On Face the Nation, Schieffer, VandeHei passed up ample opportunities to ask Lieberman about claim that Lamont's Iraq strategy will "strengthen" terrorists
SUMMARY: On CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer let Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) claim that he does "not [] play partisan politics" and that his opponent, businessman Ned Lamont, is engaged in a "smear partisan political game." Schieffer made no mention of Lieberman's own claim -- in the wake of arrests made over an alleged terror plot in London -- that Lamont's proposed Iraq exit-strategy "would strengthen [terrorists]" and allow them to "strike again."
On the August 20 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer allowed independent candidate and incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) to claim that he does "not [] play partisan politics" and that his opponent, businessman Ned Lamont, is engaged in a "smear partisan political game," without noting Lieberman's own claim in the wake of arrests made over an alleged terror plot in London that Lamont's proposed Iraq exit strategy "would strengthen [terrorists]" and allow them to "strike again." Schieffer did not mention Lieberman's accusation, though he did note that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) recently accused Lieberman of "echoing the Republicans' intolerable rhetoric" -- a statement Kerry issued on August 17 in response to Lieberman's claim that Lamont's Iraq policy would "strengthen" the terrorists.
Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei joined Schieffer in interviewing Lieberman but also did not mention Lieberman's comments, despite noting that it "really ticks [Democratic senators] off" when Lieberman says "people who want timetables [for withdrawal from Iraq] are only making America less secure."
On August 10, CNN reported Lieberman's comments about Lamont, which Lieberman made as he launched his independent candidacy for Senate:
LIEBERMAN: If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out 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.
But Schieffer failed to mention Lieberman's comments, despite asking Lieberman if he is "comfortable" with the fact that he "basically g[ot] the endorsement of ...Vice President [Dick] Cheney." Like Lieberman's attack on Lamont, Cheney's "endorsement" included a suggestion that Lamont's victory in the Democratic primary could encourage "Al Qaeda types":
CHENEY: [A]s I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for vice president, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.
The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the Al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
Schieffer even neglected to ask Lieberman about his attack on Lamont while noting Kerry's statement, in an email to supporters, that Lieberman has been "echoing the Republicans' intolerable rhetoric," such as "Dick Cheney claiming that Democratic candidates who dare to challenge the Bush White House on Iraq are 'emboldening terrorists' ":
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove should know better, but it's no surprise they don't. For almost five years now, every time they've got their backs to the wall politically, they play "the fear card." The latest example: Dick Cheney claiming that Democratic candidates who dare to challenge the Bush White House on Iraq are "emboldening terrorists."
What's worse, and startling, is that in Connecticut Joe Lieberman is now echoing their intolerable rhetoric attacking the Democratic Senate nominee.
As the Chicago Tribune noted in an August 17 post to its political weblog, The Swamp, Kerry's email that day to Democratic supporters "specifically blast[ed] Lieberman for saying that Lamont's call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq would encourage terrorists, a charge President Bush and other senior Republicans have leveled at Democrats." On Face the Nation, Lieberman claimed that Kerry's comments were "just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own," adding, "I came to Washington to solve problems, not to play partisan politics."
From the August 20 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Were you satisfied -- are you comfortable when you basically get the endorsement of the vice president? Vice President Cheney?
LIEBERMAN: Well, it wasn't an endorsement. I haven't sought his endorsement, and I don't expect it. He commented on his interpretation of what happened in the primary in Connecticut. I got to tell you, Bob, that a lot of national political ears on both parties have been spinning the results of the primary of a week and a half ago. That's their business, it's not mine. I'm not going to let myself and my campaign become anybody's national political football. This is a question before the voters of Connecticut, and I've decided to continue this campaign because I feel so deeply that I can do a better job for my state and country than either of my opponents and I want all the voters to decide that, not just the 15 percent who participated in the Democratic primary. And I feel that way because of my experience --
SCHIEFFER: Well --
LIEBERMAN: --my seniority and most of all that I can work across partisan lines to get things done. I am as fed up as I think most of the American people are with the partisanship and polarization in Washington. That means we don't solve the people's problems. If you want another partisan polarizer, vote for Ned Lamont.
SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean the fact is --
LIEBERMAN: If you want somebody that can get something done, vote for me.
