CNN identifies Lieberman on-screen with a "D" as he bashes anti-escalation resolution
On the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, onscreen graphics identified Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman as "Sen. Joe Lieberman: (D) Connecticut," even though Lieberman himself has reportedly said he prefers to be identified as an "Independent" rather than as a "Democrat." Blitzer and Lieberman were discussing Lieberman's support for President Bush's position on the war in Iraq and his proposal to raise taxes to fund the fight against terrorism. Lieberman stated that he "thought it was so important that we stop that nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution" because it was "inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless."
As Media Matters for America documented, on January 12, Congressional Quarterly reported that "Lieberman has asked to be called an Independent Democrat," and added that, "if 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."
Blitzer had teased his interview with Lieberman earlier in the program by referring to him as the "very independently minded Senator Joe Lieberman." After the interview, Blitzer noted that "Joe Lieberman ran as an independent this past election."
On the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Blitzer touted Lieberman's "independen[ce]" in supporting Bush without regard to the will of the Congress, saying: "Joe Lieberman, expressing his independent position, now that he is an independent member of the Senate."
From the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: But maybe the most interesting thing today was from Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who simply said that the president shouldn't listen to members of Congress, that he is the commander-in-chief and he should make his decision -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Joe Lieberman, expressing his independent position, now that he is an independent member of the Senate.
From the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: He's supporting the president when it comes to the war in Iraq, and he's also calling for a new tax to keep America safe from terror. The very independently minded Senator Joe Lieberman, he's standing by to join us live.
[...]
BLITZER: He's an outspoken backer of the war in Iraq, which may anchor -- anger, certainly has some -- at least some of his Democratic colleagues in the United States Senate. Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
He's also proposing a special tax now to fund the global war on terror. We're going to get to that, Senator, in a moment, but I'll ask you a question a lot of your constituents and others are asking, presumably. How much longer do you give the president to get it right in Iraq? How much more time realistically do you -- you think he has before even supporters like you start to back you away?
LIEBERMAN: Well, look, the important thing to say here, Wolf, is that how we end Iraq is going to be very important to our security and our progress in the war against the Islamist terrorist who attacked us on 9-11, so I'm supporting this latest plan, the new plan with a new general, a new secretary of defense, 'cause I really do think it has some -- some significant hope of working.
And you know I'm not planning for -- for failure. General Petraeus told us when he was before the Armed Services Committee that he thought, by this summer, we'd have the beginning of a -- of a idea about how -- whether this was working or not. I just -- I'm going to do everything I can to support it and I hope it does work and that we won't have to think about what's next.
BLITZER: So you're -- you're willing to give it at least another six months, maybe a year, or maybe even longer? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, no -- I think here's the important point. I want to see progress. I don't think any of us should hold out the hope that we're going to see an -- an end of all violence in Iraq any time soon, but I want to see progress, which means that our forces and the Iraqi forces will make Baghdad more secure so that people can go back to their normal lives and that the government can stand up and take responsibility. That's the key.
In the end, we all know that it's not we Americans who are going to make Iraq a successful state, defending itself, it's the Iraqis. And we're trying to give them some opportunity to do that.
BLITZER: Here's what your Democratic colleague in Connecticut, Chris Dodd, said the other day -- basically saying the White House doesn't care what Congress does. They're going to go it their own way no matter what. Listen to Chris Dodd.
DODD [video clip]: So, despite this resolution that may be -- may pass, the White House has no intention of paying any attention to what we're suggesting here.
BLITZER: Is he right?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I think in the sense that the president has made his decision as commander-in-chief, which the Constitution authorizes him to do, to do what he thinks is best for the security of our country. That's why I thought it was so important that we stop that nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution because it was just an expression of opinion. It -- nobody took responsibility for what was in it. And my fear was that it wouldn't have accomplished anything, but it would have discouraged our troops as they go into battle at the order of their commander, and it would have encouraged our enemy.
To tell you the truth, Chris Dodd has had the nerve to say that he would not just have a meaningless resolution that might discourage our troops. He's prepared to get in there and talk about requiring authorization from Congress for more troops, limiting funding, whatever. That's what ought to happen.
We ought to have a debate here about Iraq, but it ought not to be on the kind of inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless resolution that was coming up earlier this week.
[...]
BLITZER: Coming up, Joe Lieberman ran as an independent this past election. In next year's presidential race, will another independent take on the big two political parties as a third-party candidate?
People in the media need to start calling this weasel out (no offense towards actual weasels intended). He promised he would caucus with the Democrats if elected on his independent Connecticut for Lieberman ticket. Obviously he is more loyal to the republicans who paid to have him elected than those who voted for him in the belief that he would stick to Democratic principles.
I really wish Lieberman would become a Republican and the Republicans can take over the Senate for 2 years. That is obviously what the Lieberman haters want. What a great thing for America if Lieberman becomes a Republican, then the MMFA posters can complain for 2 years about that.
Lets get serious, the man is a Democrat , I dont care if he calls himself an independent. Otherwise I think we can all agree Al gore made a serious error in making him our VP in 2000. And we are all fools for supporting Al Gore and Lieberman in 2000.
