Russert called Lieberman a "Democrat ... who agree[s] with the president"
On the January 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert referred to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) as a "Democrat ... who agree[s] with the president," despite Lieberman's reported statement just two days earlier that he would prefer to be called an "Independent Democrat," or, failing that, an "Independent." Russert also called Lieberman a "fellow Democrat" of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT).
In a January 12 Congressional Quarterly article posted on The New York Times' website, Congressional Quarterly noted that Lieberman's "office made clear that, if the compound modifier [Independent Democrat] that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent" as opposed to be being described as a "Democrat."
From the January 14 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: What now? With us: the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. Congressional reaction is swift and divided -- a Democrat for and against.
LIEBERMAN [video clip]: It's a plan to win in Iraq, and I believe we still can.
DODD [video clip]: This is a tactic in search of a strategy, in my view, and it'll not bring us a more stable Iraq.
[...]
RUSSERT: Next up, a Democrat and a Republican senator who agree with the president, a Democrat and a Republican who disagree with the president, after this station break.
[...]
DODD: We need to move to a different strategy. The emphasis needs to be on robust, muscular diplomacy, deal with regional leaders, insist upon the kind of political leadership inside the country, and then ask our military people to do the border kind of security, the training that can be done, the counterterrorism activities, but get them out of these major urban areas and insist that the 300,000 Iraqis, those -- those 10 divisions, those 36 brigades and 118 battalions, which we've trained, to assume that responsibility in their own country.
RUSSERT: Senator Lieberman, you're a fellow Democrat, fellow Nutmeg [State] resident with Senator Dodd. You disagree with him and you agree with the president.
If you read the transcript of watched the program this past Sunday, you will see where Lieberman did not correct Russert calling him a "fellow Democrat".
If this was so incorrect, or blantantly false, then Lieberman had the perfect chance to correct Russert. He did not.
lieberman continues to play his game of being all things to all people.
The reason is more straightforward. The topic and Russert's statement were in relation to Iraq, not general political views. Lieberman has openly agreed with Bush regarding Iraq and the "surge." So, this article, as criticism of Russert, is nonsense.
But as for Joe being an Independent Democrat...bs. Joe is a true opportunist whose only loyalty is to himself.
Now I get it...MMFA's point is that Lieberman isn't a "Democrat." As was probably evident from my second paragraph, on that point I agree with MMFA.
... Joe is the sole member of the Conneticut For Lieberman Party.
All for one and one for Joe.
but one wonders even how many of the Democrats who shifted party loyalty in his state would have voted had he run honestly by changing to the Republican Party, where he fits far better as a moderate on some issues and a war junkie on others. He's no independent, that much is clear.
The Russert piece would have made more sense if they could actually have found a Democrat to stand and say Lieberman's lines for him. Must not have been able to, so instead they called this "rose" by another name.
He's just another parrot of the Administration's talking points on Iraq. Is it because he's Jewish, and fears what may happen to Israel if we pull out? I don't know, but his contribution to these debates is minimal. All he does is repeat Bush's asinine bromides.
His contribution to these debates is because of his differing opinion with Dodd. Fair and balanced. Some may say it's even tilted left since there were two Democrats? Nevertheless, you may disagree with him but he is an elected Senator and has his opinions concerning Iraq. That is why he is on these programs, as is any other Senator or Congressperson who disagrees with Bush.
posting before we read and comprehend again? two republicans and two democrats.
Lieberman is to the Right of many Republicans on this issue, so to say that his presence tilts it to the left is not true. He has a right, certainly, but his contribution to the conversation is nil, since he is only repeating the crap coming out of the White House. You might as well play a tape of Cheney or Bush. Lieberman has totally sold out on this, and obviously has nothing thoughtful to say about it.
I am talking about their affiliation - Democrat or Independent Democrat..........I know Lieberman's stance regarding Iraq.
I see, so if there are three Democrats in the House who agree with Bush on something, and they're the only ones whose views are presented on a program, would that program be biased to the left because they're Democrats?
