Washington Post Columnist Smacks WaPo Editorial Page Over Pelosi Coverage
(April 6, 2007 -- 4:02 PM EDT // link // )

Oh, dear. Guess who's taking the Washington Post's editorial board to task for its editorial stance against Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria? One of the Post's own Op ed columnists, Eugene Robinson.

Check out this appearance by Robinson on Hardball. Robinson defends Pelosi's trip to Syria. And he also says a couple things about his colleagues on the editorial page, which is edited by Fred Hiatt. He says this: "I`m pleased to be able to tell you I`m not a member of the editorial board."

And this: "They should tell us what they really think."

Pretty harsh stuff. Also note Matthews' smackdown of Hiatt and company. Check it out:

Here's a partial transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why is "The Washington Post" trashing Nancy Pelosi for doing basically what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton said to do, engage the neighborhood over there in the Middle East?

EUGENE ROBINSON, "WASHINGTON POST": I`m pleased to be able to tell you I`m not a member of the editorial board, and you know, I write my columns, they do their editorials. I can tell you where I stand on it, which is that...

MATTHEWS: First of all, let`s hear what your newspaper, the mother ship, has to say on this topic. This is the editorial page. I`m quoting from it. You know, this used to be a liberal newspaper, "The Washington Post," back in Nixon`s day with Ben Bradlee and others back there, Meg Greenfield, the editorial page editor. It is not a liberal paper. It`s a hawkish paper.

Quote, "We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush`s military strategy and regional diplomacy, but Ms. Pelosi`s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it`s foolish."

Pretty strong, Gene.

ROBINSON: Pretty strong. You know...

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: ... they should tell us what they really think. You know, I mean, I think that she`s right on the substance. She`s clearly right on the substance. Of course, we should be talking to Syria. And you know, this policy that if we don`t like a regime, you know, we pretend -- you know, we cover our ears and we don`t talk to them, is absurd. If Syria can be helpful or is being harmful in Iraq, in Lebanon, whatever, we should talk to them.

Not bad, Mr. Robinson. It's good to hear that you're aware of the, shall we say, shortcomings of Fred Hiatt's WaPo editorial page. Now when are you going to write a column in that very same newspaper saying some of this stuff? WaPo readers would greatly appreciate it. Guaranteed.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

FLASHBACK: Pat Buchanan, John Boehner Backed Speaker Gingrich's Involvement In Foreign Policy
(April 6, 2007 -- 10:54 AM EDT // link // )

As Glenn Greenwald notes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan. He notes a marked contrast in the tone of the coverage between that trip and Nancy Pelosi's current trip to Syria.

So let's get to work. What did conservative commentators and Republicans say about the proper role of the House Speaker in foreign affairs around the time of Gingrich's China trip?

Here's Pat Buchanan. Back in 1997, though he differed with Gingrich on China policy, he very clearly stated that Congress had a proper role in foreign policy and indeed should "run" it. From the Associated Press, March 18, 1997 (via Nexis):

Speaking at a news conference organized by the conservative magazine "Human Events," Buchanan said the Clinton administration's policy of constructive engagement with the Chinese was a failure...

"It's now up to Congress to run foreign policy and it has the power to overturn the president's decision" on China's trade status, expected in June, Buchanan said. "There is time to organize a campaign" to influence Congress, "and this is a battle we can win."

Here's Buchanan criticizing Pelosi's trip and the idea of a Congressional leader meddling in foreign policy on the Kudlow and Company on April 3, 2007:

Mr. BUCHANAN: Well, Condi Rice has been working on the Palestinian account and that hasn't come out very well. But you're right there. But let me say about Nancy Pelosi, I think it's a mistake for her, unlike these Republican and Democratic back benchers, who nobody really cares about. She's a major, major figure in American politics now. And this is thumb in the eye of the president of the United States, and it does send a mixed message. I remember going abroad with Richard Nixon in 1967. Every country he went to, we went to the embassy and he would say, `What do you want me to say and how can I help the president?' And the country, in its foreign policy, in talking to these leaders, foreign ministers and others. And this idea that we've got--America's got a couple foreign policies, I think, some Americans, it certainly bothers me that she's there.

Okay, so that's one.

Next up: GOP House leader John Boehner. Here he is in the Columbus Dispatch on April 5, 2007, frowning on the idea of a Speaker trying to upstage the President on the foreign policy stage:

In a meeting yesterday with Dispatch editors and reporters, Boehner [said] her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn't deserve.