NO Lieberman is NOT a Democrat. It has nothing to do with hating him. He will not do as you say as it would be political suicide in Conneticutt. Lieberman LOST the right to call himself a Democrat no matter WHO he caucuses with when he lost the Democratic Primary in his state. He is an independent. One who might think his political philosophy is better suited by caucusing with Dems but still an independent far enough from the Democratic mainstream that he LOST his Democratic primary therefore when the media (remember that stories on this site are about what the MEDIA is doing not about in this instance Lieberman) portrays HIM as if he were representative of Democrats position on say Iraq they are being disengenuous. As for Gore I think he DID make a mistake making Lieberman his running mate, I left the Democratic party when he did so and didnt vote for that ticket. This has nothing to do with me hating the man, that false dichotomy is better left to the simplistic Manichean thinking of the rightwing. It has to do with him being so conservative a democrat that I felt the dems werent even trying to represent liberals like me. I got tired of their trying to appear like lite Republicans. As for how I feel about Lieberman. I respect the man, his pious scolding gets on my nerves but I think he is basically honest has integrity I just dont agree with him politically
Sorry Doris...
Lieberman is not a Democrat... technically or philosophically... He's an Independent remember? An Independent who vowed solidarity with Dems before getting re-elected. Truthfully, he's been a turncoat-thorn in the side of Dems since he's been in office. I hope the voters of Connecticut are proud. They effectively elected the Republican... and, likely the next Republican VP candidate.
Fine, then he should join the Republicans and turn the Senate over to them. In the end that is what you want.
That is what I want?
Hardly.
Doris..
How can you keep getting things so wrong. You do it over and over again. Are you serious!
Do you really want the Republicants to take back the Senate?
Sam
Sam, thats outrageous.
Greekfurnace, I invite you to check out the link I posted later in the thread and you will see that Lieberman is indeed aligned with the Democrats philosophically the vast majority of the time.
Yes. I've seen the tally before. However, I do feel he has a tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Not to mention, his stance on the Iraq war (for whatever reason) keeps him close to the hearts of the Republicans. This issue is the most important issue of our day and he's helping the neocons continue the madness. That cannot be overlooked.
...and (in my mind)... trumps every other issue right now. That includes the environment, abortion, etc...
Uh...Lieberman is the reason I didn't vote for Gore in 2000. I refuse to vote for any conservative who has such an interest on restricting free speech and expression as Lieberman has. I could have stomached Gore with his parental-advisory-crazy wife, but never Lieberman.
Lieberman was a DINO, and now can't even claim THAT title legitimately.
The main problem with the "D" next to Lieberman's name is not that he's "more loyal" to Republicans, although that is true as well, but that it's factually incorrect. He ran as an independent this past election.
This reminds me of when Fox labelled Foley as a Democrat.
[link to www.youtube.com]
Good point. That was worse than the Lieberman error, though.
Bashes? Lieberman offered his opinion when asked. He did not bash. Purely inappropriate and sensationalistic term.
That would never happen here :-0 Media Matters is far too serious with a serious mission and serious posters and serious contributers to get into sensationalizing anything. Carry on.
Well, Blitzer did take his cue from Bash, as evidenced in the transcript, so...
Cue from Bash?
Dana Bash, again, as evidenced in the transcript:
From the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
Bash's comments to Lieberman were a month ago, how is that anywhere near relevant to this exchange between he and Blitzer yesterday? It isn't. And even if it was, there is no reason to characterize Lieberman's comments as "bashing". It was his opinion, stated respectfully.
Sorry, I meant Bash's comments to Blitzer.......
Apparently my attempt at humor (juxtaposing Bash's name with the claim that Lieberman was "bashing") fell extremely flat. I shall double my efforts for next time.
I got the connection, ok, it was funny.......kind of :)
I agree Tommy, the word "bash" in no way describes what Liebermann was doing here. Occasionally MMFA editorializes their titles of a particular thread, to fit their own agenda.
As far as Lieberman goes he should declare himself as an Independent once & for all and stop pretending he's a Democrat as well.
The word bash IS an accurate description of what Lieberman did. He attacked it, he bashed it.
"Bashed" is a subjective opinion of what happened. MMFA is entitled to their opinion of what they believe Lieberman was doing.
This sited doesn't claim they don't have opinions in their articles.
If the conservative misinformation isn't strong enough to stand on it's own by presenting unbaised facts, why is it here?
The conservative misinformation is that Lieberman is NOT a democrat as he was identified. Since it cannot be denied that he is NOT a Democrat, since it cannot be denied he WAS identified as a Democrat I would say that was plenty strong enough to stand on its own.
Solon, You know that was not my beef with this thread. It is the word bash, shifting the argument is beneath you.
Here is what you said
If the conservative misinformation isn't strong enough to stand on it's own by presenting unbaised facts, why is it here?
I answered that THAT was why it was here, that was the misinformation and as I pointed out with the dictionary definition of the word bash THAT isnt misinformation either. YOU can TRY to redefine terms to suit your argument but you cant expect us to let you get away with it. Words have meanings and those meanings do not depend on what would best serve your argument. You are not the Red Queen. Words do not mean precisely what you say they mean
Who is the Red Queen? And how do you know I'm not?
