NY Times' Healy, Medina ignored own reporting, uncritically repeated Lieberman's hypocritical attacks on Lamont over foiled UK terror plot
SUMMARY: A web-only New York Times article reported that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman had used the recently foiled British terror plot to attack Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont without mentioning Lieberman's criticism -- during the same campaign event -- of those who would "make it into a partisan political football," despite the writers of that article noting both statements in a Times weblog entry the previous day.
In an August 10 post on The New York Times' Empire Zone weblog, staff writers Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina noted that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman had, during a single campaign event, both used the recently foiled British terror plot to attack Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont and argued that politicizing national security issues is "just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American." But an August 11 article posted on the Times website, also written by Healy and Medina, simply reported that Lieberman seized on the news out of Britain to bash Lamont, omitting any mention of Lieberman's criticism of those who would "make it into a partisan political football." The Washington Post and the Associated Press also uncritically repeated Lieberman's attack on Lamont.
In the August 10 blog post, Healy and Medina reported on a lunchtime event in Hartford, Connecticut, during which Lieberman -- in what they called "an extraordinary injection of politics into a national security issue" -- had linked Lamont's opposition to the Iraq war to the foiled terrorist plot. They quoted Lieberman saying, "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again." At the end of the post, Healy and Medina noted that in the same appearance Lieberman denounced the politicization of national security issues:
Asked by a reporter about warm praise that Mr. Lieberman received yesterday from Vice President Dick Cheney, the senator tried to underscore his independence in politics.
"I'm not saying we shouldn't have healthy disagreement and discussion about national security, but to make it into a partisan political football, it's just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American," he said.
"How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on our party affiliation?" Mr. Lieberman said. "They want to kill any and all of us."
On August 11, Healy and Medina published a web-only article -- headlined "Lieberman, on the Offensive, Links Terror Threat and Iraq" -- that prominently noted Lieberman's attack on Lamont and raised questions regarding his "use of a national security hazard to buttress a political attack." But in this piece, Healy and Medina inexplicably omitted any mention of Lieberman's statement that such attacks are "just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American."
An August 11 article by Times staff writer Adam Nagourney noted Lieberman's reference to the British terror plot in his attack on Lamont and compared it to similar comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney:
In a sign of how the terrorism issue was roiling American politics, Mr. Lieberman echoed Mr. Cheney as he attacked his primary opponent, Ned Lamont, for his opposition to the war. He said Mr. Lamont's desire to withdraw troops from Iraq would result in victory for Islamic extremists.
But Nagourney too failed to mention Lieberman's denunciation of the very politicization he had just engaged in.
As Media Matters for America noted, an August 10 article by AP staff writer Susan Haigh quoted Lieberman slamming Lamont at the Hartford event, while omitting his separate comments denouncing such attacks. An August 11 article by Washington Post staff writers Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker also ignored those remarks, while reporting Lieberman's claim that Lamont's policy on Iraq would be "taken as a tremendous victory" by the terrorists.
backing Joe Lieberman? Simple question.
I have heard NOT ONE endorse Alan Schlesinger. If you are a Republican, live in Connecticut, and don't know who he is, the GOP wants make sure you continue not knowing. They have already decided to back Lieberman.
Here's what happened a couple of days ago on Hardball according to New Republic:
"On "Hardball" Chris Matthews just asked Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman what he will tell GOP donors who ask his advice: donate to Lieberman, or to the Connecticut Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger? Mehlman dodged the question, saying he would tell just people to give cash to the RNC to spend strategically. When Matthews pressed him, Mehlman again refused the chance to say that the GOP clearly supports Schlesinger over Lieberman. Fascinating. "
It is very clear that he doesn't people to know who Alan Schlesinger is and wants Lieberman to win.
Liebermann is a strong politician, who the GOP knows is in for bipartisan decisions (read: backs the GOP a lot). It happens more often, though, that party members or others endorse a candidate from the opposite camp, because that candidate will likely come forward in favor of the opposite parties lines. Nothing wrong in itself, as long as voters agree with it and want their candidate to represent them like that. I think, even though I do not agree with Liebermann, he does add diversity to the democratic party.
Yeah, the Democrats need more far right corporate puppets who love war and selling out the masses. Oh wait, that's towards more conformity. I should think they need less to diversify.
Without realizing it.
WHO is Alan Schlesinger? IF MOST Connecticut voters don't know, then the chances of him defeating a Democrat in the Fall isn't very likely. So Pro-Iraq Lieberman is probably is the best the GOP can do...
I don't live in CT. but I'm close by [Massachusetts] and I've NEVER heard of the guy. AND I've NEVER heard him mentioned on ANY news program OR seen his name in print--till now. I figure Republicans THINK Lieberman has a BETTER chance beating out Lamont [the primary was close] than a virtual UNKNOWN like Schlesinger.
Now can I ask you something? OTHER than his stance on Iraq, wasn't Lieberman pretty much with the Democrats on MOST other issues? I'm just wondering IF throwing him out and replacing him with an inexperienced newcomer like Lamont was a good idea in your opinion?
As a life long Democrat and one who's been pretty upset with my party, I have to say that the only measure I've seen to guage Leibermans Dem credibility is his voting record of 90% with the party. To me that's irrelevant because Dems voted for the Patriot Act, and the Bankruptcy Bill and many other poor decisions. That doesn't mean they were acting as Democrats should. Lieberman has exhibited an arrogance, and a willingness to trash other Democrats in public to score political points. He stood on the floor of the Senate and self rightously denounced President Clinton but has no courage to stand up to Bush. He's a coward and I will be glad to see him go.
I don't live in CT, but my big reasons for not liking Lieb. are his support of the bankruptcy bill, and the perscription drug bill, and the social security overhaul, as well as the war in Iraq. Not only that, but what really pushed him over the edge was his stance and speeches on the senate floor that any debate on the Iraq matter harmed the country. We don't like to hear that kind of talk as part of the greatest deliberatory body in recent history.
I also think that a big part was that the people of CT were upset that he never talked to them, listened to them, or faught for their local interests.
Thank you for your replies. I didn't really know much about Lieberman's voting record, OR where he stood on SEVERAL of the issues you mentioned.
I now UNDERSTAND a lot more clearly WHY some Democrats happily voted for his opponent.
AND why the GOP loves him.
That is an interesting observation, of how the name of the Republican candidate for the Senate seat is virtually lost in all of this Republican-led noise, against the winner of the Democratic primary, and for the loser of that same primary.
I know this much, that right now, the loser of that primary, as a proclaimed independent, is sounding more shrill and bitter and attacking of Democrats, than most Republicans would dare sound (and still avoid disputing the poll-certified Opinions of the American People regarding Iraq and the president).
Right now, if you were to take seriously the candidacy of that newly proclaimed independent, you'd have to describe his platform as nearly singular:
"I am 100% opposed to the Democratic Party and it's shift toward the (poll-certified) views of the majority of the American People. I will campaign against my opponent in this race, a Democrat, and in the process say as much against Democrats as would any Republican, the president or the vice president or the national chairman of their party included (or especially, the Republican candidate in this very race)."
Now I ask you, with such a dream of a loser talking like that, who would you want to highlight (if you were a Republican) in the contest for Connecticut's Senate seat:
The near-anonymous Republican candidate, afraid of publicly supporting the president and his scheme in Iraq?
Or the bitter and shrill Democratic Senator, mouthing off every chance he gets, against Democrats and the (poll-certified) Opinions of the majority of the American People?
Heck, right now lieberman is the GOP's dream child: He's all vitriol and criticism of the Democratic Party, with none of the cost of any member of the GOP seen embracing the president (kissing him even, in a way in which even their wives are never photographed doing).
His family and friends should start scrap-books right about now, so as to record permanently all the press joe is generating as a result of his angry, whining, and bitter response to being tossed off the Democratic ticket by Connecticut's electorate (who did no more than register an Opinion in accord with the majority of the American People.)
It's a proud moment for joe; I'm sure he'd like someday to re-live it, reminiscing over a scrapbook.
footage of him kissing president Bush on the cheek, the real cheek, not the buttocks.
of Liebermann, the more I have the impression he adopted Rovian and GOP strategies: smear, misinformation, and fear mongering!
of Liebermann, the more he sounds like Zell Miller.
Right now, he's a walking, talking, no-cost dream to the GOP, Lieberman is...
He should be the "key note" speaker at the next GOP convention, just like Zell Miller was at the last.
It's amusing to watch the bitter and disappointed elderly, wracked with fear and anger, have emotional melt-downs on the public stage.
Too bad their younger selves couldn't arise spiritually from the past, and slap some sense into their bitter and twisted older selves.
He represents the get along at all costs point of view that so called centrist Democrats have taken. The horror of supporting invasion and murder in Iraq insanely regarded by the beltway pundits as "centrist"...did not fly with the Connecticutt Dems and should fly with anyone else.
We need a paradigm shift of consciousness. No window dressing can make extreme positions centrist. And Lieberman not only supports the invasion, he stated that criticism of the prez is perilous for the country...he flirted with privatizing social security, he voted for the horrible medicare drug bill and the bancruptcy bills; he's incredibly sanctimonious and self serving. So why should he be preferred over Lamont?!
great Secretary of Interior. Or FEMA director.
... unemployed former Senator from Connecticut.
As I said in another thread, we are mostly sick of the national media, and now every GOP talking moron, framing the state's opposition to Lieberman an anti-war, and only an anti-war vote. While that was one strike against him for many of us, it was only one. The desire to vote Joe out was based on a pretty consistent record of putting his personal aspirations first, such as when he refused to give up his senatorial race in 2000 while running for VP. If he had won, the Republican governor of the state (run out of office afterwards due to corruption scandal) would have appointed a Republican to Joe's seat at a time when it was pretty important for the Dems to keep every seat possible. He was the only Democrat to vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill; he has disappeared from our state, in his zest to occupy the national stage, and only reappeared in the final days of the primary when it was clear he was in trouble.
Reducing the contest to an "antiwar referendum" is way simplistic, and enables Joe Lieberman and the GOP to continue their simplistic, delusional rants in an effort to replay the national security card for November.