SCHIEFFER: -- the polls now show that you not only are leading in the race up there now, but that you have a sizable lead. But are you a de facto Republican as Ned Lamont said that you were?
LIEBERMAN: Well, obviously not. Again, my opponent's new at politics, but he's getting pretty good at the old-style Washington smear partisan political game. I'm a Democrat.
SCHIEFFER: Well, John Kerry also seems to suggest that. What did he say?
LIEBERMAN: With all -- with...
SCHIEFFER: He said, "What's worse than startling is that Connecticut's Joe Lieberman is now echoing the Republicans' intolerable rhetoric, attacking the Democrats."
LIEBERMAN: With all -- with all respect to John Kerry, an old friend, that's just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own. I am a Democrat. Look at my voting record. I voted 90 percent of the time with the majority of Democrats in the United States Senate. But when I disagree, I'm going to have the courage of my convictions to say so. And most important of all, I came to Washington to solve problems, not to play partisan politics. We got a lot of problems. Health care system broken, people paying too much money for gasoline and home heating oil, public schools not what they ought to be, global warming threatening, fiscal deficits. The only way we're going to solve those problems is by working across party lines, and that's what I want to do.
VANDEHEI: What about the -- what about this argument that -- from Democrats, when I talk to senators what really ticks them off is that they feel like you are saying things that help Republicans. When you say that a lot of Democrats are outside the mainstream of America, or when you say the people who want timetables are only making America less secure. They're saying, well now Republicans just point to you and say, "Look, you have a Democrat who is saying precisely what we're saying." Are you at all worried that you're going to undermine your party's chances of winning back the House and Senate because of your rhetoric to beat Lamont?
LIEBERMAN: No, I'm not. I'm worried that my party may become what we accuse the Republicans of, a kind of litmus test party. "If you don't agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with us." I'm devoted to the Democratic Party.















People like Schieffer and Lieberman run in the same Beltway circles. If they go after each other too hard, they might have to exchange uncomfortable moments over the shrimp cocktails at some pundit's Georgetown soiree.
LIEBERMAN: "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out 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."
Same people? Sorry, Joe. The key phrase in the statement is 'this plot hatched in ENGLAND.' These folks were England born or even, by extension, Pakistani descended. Where is the Iraqi connection? It will strengthen them, Joe? What does that mean? Milk can strengthen people, too. Is he implying that the war in Iraq has weakened terrorists? Given that attacks around the globe have increased since the Iraqi invasion it would follow that 'stay the course' has been impotent.
I wonder where this so called 'indepedent' gets his talking points? He needs to just pick-up and become a Republican.
At least he didn't repeat the ignorant things he had said earlier; perhaps he realizes just how ignorant those things were, and if so, then it's better to just move on, instead of continuing to echo such ignorance.
So if I'm reading the newly-proclaimed independent's rhetoric correctly, now he's a Democrat-turned-Independent, but of a particular variety; categorized as an Independent-Democrat...
LIEBERMAN: "I'm a Democrat." [He said that twice in the above transcription] "...I'm devoted to the Democratic Party."
...except now he's simply the Independent-Democrat who makes no mention (and therefore takes no stand, I guess) on Iraq.
LIEBERMAN: "We got a lot of problems. Health care system broken, people paying too much money for gasoline and home heating oil, public schools not what they ought to be, global warming threatening, fiscal deficits. The only way we're going to solve those problems is by working across party lines, and that's what I want to do."
Nowhere to be found in the transcription, is any mention of Iraq or war, on the part of the Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat-again.
Interesting campaign strategy: When it comes to the single most important issue to the American electorate today (Iraq), which also happens to be the issue most important to those who voted in Connecticut's Democratic primary (Iraq, which is why Joe was rejected by those voters)...
When it comes to the issue of Iraq, just ignore it.
It was Joe's downfall in Connecticut (and shall continue to be, despite his newly proclaimed ignorance of the issue), and it is the downfall of all it's authors (Joe included), Iraq is.
Good idea; just ignore it like it's not happeneing, like you never heard of the danged place Iraq.
Where does this leave the Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-Democrat-again for issues to campaign on?
Why, social issues of course: "Health care system broken, people paying too much money for gasoline and home heating oil, public schools not what they ought to be, global warming threatening, fiscal deficits"...