See the Alice in Wonderland sequel through the looking glass she had your take on word definitions
Oh, got it.......so she was a stickler for accuracy and fair reporting too. Well, glad to hear it. Good for Alice. She belongs in Wonderland.
No she like YOU has the delusional opinion that words mean whatever they NEED to mean for her purposes, regardless of what they really MEAN.
Do you mean like when some people call conservatives "right wingnuts"? Those people are just using this for their own purposes regardless of what conservative really means?
I suppose there are some people that call all conservatives "right wingnuts." In that case, I suppose the analogy is fitting, especially if it helps you understand Solon's point.
However, if you're using this as a counter-argument to Solon's point, then it's fallacious. If you're attempting diversion, then give it up.
You might have a point if I used the term rightwingnut to mean all conservatives. Actually I use the term to specify a specific type of conservative to avoid generlizing. Which should be clear by the amount of times I have defended conservatives and decried the lack of the principled conservatives in the mainsteam media. The times I have agreed with you and Jeter that conservatives shouldnt be saddled with the baggage of Savage, Coulter et al. Then again you arent trying to make a REAL point are you just a silly diversionary argument.
I believe that was Humpty-Dumpty.
It's here just to drive you bats#it.
To some extent I agree. You make a good point. MMFA often uses more neutral words like "criticized". Using subjective words is a little sensationalist like what the conservative sites (aim.org, mrc.org and newsbusters.org) do. I find it weak when I read their sites, so I can understand your impression of the use of it here.
Using such words also makes it easier to deflect from the main disinformation, which is that Lieberman is being incorrectly labeled as a (D), when he is an (I).
Thank you open, That was my main point. I don't disagree with the thrust of the thread in principle, but using words like bash unneccesarily is promoting an agenda which isn't needed, on this topic. It's not a huge deal, but in the interest of fairness and accuracy and unbiased reporting, which is what this site is aiming for in the media, it should be pointed out.
That was my main point.
Perhaps you miss the important difference between what you've been arguing and Open's comments. The difference is in the reasoning you each offer for asserting that "bashes" is a poor choice of words. It's an important difference in that your reasoning created a point of contention that diverted from main point of the topic.
If you agree with Open's argument, why didn't approach the issue from that angle from that start? As I've noted in the past, you're often your own worst enemy, Tommy, creating arguments with people where there needn't be any. Of course, if your objective was to create a diversion, then perhaps creating an unnecesssary argument was exactly what you intended.
Look, You may be perfectly comfortable with the sloppy, inflammatory and inaccurate headline that specifically says "bash", but I stated why I wasn't. My bringing it up may be a diversion to you, but it was in the headline and did not accurately reflect Lieberman's difference of opinion on this resolution. I was very specific, I did not slam the entire thread topic nor take issue with the "D" on the graphic.
I am sorry if your expectations are less for this website, where accuracy and fairness in the media and it's scrutinization are concerned, than other media outlets which are chastized here on a daily basis. Seems a little inconsistent on your part, but it's your business.
Except that it IS an accurate description despite your delusions about words meaning whatever you WANT them to mean. The word bash need not mean inaccuartly or without purpose attacking something that is just what you WISH it meant in order for you to have a point WHICH YOU DONT. MMFA is right and YOU are wrong its just that simple
You may be perfectly comfortable with...the headline
Apparently you didn't read my response to Open. Your assertion is unfounded and inaccurate.
My bringing it up may be a diversion to you...
It is a diversion...period. Whether you or doing this intentionally or not is the only matter of conjecture.
the headline...did not accurately reflect Lieberman's difference of opinion on this resolution
Now you're moving into an area of opinion and your definition of "bash" for which you offered no authority. Personally, I don't see anything inaccurate in MMFA's characterization, even if I disagree with their word choice for other reasons.
I am sorry if your expectations are less for this website, where accuracy and fairness in the media and it's scrutinization are concerned, than other media outlets which are chastized here on a daily basis. Seems a little inconsistent on your part, but it's your business.
More baseless projection and generalization. Also, do you write but it's your business with an understanding of the meaning and effect on debate, or is it just ill-considered parotting?
Now with that I do agree. Subjective lanuguage, even if justifiable, is not a hallmark of good, objective journalism. The debate over the use of "bashes" in the title clearly diverted attention from the main point of this topic.
Well I see this has been debated to death since I left ;-)
For me personally "bash" or bashing" normally would be a hostile or harsh or belittling criticism, using words like "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" or "absurd". I don't believe Lieberman did that.
To me bashing is what Rush does every time he talks about Liberals....
My opinion.
Whatever it means to YOU or Tommy, the dictionary says what the word MEANS. It is appropriate in this context
Bash/Bashing
From the internet:
verbal abuse, as of a group or a nation: feminist-bashing; China-bashing.
v. intr. Informal To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.
to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.
From The World Book Dictionary:
to set upon vigorously with hostile words, arguments, or abuse
=====
Solon, guess it depends which Dictionary one uses.
