|
|
Home | Notes
Contributors
Archives | Search
Links | About
..........
over 2 million served
..........
Julia Gorin
..........
..........
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco
by Burt Prelutsky
.........
America Alone
by Mark Steyn
..........
..........
..........
|
|
 No
End to Bad News
Piling it on...
[by Roger Aronoff] 10/20/05
Some recent
articles have shined a light on an interesting political development:
the Democrats—and the Republicans—are in disarray
and taking a beating in the press.
On the face
of it, Democrats have plenty to cheer about: low poll numbers
for President Bush; Majority Leader Tom DeLay forced to step
down because of a series of indictments from a Texas prosecutor;
high gas prices; the CIA-leak investigation; a supposedly unpopular
war; large deficits, and now a rift in the Republican Party
over the nomination of Harriet Miers to be the next Supreme
Court Justice. It would seem that their prospects are good
for making significant gains in 2006, in both the House and
Senate. If that happens, Bush’s last two years in office
will not be a happy time for him. There would certainly be
wall to wall investigations by Democratic-led committees, and
if they see an opening, an attempt at impeachment.
But for some
reason, the liberal media are also full of stories about gloom
and
doom in the Democratic Party. Clearly it’s
gloom and doom that the media share. They’re clearly worried
about Democratic prospects in 2008.
Newsweek ran a story
in its October 10 issue by political editor Howard Fineman,
called “Demoralized Dems.” He said
in a room of well-connected Democrats, he was “struck by
how gloomy they were. They can’t stand Bush, but didn’t
have much faith in their own party’s prospects.”
He pointed to the
charisma factor, and gave a big edge to the Republicans. Calling
them “big, bold, controversial characters.
Good copy if nothing else,” he named Rudy, Colin, Arnold,
McCain and Condi. Comparing them to the “more or less official
roster of titular Democratic leaders,” he named Harry Reid,
Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Kerry. “‘Nuff
said,” wrote Fineman.
Then there’s Hillary. He said that while the “purported
inevitability” of her nomination excites some of the faithful,
it “deeply depresses some others, both inside and outside
the Beltway.” He describes an “undercurrent of unease
about the ‘Back to the Future’ quality of another
Clinton candidacy. Do we really want to relive the Clinton Years?,” he
asks. “Under their breath,” writes Fineman, “even
many Clinton acolytes tend to say ‘No.’”
That same week, the
Washington Post ran a story about two former Clinton aides
who have written a report sponsored by a group
called Third Way, which is supposed to help draw Democrats to
what they see as a more centrist philosophy, hoping to draw voters
from the Republicans’ center-right coalition. Their report
argues that “liberals espouse views diverging not only
from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole.
To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc
within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party,
Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill.”
The authors of the
report, Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, wrote a similar
report back in 1989 called “The Politics
of Evasion,” which according to Post reporter Thomas Edsall, “helped
set the stage for Clinton’s presidential bid and the prominent
role of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. In some ways,
the report released yesterday showed how difficult the debate
is to resolve.” Edsall wrote that they are not very specific
on recommendations, but he did name a few things: “They
suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton’s
tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party’s liberal
base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner,
by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson, and by calling
for an end to welfare ‘as we know it.’”
It’s not clear
how that will go over as a platform. As we noted in a recent commentary,
the left is organizing to create a media and cultural infrastructure
that, as they see it, will compete with that of the right—think
tanks, talk radio, Internet, TV. It is bizarre to think that
they feel they don’t have enough representation in the
news media and on TV. Can you imagine, for example, a conservative
version of the new show, “Commander in Chief,” in
which the evil-doers are Democrats and the new female president
is a conservative independent? Are we being softened up for the
expected Hillary campaign of 2008? And the Bush bashing continues
on shows like Bill Maher’s HBO show, Jon Stewart’s
Daily Show, Al Franken’s TV version of his radio show,
not to mention on mainstream media and many cable-news talk shows.
Al Gore has started up one of those new networks, called Current,
which is supposed to help counter all of that evil right-wing
media that he and many others believe dominates the culture.
Gore gave a rather bizarre speech this
month offering his take on many aspects of politics, culture
and the media.
Incredibly, Gore
claimed that Dan Rather was “forced
out of his anchor job after angering the White House…” In
a press release, we noted that Gore “seems not to have
noticed that Dan Rather destroyed his own credibility by using
fraudulent documents on the air to smear the president. Rather
stepped down because he humiliated himself and CBS News. Gore
seems to be excusing Rather’s sleazy conduct and blaming
the White House for the network’s media malpractice.
At the same time,
Gore declared in his speech that Jon Stewart, host of the fake
news program, “The Daily Show,” on
Comedy Central, was “brilliant.”
In his speech,
Gore complained about “the destruction” of
the “marketplace of ideas” and said there was a “strangeness” that “haunts
our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make
as a nation.”
Some think
Gore may run for president again. But with speeches like
that, we understand why the media are demoralized over Democratic
prospects in 2008. -one-
copyright
2005 Accuracy in Media
§
|
|
|
