inaccurate, reduced them to a matter of partisan bickering:
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman charged in a speech in Ohio that Lamont's victory showed the Democrats had abandoned the internationalist traditions of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Democratic leaders said the charge was without merit and argued that the Connecticut primary showed broad opposition to President Bush's Iraq war policies that put Lamont closer to the mainstream than his critics.
Additionally, on the August 9 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported that "[s]ome Republicans are relishing" the so-called "Democratic divisions" over Lamont's victory and aired a video clip of Snow making his comments. Later in the same broadcast, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos affirmed Tapper's reporting and presented Republican talking points as truth, asserting that Lamont's victory "is bad news for Democrats":
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): George, we talked about the fact that this is something of an earthquake in the Democratic Party. How does it alter the political landscape?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Potentially enormous changes, Charlie. This is bad news for Democrats, as Jake points out, because it highlights Democratic divisions, and the more Joe Lieberman is out there, the more he's making the Republican point that Ned Lamont and leaders who support him represent the far left of the Democratic Party.
However, Stephanopoulos also said "that most voters who voted for Ned Lamont were motivated by the war in Iraq," and "[y]ou're seeing majorities -- slight majorities of the American public wanting some troops ... to come home this year." So, Stephanopoulos appeared to contradict himself: The Democrats are hurt by the fact that "Lamont and leaders who support him represent the far left of the Democratic Party," but they're also buoyed by the fact that majorities of Americans agree with Lamont that the United States should start withdrawing from Iraq.
On the August 9 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reported that "Republicans appear willing to sharpen the contrasts" between the two parties on Iraq "and take their chances" and also aired a clip of Snow's attacks on Democrats. Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume aired the Snow clip as well, which Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron prefaced by saying simply: "The White House pounced."
On the August 9 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News correspondent Chip Reid reported: "Many Democrats praised Lamont for taking Lieberman to task over his strong support of the Iraq war. But in that praise, top Republicans today saw an opportunity. Ken Mehlman ... argued that by rejecting Lieberman, Democrats have proven, once again, that they are the party of, quote, 'retreat and defeat.' " Nightly News then aired a clip Mehlman's comments from his speech.
Mehlman appeared on the August 9 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, in which Matthews went a step further by actually stating that he "agree[d]" with Mehlman's falsehoods:
MEHLMAN: What's so remarkable about what happened was somebody who basically had the profile of a Harry Truman and a JFK was rejected by the party of Harry Truman and JFK. And so, you understand, as someone who's written about that era in politics, how historic and significant it is and what it says about a party that, unfortunately, at a national level now, is dominated by isolationists and dominated by people who embrace defeatism.
MATTHEWS: Well, I agree with you. I agree. But it's very hard, you know, as much as I like Jack Kennedy and trying to figure out what he would be doing in the general election this November.
And it bares repeating. The fact that so many Republicans and Conservative pundits are up in arms that Lieberman has lost only emboldens my belief that not only did the voters get it right in Connecticut they are getting it right around the country.
On Tuesday three incumbents lost in their primaries. Which points to the fact that this country is going throught an anit-incumbent mood very similiar to the mood in 1994 when Democrats were swept out of office.
Also to say that Lieberman is a moderate is a joke. A moderate (or centrist) would have disagreed with Bush at some point and Lieberman has yet to do so. Now he is going to sully his name even more simply because he is Sore Loserman.
From Wikipedia: Because of his hawkish foreign policy stance and his emphasis on bipartisan solutions, Lieberman is a politician who has been hard to classify in left-right terms. His seemingly close ties to George W. Bush, support of US involvement in Iraq and his support for capital punishment have led to the questionable criticism that Lieberman is more Republican than Democrat. Some have noted that Lieberman's record is often more in line with the Republican party.[3] In 2005, Lieberman received a 90% rating from the National Committee for an Effective Congress.[4] He also received a lifetime rating of 17% from the American Conservative Union.[5]
Read the above and you will see that he got a 90% rating from the progressive National Committee for an effective Congress and a 17% rating from the American Conservative Union. For you to say that he agreed with Bush on every turn is simply laughable. He agreed with him on Iraq, which is the litmus test for a lot of the left. Fine, just make sure you know why the Dems have voted to go a different direction.
Good point. I don't doubt your citation at all.
The question remains, though: Why are so many conservative outlets seemingly carrying Lieberman's water?
He only got a 17% for chris'sakes.
I don't know anything about Lamont, but I think it is safe to assume he isn't a communist or even a socialist. Maybe I'm wrong.