Not really, words have many meanings, if any ONE of them applies it is an appropriate word. Clearly bash CAN mean harsh rhetorically or unfounded attack but it NEEDNT mean that, therefore the word was appropriate. If I said tommy was EXPANDING the argument would THAT be inappropriate because the word expand can also mean to make fat?
I am not fat!
Well, to say that it's meaningless is pretty harsh, and to say that it could encourage the enemy/discourage the troops is both harsh and accusatory. It pretty clearly suggests recklessness at best and treason at worst.
"Criticize" is more neutral, but there's a definite case to be made for "bash" also.
Hey brabantio,
I think Lieberman criticized would have been a better description than Lieberman bashes, only because *bash* *bashes* or *bashing* normally better describes what a Rush Limbaugh[for example] does when criticizing Democrat/Liberals. To say someone is *Bashing* someone or something I believe [and I think the dictionary definition confirms] requires hostility & harshness. I don't believe the level of Lieberman's criticism reached that.
It seems like "Limbaugh-esque" is a pretty narrow definition. Saying that the resolution could encourage the enemy/discourage the troops is pretty harsh. Don't you think? Would you classify that as "mild" criticism?
I think they should probably stick to neutral phrasing also, but the use of the word is completely defendable.
I think you are demonstrating the point. Although it is quite obvious to some that Lieberman is "bashing", it may not be so obvious to others. Therefore it is subjective and needlessly brings in arguments that deflect from the main topic.
Use of more neutral language works better by not getting into areas of subjectivity. Saying Lieberman "criticized" is undeniably true. There is no debate about that. All of this chit-chat would be moot if "criticized" was used instead. MMFA is usually better about word choice than that. If you are going to compose an argument, it is just plain silly to use words that are potentially needlessly argumentative when other words will do the job and not allow the argument to be so easily deflected.
All of this chit-chat would be moot if "criticized" was used instead.
If you are going to compose an argument, it is just plain silly to use words that are potentially needlessly argumentative when other words will do the job and not allow the argument to be so easily deflected.
VERY well said as always open_mind.
MMFA normally does just that. On occasion I feel like they editorialize their headlines. But in retrospect I probably should have let this one pass without argument.
Fair enough brabantio. I can live with that.
By the way the dictionary I used was Merriam-Webster which is pretty much a standard. Its not like I went dictionary shopping to find a fringe definition. I am not saying you did just making the point that my argument was a VALID ONE
Hey Solon,
I snuck out of work early so I'm home and using my computer & the Dictionary that came with our World Book Encyclopedia. I have the Merriam-Webster at my office.
I don't believe either of us would go Dictionary shopping just to win a point.
Again, I think of "bashing" as an appropriate definition of what the Limbaugh's O'Reilly's & Hannity's do. Lieberman criticized, but did so without ridicule or hostility. One can criticize without bashing.
Anyway, I'm afraid we pulled this thread a tad off topic.
I can't stand Liebermann, I believe his arguments here are bogus.
I maintain that ridicule is not inherent in the word bash. I dont see it in the definition I never understood it that way. Hostility is a matter of degrees its obvious he disagrees with the resolution and is saying so therefore some measure of hostility is implied. The point is, was the term bash WRONG, was it inaccurate, I see nothing in its definition nor in the way I have always understood the term to think MMFA was being sensational or inflamatory using the term, true enough far too much bandwidth was taken up in this purely semantic argument
Jeter,
For the record, I would choose the dictionary referenced by the most nonpartisan and fairest poster on this board and accept his word, as the decider. All fingers point towards you on this.
Thanks for settling this semantics discussion.
I want a judges ruling on that. They say it is settled in MY favor unless YOU can provide a rationale to show Merriam-Webster is somehow a biased or inadequate source. That is a rationale other than it disqualifies the because tommy said so definition of words.
No, not Tommy. Jeter. Do you not agree that he is the fairest poster on this board?
I would say he is as fair as anyone on the board which doesnt automatically mean he is right. Merriam-Webster is a better authority on what words mean to me than Jeter no matter how fair he is. Is Jeter a better authority on the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster? You cannot win this argument by aligning with Jeter you need to refute Merriam-Webster as an authoritative definer of words. Good luck with that.
Any reasonable person can see that bash is decidedly used inappropriately in this instance. It's intent is to misrepresent Mr. Lieberman's criticism of this resolution to minimize it's worthiness. Tommy is correct, you are mistaken in this case. Show some intellectual honesty and admit the only reason you approve of bash is that is the exact way you would characterize anyone who disagrees with this resolution. Any other explanation is disingenuous,
Thanks, C.
No Celia. Any REASONABLE poster would accept that Merriam-Webster is a more authoritative judge on how a word is used than YOU just DECIDING on your own what is and isnt reasonable. Can you argue they are NOT an authoritative judge on the definition of words and by THEIR definition it WAS used accurately and the intellectual dishonesty is YOURS
Thanks Celia, well said. But I think you just got bashed.
Cecilia, I couldn't agree more. This world would be a much better place if we could just all agree to assign any dinosaur that we apple it to swim, as long as it is sugarpuffs to our personal daddy longlegs, don't you sneeze?
LOL. Now that was creative.
