CNN's Schneider misidentified Lieberman as a Democrat
On the December 17 edition of CNN International's Your World Today, while reporting on Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) recent endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ), CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider misidentified Lieberman as a Democrat, stating, "And, of course, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who has voted very often with Republicans, especially on the Iraq war, so there's a kind of commonality between the two of them." In fact, Lieberman lost the 2006 Democratic Senate primary, but subsequently won re-election as an independent. 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."
While Schneider misidentified Lieberman as a Democrat, he did mention that Lieberman "did not get elected in Connecticut as a Democrat," "rel[ying] on Republican votes to get elected."
From the December 17 edition of CNN International's Your World Today:
COLLEEN McEDWARDS (anchor): And Joe Lieberman -- what's he up to here? I mean, I thought he was just going to kind of take a pass on this.
SCHNEIDER: Well, a lot of people did. This is a big surprise. He's obviously very close to John McCain. I believe they went -- they visited Iraq together. McCain is a Democrat -- is a Republican who has -- has, in the past, had appeal to Democrats. And, of course, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat who has voted very often with Republicans, especially on the Iraq war, so there's a kind of commonality between the two of them. The reason it raises eyebrows is Joe Lieberman was on the ticket with Al Gore in 2000.
McEDWARDS: Exactly.
SCHNEIDER: My God!
McEDWARDS: Exactly.
SCHNEIDER: The man who the Democrats nominated for vice president just eight years ago, seven years ago, is now endorsing a Republican? What's up with that? Well, it probably means more to Republicans than it does to Democrats because a lot of Democrats have given up on Joe Lieberman, who did not get elected in Connecticut as a Democrat; he relied on Republican votes to get elected.
But for Republicans, they may try to convince themselves, "Hey, John McCain can once again reach out to Democratic voters," but I don't know how many Democrats Joe Lieberman brings with him these days.
MCEDWARDS: Yeah, yeah. Exactly.
Lie-berman is indeed "independent" of everone except the Corporations and the Media, upon whom he depends for his funding and enough lying to get him elected. So far, it is working far too well. This aspersion upon the Democrats is simply more of that lying, making it seem as though the party is splintering due to the fractious nature of Dem politics.
I think I can give this guy a pass on this one. Lieberman was a democrat, and pretty much still is except for some issues. I mean, he was the VP candidate for the democratic party in 2000, and it doesn't get much more democrat than that. Does it?
This does border on the trivial - and Schneider does a good job on this qualifier.
SCHNEIDER: The man who the Democrats nominated for vice president just eight years ago, seven years ago, is now endorsing a Republican? What's up with that? Well, it probably means more to Republicans than it does to Democrats because a lot of Democrats have given up on Joe Lieberman, who did not get elected in Connecticut as a Democrat; he relied on Republican votes to get elected.
Note to MMFA - I think that there is a difference between print media and broadcast media. It's OK to go line by line on a written article and check things for accuracy. However, when people are simply discussing something on the air you have to give people a chance to correct themselves and expand on a topic.
I think that there is a difference between print media and broadcast media.
You're right. Broadcast media should be able to put out a retraction far quicker than print media.
Except that he's NOT a big D Democrat anymore. He left the party, became an independent, and got elected as an independent. While he caucuses with the Democrats, he is not one.
I think it's reasonable to expect facts from journalists.
This guy is about as confused as Larry Craig.Lately, I've not heard him call himself an Independent or a Democrat, it's always "Independent Democrat" - and now he endorses a Republican (…or should I say a “Maverick Republican”?).
Go figure!
You watch - McCain-Liebermann! That's the ticket!
Oh man, I'm SO kidding. John-boy will never get the nom and that ticket (which would be the most "pro-war" ticket which doesn't include Judi) would go down in FLAMES.
I know I'm not the first person to suggest it though! Two "mavericks" = bipartisan, right? ;)
Maybe he should just do a cooking show?
Or slap a beard on him, and he can be Santa Claus.
In this day and age it's a shame that one cannot condem muslim extremism and still remain in the Democrat Party. I believe that if you study Lieberman's voting record, he is still very liberal. Of course if JFK came back to life today, he would be booted out of the party, unless he changed his famous phrase to 'Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you!'
What? Ummm, Lieberman lost because of his intransigent clinging to a failed war that EXACERBATED THE PROBLEM of Islamic terrorism. It wasn't because he condemned terrorism, you simpleton. But I'll bite: Please find me one quote from one Democrat that condemns Lieberman for condemning terrorism?
Lieberman and the idiots who supported the Iraq war are responsible for the biggest resurgence of terrorism in history and the rebirth of Al Qaeda. Some of us are smart enough to see that. You and Lieberman, however, are not.
TLCC,
To move from VP candidate to vilified independent in just 7 years shows something...probably that the democrat party has left the Joe Liebermans behind on its rush to pacify the leftists that control the money. Problem for the democrat party is that the Ned Lamonts get creamed when ALL voters choose leaders.
