Post article incorrectly identified Lieberman as a Democrat

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published

In reporting on a U.S. Senate resolution opposing an increase of troops in Iraq, The Denver Post misidentified Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) as a member of the “Democratic ranks.” Lieberman, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in August 2006, has asked to be called an “Independent Democrat” or an “Independent.”

In a February 6 front-page banner article about the Republican filibuster of a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq, The Denver Post stated that “Bush had at least one outspoken supporter in the Democratic ranks: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.” But describing Lieberman as a Democrat runs contrary to the senator's own reported preference and ignores the fact that he ran as an independent after losing the 2006 Democratic primary. The article also asserted that “Lieberman crossed party lines” in voting with Republicans to sustain the filibuster.

As Media Matters for America documented, Congressional Quarterly reported on January 12 that “Lieberman has asked to be called an Independent Democrat” and added: "[I]f the compound modifier that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent" rather than being described as a “Democrat.”

As CNN reported on August 10, 2006, “Lieberman lost by 10,000 votes in Connecticut's Democratic primary to [Ned] Lamont, a millionaire businessman who ran on an anti-war platform and accused the incumbent of being too close to President Bush.” CNN further noted that, following his August 8, 2006, defeat in the Democratic primary, Lieberman “launch[ed] his independent bid” for the U.S. Senate, which he won on November 7, 2006.

From the February 6 Denver Post article by staff writer John Aloysius Farrell (who is also the paper's Washington Bureau chief), “GOP blocks Iraq debate”:

Washington -- Republicans blocked a Senate debate and vote on the war in Iraq on Monday, stalling consideration of a resolution opposing President Bush's plans to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to patrol the streets of Baghdad.

“You can run, but you can't hide. ... We are going to debate Iraq,” a frustrated Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, told his Republican foes. The Democrats who control the Senate “are not going to allow the situation in Iraq to continue.”

But Reid was beaten, 49-47, on the vote to stop a Republican filibuster. Without any GOP help, the Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to cut off the filibuster and move toward a roll call on the resolution.

[...]

But Bush had at least one outspoken supporter in the Democratic ranks: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

“The resolution before us ... will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad,” Lieberman said. The Senate's actions will encourage “thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and ... al-Qaeda terrorists eager for evidence that America's will is breaking.”

“This is a resolution of irresolution,” Lieberman said, “a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle. ... It pledges its support to the troops in the field but washes its hand of what they are doing.”

[...]

In the end, however, [U.S. Sen. John] Warner [R-VA] and [U.S. Sen. Chuck] Hagel [R-NE] and other GOP critics of Bush's escalation stuck with their fellow Republicans on the procedural vote of cutting off the filibuster. Only Lieberman crossed party lines, voting with the Republicans.