Thanks Tommy
However I have a feeling that your faith in me will not be unanimous ;-)
the most nonpartisan and fairest poster on this board
That's your idea of an authority on the English language? Fascinating.
He is indeed pretending. He's continuing to hold on the the Democrat mantle is for political survival. I understand that CT is very blue. Had he changed his party affiliation to match his change in political philosophy he would have surely lost his recent bid for senate. So the promise to caucus with the dems was to get those needed votes.
In my dictionary, to bash is to "criticize severely". There is absolutely no question that bashing is EXACTLY what Lieberman did.
According to Webster's definition bash means to attack or abuse, as with blows or with words. Clearly Lieberman was bashing. Now to the original point of the story. Lieberman should actually change his party affiliation to Lieberman (I/R) at least he would be honest then. Poor holy Joe keeps kissing Bush butt and alienating any Democrat who actually voted for him. He does not represent my party in any way, shape or form.
Really? So then calling the resolution... "inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless." ISNT bashing it? I guess its a subjective judgement, looks like bashing to me but it certainly isnt sensationalistic to portray those terms as bashing
Solon,
It is subjective, but bashing is slamming something and giving no credible reasons why - it is a disrespectful term used to portray a difference as unjustified. You and MMFA may disagree with Lieberman's position, but to call it "bashing" is nothing but inflammatory.
Really? It has to be to be unjustified or have no credible reason to be bashing? Here is the applicable dictionary definition of the word;
to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>
Did you see the word unjustified or anything about no credible reason in there becaue I didnt. If you have to invent new definitions of a word to make your point, I say its because you HAVE NO POINT. He bashed it. Nothing sensational or inflamatory in saying so
Call what you want, it is not bashing. It is a difference of opinion and you don't like it. So instead of focusing on the merits and the points addressed by the disagreement, you and this website label it "bashing". By doing so it is an attempt to dismiss it as a "bash" and not substantive, it's all pretty transparent.......expect to those that regularly engage in "bashing" their opponents, I suppose.
Tommy...what in the BLUE BLAZES are you talking about...?? Seriously....you are making no sense...
Not hard. Read it again, if you can't figure it out then I can't help you.
I agree- you CAN'T help me...you first said 'bash' was too strong a word, then Solon pointed out that 'bash' IS an appropiate word, then you say it ISN'T bashing, just a matter of opinion...oooooo-kaaaaay...
What? I said it was an inappropriate term because it was not bashing at all. There is no inconsistency. Whew.
Yeah tommy that IS what you said the problem is you dont get to arbitrarily redefine words so that you will be retroactively right about whether or not something was done. I mean you can try but really you cant blame us for point out its ludicrous
Here is a difference what I called it and what MMFA called it agree with the dictionary definition of the word. YOU had to pull a whole new definition from your nether regions in order to claim it WASNT bashing. NOW you change your argument to well whether or not it was bashing (remember you DID claim it wasnt) it doesnt address Liebermans complaints. As if his complaints were substantive themselves. Vague inconsistent an ultimatly meaningless. It is a SYMBOLIC measure, whether or not that is meaningless is open to interpertationa as for the rest since HE didnt give any specific instances of inconsistancy nor vagueness (why shouldnt it be vague its a symbolic resolution telling Bush they dont want a war escalation exactly how specific does it need to be) What am I supposed to adress? Am I supposed to say IT IS NOT? When HE gets specific so can I. Lieberman did bash the resolution he was portrayed as a DEM bashing the resolution he is an INDEPENDENT bashing the resolution that is a distortion at best and an outright misrepresentation at worst.
My definition of bashing did not change. Lieberman bashed nothing, you agree with the term, fine. We disagree.
And the difference IS...drumroll...I agree with the dictionary definition of the word and disagree with your made to order definition. YOU disagree with the definition of the word and just continue to use the definition you MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH, because it is the only possible way to continue to be spectacularly WRONG. Lieberman bashed the resolution. PERIOD. Only by making up a whole new definition of the word the because I said so definition can you possibly continue to make this claim. I suggest you put out Tommys dictionary of word definitions of necessity to propaganda so we can all be on the same page and understand what YOU mean, it wont have much connection to reality but at least we will understand each other.
One more time so even you can understand. Even using your definition, which is "attack", Lieberman attacked nor bashed anything. He offered his opinion when asked, as I said. You mischaracterize a difference of opinion as an attack, or a bash. What dictionary did you pull that from?
Tommy, I think your writing is generally repetitive, vague and irrelevant. However, I'm not bashing your writing. I'm only offering my opinion.
And you're entitled to your opinion.
Tommy, you missed it. While giving his opinion he bashed you. Lieberman trivialized the resolution and thosse who support it. I think it's legitimate to say he did indeed "bash" by stating his opinion.
I suspect Tommy got it, but that he was just being disingenuous with his response.
Since when cant an opinion be an attack. If my stated opinion was you were an idiot or a traitor that WOULDNT be an attack. Please attempt to maintain a minimum level of coherence in your arguments. I dont have to redefine opinion for an opinion to be used as an attack as Lieberman showed. Calling a resolution vague, inconsistant and ultimatly meaningless is an attack couched as an opinion. You are wandering farther and farther from the reality bus here.