Why all of the fuss?
It just makes some of us a little suspicious.
I have always liked Joe Lieberman. I consider him to be a moderate Democrat and I like the moderates from both sides. I don't follow his vote by vote record but when he says something I usually agree with his points. This is a big deal, defeating a three-term Senator who was on the Democratic ticket for President just six years ago.
Fine I overstated when I said Lieberman agreed with Bush on everything, but trying to paint him as a liberal is just wrong. Here's a little more about his first election that you conveniently left out:
From Wikipedia.org: Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 1988, by a margin of 10,000 votes. He scored the nation's biggest political upset that year, after being backed by a coalition of Democrats and unaffiliated voters with support from conservative Republicans, who were disappointed in three-term Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker's liberal voting record and personal style. Lieberman ran especially well in blue collar conservative areas of the 5th District . . .
So let's go ahead and look at his stances also from Wikipedia.org: Affirmative action: Affirmative action programs "must change because they are inconsistent with the law and basic American values of equal treatment and opportunity." He said this in 1995 but (as Republicans love to say) he flip-flopped to a position of support. Hardly a Democratic stand
Education: Lieberman championed experimental voucher programs, letting parents use federal money to send children to public or private schools of their choice. He also supports No Child Left Behind. And since I am a future teacher I can tell you from my own experience and my mom's that it is a collasal waste (with or without the funds which was Lieberman's only disagreement with Bush on the project, even calling it "progressive") - again not a Democratic but a Republican stance.
Even on Environment where he seems to fairly Democratic he votes for a bill that would benefit big oil companies by saying that "good for Connecticut, citing the saving of $800 million Connecticut electricity customers. Whether or not that has come to pass is anyone's guess.
There are several other entries that I am sure you will point out to try to invalidate my argument or like a good Republican just change the actual argument.
But the war in Iraq and on terrorism is where he fails. We have gone over and over his blind faith in Bush with the Iraqi war but that fact that he believes that simply because Al Queda wouldn't treat American captives according to the Geneva Convention then neither should we is a Republican stance and not a Democratic one. As he stated regarding the Geneva Covention: ". . . al Qaeda's members "were not entitled to prisoner of war status."
Of course he is still waiting for the despicable(?) men who hijacked planes and purpotrated 9/11 to apologize. He's got a long wait.
As I told Open Mind, I don't follow Liebermans voting record and I never labeled him a liberal. I think he's a moderate. I simply pointed out his ratings by a progressive organization and a conservative organization. Based on those ratings it would be hard to argue that he isn't left of center overall. And I'm fine with that. Like I said before, I just want you all to fairly represent what it was you were so unhappy with.
Joe stood with the Schiavo crowd in that phony game the GOP started and nationalized down in Fla. He lectured Clinton about his sexual peccadilos in 1998...as if Clinton needs a lecture to know it was wrong. Sure, he's held strong Democrat stances on several issues, but what he's clearly tried to do is step up on a platform and attempt to draw attention to himself at very opportune times. If Gore hadn't picked him in 2000 as a mate, Lieberman would never have made it to the upper tier status of national candidate. He'd just be another tenured Senator who could have stayed another 18 yrs probably. And I haven't even gotten to the issue of Iraq, where he can't find anything not to like about Bush. Lieberman is a weasel who has taken several p0litical opportunities to grab the spotlight when he thought it was helpful politically. And if he hadn't done it in 1998 in the "Clinton lecture" on the Senate floor...I would assert that he'd never have even made the short list to be VP in 2000. Joe likes this attn just a little too much...thats all I'm sayin.
To paraphrase Nixon, I guess the Dems won't have Joe Lieberman to kick around anymore.
In Michigan, Joe Schwarz, one of the few remaining republican moderates was defeated by reich wing Tim Walberg. Walberg was fronted by the Club for Growth which has advocated replacing centrist Republican incumbents with reich wing conservatives. But, no talk about how the republicans are also tossing out the moderates. Nope, not a word. Chirp, chirp, chirp...
It is so tiring how the talking heads can ignore all other signifiant races that would clearly invalidate their talking point. Seems like so much more work in ignoring reality than just reporting the truth.
Connecticut's state motto is "Qui Transtulit Sustinet" meaning "He Who Transplanted Still Sustains."
Pop. estimates (2005) 3,511,000
85% White
I can only hope that those "transplants" on the stage with Lamont during his victory speech, (Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Ca's. Maxine Brown) will sustain with their 'support' of Lamont from here. (I saw them with what, 3 other blacks on stage and NONE(?) in the audience.
