For "Grapevine," Hume plucked quote from Lamont letter to echo Lieberman charge of hypocrisy
SUMMARY: Brit Hume echoed Sen. Joe Leiberman's campaign's charge that his Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, was "completely contradicting himself" when he criticized Lieberman for his 1998 public denunciation of former President Bill Clinton's affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But Hume misrepresented the contents of Lamont's letter.
During the "Grapevine" segment of the September 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume echoed independent candidate and incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Leiberman's (CT) campaign's charge that his Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, was "completely contradicting himself" when he criticized Lieberman for his September 3, 1998, public denunciation of former President Bill Clinton's affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. But to support his assertion, Hume quoted selectively from Lamont's letter, misrepresenting its contents.
As Hume noted, according to a September 8 New York Times article, Lamont recently said that, while he condemned Clinton's behavior, Lieberman "should have handled the matter privately," because Lieberman's public condemnation created an unnecessary "media spectacle." Hume then referred to a letter Lamont sent Lieberman via email in 1998, soon after Lieberman's floor speech denouncing Clinton. In that letter, Lamont wrote: "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end." Based on the letter, Hume asserted that "Lamont saw things differently at the time," and echoed a Lieberman spokesman's claim that Lamont was "completely contradicting himself."
But Hume misrepresented the contents of the letter. Contrary to Hume's suggestion that Lamont fully supported Lieberman's public condemnation of Clinton at the time, Lamont, in his letter, actually wrote that he "reluctantly supported" Leiberman's actions, but still, would have preferred that the issue be handled privately. Hume, in particular, did not note -- although the Times article did -- that Lamont expressed three reasons why he was "reluctant" to support Lieberman's public condemnation of Clinton, including his concern that "it might make matters worse." Furthermore, neither Hume nor a September 9 Times article that initially published Lamont's letter to Lieberman mentioned that Lamont, in his letter, expressed a preference for handling the issue privately. "If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight." Lieberman, he wrote, should now "stand up and use [his] moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess." From the letter:
I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because nobody expressed moral outrage over how [former President Ronald] Reagan treated his kids or [former Speaker of the House Newt] Gingrich [R-GA] lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the [independent counsel Kenneth] Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior.
I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end.
Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.
This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.
You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess.
From the September 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont ripped his Connecticut opponent Joe Lieberman last week for scolding Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal on the Senate floor in 1998, telling The New York Times that Lieberman should have handled the matter privately. But Lamont saw things differently at the time. Writing Lieberman, quote, "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," end quote. Lamont is standing by his latest comments, but a Lieberman spokesman says Lamont is, quote, "so desperate to lash out that he didn't seem to care that he was completely contradicting himself," end quote.
only half the truth as usual. His grapevine segment is full of deception. Hume never gives the full scoop...he gives only the part that makes the right wing look good and the left look bad. He chortles and snarks his way through these little tidbits of news knowing full well he's purposely misleading the viewers. He obviously has little respect for them or the truth. He's nothing more than a repub punk.
You've got a lot of catching up to do, your reich wing fascist friends have jumped the gate while you were putting the saddle on. But no worries, mate, you can catch up. Just jump on lil' engine and kick in your heels, boy!
Like most rational Americans, he disapproved of Clinton's actions, but considered it a private matter.
My own feelings at the time were disappointment, maybe embarrassment that somebody as bright and politically savvy as BC got that sloppy.I also saw it as human. I know I made my mistakes in the "thinking with the wrong head" department when I was a youngster, and I wasn't the president or even a rock star or an athlete, just some doofus.
I think that Lieberman only exposed one thing with his charges against Lamont on this issue, based on my experience; Ned got a lot more action in his day than Joe.He knows the importance of discretion.
Unlike the secrets our current administration keeps, the personal/sexual ones are sometimes better off kept private.But that's just my opinion.
could use a little "bouncy bouncy" as well. might take the slack outta them jowls.
That's not an image I want in my brain right after lunch.
You said: I know I made my mistakes in the "thinking with the wrong head" department when I was a youngster, and I wasn't the president or even a rock star or an athlete, just some doofus.
Response: That's the whole point of the entire matter. You're NOT the President so really who gives a damn outside your little circle of people what you do. The POTUS on the other hand is expected to be above the fray with this type of nonsense. His behavior matters A LOT. It's simple common decency and the least we should expect from somebody in his position.
Insofar as it pertains to his professional performance, yes. What it showed me was that the President was human, and his personal indiscretions detracted not a whit from his handling of his job. The American people knew that, and his job approval ratings stayed high (well into the 70 percent range even at the height of the Impeachment foolishness), and that's the one that really counts.
This was also the incident that showed me once and for all what hypocrites the GOP are.
Up until the time he started excoriating Clinton for his actions, Newt Gingrich was having oral sex with interns in his House office for the precise reason that he could aver he did not have sex with them.
Henry Hyde loudly intoned from the well of the House that he had "never demeaned[his] marriage," while he had carried on a seven year affair that destroyed a marriage. It happened when he was in his late 40s, but he swore it was a "youthful indiscretion." Most people are not youths after 39.
Bob Livingston had to resign over sexual matters, and he was another who loudly proclaimed how awful it was that Clinton had had oral sex with an intern, and even worse, his wife wasn't going to leave him because of it! Imagine that! A personal matter actually being handled at a personal level! How could those people carry on in such a civilized way?
As always, if you want to know what the GOP is doing, look at the actions they do that they project onto those who disagree with them.
However, all of these people you stated, as badly as they behaved, were NOT the President. Presidents are elected for their leadership abilities across the board, including moral leadership. You don't have to believe me, but Gore paid the price for Clinton's fiasco in the 2000 election IMHO. He had to distance himself from Clinton during the entire campaign.
Lamont clearly says that he "supported" Lieberman's speech and clearly says, "a democrat had to stand up and say as much." What does MMFA suggested he meant, "stand up" in a closet and say it privately??
Sheeesh!
Lamont clearly says that he "supported" Lieberman's speech and clearly says, "a democrat had to stand up and say as much." - from Fools_Gold
When the entire letter is read it's not hard to understand. Lamont said he supported Lieberman's position and statements, but he disagreed with his public expression of it. He did not support the speech as you claim he did. Lamont clearly indicated that he would rather Lieberman had expressed his outrage privately with Clinton. He believed the public statements made matters worse.
When he stated that a Democrat had to stand up, he clearly meant stand up to the President.
Lamont clearly said then and says now that Clinton's behavior was morally outrageous and standing up to him was necessary. He also said then and says now that it should be handled privately, not with a public rebuke in the media.
Lamont is perfectly consistent. There is no contradiction.
Brit Hume is a right-wing hack who doesn't mind shoving his bias into his audience's face. Here's a great example:
[link to www.eyesonfox.org]
All he does is cherry-pick on that segment when it comes to showing things that are critical of Democrats and/or liberals and/or progressives.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com