You just answered your own question. Calling someone an idiot is an opnion, and also an attack. Show me where I said that an opinion is NEVER an attack. Disagreeing on policy without childish name calling is a difference of opinion, not an attack, not a bash.
Then your argument that I mischaracterized his opinion as an attack is meaningless since they can obviously be both. I cant see how anyone can with a straight face say that calling a resolution ultimately meaningless was NOT AN ATTACK. Was it speaking FOR the amendement? Was it nuetral? Was it speaking against the amendment with unfriendly words? As the dictionary definiton of attack says? I find it hard to believe ultimately meaningless can be considered by anyone anything other than unfriendly words.
I am not the one that seems incapable of understanding the definition of the word bash so perhaps YOU should read the definition one more time so that even YOU can understand it, failing that find a six year old to explain it to you
Solon, you don't get it...Tommy is the definer.
Finally!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!!!
"D" is correct...
... if it stands for Dipschit.
Muslim-hating backstabbers like Lieberman don't belong in the Senate.
At least in this country.
I thought CNN was giving him a grade... I would have gone so far as "D+"
Honestly, my conspiratorial mind goes wild when I see these things. Personally, I feel that CNN has an agenda. Everyone knows that Lieberman is an "independent". To portray him as a Democrat who opposes a Democratic measure is blatantly dishonest and misleading to anyone who might be watching CNN and not really paying attention... or, perhaps, not be aware of the fact that Lieberman was not chosen by the Democrats to represent their party.
Does he hate all Muslims, or just the radical ones?
Or, radical or not, they are all human to you?
So you're suggesting that some Muslims aren't human? Hate to break it to you, but no matter how radical/hateful/violent/etc. someone is they're are still, by definition, human. To claim otherwise is to buy into the strategy of dehumanizing one's enemies in order to make oneself feel better about killing them.
I did not mean it like that. I meant, "Everything has a right to live, the trees, butterflies, humans."....
Sorry you miss-understood me.
For the record. I have never, and will never, sum up all Muslims as Moderate/Radical. I clearly know the difference. Maybe you don't due to a illness.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Talk about picking fly poop out of the pepper! If this is "media disinformation" there's no hope for MMFA.
It manifestly is media disinformation. They incorrectly identified a political figure as being representative of a political party with which he is not a member of anymore.
Lieberman isn't a Democrat. CNN called him a Democrat. Please tell us how that is not misinformation.
Dave,
If you look at the ratings given Lieberman by various interest groups, it's clear that, IN GENERAL, he is far closer to being a Democrat then a Republican. I really think the posters on here are spreading a bunch of BS when BASHING Lieberman like you do when he supports your positions the vast majority of the time.
I agree that technically, he is an independent Democrat so when he treferred to as a Democrat that is technically incorrect. But really, his voting record is established on plenty of liberal issues.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103
The topic is the clear-cut misinformation in CNN branding him a Democrat. He is not a Democrat---by his own admission. He voted with Republicans the other day. You can argue til doomsday about how party members vote. There are Rs who sometimes vote as though they were Ds, and vice-versa. But at the end of the day, they are still Ds, Rs, Is and IDs.
No, I agree he is closer to Democratic than GOP values a majority of the time but he is far enough out of mainstream Democratic thinking enough of the time to LOSE his Democratic primary. Therefore, especially when choosing one of those areas he is pretty far from mainstream Democratic thought, to try to make a point about what DEMS are saying by inaccuratly portraying his as a Dem is distortion at best
"If you look at the ratings given Lieberman by various interest groups, it's clear that, IN GENERAL, he is far closer to being a Democrat then a Republican."
-----
Except that the definition of capital-D Democrat is "a member of the Democratic Party of the United States." Lieberman left the party when the party voted against him in the Connecticut primary.
That means that no matter how much a goose tries to waddle like a duck, quack like a duck and look like a duck, as long as the definition of "duck" is "member of the genus Anas," it ain't a duck.
Lieberman is not in the Party. Therefore, he isn't a Democrat. Plain and simple.
I agree with you on that. He's not a Democrat because he's really an Independent Democrat. That has been established. Joe Lieberman is the greatest politician in American history. The Democrats can't stand him, the Republicans don't have him, and yet he CRUSHED in the last election over both of THOSE parties candidates. Who is voting for this guy?
Some conservative Dems, some Dems who are loyal to him and most Republicans that know they have a better chance of marrying Jessica Simpson than electeing a Republican Senator in Conneticutt
Someone at CNN hit the wrong key or just plain screwed up. There really IS a conspiracy around every corner for you folks isn't there? For God's sake just lighten up!
And that makes it accurate information?
"Someone at CNN hit the wrong key or just plain screwed up."
Ignoring that you have zero evidence for claiming that "someone hit the wrong key"— correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any allegations of evil, deliberately malicious intent on the part of CNN in this Media Matters item. MM is simply presenting facts & photo documentation proving that CNN was misinformating its audience.
"Misinformating"? You hit a few wrong keys, Dave. Shame on you!
The reason you still haven't shown evidence for claiming "someone at CNN hit the wrong key or just plain screwed up" ---12 hours later--- is that you don't have any.