"It's one thing for other members to go," Boehner said, "but you have to ask yourself, 'Why is Pelosi going?' She's going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president."

But it turns out that Boehner as a Congressman in 1997 went along on Gingrich's trip to China and praised the idea of it. From a press conference on April 9, 1997 (via Nexis):

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Well, let me just say that the speaker, Mr. Dingell, and the rest of my colleagues, were diplomatic; they were respectful of the countries that we visited -- but I think very clear in terms of our interest; the role of democracy that should [evolve ?] in more of these countries -- the issue of human rights. And I know from my own background, it was a very educational trip.

The parallels aren't perfect, but the hypocrisy here couldn't be clearer.

More of these as we dig them up. Feel free to send along your own finds.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Success! CNN Defines James Carville As Hillary Supporter
(April 5, 2007 -- 2:42 PM EDT // link // )

Updated below: CNN's sliming of Nancy Pelosi sinks lower and lower; Suzanne Malveaux under fire.

So it looks as if CNN -- or James Carville, or both -- listened to the loud and grating noises some of us were making about CNN's failure to identify Carville as a Hillary supporter (rather than an independent analyst) when he goes on the network and discusses the Presidential race or criticizes her chief rival, Barack Obama.

On The Situation Room last night, CNN finally did identify Carville as a Hillary backer -- and not a moment too soon, because Carville was on the air to discuss Hillary and Barack's fundraising numbers. From the program:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Joining me for today's "Strategy Session" are Democratic strategist James Carville and Republican strategist Michael Steele.

Let's, first of all, start off with the numbers. Let's take a quick look at these numbers. We have got Clinton at $26 million, Obama at $25 million, Romney at $21 million, Giuliani, $14 million, Edwards, $14 million, and McCain, $12.5 million.

Let's start with you, James.

You said that you do not advise Hillary Clinton or her campaign, but that you publicly are a supporter.

JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right.

MALVEAUX: They must somebody really nervous. Are they nervous today?

CARVILLE: Well, I suspect that that's -- $25 million is a big number. You can slice it, dice it any way that you want to. I don't know. Nervous? I think they live nervous. I have never been in a political campaign myself that I wasn't nervous.

So it seems likely that Carville and CNN made a decision -- almost certainly in response to criticisms like those here, here, and here -- to disclose this connection more clearly. That's good. As Atrios would say, Reward Good Behavior.

But here's the important point: The Good Behavior here isn't merely the disclosing of the Carville-Hillary link. Rather, it's that CNN showed that it's capable of listening to -- and hearing -- criticism. One thing that's frustrating to those of us who spend time tossing water balloons at the citadels of the big news orgs is that all too often, the professionals behind the walls appear not just unwilling to entertain criticism, but entirely incapable of hearing the substance of it. The defensive position too often is some variation of the idea that because they're taking a hammering from both sides, that they "must be doing something right," or alternatively that they needn't bother trying to separate out the valid criticisms from the bogus ones. So when a big news org makes the decision to actually hear the case being made against it, let alone adjust its behavior in response to it, that's a good thing, however limited the adjustment.

Look, who knows how long this'll last and obviously it's not any kind of grand victory; it would be nice to hear from a more diverse group of analysts. But it's still good, Goddamn it, in its own tiny way. Now, please stick a sock in Glenn Beck's maw. Thank you.

Update: In light of this post, it really needs to be pointed out that the vastly more important story right now is that CNN isn't hearing any of the criticism being lodged against it and Suzanne Malveaux about a far more important failing: Its continued sliming of Nancy Pelosi over the bogus Syria trip story. Media Matters is pounding away at this very hard and I have hit on it, too. On this score, I wanted to repost this video in hopes that it will become part of the case against CNN.

On that astonishing snippet, Malveaux actually says:

"And, Nancy Pelosi in Syria and in the crosshairs of Vice President Cheney. Is she on her way to becoming the most controversial House Speaker yet?"

Like, whatever happened to Newt Gingrich?

