Fox News, CBSNews.com, Financial Times all misidentified Lieberman as a Democrat
In reporting on Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (CT) suggestion, during the June 10 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, that the United States should be "prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians," Fox News, CBSNews.com, and the Financial Times (in an article also posted on MSNBC.com) all misidentified Lieberman as a Democrat. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, on January 12, Congressional Quarterly reported that "Lieberman has asked to be called an Independent Democrat," adding 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."
Teasing a segment about Lieberman's comments on the June 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-hosts Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelly both called Lieberman a "prominent Democrat:"
KELLY: In any event, a lot going on this morning here in America's Newsroom, including a prominent Democrat saying the time to attack Iran is right now.
[...]
HEMMER: In a moment here, we're going to get back overseas, where Iran is not playing by the rules. What to do? A prominent Democrat's saying it's time to attack Iran now and make it pay a price.
However, in a Face the Nation clip that Fox News aired prior to the actual segment, Lieberman was correctly identified on-screen as an independent:
Similarly, CBSNews.com attributed the quote that appeared alongside a June 10 article on Lieberman's Iran comments to "Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.," while the article itself described him as the "Independent former Democrat from Connecticut." An accompanying video clip of Lieberman's Face the Nation remarks featured a caption identifying him as "Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.":
Finally, a June 11 BST (British Summer Time) Financial Times article described Lieberman as "a Democrat who ran as an independent in the 2006 mid-term elections after losing his party's support for his pro-war views." A different version of the article posted on MSNBC.com described Lieberman as a "Democratic senator, who ran independently in the 2006 midterms after losing his party's support."
From the Financial Times:
Senator Joe Lieberman, an outspoken "hawk" in Congress, yesterday advocated that the US bomb Iran to stop its alleged support for Iraqi militia.
Mr Lieberman, a Democrat who ran as an independent in the 2006 mid-term elections after losing his party's support for his pro-war views, also came close to suggesting in a TV interview that the US should take military action to stop Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.
From MSNBC.com:
Joe Lieberman, an outspoken Congress hawk, on Sunday proposed that the US bomb Iran to stop alleged support for Iraqi militia.
The Democratic senator, who ran independently in the 2006 midterms after losing his party's support, came close to suggesting in a television interview thatthe [sic] US take military action to stop Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.
Does the (I) beside Lieberman's name stand for Independent?
Or does it stand for:
1) Idiot
2) Israeli
3) Ignorant
I don't blame the Democrats for wanting nothing to do with this guy!
CNN should I.D him as a Independent Democrat [as Lieberman said he wanted] or just Independent.
More lazy reporting by the media.
Ooops! CORRECTION:
I wrote CNN...should have been Fox.
I forgot Bill Hemmer left CNN. My bad.
Ok not lazy reporting either. With Fox, it might have been deliberate.
Apparently the people who run this this site have absolutely nothing to do today.
Is that comment necessary or just being sarcastic?
"Does the (I) beside Lieberman's name stand for Independent? Or does it stand for: 1) Idiot 2) Israeli 3) Ignorant"
Why do you say that? Simply because he wants to fight an agressive War on Terror?
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with any fight against terrorism so your question is a non sequitur
all of his comments are. he only tries to hijack threads
Rino,
I agree with Solon, the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terrorism". This invasion of a sovereign nation based on deliberate misinterpretation of faulty info that claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to the US or possessed WMD was in reality a detour from the "War on Terrorism".
Lieberman's suggestion that we now "bomb Iran" is just more of this screwball thinking on the part of some "Hawks".
It has been reported that Israel would like for the US to take a more aggressive stance on Iran, up to and including bombing that nation. IMO, Lieberman is echoing Israeli foreign policy in promoting this half-assed suggestion.
It's time for us to begin leaving Iraq, not starting a new [and more deadly] conflict in Iran.
Iraq wasn't a central front in the War on Terror when we invaded, but it is now. Al Quaeda has flocked to Iraq to fight us, and much of the fighting that our military is involved in in Iraq is against Al-Quaeda forces. Al-Quaeda is a terrorist organization, so it's obvious that Iraq is one of the central fronts on the War on Terror. We've killed some of the highest up Al-Quaeda leaders in Iraq, so it's obvious to just about anybody that we're fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Iraq is definetely part of the War on Terror.
What did you expect? Fox can't even tell the difference between black congressmen!