...hit the wrong key...?? The 'I' is sooooooooo close to the 'D' on the keyboard, it is no wonder MORE people don't screw that up...
Funny how they seem to hit that key mistakenly so often when Lieberman is supporting the war. Good job reading their minds and KNOWING it wasnt intentional. I mean they are only professionals and all its SOOO too much to ask of them to KNOW Lieberman is an Independent and not a Democrat.
Maybe someone at CNN forgot to update the database? Who the hell knows and who the hell cares, except the conspiracy nuts here?
Maybe Martians brainwashed them into be total incompetents. MAYBE your argument is garbage. Maybe it isnt too much to ask they do their jobs its not like they havent been corrected on this before. MAYBE it isnt too much to ask for them to correct this TWO YEARS AFTER THE ELECTION. MAYBE its not that I am a conspiricist but that you are a brainwashed Bushbot.
I can't stand George Bush you moron. If showing "D" instead of "I" has your panties in such a twist, you really are a pathetic person.
Well your opinion of me isnt keeping me up at nights trust me. MAYBE you are just an ignorant moron whatever your uncharacteristic insight about Bush may be. Keep showing your ignorance, slapping down your weak arguments like batting practice may be easy to the point of boredom but it does keep me in rhetorical practice
Batting practice? How about practicing your punctuation?
That I could use no question. When my punctuation gets half as bad as your weak attempts at logic, I'll go back to second grade and take a class
Really Solon, two years ago he actually WAS a "D". He just changed after Lamont beat him senseless last year. (In the meaningless election. Lieberman crushed him in the real one).
And two years ago he WAS a D then he lost the RIGHT to call himself a D in what you call a meaingless election. He is now an Independent that cannot be reasonably argued against. He is NOT a dem therefore holding him UP as one in order to talk about Dem positions is disengenuous.
Right. We agree. I was just responding to this statement you made before: MAYBE it isnt too much to ask for them to correct this TWO YEARS AFTER THE ELECTION.
As I said the election was only last November.
You are right, I cant believe I made that mistake, good catch, thanks
"Maybe someone at CNN forgot to update the database?"
Since what, August? If they forget to change one letter over a six-month period, that's a pretty sad excuse.
The benefits of doubt and looking-the-other-ways the right-winger extends to the allegedly "liberal media" when it suits them... At other times, they get into extremely detailed analysis of IBM typewriter characteristics, or extensive scrutiny of a blogger's every last utterance. They'll heap scorn on Clinton's "depends what the definition of 'is' is", and in the next breath argue for a new meaning of the word "bash". Situational standards.
MMFA does a good job. There is no hope apparantly for brainwashed wingnuts who LIKE when an independent far enough from the mainstream of democratic thought is portrayed as a Dem to make a partisan point about how Dems think. It is not MMFA's fault if some people are too dim to get the point.
Another explanation...
Maybe the "D" next to Sen. Lieberman's name stands for something else... like DERELICTION ...or perhaps DEVIOUS. As someone who was directly and catastrophically impacted by Hurricane Katrina I looked forward to Sen. Lieberman's promised investigation into why the White House virtually sabotaged an earlier investigation into the actions of Homeland Security, FEMA and the White House with respect to their response to the disaster. From what I recall, the White House blocked the release of documents and instructed witnesses not to respond to questions. The Republican controlled committee investigating the matter let it slide. Sen. Lieberman promised that when he assumed the chairmanship of the committee he would vigorously pursue the matter with the White House. Now, Sen. Liberman has had a change of heart and has indicated that he has abandoned plans for any such further inquiry. One might say that Sen. Liberman's decision amounts to dereliction of his duties... and if one was more cynical one might also argue that Sen. Lieberman was devious in accepting some form of quid pro quo from the White House in exchange for not pursuing the matter.
This type of nonsense has happened before on Blitzer's show. A couple of months ago there was a video of Bin Laden and on the screen it said "Where's Obama?" Then there was a video of Pelosi during her transition to becoming Speaker and it said "Damaged Goods" on the screen below her, this was right after the race for Majority Leader between Hoyer and Murtha. Blitzer and Lieberman are probably buddy-buddy, since they are both pro-Israel hawks. Blitzer is a former lobbyist for AIPAC, and was called out on it by David Duke on his how in late 2006. Not a David Duke fan, but Duke was right about that.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Just wondering what Lieberman's opinion is...
I wonder what Lieberman thinks about having a "D" superimposed next to his name. Did he officially change his party affiliation to Independent in order to run as one? It would appear to me that it would be very easy for Lieberman to request any network to kindly put an "I" next to his name on their graphics in order to corectly identify his (lack of) party affiliation if he wanted to. I believe Lieberman has said that he still intended to caucus with the Democrats. But, in light of his growing support and cooperation vis a vis the White House, someone should ask him about this again. And if he does consider himself a Democrat, is there a reason he can't change his official party affiliiation back to reflect that he actually is a Democrat?
Simplify this...
How hard would it be for an interviewer to ask Sen. Liberman this?
"Sen. Liberman, do you consider yourself a Democrat... a member of the Democratic caucus? If you are presently registered as an Independent, do you have any plans to officially change your party affiliation?"