As regulars of this blog know, one of its main running gripes is that the big news orgs are often infuriatingly and disingenuously unwilling to acknowledge their own role in shaping public perceptions of political figures. Here you have the perfect expression of this: CNN spends days and days lavishing awful and slanted coverage on the bogus GOP attack on Pelosi, then turns around and asks if she's on her way to being the "most controversial speaker yet" -- something the network appears to be trying to facilitate with its own crappy coverage. This stinks, and the occasional adjustment on a minor matter like the identification of James Carville can't change that.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Based On Zero Evidence, Associated Press Declares That Support For Pelosi Syria Trip Is "Minority" View
(April 5, 2007 -- 12:15 PM EDT // link // )

This Washington Post editorial on Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip flagged by Think Progress and Atrios is indeed awful. But I think I've found a piece of journalism on the trip that's even worse -- indeed, it may even lay a fair claim to being the single worst piece of journalism yet on this whole story, which would be quite an achievement given the absolutely dismal performance of the media on it.

It's this Associated Press piece, which reports that support for Pelosi's trip is a "minority" view. The evidence of this? The opinions of two Republicans and one Democrat. That's it. Seriously. It says:

''I believe Speaker Pelosi has a right to go to Syria,'' [Bill] Richardson said in an interview with The Associated Press while campaigning in New Hampshire. ''She's the speaker of the House. She's delivering a tough message in support of Israel and support of U.S. policy.''

''We should be talking directly to Syria,'' he said. ''If we're going to resolve our problems with Hezbollah and advance the Middle East peace process, we should talk to Syria and deliver them a tough message and possibly initiate sanctions against Syria for not being cooperative. Delivering a tough message and seeing if there's common ground is better than not talking.''

But that view was clearly in the minority.

Aside from Bill Richardson, whose views on the trip were taken into account to support this conclusion? Here's the full list:

(1) Mitt Romney

(2) Michael Bloomberg

Yep -- that's it. If you don't believe it, check for yourself.

Come on, now. A minority of what, for Christ's sake? Presidential candidates? Probably evenly split along partisan lines. Federal officials? Is there really any doubt that a majority of them support Pelosi's trip? After all, Dems now control both Houses of Congress -- remember? -- and even some Republicans back the trip.

More broadly, support for engagement with Syria is not a minority view when you solicit the opinions of that marginal group of people known as the American public. A CBS poll taken in December, for instance, found that a majority -- 51% -- favor engaging Syria, while only 40% oppose it. Another poll from December similarly found that 52% favor engagement with Syria while only 28% oppose it.

Look, stories like this AP effort are only useful as a window on the mindset of many in the press. Indeed, judging by the coverage of this trip, the only place where a "minority" thinks the Syria trip's acceptable is in the traditional media. And as happens all too often these days, this is way out of step with what's actually happening politically in this country, as well as what the American public actually thinks.

Update: Slightly edited from original.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux: Is Pelosi Becoming "Most Controversial House Speaker Yet"?
(April 4, 2007 -- 5:46 PM EDT // link // )

Here's a real sign of the times: The leading cable news network thinks that Nancy Pelosi -- by virtue of the fact that she paid a visit to Syria -- may be on her way to becoming the "most controversial speaker yet." Yes, more controversial than Newt Gingrich, who tried to shut down the government, tried to impeach the President for lying about sex, allegedly let his budget policy be driven by the fantasy that Bill Clinton had "snubbed" him on the way to a funeral, and had a fusillade of ethics charges filed against him by Dems in Congress.

I'm really not kidding about this. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux just teased an upcoming CNN segment about the trip to Syria by saying the following:

"And, Nancy Pelosi in Syria and in the crosshairs of Vice President Cheney. Is she on her way to becoming the most controversial House Speaker yet?"

What makes this all the more remarkable is that even CNN's Wolf Blitzer knows this story is bogus -- indeed, he has now said as much repeatedly. On Friday, Blitzer said this:

...to hear the White House tell it, you would think the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has gone wild. What's so wrong about a visit to Syria?

And introducing a news segment on the Pelosi-to-Syria story later on the same program, Blitzer also said this to CNN reporter Elaine Quijano:

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Congress goes on spring break and some are going abroad, but an angry White House now accusing the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, of simply going too far. She's joining a parade of lawmakers to Syria. In fact, three Republicans are there right now. So what's the problem?

After Blitzer's very good question, which reporter Quijano didn't answer, Quijano went on to do an entire segment about this without even mentioning the Republicans who also went to Syria. Yes, Pelosi is a far higher-ranking official than the GOP Congressmen who visited, but still, not mentioning their visit is a glaring omission -- one that CNN just blithely keeps on committing.