I believe if the "kiss" with the president was death to Lieberman, I pray the 'kiss' with these extreme lettists outrages the GOOD people of Ct.! We see clearly the NEW democratic party, they will eat their own!
Will Ct. be the "First To Flee" unconditionally with this landslide, this tidal wave of a 4-point victory? 10,000 votes)? This election was a voice for the nation (and the WORLD according to Chris Matthews)!?
Dems, make a HARD left at Ct., bow down and worship at the feet of MoveOn,org! They have bought and own you now. (See following reference).
And God have mercy on us all. (Although YOU know He doesn't mattter, or care, or even exist. See "Ann Coulter"). :-)
Reference: [link to dailykoz.blogspot.com] MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It' Thu Dec 9, 6:37 PM ET By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."
A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.
"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."
At least the folks in Ga. have had enough of the embarassment brought on by the asinine antics of Ms. McKinney ( a whinner and LOSER). But who will now carry the torch to guide the focus to impeach the president and continue the fight to find those in our OWN government who blew up the WTC Towers?
No one ever seems to mention how the extreme far right took over the Republican party long ago. Or is that taken for granted now?
If Lamont is the "extreme far left" then that means the 60% are as well that want us out of Iraq.
where I live, the moderate Republican House Majority Leader lost in his re-election primary to a political novice, social conservative, who is further to the right than the incumbent. The GOP has adamantly worked to usurp the centrist voices within its own party. There are no more Barry Goldwaterss or Rockefellers in the GOP.
What we are witnessing is the full fledged polarization of both parties, which is good, so long as both parties have some say in government. One party control is seldom productive or competent, and we know it doesn't work when that party is the 21st century version of the Republican Party. Label Lamont a far lefty or a moonbat or whatever. It doesn't change the fact that we need a government in which a balance of ideologies has a definitive say. Before Bush was President, the average person would have labeled me a moderate. And since Bush came to town, I, by contrast, appear to be a "far left liberal", yet my views haven't change substantively in the intervening 6 years. Heck, NIXON is a far left liberal compared to Bush. Frightening, isn't it?
The MSM doesn't seem to want to examine why Lieberman was beaten. They'd just rather repeat talking points that we've been hearing on wingnut radio. Are these guys to lazy to do any real analysis?
I think the fact that Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulous are the ones cited here underscores a theory I've had for years. It seems that whenever individuals who have worked for or with the Democratic Party enter the news media, they seem to bend over backwards to be critical of Democrats and accomodating of Republicans. Matthews especially seems to never say anything positive about Democrats. Same with Cokie Roberts, whose mother is a former Democratic Congresswoman. Its as if they're trying to prove they're not biased by beating up on the party they came from and being genteel with the Republicans.
Not that I'm saying they should be biased in favor of Democrats, only that they should make an effort to be equally critical of both parties. Don't hammer members of one and throw softballs to members of the other.
Compare that to someone like Joe Scarborough, who as recently as the last election was sitting on stage with Bush at a campaign stop.
Can you imagine what it would have been like if we had this bunch of televised twits covering Watergate???
headline morning after it's revealed that nixon had taping system: "heat blankets midwest for third day" "tony orlando and dawn start nationwide tour", after revelation that nixon said it would be "no problem" to get a million dollars to buy silence of watergate burglars: "nixon concerned for families of republicans locked up by a partisan democratic prosecutor"
Does it seem the "balance of ideologies" are ONLY extreme now? There seems to be no 'middle ground' on ANY topic. Both parties seem to only offer absolutes regarding issues facing us as a people and a nation. Are we at that point where 'by and for the people' has been usurped by the power brokers: Soros and Murdock? (HUGE MONEY)! Money is spent to promote ideas with little room for any compromise, ONLY right/wrong as issued by the PTB (Powers That Be).
Hell, I remember it wasn't so long ago the Tri-Lateral Commission, John Birch Society, (Numerous other unknown or secret societies as well), or "Jews" were those that pulled all our strings.
I feel it is a spiritual battle as well. Perhaps the idea that there is required separation between state/church requires a definition of one's moral stance or a total rejection of any such considerations.
To simplify, 'Neo-Con' = God-Fearing or 'Liberal' = GodLess. Little room for moderation on those grounds.
Democrats have always been for strong national defense? It didn't sound like that in 2004, 2002, 2000, 1992, or any other time the republicans wanted to defeat democrats.