It’s incredible to what extent the mainstream media will go out of its way to undermine the new Democratic majority in Congress. First, they tried to spin the anti-Bush mandate of the November 7th elections as a victory for centrism – as they blatantly lied about how the newly elected Democrats are “conservative.” Second, they used Nancy Pelosi’s support for Jack Murtha as House Majority Leader (and his loss to Steny Hoyer) as evidence that the party is “weak” and “divided” on the War in Iraq. Most recently, they took a testy exchange between President Bush and Senator-elect Jim Webb (where it’s obvious that Bush bullied him) – and blamed Webb for being a “boor.” And for crying out loud, what’s with the constant love affair with Joe Lieberman – and the delusion that he somehow represents the Democratic Party?

Senator Joe Lieberman was re-elected in November, only by quitting the Democratic Party after he couldn’t get nominated and decided to run as an independent. It’s one thing to declare that you won’t let the primary election result affect your decision to run. But what was so fundamentally dishonest and unethical about Lieberman’s conduct was that he only allowed the primary result to matter if he won. Invalidating the choice of Democratic voters didn’t seem to bother Sore Loserman – who has proven time and again that he only cares about himself and will go out of his way to undermine progressive criticism of George Bush.

Of course, Lieberman did win re-election, but it certainly wasn’t because he’s a Democrat – and the media shouldn’t give him the type of platform that they have. Lieberman beat Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, for several reasons: (a) the Republicans abandoned their nominee when they realized that Lieberman was effectively parroting their agenda, (b) the Democratic Party establishment – with a few exceptions – never gave Lamont any real support to help him win, (c) the Connecticut media never exposed Lieberman for the neo-con that he is, and (d) Lieberman managed to cloud his agenda with enough lip-service to Democratic and unaffiliated voters to convince them that he wasn’t really all that bad. Ultimately, Connecticut voters who had known Lieberman for 18 years weren’t ready to believe that he had so fundamentally changed into a neo-con Bush apologist.

Still, the media loves to harp about Lieberman as if he were another Jim Jeffords – a moderate who gets so mistreated by those irresponsible extremists in his own party that he may finally bolt and shift the balance of power in the Senate. On the November 12th edition of “Meet the Press,” Lieberman said that he would caucus with the Democratic majority – but he refused to rule out the possibility of crossing the aisle if the party makes it too difficult for him to stay. Unlike Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican and then left in disgust when the Bush White House wouldn’t give him the time of day, Lieberman antagonizes Democrats in the Senate with his subtle threats to defect – leaving nervous party leaders to kiss his ring to avoid a mutiny. And the media attention that he’s getting only fuels his ever-expanding ego.

On the December 3rd edition of “Face the Nation,” Bob Schieffer had Lieberman and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) on for a discussion about the War in Iraq. If an unfamiliar viewer was simply told that one Senator was a blue-state Democrat and the other was a red-state Republican, they would have assumed that Lieberman was the Republican. Hagel, who is a very conservative Republican, simply and eloquently explained the obvious -- the Bush Administration needs to have a “changed strategy,” the United States must forge a diplomatic solution with Iran and Syria, the future of Iraq must ultimately be decided by the Iraqis, and withdrawing our troops is inevitable.

Meanwhile, Lieberman insisted that the War is still “winnable,” explained that Iraq is an instrumental element of our War on Terror, supported sending more U.S. troops into the quagmire, and asserted that withdrawal would be a “statement of weakness” and send a “signal to the Iranians that we are negotiating out of fear.” If there was any doubt why Karl Rove called Lieberman on the day after he lost the Democratic primary, this was it. At a time when even most Republicans have stopped drinking the neoconservative Kool-Aid and are asking the Bush Administration tough questions, Joe Lieberman can always be counted on to be their biggest cheerleader.

A majority of Americans now oppose the War and want us to withdraw – not, as George Bush and Joe Lieberman want, to send in more troops. Lieberman may have been re-elected, but Connecticut voters certainly did not approve of his position on the War. By a 2-1 margin, Connecticut voters opposed the war – and Lieberman got a stunning 40% of voters who support withdrawal. Lieberman was re-elected in spite (not because) of his views on Iraq, which raises a very obvious question. Why should the Sunday morning talk shows invite him to comment on this issue – when he clearly doesn’t represent anybody?

While some would argue that it’s the media’s job to be “tough” on whoever is in power, they certainly didn’t act that way with George Bush during his first six years in office. Nor did they do so after 1994, when the Republicans took back Congress, and Newt Gingrich became House Speaker. All I’m asking is for the media to be “fair and balanced.”

Send feedback to paul@thclinic.org