The WSJ’s James Taranto nails some examples in coverage of the Scozzafava brouhaha:

The Associated Press, reporting Saturday on Scozzafava’s withdrawal from the campaign, described the larger implications this way:

Some have called the race a test of the GOP’s future: whether traditional conservative ideology would lead the way forward or if a more inclusive approach would draw more people back to the party. . . .

The phrase: “too moderate” turns up four times in stories about Scozzafava on the New York Times Web site, three times in Times stories and once in an AP dispatch. . . . A Factiva search shows that in the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign, neither the Times nor the AP ever described Joe Lieberman’s Democratic opponents as deserting him because he was “too moderate.“

Bob and Uno both have points.

It is what it is and ain’t what it ain’t, so to misquote John Prine and Ann Landers “quit your complainin Bub”.

The pundits these days invent news with a terrifying ease, simply because they have to have something interesting to say. If you don’t have any insights make something up, and they do.  There are way way too many political wonks running around (with a need to sound profound).

Whether Lieberman is moderate or true conservative or whether Scuzz-a-whatever is liberal or not is irrelevant.  It only matters how many voters get roped into either the moderate or the extreme wings of their parties.

The pundits might “hope” the partisans back away from the extremist precipice, but it’s really not up to TV and cable folk, it’s up to regular unwashed folk and to the masterminds pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, politicians put the most optimistic spin on victories, routinely saying a “mandate” has been given, and folks are “rejecting” the “failed” policies of the losers, in spite of polls stating that American people rarely care about ideology, only care about their own wallets and a few other core values and routinely give both political parties very low marks.

Com’on Bobby, it is evident that Ms.Scozzafava is DEM, always has been and always will be. She in effect lied to her supporters by using the GOP label. Good riddance! Hopefully the conservative will win the district and return common sense to those citizens.

Interesting that she did not stay in the race to split the GOP vote and help her beloved DEM candidate. But then she is liberal… who knows?

One person’s media bias is another’s so what. The Joe Lieberman/Scozzava analogy is non-sensical. ideology is not the isssue with Liberman. Trust is. Plenty of other Dems have been descriped as moderate or even conservative in the health care debate znd other issues.
  Moderate and conservative are intrinsic and germane to the ideological debate in the NY race.
  Bart appears to be on this word kick. If you use the same more than once, he gets paranoid and his own biases starting seeing biases.
  Or there is ignorance. Yesterday he chided the usage of “shall” in legislation about health care.
  “Shall “ is a very used term in law because it definitively imposes an action or a duty on someone. “May “ on the other hand is less definitive. Legal writing is archaic and redundant,granted, but so are other fields landmined with repetetive terms.
  And to be repetetive of Biscuit, this post is monkey business masquerading as
journalistic criticism .

Post Your Comments: