CNN's Roberts cites Lieberman as a "Democrat" who does not "oppose the president"
On the January 21 edition of CNN's This Week at War, contrary to Sen. Joe Lieberman's (CT) own reported preference, CNN senior national correspondent John Roberts called Lieberman a "Democrat from Connecticut" in claiming that "not all Democrats oppose the president" on the question of a U.S. troop increase in Iraq.
As Media Matters for America documented, on January 12, Congressional Quarterly reported that "Lieberman has asked to be called an Independent Democrat" and added: "[I]f the compound modifier that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent" rather than being described as a "Democrat."
From the January 21 edition of CNN's This Week at War:
ROBERTS: Used to be you'd get calls if you said they were at odds with the president. Now if they agree with the president, you're getting calls. But remarkably, not all Democrats oppose the president. Here's what Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat from Connecticut had to say about the plan on Thursday.
LIEBERMAN [video clip]: I support the president's proposals because I believe we have so much on the line in Iraq. I think those who oppose the president's ideas have an obligation, responsibility to propose an alternative course that offers the hope of success.
ROBERTS: [CNN chief White House correspondent] Ed Henry, you know, we're hearing some of these prominent people like Lieberman, like [Sen. John] McCain [R-AZ], like [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani [R] supporting the president. Does that give him any comfort, or is the chorus of voices against him so big that he's really all alone?
"Democrat from Connecticut"? I thought he lost the Democratic primary there.
Not only did he lose the Democratic Primary, he started his own political party to run in the general election. So, unless he's changed party affiliation again, he is actually a member of the Lieberman for Senate Party. They're probably not signing up a lot of new members.
"So, unless he's changed party affiliation again, he is actually a member of the Lieberman for Senate Party."
-----
He never formally joined the party. It was recently taken over by a Lieberman critic. It's all very funny, really.
Their by-laws now state that the only people they will nominate are critics of Lieberman or people who are named Lieberman other than Holy Joe.
Thanks for the education. My reference to the party was faulty as well: it is Connecticut for Lieberman. Does CT actually allow someone to be nominated by a party of which he or she is not a member? Is a puzzlement.
But won the election
He won the general election, but he did not win as a Democrat. Therefore, to say he is affiliated with the Democratic Party, or that he is a Democrat, is a misnomer. He ran under his own party and under that party he was elected.
This is what Lieberman should do.
He should join the Republicans and put the Republicans back in Control of the Senate. Since MMFA doesnt want him even affiliated with the Democrats that would be the best solution. Then we can all go ahead and spend time bashing Lieberman for the next 2 years until the 08 election when I am sure the Democrats will win control easily.
In other words , what is the point of this? he is the reason right now Democrats hold the Senate. Do we hate Lieberman this much?
It's not Media Matters that doesn't want him affiliated with the Democrats, it's Lieberman himself.
Please read the post, and then comment. Thanks.
I did read the post and that is my response. He should be a Republican then we would all be happy. In My opinion as long as he sides with the Democrats he is a Democrat.
"...as long as he sides with the Democrats..."
He's not siding with the Democrats. That's the point of the post. He not only is an Independent, but he also sides with the President on this issue, which means he's not siding with the vast majority of the Democratic Leadership.
Then he should be a Republican and the Republicans can control the Senate. Is this correct? Is that what you want?
No, you are absolutely right. As long as Lieberman does not actually register Republican, then no one should ever mention the fact that he does not want to be identified as a Democrat.
That's a good point, thanks for bringing it up.
Now your just being a simpleton.
LOL! You post the most simplistic analysis imaginable and accuse me of being a simpleton?
Really, what is your point? The media is calling Lieberman a Democrat to play up dissension in the party. Lieberman says he doesn't want to be called a Democrat.
The whole point of whether Lieberman should or should not be in the party is a separate issue. It's only you that want to connect them.
Don't bother replying to Doris' post. She's pushing a false dichotomy, a favorite tactic of the right wing. The True Believers seem unable to grasp nuance, subtlety, and shades of gray.
In her mind, either Lieberman is a Democrat or a Republican, there's no alternative. The idea that Lieberman is an independent who sometimes votes with the Democrats, but often sides with the President when he finds it politically expedient to do so, is totally incomprehensible to her.
First how do you know I am a right winger? That is completely false. I despise the right wing and frankly cant even stand Lieberman. My point is if Progressive groups in general push him out of our circle he will give the Republicans the Senate for 2 years. And frankly who cares if he wants to be called an independent. What he wants should be of no relevance.