I can't tell the difference between all these bleached out blonds.
Doesn't the picture above make you think a Saturday Night Live skit is in order?
Hey, Biff! You know, like when I was in band camp, our instructor, you know, like had this big metal thing...
Buffy, like, that was a flute!
Oh Biff! Like wow, that makes sense now. No wonder he told me to blow into it!
You get the feeling that a requirement to be a female talking head at Faux is you have to be of Arian descent and have a lifetime supply of bleach?
More Nordic than Arian. As far as I know the latter is either Iranian, high caste Indian Hindu, or ( with a double dose of irony) a gypsie.
Ya know, with this one, /Independent Democrat*/ I really don't care what he wants to call himself, or what the media calls him. On issues other than the Middle East, Lieberman supports Democratic policies.
There are bigger fish to fry.
Why don't they identify him as the Dad from ALF and be done with it. Ha! Willy! Kate!
(Some of you probably know what I'm talking about)
That show was the best........ ever.
Wow. Haven't thought about ALF in years. Funny how something that is a huge pop culture hit can be totally forgotten in just a few years. Kind of like Pet Rocks...Yard Darts....Clackers...
Maybe someone can verify this but I had heard on some talk show that Liberman had gotten booed by the TROOPS in Iraq.
Well, sen Liebermnann, grab your musket and lead the way.
What is amazing is how prior to the fall of Saddam there were zero terrorists in the country of Iraq. No terrorsists cell nothing. Saddam wouldn't allow it.
Then after the fall of Saddam there appeared out of nowhere, out of the blue sky, out of thin air, enough terrorists to fill Abu prison overnight and all of them Iraqis.
Not a single one charged for a crime and ninety nine percent of them innocent. The military is blaming this SNAFU on in the victims being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yeah the wrong place is their own home and the wrong time is 3 o'clock in the morning a time they would be asleep in their own homes.
And we are to believe Liberman and Bush; now that they are on the drumbeat to attack Iran.
Fox isn't making mistakes when they get it wrong. Think about it. Have they ever gotten it wrong on a Republican? Have they? Have they ever shown Bush's name with war criminal below it only to retract it later with a whoops I did it again apology.
Murdoch proud to have been instrumental in turning the United States into war criminals.
You raise an interesting point. Republicans keep telling us that it's not important how we got into Iraq. Well, they couldn't be more wrong. The fact that the same idiots who got us into Iraq are now pushing for conflict with Iran MAKES IT VERY IMPORTANT!
Hey MEDIA , Lieberman the traitor is an (I) not a (D)
Hey MEDIA , Lieberman the traitor is an (I) not a (D) <------Today's Democratic party. Disagree on one issue and change party I.D. even though you'll vote with the Dems 95% of the time...and you're a traitor.
Reminds me of the North Korean troops marching in formation. Fall out of line, you'll get whacked.
Roger, wrong, Lieberman left his party after his party held a primary and did not support him.
The reason Lieberman isnt a Democrat is NOT that he disagrees on the war but that he LOST the Democratic primary. THAT loses you the right to call yourself a Democrat if you win as an independent. The reason he lost the primary probably wasnt that he supported the war as much as the fact he felt it necessary to show disrespect to all of the Conneticutt Democrats who didnt support the war.
Oh give me a break, Liberman is about as Liberal at Ted Kennedy other than Iraq.
He also ran as the VP for the D party less than a decade ago. Liberals really know how to eat their own.
No he isnt, not even close. He is NOT one of their own. He LOST the Democratic primary had he been one of their own he would have supported the Democratic nominee and accepted defeat gracefully.
Oh give me a break, Liberman is about as Liberal at Ted Kennedy other than Iraq.
Rrright.... Just look at yesterday's no-confidence cloture motion. Leiberman was the only Senator not identified as a Republican to vote "nay."
So you're judging his entire record off of one vote?
"So you're judging his entire record off of one vote?"
So you're saying in order to give an example you have to cover the entirety of a given set? I'll keep that in mind for your posts. Oh wait, you never even give specific examples, just opinion stated as fact.
Self critquie, adjust to new information. Don't try it,it'll give you an upset stomach.
The congress website has him as (ID). It's a matter of choice.