But not Iraq. No, no way. Too much hazard there. Stay away from Iraq.
Too much death, real and political, in Iraq.
Ignore it...
Re-invent yourself Joe; Iraq was your downfall (and still is), so stay away from it as an issue...
Transform yourself into something new, away from one of Iraq's authors and supporters, toward something new...
Become a Democrat-turned-Independent-turned-SOCIALIST!
"Health care, gas and heating oil prices, public schools, global warming, deficits..."
Ignore Iraq Joe, become a SOCIALIST, instead of the REPUBLICAN you really are.
(Watch for this brilliant campaign tactic to take hold, nationwide. All of Iraq's authors are now going to ignore the danged place, and instead become SOCIALISTS. As if that'll make the American People forget about Iraq; as if they're that dumb.)
Lieberman lost the primary by less than 5 points. How many of those primary voters were anti-war? It's probably a safe bet that it was well over 90%. It's easy to see why Lieberman has a comfortable lead now when you factor in the entire population of the state.
If your point is that Joe is doing better now that the field is not just those whacky anti-war liberals, it flies in the face of logic. Assuming that CT is representative of the nation as a whole, than you would expect 60% to be for a withdraw (Ned's position).
If you want to actually analyze the numbers in a thoughtful way, you would have to look at the fact that Lamont had about a 5% name recognition just a few months ago. And you have to look at the fact that Lamont is leading among CT dems and close to Joe among independents, and Joe has all the repubs, with Slezzinger(?) at 5%. As Ned gets his name out there and his positions (which are not very liberal at all), and as Joe continues to alienate everybody and shoving his foot deeper into his mouth, Ned will climb in the polls, just like he did in the primary.
Since the lastest polls say 61% oppose the war.
He is the frontrunner for the same reason most incumbents are -- because they are incumbents. I doubt the war has little to do with it. That and the fact that the Republicans have all but endorsed him by leaving their own candidate out in the wind.
My point was that in a primary where the anti-war sentiment was probably 90%, Lieberman only lost by 5%. In the total population where the Iraq war support is greater than it was in the Democratic Primary, it stands to reason that Lieberman would make up that deficit and he has according to current polling. If Iraq was the dominant issue, Lieberman should have lost by a wider margin than he did. A lot of anti-war people still voted for him and I think you would agree that almost all of the pro-war people will vote for him in November.
I agree with your post that there is much more going on that the war, but I would argue that this does not mean that Joe will win. I think that people in CT are sick of Joe, and there is a name recognition problem with Ned that will lessen as the election gets closer. My point is that Joe has and is continuing to do everything he can to alienate everyone and lose this election, as he did in the primary. His numbers went steadily down as people who were already a little fed up with him saw how he handled the challenge like a baby.
So it's safe to assume 90% of those who voted against Lieberman are anti-war? Why not 99% or 100%? In any case, it's irrelevant.
How about addressing the obvious reason why Lieberman got so many votes: he's an 18 year incumbent. People will reflexively vote for the incumbent. The fact that Lamont beat him in a primary is extraordinary in and of itself. Lamont unseated an ex-Vice Presidential candidate, a long time party sweetheart. That speaks VOLUMES. Lamont is now the Democratic candidate in a Democratic stronghold. What you are postulating is that Democrats en mass will hold to their primary votes and toss a vote Joe's way because they too are suddenly independents?? He lost and he's a spoilsport who picks up his football and goes home. Or abandons his party. Why is that behavior automatically going to garner him favored status among Democrats? Bill and Hillary have tossed their chips towards Lamont, held the party line, as they should, and many of those who voted for Lieberman will see the wisdom of this and do likewise.
It boils down to one question: do the people of Connecticut like Joe Lieberman so much they are will to risk splitting the vote and giving the Republicans a seat? I seriously doubt it.
You make a good point that a lot of people who voted for Lieberman in the primary will vote for Lamont in the election. Whether or not that is enough to offset the votes for Lieberman by Republicans and Independents remains to be seen.
Lieberman isn't only a lousy Democrat, he's a lousy American for emboldening the Bush administration and not doing his job of over sight of the executive branch.
So devoted that he refuses to accept the results of a primary of Democrat voters.