More broadly, it needs to be said that CNN's coverage of the Pelosi-to-Syria story has been simply dismal -- profoundly embarrassing. If Blitzer were sitting next to you in a bar and was halfway into his second lite beer, he'd tearfully admit as much. It's really not a stretch to say that CNN has repeatedly stooped to doing the White House's bidding. At one point the network actually gave the story the following snide label:

Yep -- "Spring break in Syria." Of course, there was also this, and this this, too.

And now CNN has hit bottom. It's let itself be snookered by the White House's transparently bogus attacks into suggesting that Pelosi may be on her way to being the "most controversial" Speaker yet -- even more controversial than Gingrich. This, even though Blitzer -- and almost certainly other reporters, editors and producers at CNN -- know full well that this story is total horseshit.

Very, very sad. Nothing more to say.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Compare and Contrast: Obama Versus Hillary On Drudge
(April 4, 2007 -- 12:31 PM EDT // link // )

Let's do this comparison just for fun.

Barack Obama just announced his fundraising numbers today, as you know. He went the conventional route, leaking the info to CNN, the Associated Press and MSNBC just before sending out a release. No leak to Matt Drudge. All he gets from Drudge is this measly headline:

Meanwhile, a few days earlier Camp Hillary went for the all-out Drudge splash, beginning its media rollout with a "detailed and accurate leak" to Drudge, according to this account, and was apparently rewarded with this:

And...it won't have mattered in the long run one little bit. That wonderful headline and whatever impact it had on press coverage of her fundraising numbers have now been completely wiped away by Obama's numbers today, which speak for themselves without Drudge's megaphone -- and hence will get covered as glowingly as Hillary's did, perhaps more so.

Moral of the story: In the end, maybe getting such a big Drudge headline is meaningless, really. Maybe Matt Drudge Doesn't Rule Our World, after all. Maybe reality sometimes trumps Drudge in the end. Just a thought.

Update: Andrew Sullivan offers an interesting take on the differences between their approaches.

Update II: Several commenters have asked whether it's been fully established whether the Clinton camp gave it to Drudge first. The piece I linked to above said that Clinton's announcement was "rolled out in a showstopping media presentation that began with a detailed and accurate leak to the Drudge Report posted early Sunday afternoon" -- an account the Clinton camp has to my knowledge not disputed. But I can't promise up and down that other media didn't also get the info at roughly the same time, so I've corrected the above accordingly...

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Did White House Privately Back House GOPers' Trip To Syria While Bashing Pelosi?
(April 3, 2007 -- 7:39 PM EDT // link // )

Let's see if all the big news outlets who lavished so much coverage on the White House's attack on Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria have any time for this.

It's well known by now that even as the White House was slamming Pelosi for her Syria trip GOP House members were making their own trip to Syria. This has drawn lots of attention already.

But check this out: It now looks like the White House might have actually been helping these House Republicans arrange their trip to Syria at the same time they were criticizing Pelosi for going there! Who's the source of this allegation? The chief of staff to one of the GOP Congressmen who went to Syria, that's who!

Take a look at this story from Pennsylvania's Lancaster Intelligencer Journal:

While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White Houe to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bassar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the chief of staff to this Republican Congressman who went to Syria stated unequivocally that this trip was "done in cooperation with the administration." That would be the very same administration that has spent days and days attacking Pelosi for doing the same thing -- attacks that the big news orgs have eagerly spent a great deal of time and resources amplifying.

It's unclear what this GOP chief of staff's description of "cooperation" between these members of Congress and the administration means in practice. It could end up amounting to nothing at all. But it's certainly worthy of follow-up questions, wouldn't you agree?

We'll be pursuing it tomorrow.

New York Times Doesn't Report Bush's Criticism Of GOPers' Syria Trip -- Only Mentions Attack On Pelosi
(April 3, 2007 -- 2:00 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, here's a depressing new twist to the big news orgs' irksome tendency in recent days to report the White House's criticism of Dem Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria while omitting any mention of the similar trip taken by House Republicans.

At today's press conference, President Bush finally acknowledged that Republicans and Democrats had both taken the trip, for once seeming to dole out a bit of equal opportunity criticism to members of both parties. Progress, right?

But in its account of the Syria portion of the presser today, The New York Times not only fails to mention that Republicans went on a similar trip, but also failed to even report Bush's acknowledgment that this involved members of his own party. Instead, the paper only reports Bush’s criticism of Pelosi’s trip -- it describes Bush's remarks only as criticism of Pelosi.