Is this "some may say" as if it was a reasonable viewpoint, or is it just a description of something idiotic like you'd see on the MRC page?
Yes, and Chuck Hagel dealt with these bromides very nicely. He seems to have had a partial reversal of the lobotomy issued to most Republicans a few years ago.
I especially liked the way he bristled at one of Lieberman's idiot-talking-point comments about those who want us to "lose" in Iraq. Lieberman is no better than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
You may disagree with Lieberman but to his credit, he has been consistent on Iraq from the beginning. He is not a sellout. That term refers to someone whose convictions are flimsy at best.
I don't agree with Lieberman at this point, no. But to compare him with Hannity or Limbaugh is totally unfair........they are the koolaid drinking Bush apologists, not Lieberman.
Bush has essentially maintained the same approach to Iraq despite no change (i.e., no positive change) in the results. Isn't that how Einstein defined stupidity?
But to call him a sellout is inappropriate. You could say misguided or a difference of opinion, but not a sellout.
I was only responding to the "to his credit" part of your comment. I agree with you that Leiberman has been consistent on Iraq. But I don't think that's anything for which he deserves credit.
As for Joe being a sellout on Iraq, that's moot.
Holy Joe has been consistant about the war in Iraq, no matter how many of our soldiers have died, or how had the civil war has become.
not how "had" the civil war.
sorry!
he does not recognize a "difference of opinion". he attacked his own party for being out of the mainstream.
"Consistency isn't necessarily a virtue[...]Bush has essentially maintained the same approach to Iraq despite no change (i.e., no positive change) in the results. Isn't that how Einstein defined stupidity?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't forget Emerson and the idea of "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
The Bush Administration's Iraq policy to date can easily be described that way.
In a January 12 Congressional Quarterly article posted on The New York Times' website, Congressional Quarterly noted that Lieberman's "office made clear that, if the compound modifier [Independent Democrat] that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent" as opposed to be being described as a "Democrat."
Russert should have booked a true Democrat for the purpose of this particular debate. Lieberman just want's air time on the Sunday morning talk show's - if he has to be the "Opposing Democratic Viewpoint" he's more than happy to do so. Nonetheless, he's not one to give a accurate representation of the Democratic Party's position on this topic. Descenting or not. Leiberman's use of the "they want to lose in Iraq" frame is clearly in line with the Hannity's, Limbaugh's and Rove's of this country.
Christopher Dodd
2 - Democrats - 1 opposed, 1 for the increase
2 - Rebulicans - 1 opposed, 1 for the increase
Lieberman no longer truely represents the Democratic Party.
Russert should have booked a true Democrat who supports the increase.
Good catch on this one, Media Matters.
It's very easy to understand how Dodd didn't catch the mistake. And that Dod didn't does not ----in any way whatsoever---- excuse Russert. What's not so easy to comprehend is how this supposedly well-prepared tv host goofed--if, in fact, it was a goof. Perhaps Russert still considers Lieberman as representing the Democratic party, when in fact the turncoat is more of a Bush lapdog than Barney.
I didn't read it that way originally. Now I understand MMFA's point. Mea culpa.
Russert was interviewing Lieberman and called him a Democrat directly to his face.
I have no idea what point Dave is trying to make?
It is NOT excusable for the well-prepared Russert to tell a nationwide audience that Lieberman is a "fellow Democrat" just because Dodd (or Lieberman) didn't point out Russert's error. Calling the Bush kiss-up Lieberman a "Democrat" is grossly misinforming viewers.-Whether Russert did it out of habit, on purpose, or simply goofed. He's been called on it here, and rightly so.
Are you serious? If I called you a Republican wouldn't you think it important enough to correct me?
Apparently Lieberman himself found it no big deal, despite your outrage.
isn't it just more of his being all things to all people, when it suits him?
>>"Apparently Lieberman himself found it no big deal, despite your outrage."<<
MY outrage? You just branded me "ridiculous" and you talk about outrage? Funny.