Obviously you just want to post and smear me because I have a slightly different take than you do. Its pathetic and Rovian like.
The point is, Lieberman is not a Democrat. It's not that he doesn't want to be known as a Democrat, it's that he isn't a Democrat. He lost the Democratic primary because most Democrats in CT felt he would not represent their interests, ran as an Independent, and won his seat as an Independent. He is no longer a Democrat, he does not speak for Democrats. It doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with him or not, or with whom he agrees. If you want to talk about Demcrats who agree with Bush, you need to talk about someone who is currently a Democrat, not someone who used to be.
Doris, anyone who reads the site regularly knows you post a lot of contrarian opinions, in a way that seems to be argumentative for argument's sake. It's a little tiresome for you to act all offended when people react to you being provocative.
Val, Could it possibly be that Doris does not automatically tow the left's line all the time and has a mind of her own? Just because she posts contrarian positions on many issues with both liberals and conservatives doesn't mean she is just here to argue. You discount her opinions that don't agree with you so easily?
Unfair.
just here to argue? perish the thought. why, one would think we've had neverending string of posers and "new" bloggers who disappear like fog on a sunny morning.....oh wait, we have?
No Tommy, I didn't dismiss her argument, I responded to it directly above. I'm making the point that if you are intentionally provocative -- as I said she "seems to be" in this and other comments -- it's silly to get all bent out of shape because people are, well, provoked.
Tommy, that is the impression I get on this site. When me or others are not 100% acting like the Stepford Wives we get attacked, mocked as right wingers.
Lieberman may not want to be called a Democrat but the man is a Democrat since he is the one standing between Harry Reid being Minority or Majority Leader. The fact that most progressives hate Lieberman is the basis for MMFA to even discuss this story.
So be it if that upsets anyone, its true.
I for one could care less what Lieberman wants.
You might get a warmer response if you didn't call people "Stepford Wives" and "simpletons," Doris.
clue number one: when a "liberal" poster appears and immediately forms an alliance with tommy.
Lieberman is NOT a democrat. PERIOD. I dont care what you WANT to call him he is not a democrat. This thread is not demonizing him the point is not about Lieberman at all. IF the media wants to point to a dem that agrees with Bush they need to point to a DEM. Lieberman does not qualify. He lost the right to call himself a Democrat when he lost the Democratic primary and ran as an indepenent. This doesnt make him a bad guy it just makes him NOT a Democrat. We dont expect you to be a stepford anything just not to be a moron. LIEBERMAN IS NOT A DEMOCRAT, what is it about that you dont understand? I suggest if you want to be treated more respectfully that you treat us more respectfully or continue to call us simpletons and stepford posters and I for one will respond accordingly.
NO IT ISNT. The point of this story isnt Lieberman in any way. Its the media making a false point by claiming Liberman is a democrat when he ISNT. I think another poster has it right this is a false dichotomy. You seem to think that MMFA should either allow the media to get away with making a false point, factually incorrect, or its somehow attacking Lieberman. It isnt, he is NOT attacked anywhere in the thread.
"Val, Could it possibly be that Doris does not automatically tow the left's line all the time and has a mind of her own?"
-----
That's certainly possible, and when any evidence of that actually appears I'll be glad to take it into consideration.
>>>"...if Progressive groups in general push him out of our circle..."
Progressives haven't "pushed him [Lieberman] out". Lieberman, by his OWN admission and of his OWN free will, abandoned the Democratic party. When he didn't get the result he wanted in the primary (i.e., he lost it to Lamont), HE quit the party so that he could still run as an independent.
And Media Matters doesn't "want" Lieberman to be anything. They want the MEDIA to accurately report that Lieberman is either an "independent Democrat" or an "independent". He is NOT a Democrat.
I agree 100%. Lieberman is an Independent Democrat. It shouldn't be difficult for the media to get this right.