What the heck's up with that?

From the press conference:

QUESTION: You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be preempting your own efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror...

Here's how The Times summarized his remarks:

The president offered no startling new language today about the war or his disagreements with Democratic leaders about how to conduct it. Rather, he strove to reassert his role as commander in chief of the military and as the leader in charge of American foreign policy, chiding the Speaker of the House, Nancy J. Pelosi, for visiting Syria today.

Mr. Bush said that visits like Ms. Pelosi’s, with their accompanying “photo opportunities,” may lead the Damascus government to see itself as “part of the mainstream of the international community,” and not the terrorism promoters they are. The Bush administration has been trying for two years to isolate Damascus diplomatically, but critics have called for dialogue with Syria as a means to help stabilize Iraq.

Given that this assault on Pelosi has been a key talking point for the White House and its media enablers for days and days on end, an acknowledgment from the President himself that the trip was taken by Republicans as well as Dems is not a small thing. But The Times didn't even bother to report it. According to The Times Bush only criticized Pelosi for this.

Look, Lord knows that deadlines and quick writing lead to all sorts of inadvertent omissions, and there's plenty of time to correct this glaring omission. Maybe it'll be fixed by the time the print edition of the paper rolls off the presses tomorrow. For now, though, this is pretty friggin' weak.

How will the rest of the media handle this, if at all?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell Confirms Her Scoop: GOP Senators Will Bail On Bush If "Surge" Doesn't Show Progress By Late Summer
(April 3, 2007 -- 9:58 AM EDT // link // )

Via Joan Walsh, NBC's Andrea Mitchell is confirming her scoop that (a) moderate Republican Senators don't think the "surge" will work but temporarily supported it anyway; and (b) will withdraw their support for the war if the "surge" doesn't show progress by late August.

If true -- and Mitchell seems to be saying that she has it on good authority -- this would be very significant, for two reasons. First, it would suggest that moderate Republican Senators backed escalation even though they didn't think it will work; and second, it suggests that within mere months we could see a serious crackup of the GOP unity that's holding the line against the Dem Congressional leadership's efforts to grind the war to a halt.

Mitchell reiterated this scoop on Hardball last night -- check out the video we've posted:

Here's a transcript:

MATTHEWS: What is Petraeus, General Petraeus saying over there about -- what`s he been telling people about that?

MITCHELL: Well, it`s a good thing you bring that out. He`s been telling senators -- he had, in fact, a closed-circuit briefing for the senators, Democrats as well as Republicans, and he is telling them that he will report some progress, that he hopes to be able to report some progress by August. And in turn, what many Republican senators are saying, Chris, is that if there isn`t real progress by the end of the summer, that`s when there are going to really break with the president, that they`re going along with this surge out of respect for the generals. But in his closed briefing -- they went over to the Pentagon and had that briefing, Democrats as well as Republican senators, and he made it clear to them that he thinks he can report some progress.

Mitchell said something very similar over the weekend on the same program, reporting that GOP Senators are basically saying privately that "the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running." Subsequently, Joe Klein said in an interesting post that he doubted that General Petraeus would have given himself a deadline given the realities of counterinsurgency tactics. As you can see, Mitchell is now sticking by her story.

This is interesting enough to warrant several follow-up questions for clarification. Did Mitchell report these key facts concerning the GOP Senators on NBC? Did a large enough number of GOP Senators say they were prepping to bail for this to represent something very significant? What was the true nature of their warning to Petraeus? Was it, "If this doesn't work by late August, we're definitely out of here, and we're sticking together on this"? Or was it more along the lines of, "Hey, we'd love to see some progress by Labor Day but if not, we should grab a coffee and chat about this again"? Did these Senators confide outright that they saw no hope for the "surge" to work but backed it anyway?

I've got a call into Mitchell to see if she's willing to shed further light on what she claims to know, and I'll keep you posted. More from Think Progress.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Washington Post Ignores Own Poll To Uncritically Report GOP's "Glee"
(April 2, 2007 -- 12:07 PM EDT // link // )

So here's another quick point about the Washington Post article I posted on below claiming that GOP operatives are "gleeful" about the Dem Congressional majority's aggressive confrontation of the White House on Iraq and other national security issues:

In order to report this without the skepticism it deserved, the paper's editors actually had to ignore the paper's own poll data on the subject. And that's exactly what they did -- even though the poll data was directly relevant to the topic at hand. Amazing.