Unless you are a mind reader, you have no clue what Lieberman thought. And it doesn't matter to me anyway as this is MEDIA Matters, not "What Lieberman Found It Matters".
The point, once again for you, is Russert screwed-up, a screw-up which is not in any way whatsoever excused by the fact that Dodd or Lieberman didn't comment on it.
...you're judging Lieberman by what he didn't say instead of what he did say. In this instance, I'd have to give greater credibility to the latter.
I am judging this by how serious Lieberman himself, who is the topic of this thread, took the "Democrat" label. He didn't even bother to correct Russert.
Face it, this is just put up here to slam Lieberman and it's cloaked in this ridiculous phony outrage - that even he didn't deem worthy of a correction. At least be honest about that.
You're making an assumption based on Lieberman's lack of response, i.e., based on what he didn't say. How difficult is that to understand?
His lack of response indicates to any reasonable mind that he didn't consider it relevant or important enough to correct it. Why is that so hard to understand? The entire premise and basis for Russert's question was that he was a Democrat who agreed with Bush - it was not some off the cuff comment by Russert. It went directly to the heart of the issue. And if it was an error by Russert, as you and others here claim, then Lieberman obviously would have corrected it.......he did not.
>>"if it was an error by Russert
There is no "if" about it.
...and completely supports my contention in my post of 1:55:11. Thank you.
Contrary to your claim, Russert is the subject of this thread, not the thoughts of Joe Lieberman. There are email links to NBC for those who care about accuracy in media to utilize. There are no links to Sen. Lieberman's office.
It is about his "misinformation" regarding Lieberman. Of which Lieberman did not find incorrect. But you do, why don't you call Joe and tell him how upset he should be?...........but that would just be silly, now wouldn't it?
and we had this discussion before.
The other day there were several posters on another thread who were imploring many of you to ignore me because I just distract an otherwise wonderful, touchy feely good discussion.
And now you're scolding me for ignoring you?
Come on fellas, what do you want from me?
an answer?
It seems to me you are making statements, not asking a direct question. If you are, please repeat it?
at 154
I don't know what Lieberman's motives are - all politicians look out for themselves #1, he is probably no different. But just because he broke with the party and supports Bush and the war doesn't mean he is some evil turncoat. You may disagree, I may disagree - but he is entitled to his opinion. The voters knew it when they reelected him. They could have thrown him out.
he's entitled to his opinion, but he vilified people in his own party. and he is basically dishonest. he absolutely ruled out switching parties before the election and then almost immediately after that changed to maybe.
Now You Said: - "OK" - "I don't know what Lieberman's motives are - "
WOW! After all that Name Calling and Outrage you finally admit you were wrong when you said the following:
You Said: - "Apparently Lieberman himself found it no big deal, despite your outrage."
Not you, nor anyone else here, knows what the heck Joe was thinking. Please don't insert words into Joe's mind.
For all we know, He could have thought, Hey! ... I'm not here to start a debate with my Host. Tim just might not invite me back! I don’t want to do something stupid like argue with him about what I really am. Besides, these days, I’m not even sure myself, what I am. See Tom ... I can put words in his head too.
Why can’t you see that because of Joe, the panel of guests was not balanced?
...AND TO ADD MORE IMBALANCE...
Russert booked the Presidents National Security Advisor to sell the Bush Escalation Plan, with no guest for the opposing view.
Tom Hadley was given Up Front Billing, and a huge block of time to sell the Bush plan to a doubtful nation.
Also when Tim called Joe a Fellow Democrat he quickly highlighted that by saying. "A Fellow Nutmeg Resident with Dodd." - - To which Joe just smiled.
Tom You Said: - A little silly
If you read the transcript of watched the program this past Sunday, you will see where Lieberman did not correct Russert calling him a "fellow Democrat".