AP referred to Lieberman as an independent yesterday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/10/2007-06-10_lieberman_says_us_should_prepare_to_stri.html
Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats. He's as liberal as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer on economic issues and social issues. He's a liberal Democrat. He just happens to be one of the old style Democrats like FDR and JFK. Like both of them, he's actually strong on national security issues.
Only judging by the RHINO standard that anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is somehow a liberal. No, there is no reasonable standard by which Lieberman can be called a liberal. Get a grip
And you think that anybody to the right of Fidel Castro is a moderate or conservative. Lieberman has a 16% lifetime rating from the ACU which means that he votes liberal 84% of the time. It's been documented that he votes with the Democrats in Congress 90% of the time. He's just as far to the left as Ted Kennedy on economic and social issues.
You're wrong again.
Liebermann is in the bottom 2/5th's of the Senate Democrats when it comes to being rated "liberal". He's not.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm#Budget_+_Economy
Here's a link to a site that reviewed tons of votes and statements on issues from Lieberman. In a famous format, Lieberman doesn't even fit into the Liberal part of the graph! He's in the moderate portion. He's exactly in the middle between Libertarian and Populist, and he's squarely in the center section between the liberal left and the conservative right. He's a moderate Democrat, not a liberal Democrat.
Kennedy's a liberal Democrat by his voting record.
Hillary's a moderate Democrat with a tilt towards the populist side.
I could only find one Democrat who was more conservative than Lieberman, and that was Mary Landrieu from Louisiana! Ken Salazar was a populist moderate and so was Tim Johnson.
Lieberman is not a liberal. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It will never be true. The facts disprove what you allege.
That site also says that Rush Limbaugh is a moderate conservative. Do you think that's accurate? Let's examine the findings a little closer.
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
Rated 25% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record
Rated 86% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record
Rated 36% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes
He's very liberal overall as you can see. The only issue that he actually has a conservative record on is homeland security issues, where he has a 10% rating by SANE. The only two areas that he has moderate records on is Civil Liberties where he has a 40% rating from the ACLU, and the environment where he has a 42% rating from the LCV.
"he's squarely in the center section between the liberal left and the conservative right"
That's not true either. He's leaning left on the chart. The chart says that he's a moderate liberal. He isn't squarely between the right and the left. And if you're really going to take that chart seriously then I guess you have to accept that Rush Limbaugh is a moderate conservative as well.
Technically, I guess if you adjust for Rush, then everyone would have to shift to the Right, no? That would mean the Lieberman would be at least a Conservative Democrat ...
Comparing Lieberman to FDR and/or JFK is completely ignorant. Apparently, you have no knowledge of either. As a registered Connecticut voter, I can tell you that Lieberman was spurned by his party, supported, both locally and nationally by the Republicans, which won him his "Independent" status. I have lived through both FDR & JFK administrations, Lieberman is a lightweight compared to them. Here in Connecticut, he is seen as the Republican Senator for Tel Aviv.
Ouch!!! Did you get that RINO. Ol' coach just told you like it is. It must suck to be wrong over and over and over and over and over and over.....................
Rino,
He lost the Democratic Caucus and ran as an independent. Is this the new talking point? Old-school Democrat because he likes the war and is socially liberal? Could you please provide information on him being "as liberal as Ted Kennedy on social issues?" Posters below seem to think that is inaccurate.
Also, why are the Republicans trying to force Hagel out? If I told you he was an old-school conservative and as conservative as they come except for the war, his record would bear that out.
all the replies to rino miss the point, he has no facts and is not interested in getting any. his only purpose is to spam his distractions.
An Independent Democrat is a misnomer. He may have said that but it is not legitimate. He only remains a non-Republican because he is considered a ranking Senator. A gift he should not have been given. 2008 will show that any loyalties that he has, do not remain. I will bet he turns Republican, although I am sure he enjoys the attention he gets as an Independent. His vote not to open up consideration for the no confidence vote for Alberto Gonzales is predictable because of his love of George Bush. He is a loathsome entity, and someone who does not even belong in Congress. His warmongering is shameful and dangerous. Fox, et all calling him a Democrat are, of course, liars. What else is new?
Too bad you guys can'y bring yourself to like Leiberman. He won, you know, in Connecticut. Some political parties like winning elections. Others seem to want to lose. The far-left, blame-America-first crowd of the present Democratic party wouldn't claim a JFK, and LBJ, a Harry Truman or an FDR.
They knew how to win elections. They also had some sanity when it came to foreign policy.