Washingtonpost.com's Cillizza repeatedly and falsely referred to Lieberman as a Democrat
SUMMARY: On America's Election HQ, Chris Cillizza repeatedly and falsely referred to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. Even though an on-screen graphic identified Lieberman as an independent, Cillizza stated of the possibility that Sen. John McCain would pick a Democrat as a running mate: "[T]he Democrat that I think makes the most sense -- though I would say I think it's very unlikely John McCain picks a Democrat -- but the Democrat that makes the most sense is Joe Lieberman."
During an appearance on the April 6 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ to discuss potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza repeatedly and falsely referred to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. Even though an on-screen graphic identified Lieberman as an independent, Cillizza stated of the possibility that McCain would pick a Democrat as a running mate: "[T]he Democrat that I think makes the most sense -- though I would say I think it's very unlikely John McCain picks a Democrat -- but the Democrat that makes the most sense is Joe Lieberman."
Cillizza noted that Lieberman endorsed McCain and that the two "are very close when it comes to the -- their thoughts -- how to handle the war in Iraq." But he continued to falsely assert that Lieberman is a Democrat: "[H]e's still a Democrat. Now, many Democrats would disown him, but he has a 'D' after his name." By contrast, recent Washington Post articles all identify Lieberman as an independent. Moreover, in a January 17, 2007, Washington Post article, Cillizza and staff writer Shailagh Murray identified Lieberman as an independent.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, on January 12, 2007, 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."
From the 5 p.m. hour of Fox News' America's Election HQ on April 6:
FINE: What about the real long shots in this poll? There were even some Democrats named by some of these voters.
CILLIZZA: You know, the Democrat that I think makes the most sense -- though I would say I think it's very unlikely John McCain picks a Democrat -- but the Democrat that makes the most sense is Joe Lieberman. This is someone from Connecticut. He endorsed John McCain. He campaigned with John McCain in New Hampshire. He and John McCain are very close when it comes to the -- their thoughts -- how to handle the war in Iraq. But he's still a Democrat. Now, many Democrats would disown him, but he has a "D" after his name. He caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.
And John McCain -- the truth of the matter is -- and you mentioned this, Molly -- is he probably needs to pick someone who is both more conservative than he and someone younger than he is. He has acknowledged in interviews in the past that his age -- he'll be 72 if elected in November -- is a concern for voters. Joe Lieberman is not significantly younger than him. I think you're looking at someone probably in his or her mid-40s, mid-50s.
Yeah Lieberman is really a Republican as he has endorsed McCain.
Although if he is counted as a Republican in the Senate the Democrats might lose control.
"Lieberman is about corporate profits and the hard liner Jewish lobby and makes no sense at all. If he doesn't wake up and start listening to his conscience, he's going to hell in a handbasket.
Lieberman deserted the Democrats in his re-election effort, and he won by appealing to Republicans and pretending to be mainstream while really being a neo-Con."
A national voter test...instruct them to "raise your left hand..." If they can't do it or raise the wrong hand, they need remedial training."
Mary:
it is funny you feel that way, since the dems went crazy in 2000 when thousands of voters could not find the strength to punch a paper ballot, and could not read directions on the ballot and figure out who to vote for. Over votes and under votes would not have occured if DEMS could read.
I am all in favor of an IQ test in order to vote, but the dems would never allow it.
I'd say that anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 no matter what kind of ballot displays an ignore-ance of the most appalling kind.
White rednecks vote republican in droves. A voter-IQ requirement would swing both ways. If it included a section on "the theory of evolution" or "the origin of man acccording to science" you guys wouldn't be able to carry a single state.
If (voter IQ test) included a section on "the theory of evolution" or "the origin of man acccording to science" you guys wouldn't be able to carry a single state.
Ed - I am a conservative Democrat from Long Island, who like Liberman, feels the Democratic Party has left me behind in their swing to the left. I think you are poking fun at creation in your comment above - if not I'll stand corrected. If so - please tell me how either of your stated theories can exist without creation so I can pass the test.
Nice to meet you. I'm one of those "secular humaists" that Bill O'Rielly fears so much. I'm neither a Dem or a Pub myself, although I'm kind of your mirror: For many years I was a liberal Republican who felt abandonded by the party in their swing to the right (so this should be interesting) primarily as they have been taken over be religious whackos like the late Rev. Fallwell and the Rev's Robertson, Dobson and more recently Hagee and Parsley. For a breakdown of my philosphy go here: http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm or read Hitchens. (Though I have to admit that religion is about ALL that I agree with Hitchens on.)
As for your question. Like most believers, you have framed the question in it a way that relies on belief in order to accept the logic of it. I don't need to have THE ANSWER in order to PROVE that creation has no place in a science room, and that Genesis, while arguably chock full of TRUTHS, is absolutely devoid of FACTS. "Creation" is not necessary to have the theory of "Evolution." Saying "God did it" or "God willed it" is the domain of the superstitious to cover anything they can't yet explain (or accept) and has been since the dawn of man. It is the refuge of the ignorant and it proponents (the church and the faithful) have stood in the way of scientific progress since the invertion of the telscope. The Bible is niether a SCIENTIFIC text, nor is it a HISTORICAL one. And I will not vote republican until they stop trying to force it (and the viewpoints of the more rabid faithful) into the law, schools, courts and all of our lives.