>>>You're drowing...It is about his "misinformation" regarding Lieberman. Of which Lieberman did not find incorrect. But you do, why don't you call Joe and tell him how upset he should be?...........but that would just be silly, now wouldn't it?
Oh, brother....
For at least the third time: this item is about Russert--a media person-- misinforming his vast media audience. It doesn't matter to me what Lieberman (or Dodd) the politician was thinking. If one CARES about media misinformation, they can use the provided links to do something about it. Those who defend conservative misinformation will try and shift the blame and divert the discussion to Lieberman in order to excuse Russert's gaffe.
...if they revealed his opinion of the "Democrat" label. However, I find the prior comments far more revealing than his lack of response to Russert. Also, Lieberman has been consistent - well...at least since losing the CT primary - that he would preferred to be called an Independent Democrat or an Independent.
Of course, Lieberman has also indicated that he would consider caucusing with Republicans if a) he felt uncomfortable around Democrats and b) if he got to keep his committee chairmanship. I suppose then he would drop the compound label.
Lieberman is NOT a Democrat, he LOST the Democratic Primary. He is an idependent. It was in Liebermans best interest to appear to be a Democrat on this issue, but he ISNT. FLAT OUT IS NOT. I dont care what Dodd or Lieberman did or did not say. Lieberman IS NOT A DEMOCRAT.
which is exactly what JL loves so much about where he is, both sides kissing his bottom for that iffy vote he wields. Heaven forbid that Dodd offend Joe by calling Russert on this one.
I can understand why some would be upset by Joe being associated with the party. Joe is strictly concerned with two things: 1) Himself; and 2) Israel. He is in essence, Israel's proxy in the senate. This statement will most likely be flamed as "anti-semitic" but let's be real here. There are plenty of other jewish congressman & women, who haven't sold out for Israel. Joe shouldn't be called a Democrat. Do you think Republicans would be happy with David Duke being referred to as a member their party?
I wonder if the Lieberman "no longer welcome" banner will be so prominently displayed and aired should his vote be necessary to keep one of Bush's possible SCOTUS nominee's from being confirmed?
Will you all be so quick to slam him and call him a sellout then?
If Lieberman isn't a "sellout," then his vote on a SCOTUS nominee shouldn't hinge on whether or not he feels welcome.
I was referring to the slamming and disrespect he is getting from many of your fellow liberal posters here.
I just wonder when and if an important vote comes around such as a court nominee, will you then use the same tone and insulting language then, when you need him?
I doubt it.
You tried to use a hypothetical to chastise others for calling Lieberman a sellout. I tossed it back to point out that his vote shouldn't hinge on that.
Cheers
You make a valid point, but you fail to realize that with the majority the Senatorial Democrats enjoy, they can block a SCOTUS appointed with a filibuster, Joe or no Joe.
The Democratic leadership really needs to start shutting Joe out. He's a trader, plain & simple. The funniest part of "Meet the Press" was when Joe paid lip service to Chris Dodd's qualifications to run for president.
I will make a prediction here and now. 2008 Republican Convention, guest speaker...Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). You read it here first.
To keep a Rightwing Supreme nominee off the bench we are already screwed. He supported both Roberts and Alito. IF he didnt find THEM objectionable he would probably vote for Borki
First of all, IMO Lieberman should be referred to as he was shown on the ballot in November. That's what he ran as. I'm not that concerned with what he prefers.
Secondly, Russert did the "Democrat" thing again when he said: Next up, a Democrat and a Republican senator who agree with the president...
Shouldn't that be Democratic according to the language police on here?
>>"Shouldn't that be Democratic according to the language police on here?"
Obama, for example, is a Democrat, a member of the Democratic Party.
Democratic is an adjective. So, Democrat was grammatically correct.
Officially, Lieberman ran on the CFL ticket. However, it's not unheard of for politicians to change affiliation mid-term.
On the sentence in question, I believe "senator" is the noun and "Democrat" and "Republican" are the adjectives. I could be mistaken but that's how I read it. In that case I believe the adjective should be "Democratic".