As far as that Iraq war thang, the dems have to hate stuff like this....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3882969
The problem with the Democratic party is that Ned Lamont get creamed? Um, the guy who got destroyed in that particular election was the Republican. Lieberman got just shy of 50% of the vote, Lamont got 40%, and the Republican? Not even 10%.
One has to ask what's wrong with the Republican party when so many are willing to jump ship to the guy who weeks ago was a Democrat.
Now that I think about it, it's probably unfair to say that only Mr. 10%er Alan Schlesinger got creamed. Republicans across the board lost big: the Senate, the House, and even gave up the majority of governorships.
It's pathetic when the only thing you have to crow about is that some right-leaning Democrat-turned-Independent held onto his seat.
And it's disgusting to suggest that Democrats (or anyone else for that matter) hate to see fewer people die in Iraq. Stuff like that makes it ever clearer that people like you are Republicans first and Americans ... I dunno, last?
Even worse is that no matter what the news out of Iraq, people like you will continue to support for no good reason a war we shouldn't have started, a war we shouldn't have bungled, and an occupation we shouldn't be continuing.
ProudMORON in his zeal to support his beloved ReNAMBLAcans shows he is STILL too stupid to even know the NAME of the largest political party in the United States. Sorry we cant take anything someone so IGNORANT says seriously.
PC, once again you show your profound ignorance.
Yes, the Senator lost his party's primary and decided to run as an independent. Yes, one of the reasons he lost is because of his support of the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Senators and Representatives live or die because of what they do or don't do on the local level.
The Senator angered many supporters when he sided with Catholic hospitals who were denying treatment to rape victims.
Every Democratic woman I know in Connecticut supported Ned Lamont in the Democratic Primary in part because of this decision AND his support of the War in Iraq.
"As far as that Iraq war thang, the dems have to hate stuff like this....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3882969"
Actually we LOVE this kind of stuff. Makes it sound like it's time to start bringing the troops home.
Yeah, if you condemning muslim extremist there is no place for place for you in the Democratic party. Great observartion Jim. P.S After you finish giving John Gibson a sponge bath feel free to stick your head in the toilet bowl.
LOL! Niether is a visual that I really needed dude! LOL.
No he is not very liberal. Then again what can we expect from someone so stupid they dont even KNOW the name of the largest political party in America. Lieberman didnt lose his election for condemning Muslim extremists like virtually everyone does. Rather he felt it necessary to CONDEMN those who opposed the ReNAMBLAcan effort to get as many Americans killed as they possibly can. Since that was the VAST majority of Democrats in his state he lost his primary. His base didnt take to well to being insulted by self righteous Joe. You can try to get re elected anywhere by insulting you base and good luck with that.
Apparently he got enough independent thinking Ds to go along with about 1/2 the remaining Rs in Connecticut to get elected.
He got elected because the Republicans KNEW their candidate didnt stand a snowballs chance in Saudi Arabia. He got a minority of Dem votes which is why HE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT, which is the point of this topic.
"In this day and age it's a shame that one cannot condem muslim extremism and still remain in the Democrat Party."
Huh? You've been watching too much Fox News, my friend! Or maybe you need to try FM radio instead of AM. Just sayin'.
In this day and age it's a shame that one cannot condem muslim extremism and still remain in the Democrat Party.
It's very hard to "stay" in something that doesn't exist. If, by some accident, you misspelled "Democratic" in the same way you misspelled "condemn" and "Muslim," OK
If it was all due to ignorance, which is what I infer from the content, then there is very little hope for anything cogent from you.
Give ol’ SCHNEIDER a break. Lieberman labeled himself a Democrat for most of Shneider's career. The Alzheimer’s' is probably just setting in.
Hey PJ is that an example of Liberal humor?
Mmmm...bet if a Conservative said that about a journalist Liberals admired, you wouldn't think it was funny.
Just saying....
LOL - I guess it is Jeter2:)
Plus the fact that I have a condition very similar to Alzeimer's. (Sort of like how I figure I can get away with gay jokes 'cause I'm gay? LOL)
The loss of short-term memory can be down right scary and I am always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt who I might even suspect has memory problems.
I had an Aunt die from Alzheimer's and know there is nothing funny about it - but it's become such a staple of jokes regarding forgetfullness - I doubt I offended anyone. If I did, sorry - but it was just a joke!
I was just funning with ya PJ. So many here get offended by jokes aimed at Dem/Libs that when I read your post I saw the opportunity to kind of make a point about humor.
I tend to laugh at jokes whether they are about Liberals or Conservatives. And I'm simply not as thin-skinned as some are & don't get offended easily.
There are jokes that cross the line & are just mean-spirited, then there are others that might seem a tad off-color, but we laugh at them anyway.