In light of Sen. Liberman's increasing support of the White House and positions that are more aligned with the Republican Party, and also considering the slim majority held by the Democratic Party in the Senate, these questions are entirely relevant at this moment. If Sen. Lieberman has already recently answered these questions someone please direct me to his responses.
Clarification...
Sorry for being so long-winded but... Even though I am upset with Sen. Lieberman's abandonment of the Katrina investigation he promised (let alone his support of Bush's war policies), I DON'T want to see Lieberman being driven further towards the Republican camp. Lieberman is presently enjoying the best of both worlds, though, as I'm sure he's being courted by the Republicans and Democrats alike. He's in a unique situation right now. My point is that it's the media's job to ask probative questions that are relevant to the current balance of power in Washington and, unless I've missed it, I'm not seeing much about Lieberman's intentions. Or maybe I'm just looking for a little reassurance that Lieberman's not planning to flip completely to the dark side. ;>)
It's just a gross error and a mark of incompetence on behalf of CNN — which thankfully, I've managed to deprogram out of all the TVs in my house (along with FOX News).
I think ol' Joe is calling the kettle black here and it really hasn't been touched on: "it ought not to be on the kind of inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless resolution that was coming up earlier this week."
Did Joe just describe Bush's plan for Iraq there?
Does anyone know how one goes about recalling St Joe? Can it be done? What's the process?
It's called E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N-S, Moe...
I think you got it part of it - wrong sequence.
1) E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N
2) The elected candidate does some screw-ball things
3) The screw-ball is re-called by the voters
Sure it can be done there is a mechanism and if Joe switched parties he would see a movement to do just that in Conneticutt. Whether it would succeed is another question. The mechanism is basically done along the lines of an inititive and would take a grassroots movement
Be careful what you wish for, folks. In California we recalled Gray Davis, a complete and total whore for the unions and replaced him with.....Ah-Nold, a complete fool with the economic understanding of a turnip. And it cost us tens of millions of dollars to do it!!! What a state...
Gray Davis was somewhat pro labor, whore for unions is ludicrous. Davis was recalled because HE was blamed for Enron stealing California blind which was made possible by Wilsons deregulation. Arnold is a moderate Rep. Cal kind of likes that, no far right wingnut can win in California at the state level. Anyway I didnt say I wanted it to happen. I only answered the question asked.
Sam
If we dont want him as a Democrat, then he should be a Republican, pure and simple. However if this is what we seem to want the issue is he turns the Senate over to the Republicans.
You can not have it both ways.
No it ISNT that simple. That is a false dichotomy and a simplistic take on the issue. There does exist other classifications than Democrat or Republican.
That's flat-out wrong, Doris. We can insist that Lieberman doesn't represent our party without wanting him to be a Republican. That's what the "I" designation is there for.
You cannot have it both ways.
Yes, we can and we can have our cake too.
He professes to be a Democrat, but technically he's an Independent, but his actions indicate that he's actually more Republican, since he gushes whenever Dubya speaks. We're not the ones that want it both ways, but Lieberman wants it everyway he can. (Maybe he's been in talks with Ted Haggard.)
I doubt Lieberman will switch from an Independent to a republican because Lieberman likes having this manipulative power. In 2008, two-thirds of the senators who are up for reelection are republicans. If Lieberman were to switch parties and the Democrats gained the seats to retake the Senate (which I think is a foregone conclusion), he would be left politically impotent. I don't think he wants to lose all the seniority he has built up with the Democratic Party, any of his chairmanships or any relevance in regards to American foreign policy not to mention losing Democratic support in Connecticut which put him back in the Senate.
Interesting insight, Loonz. I had hypothesized that Lieberman's rhetoric was just about playing both ends against the middle. I hadn't considered the potential effects of the 2008 Senate elections.
Very good analysis
For the love of God ...so what!!??
He has a voting record that is 95% liberal. And he was the Democrat Candicate for VP six years ago. While I doubt this was anything but a mistake...even if it were intentional...again, labeling one of the most liberal Senators a democrat...who was a lifelong democrat...not something to be yelling about.
He has a voting record that is 95% liberal.
According to what or whom? I took a quick look at Lieberman's voting record since last summer. In 43 votes where the Democrats and Republicans were divided, Lieberman voted with Democrats 33 times and with Republicans 10 times.
And he was the Democrat Candicate for VP six years ago.
Operative word is "was".
one of the most liberal Senators
Actually, I believe I've read he's generally onsidered to be to the right of most Democrats, but left of most Republicans.
"While I doubt this was anything but a mistake...even if it were intentional...again, labeling one of the most liberal Senators a democrat...who was a lifelong democrat...not something to be yelling about."
Motives of right-wingers who brush-aside this "mistake" (or "intentional mistake", whatever that is...) are suspect due to the very un-Democratic Party and Bush-friendly views Lieberman displays.
Enough with the war!!
See pics from your anti-war friends. Click here
Great photos! It is nice to see photo evidence that Jesus is on our side.
No matter what they stick behind his name, he's still a fascist scumbag that's helped make this country worse.
How about (T) for traitor?! Heehee!