Ed - I will agree that Creation has no place in a science class but it does have a place in academics. Evolution is a theory that has to make several assumptions in order for the facts to exist. First law of thermodynamics says that you can not create something out of nothing - therefore while creation can explain evolution, evolution can not explain creation. Also - to my knowledge - the mystery of the "missing link" has yet to be solved. Therefore I will disagree with your premise that "Creation" is not necessary to have the theory of "Evolution."
The missing link is an old strawman. The ancestors of Homo Sap are pretty well ducumented.
Evolution was built up from observations of nature. To try to understand it beyond, is it good to eat?
Creation is a viable topic in physics. The argument that god initiated the impulse that became our reality furthers what beyond saying god is above science? It doesn't explain it or the mechanisms that support it or did support it and then changed.
Looking at the puzzle of exsistence and not trying to figure out parts of it and the relationships between the parts is not appreciating what that original impulse eventually produced. Saying its god's will is lazy and against curiousity in our lives. It sure seems to push authority though.
Evolution was built up from observations of nature. To try to understand it beyond, is it good to eat?
The argument that god initiated the impulse that became our reality furthers what beyond saying god is above science? It doesn't explain it or the mechanisms that support it or did support it and then changed.
I'm sorry - I'm trying to make sense out of those statements but I think something is missing?
Creation is NOT necessary. I believe in God, though I dont believe all the people who say they are working for him really are, but any argument you use for GOD can reasonably be transferred to the universe itself. Was GOD created? If not, if he always was, then the same COULD be true about the universe. I have no problem with teaching religion in religion classes as long as they are elective but creation cannot be taught with the scientific method so it should not be taught as science, a view you seem to agree with.
By the way. I am a liberal who left the Democratic party because I felt they swung so far to the right they no longer represented me. Running Self Righteous Joe for VP was the last straw for me.
Not true or even CLOSE to true. Chads build up it isnt a matter of strength do you EVER know what you are talking about? If they instituted an IQ test it would effectively END the GOP.
Ed's vote counts the same as anybody else's.
And I suspect that Ed himself has to take off his shoes and socks if he has to count anything higher than ten.... :-)
The Republcan party is full of neo-liberals who want to privatize everything (including our roads!) and dissolve any opposition.
The Republican party is neither democratic nor American, in my opinion.
Mary,
As would Jefferson, Jackson, Truman, and Kennedy not recognize the Democratic Party of Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, and Obama.
Both parties are unrecognizable from 50 years ago.
I am against all such tests on principle and think the moron vote has been EARNED by the GOP.
Col.,
I'm surprised you would offer the literacy test as a solution since it was a racist tool used to keep blacks and immigrants from voting. Having this view doesn't say much for your supposedly progressive viewpoint.
Literacy tests refers to the government practice of testing the literacy of potential citizens at the federal level, and potential voters at the state level. The federal government first employed literacy tests as part of the immigration process in 1917. Southern state legislatures employed literacy tests as part of the voter registration process as early as the late nineteenth century.As used by the states, the literacy test gained infamy as a means for denying the franchise to African Americans. Adopted by a number of southern states, the literacy test was applied in a patently unfair manner, as it was used to disfranchise many literate southern blacks while allowing many illiterate southern whites to vote. The literacy test, combined with other discriminatory requirements, effectively disfranchised the vast majority of African Americans in the South from the 1890s until the 1960s. Southern states abandoned the literacy test only when forced to by federal legislation in the 1960s. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act provided that literacy tests used as a qualification for voting in federal elections be administered wholly in writing and only to persons who had not completed six years of formal education. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 suspended the use of literacy tests in all states or political subdivisions in which less than 50 percent of the voting age residents were registered as of 1 November 1964, or had voted in the 1964 presidential election. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court upheld the legislation and restricted the use of literacy tests for non-English-speaking citizens. Since the passage of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, black registration in the South has increased dramatically.
-Wikopedia
"Col.,I'm surprised you would offer the literacy test..." (AA)
But I'm not surprised at all that you thought I suggested a literacy test. More of a comprehension test, which you helpfully demonstrated, seems to stymie ultracons.
Nice copying & pasting, as usual, though. ;0)
Mary, what is the "hard liner Jewish lobby" from your post? I don't know, but inclusion of the word Jewish in this context makes me a little uncomfortable. Maybe I'm over-sensitive to that word being tossed around given history, so could you please explain it in this context?
Anyway, I still think it goes back to Cillizza's quote "but he has a "D" after his name" while there was an "I" after his name ON-SCREEN. Well I guess he couldn't see the screen... Anyway, I don' think any of our posts can make a better statement than the irony of that image pointed out by MMFA.
"But he's still a Democrat. Now, many Democrats would disown him, but he has a "D" after his name. He caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate."
These guys are actually paid to just pull things like this out of their a@@?