Also, I agree that people change parties sometimes but don't they have to formally declare that as opposed to just issuing a statement about what they would prefer?
Democratic would have been correct. Another swing and a miss for me on this topic...one more and I'm outta here! :)
Technically, Russert spoke correctly - "a Democrat and a Republican senator who agree..."
If he had said "Next up, Democrat and Republican senators who agree..." he would have goofed.
Yup yup. I'm all over the place. Time for me to hang it up today. :D
Ooops...forgot to respond to that. (Foul ball!)
Anyway, good question...and I don't know.
Maybe you are right. Maybe we are getting too picky, lets all just chill a bit. From now on I will refer to the GOP as the ReNAMBLAcan party. I am sure no one but the language police will object
Well I personally think Russert should be hung up by his thumbs. How dare he make such a GRIEVOUS error?
Yes yes yes, Russert SHOULD have ID'd Liebermann as an INDEPENDENT/Democrat...OR Libermann or even Dodd could have REMINDED Tim without making a huge ruckus about it...like is being done here.
...a blog where we talk about bad information that is presented in the media. So I'm not sure why you think we are "making a big ruckus" by talking about bad information that is presented in the media.
Maybe you got confused and thought you were on Meat Matters, the blog where they discuss the slaughtering, processing and distribution of animals such as cattle, pigs, sheep and other livestock.
Like my Dad used to say...Is This The Hill You want To Die On?
Choose your battles wisely. The omission of the word *Independent* by Russert is such a minuscule issue it's hardly worth the hand-wringing it got here. The fact is Liebermann, whether YOU like it or not STILL identifies himself as a Democrat. It's only because he ran as an Independent that he probably feels obliged to INCLUDE that term also.
Don't forget that when Liebermann had ONLY the "D" by his name he was with Bush on the war.
I thought I was just taking a position in a debate.
I'm not that up in arms about this issue, and it doesn't seem to me that is it as emotional for anyone here as you are making it out to be. I think it's a defensible position that a guy who ran as an independent, who is out of step with the Democratic party and who unabashedly supports the leader of the opposite party while criticizing Democrats for not doing the same, is more accurately described as an "Independent" than a Democrat.
Do I think it is the most important issue of the day? No, and I don't get the sense anyone here does. I just think it is a conversation worth having, and not a "major ruckus" at all.
...for Russert to characterise Lieberman as a Democrat gives the impression of major dissension within the party, which is an impression greatly to be desired by the Republicans but one that is becoming less and less true by the day.
So, again, I think it deserves some response.
Lieberman was put into office by Connecticut Republicans with help from the national Republican Party apparatus. We here in Connecticut, had our say about Lieberman. He is no more a Democrat than Idi Amin. He is known here as the Senator from Tel Aviv and is blinded by his zeal to protect Israel. That is not necessarily good or bad. But it is dishonest as is the Senator.
......(or, obfuscation is more accurate, because to me, if you watch Russert even semi-regularly, you notice that he's no objective, truth-telling journalist.) because as the true opportunist that he is, being labelled a democrat is to his advantage in that there are still some people who can't see how his actions in the most recent election campaign were completely based on self-interest, and the Democratic Party and the Connecticut voters be damned. Why did the Republican Party leadership throw all their money and support to Lieberman instead of to the Republican candidate? Because Lieberman is more useful to them on many issues than their own guy would have been. It's not that with their support their guy wouldn't have won, but that the defeat of Lamont and the victory for Lieberman was more valuable to them than having another Repub in the senate.
"OK
I don't know what Lieberman's motives are - all politicians look out for themselves #1, he is probably no different. But just because he broke with the party and supports Bush and the war doesn't mean he is some evil turncoat. You may disagree, I may disagree - but he is entitled to his opinion. The voters knew it when they reelected him. They could have thrown him out.
* - tommy / Tuesday January 16, 2007 02:27:15 PM EST "
Except the fact is that he was elected by REPUBLICANS!!