I apologize for assuming you were a right-winger; the strident tone of your post, and your insistence that the issue was black-and-white, resembled what I've grown accustomed to see from the conservative trolls on this forum. I am curious, however, why you're so insistent that Lieberman is a Democrat? Calling him just a "Democrat" is misleading. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary for his Senate seat to Ned Lamont, then ran as an independent and beat Lamont. He is officially identified as an "Independent Democrat." He is not a member of the Democratic Party. By all reasonable measures, therefore, he isn't a Democrat.I just don't see why it's so important to call him a Democrat. Suppose everyone decided to agree to call him a Democrat, exactly what would be gained? You have yet to provide any compelling reason, besides the weak argument that the Democrats have to court his vote. If at some point the Democrats seek to pass a bill with a veto-proof majority, they'll have to court some moderate Republicans too. Does that make those Republicans Democrats?Finally, I have just one question: what did you call Jim Jeffords?
"I have just one question: what did you call Jim Jeffords?
-----
Most of the GOP called him a traitor.
He is from Conneticut. Doing what you say would be political suicide. He would never win another election. Lieberman is NOT a democrat, period. Its really that simple. MMFA is not attacking Lieberman nor saying he is a baaad man. They are pointing out that it is misinformation to say he is a democrat when HE IS NOT.
In other words , what is the point of this? he is the reason right now Democrats hold the Senate. Do we hate Lieberman this much?
The point of this is accuracey in reporting. John Roberts' report is attempting to conclude that the President has support for his Iraq policies from a variety of Democrats and Republicans alike; and, to imply that there is dissention among the Democrats. The premise of this conclusion is false. The Democratic Party is comprised not only of its elected officials, but of its registered members, as well. In the primary, Lieberman was rejected by the Democratic Party, largely due to his support of the President on the war in Iraq. He decided to run as an independent in the general election, and ultimatey won, but not as a Democrat. As an aside, if the Republicans had proffered a credible candidate, Ned Lamont would be a Senator from Connecticut today.
Thus, Roberts' report said Lieberman was a Democrat who supports the President on the war in Iraq. This is false. Lieberman is a former Democrat, who is "former" because of his support for the President on the war in Iraq. This correction of fact leads to the opposite conclusion and implication from that intended by Roberts in his report.
This MMFA article is not motivated by hatred for Lieberman, or what MMFA wants for Lieberman. MMFA is merely doing its job.
The purpose of the site is to point out inaccuracy. Media Matters is not expressing an opinion about Lieberman, only pointing out the inaccuracy of calling him a Democrat.
Does No Reporting to Make a PointTo make his assertion (hey people, there are Dems that love our Prez's policies) he does no fact checking, besides the facts in his head. Sigh.
shouldn't this be ...
CNN's Roberts cites Lieberman as THE "Democrat" who does not "oppose the president":)
Back when Lieberman was a FULL FLEDGED Democrat he sided with Bush on the war.
The only thing that's changed is he was forced to run as an Independent. I've seen Lieberman interviewed several times and introduced as ONLY a Democrat each time and have NEVER heard him correct anyone.
I think when all is said & done Lieberman might turn out to be Bush's last ally :-O
The day anyone is "forced to run" for the Senate is the day I'm moving to Venezuela.
Good Grief!
Did I really need to write:
The only thing that's changed is he was forced to run as an Independent in order to retain his Senate seat?
Did you actually NOT understand what I meant? Or are you just playing dumb?
I expected more from you Val....
I was highlighting the fact "forced to run" is a really strange locution, Jeter, not "playing dumb." What happened was, he lost. Nobody forced him to do anything... also, it's not "his" Senate seat.
Oh please...
Of course it was HIS Senate seat.
The Senate seat was Lieberman's as he was the incumbent. If the incumbent doesn't run for re-election then the Senate seat would be described as OPEN.
Since Liebermann wanted to RETAIN HIS Senate seat but was defeated in the Democratic Primary, he was FORCED to run under another banner...in this case INDEPENDENT.
Geez Val I know you're not retarded, so I guess you're parsing to death and deliberately being contrary for fun?
NO it isnt. The Senate seat ISNT Liebermans by some wierd RIGHT. It belongs to the people of Conneticut. He is given it by their consent in their trust six years at a time. IT is in no meaningful sense HIS. Running for reelection is REQUIRED if he wants that trust AGAIN. The PEOPLE are soveriegn in this country not the politicians.
lieberman: "i think those who oppose the president's ideas have an obligation, responsibility to propose an alternative course that offers the hope of success." uh, no joe, we do not. because we do not believe now, nor did we ever, that what you and the decider in chief define as "success" is achievable. you may continue to flog a dead horse even after we tell you to stop. you are not therefore entitled to say, you critics get him to move. set a deadline, three four months, leave. if that doesn't suit you, if that is not a plan, there's nothing more to tell you.