I laughed when I read your post. It was funny. But like I said earlier if some Con wrote something similar about a Lib-friendly journalist I know a few here would howl. And I don't mean with laughter ;-)
"In this day and age it's a shame that one cannot condem muslim extremism and still remain in the Democrat [sic] Party"
Telling indeed that conservrats invariably need to lie, to make their 'point'. It leaves one wondering why facts don't suffice...
That's because the facts have a liberal bias.
Hey, the Ds count him and Sanders to point to their majority in the Senate. Neither are technically Ds, but the Senate would not be in D control without the caucus support of those two.
Now now Oscar stop bringing up facts like that, it'll spoil the Lieberman bashing for some of these guys ;-)
If you're about facts, then why would you consider it okay to to label independents (who, yes, as I point out above, caucus with Democrats) as members of the Democratic Party? It's factually incorrect.
What Lieberman bashing and the POINT is irrelvant it DOESNT make Lieberman a Democrat
Who they caucus with does NOT make them Democrats. The ONLY way you can legitimatly be called a Dem is to win the Democratic Primary.
So, how come Harry Reid is Majority Leader in a 49-49-2 body?
Uh, it's been explained now a couple of times. He and the other independent caucus with the Democrats instead of the Republicans. Much like there'll be caucuses in Iowa to choose candidates for the various parties, there are times when the Senators and Reps caucus to choose their leaders.
This does not mean, however, that they change parties. Lieberman is an independent.
Take a sixth grade civics lesson. I dont do remedial tutorials.
Schneider made it clear that Lieberman did not run as a Democrat, so this is a trivial point.
disclosure: I worked with Bill several decades ago.
He also said LIEBERMAN is a Democrat. THAT is incorrect.
Joe Lieberman caucuses with Democrats, was a Democrat but ran as an independent to win the Senate seat.
So what's up with that. There are no good Democrat candidates, PERIOD.
What a sweeping statement. Talk about one state senate race, get the name of the party wrong, and conclude with a big bang all-encompassing conclusion.
If you sweep your kitchen like that, you'd blow all your major and minor appliances out into the hallway.
There certainly are a lot of ignorant Republicans so you wont feel too lonley in that party
Bill Schneider is a mepconservative Republican and consistently uses his commentary to make Democrats look bad. No one seems to remember that he was an undersecretary of a department (of Defense, I believe) in the Reagan administration. Also, when Bush became president, Schneider was being considered again for a position in the Defense Department. This time he was beaten out by Douglas Feith, one of the archetects of the Iraq War and a big, big friend of Israel. He is a card carrying member of the American Enterprise Instiute, a neoconservative think tank here in Washington.
Lieberman...
....what he is????.....a look-out for oneself, hawkish, self serving turncoat independent, whose willing to beat the drum for corporations & the right when it benefits him....cannot believe he actually was on the presidential ticket for the Dems.....what a slug!!!
"....what he is????.....a look-out for oneself, hawkish, self serving turncoat independent, whose willing to beat the drum for corporations & the right when it benefits him"
I had to re-read your post! I was ready to reply "Hey, this thread isn't about John McCain!" ;)
Perhaps he is a principled man who disagreed with the stance of his party on Iraq. Therefore, is a hissyfit, they kicked him out of the party. The reality is that this country will never move to the left to the degree you would like to see. Most of the population is moderate. Most of Connecticut is moderate as evidenced by Lieberman's election. This incessant character assasination of Lieberman because he disagrees on Iraq is ludicrous. As a seemingly very liberal person you should be thankful he caucuses with the Democratic party. Sanders is an outright socialist so obviously you have no issues with him caucusing with the Dem's. You can disagree with this man but at least admit he stood on his principles and did not waiver from pressure in his party. Is that not a characteristic you seek in a leader? Or are we looking for far left "yes" men to follow Hillary to the losers circle?
He didnt LOSE because he disagreed about Iraq. He lost because he felt the need to INSULT all those who disagreed with him ABOUT Iraq. There was no hissy fit thats childish. He has no RIGHT to anyones vote. The Democrats in Conetticut felt Lamont would represent them better than someone insulting them for what THEY believed. I dont even GET the idea that they OWED their votes to Lieberaman. It isnt a hissy fit for the Democrats in Coneticutt to choose someone ELSE to represent them.
Joseph Lieberman (the first of Al Gore's crucial mistakes in 2000) is neither a Democrat nor an independent. Rather, he behaves as if he were a member of the Likud. While a student in Germany in 1965, I met a passionate young Israeli who assured me that any American Jew who was a real Jew was morally obligated to emigrate to Israel and become a citizen of that country. I dismissed the notion then, putting it down to foolish youthful zeal. Now, I'm thinking maybe it's not such a far-fetched concept. There seem to be prominent American Jews who have done that - at least in spirit.
Just how wrong will he go? Will he pull a Zell Miller and reveal his true sentiments in a speech to the Republican convention in 2008?