So devoted that he is not a Democrat anymore.
Strange how Joe is such a staunch Democrat but won't follow the wishes of the voters who decided they wanted Lamont and a change in Washington.
AIR TIME?
I've yet to see Ned get hardly a damned moment on these same shows yet, Tailgunner Joe seems to be all over these shows. Can't turn it on without seeing this old pruneface constantly telling his BS to everyone.
So how come he gets so much national air time and Ned doesn't?
I can't even remember the last time Ned got more than 30 seconds a week someplace.
More proof the media is rightwing now and has been for quite some time.
I hear people talking ABOUT Lamont, but Lieberman and his supporters (strangely enough, mostly rightys) are all over the place.
Fox "News" spent a lot of time on this race, and the "fair and balanced" was pretty much this;Rightys talk to lieberman and his fans about Lieberman, then rightys talk to Lieberman and his fans about Lamont.
We report, you decide!
Anybody old enough to remember that quaint old term from an FCC long ago, before it was hopelessly corrupted, a term called...
EQUAL TIME?
You're right, this whole "media" campaign, designed to float Joe's sunken boat, is proof positive of what a bunch of paid hack public relations specialists that sickening TV "media" is.
Right in sync with the RNC's abandonment of their own candidate in Connecticut, we have the "media" giving the newly-proclaimed independent in the race (or is it Socialist?) all this...
AIR TIME
...with no thought at all to...
EQUAL TIME
It's sickening, this hack "media" is; it's a cancer on our Democracy, and I'm delighted at the swift speed with which our Internet Wire is destroying this hack TV "media".
And as for old Joe, and his obviously well-advised (RNC advised) new campaign platform... the "Socialist" angle of "poverty, wages, prices, and public schools", meant purely to divide and conquer the Democrats of Connecticut...
It'll work just fine, as long as Iraq is out of the news; as long as we have weird freaks making up confessions about killing little girls, and hurricanes (don't forget hurricanes, and tidal waves and volcanoes too!)...
Anything but Iraq Joe, right?
Just ignore it, it'll go away.
(What a joke, his RNC advisors telling him to ignore Iraq, and divide and conquer Connecticut with "social issues". Right, Iraq is on everybody's mind for no reason at all. Iraq isn't going to be in the news in the coming months. Right. It's the very thing that got him tossed off the ticket, and it's not going away by ignoring it, as much as his RNC advisors, and Joe, wish it would.)
do poorly in Congressional elections where their party shares the affiliation of an unpopular lame duck president. Republicans have lost the "security moms" according to the latest New York Times poll. Lieberman is a turncoat waiting to defect. Such transparent disloyalty could only be rewarded by Republican syncophants. The Iraq War, coupled with Bush's tax cuts to the unholy rich, is going to leave the rest of us eating unheated beenie-weenie in the back seats of our cars-our new homes. Lieberman and the rest of the neocons will have long since fled to Europe to avoid public lynching. Republican-induced hype will bring us Republican-induced hyperinflation.
joe says among our problems are: "health care system broken, people paying too much for gasoline..., public schools not what they ought to be, global warming, fiscal deficits." and joe says the answer is "working across party lines". guess what joe? your pals on the other side of the aisle? the ones you defend by calling your own party out of the mainstream? they're the ones that have been voting in lockstep on these issues for decades. they've fought any kind of energy independence since carter, because they're owned by the oil companies. so concerned about the security of the country, joe? it doesn't bother you that the gop has done everything to keep us dependent on oil and and money flowing to these radical regimes in the mideast, the ones that are sponsoring and tolerating extremists?
Like Lieberman has ever done anything to promote those ideas...he's a stinking neo-fascist like all the rest in DC.
Joe Lieberman should challenge Chris Matthews to a duel. No, no. That's not it. Zell Miller should challenge Joe Lieberman to a duel. That'll work.
With a little bit of luck. With a little bit of luck. With a little bit of blooming luck,, they'll both get stuck.
thought up a lie[berman] and he thought it up quick.
Lies that cause people to believe, gain or have faith are moral. It's all in the best interest of maintaining high moral standards in government.
The people have spoken but Lieberman isn't listening.
"Go to your churches, temples, snyagogues, mosques and pray" for faith moves mountains of lies.