To be fair, Nagourney misled about Lieberman's enthusiasm for Roberts

[BurtWorm]

According to Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/leftsideitem/n1/200507200007

NY Times, others misrepresented Lieberman's comments on Roberts
The New York Times misrepresented a comment made by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) to falsely report that Lieberman had said he would likely support John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court. In a July 20 article, Times reporter Adam Nagourney referred to a Lieberman quote that appeared in a July 14 Hartford Courant article. Nagourney wrote: "Even before the nomination, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, a moderate Democrat and one of the 14 senators whose recent compromise averted a shutdown on the process of confirming judicial nominees, said he was likely to support Mr. Roberts if he was nominated."

But in fact, the Courant reported that Lieberman had said that Roberts was "in the ballpark" of potential Supreme Court justices who could be considered without sparking a filibuster. Far from offering an endorsement, Lieberman insisted that Roberts "would be carefully scrutinized":

Lieberman offered reporters Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.

He said federal appellate Judges Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were "in the ballpark," and that "people tell me" appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is "very similar."

Lieberman emphasized that should they be nominated, they would be carefully scrutinized.

[unfrigginreal]

1. Leave it to Lieberman where...

amenability trounces principle everytime.

Damn I hope someone challenges him in the primaries.

[Lecky]

2. Did you read the original post?

[unfrigginreal]

4. Yes, did you?

Perhaps you and mediamatters are willing to give him a pass for suggesting that Roberts *might* be palatable but I'm not. Why give the press the fodder to mis-characterize his remarks. If he'd have said that all nominees would be scrutinized before a decision about filibuster could be made, then he wouldn't have been in the position of having MULTIPLE news outlets suggesting that he's cool with the Roberts nomination.

[Bleacher Creature]

3. OK -- I'll take it back on this one.

I actually posted about Lieberman's comments earlier tonight -- and not in a complimentary way. I'll take back what I said about him tonight - just to be fair. But there's still issues with this guy that can't be erased by one crappy article.