From WaPo's Feb. 27 poll:

Who do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM), (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

a. The situation in Iraq: Bush 34%, Dems 54%

b. The U.S. campaign against terrorism: Bush 39%, Dems 52%

And:

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush's plan by (ITEM)?

a. creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq: Support 58%, Oppose 39%

b. restricting funding for the war: Support 46%, Oppose 51%.

Remember that the Dems are doing (a) and are not doing (b). Finally, there's also this:

Some people say the Bush administration should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further casualties. Others say knowing when the U.S. would pull out would only encourage the anti-government insurgents. Do you yourself think the United States should or should not set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq?

Should set a deadline: 53%

Should not set a deadline 46%

The Congressional Dems' approach, of course, sets a deadline.

So let's review. The Washington Post wants you to believe that Republicans are "gleeful" about the fact that the Dem Congressional majority is moving aggressively to confront the White House on Iraq terrorism issues -- even though the paper's own poll found that the public trusts the Dems on terror over Bush by a 13 point margin. The WaPo also wants you to believe that a Presidential veto of Congress' war measures could be a political winner for the GOP -- even though the paper's own poll found that sizable majorities want those measures to be implemented.

This is a sincere question. If you were an editor at The Washington Post and you were publishing a long front-page piece about this, wouldn't you think to consult -- and include in the piece -- the paper's own poll data about the topic at hand? Stranger and stranger.

Glenn Greenwald comments: "In the Beltway, it really is as if the November, 2006 election never happened, or at best, it is treated as some sort of Lottery-like event, an episode that was completely random and has no meaning whatsoever." Yep -- 2006 simply never happened. That's all there is to it.

Update: Matt Stoller has more, earning the author of the Post piece Atrios' coveted daily award.

Update II: Digby does a hilarious dissection of some of the assumptions underlying the WaPo piece.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Washington Post: Democratic Victories Bad For Dems, Good For "Gleeful" Republicans
(April 2, 2007 -- 10:46 AM EDT // link // )

Okay, welcome to our first installment of The Public's Always Ahead of the Press and the Pundits -- or "PAP" for short.

Remember how during the 2006 elections literally every political development of any kind was interpreted by pundits and the press as good for the GOP -- that is, until the evidence to the contrary became too overwhelming to ignore?

Well, guess what -- that media narrative is back! Today's Washington Post has a long front-page piece reporting that Republicans are "gleeful" because Dem victories of late have emboldened the party to challenge Bush on a host of national security issues. While the piece demonstrates occasional balance, this excerpt is beyond ridiculous:

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."...

Most Republicans are convinced the president will win his veto standoff over House and Senate war spending bills that would impose mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq....

That would slow [Democrats'] momentum as they challenge Bush on the territory he has made his political fortune on: terrorism....

Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, warned Democrats not to tamper with the national security laws that Bush secured after the 2001 terrorist attacks. "Americans don't want to reopen the programs that have protected them since 9/11," he said.

The piece goes on to opine that for the GOP, such Dem aggressiveness "could prove to be a political gift."

First off, let's pause to applaud the admirable selflessness of GOP Rep. Tom Cole. Though his job is to get Republicans elected to the House, he nonetheless left partisanship behind to offer the Democrats -- his opponents -- some free advice on how they can stay politically healthy. What a gallant fellow.

Seriously, given what happened in the 2006 elections, and given what polls are telling us today with virtual unanimity, how in the heck could anyone report with no skepticism whatsoever the absurd idea that the boldness of the Dem Congressional majority right now "has Republican political operatives gleeful"? That phrase is, like, so June 2006. What's more, why are we uncritically swallowing the idea that if Bush "wins" the legislative showdown over Iraq, it'll automatically be good politically for the GOP? Poll after poll after poll shows that the public overwhelmingly supports the Dem Congress' efforts to end the war, and indeed many want the Dems to go further than they are in reigning in Bush. From the March 29th Pew poll:

Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?

Too far 23%
Not far enough 40%
About right 30%
Don't know/Refused 7%

So seventy percent think Dems' aggressiveness is either about right or insufficently aggressive. Meanwhile, on the broader question of national security issues in general -- the grounds for the alleged GOP "gleefulness" about Dem overreaching that the Post is informing us of -- check out this Rasmussen poll from March 23:

On the broader question of National Security, the GOP fares better but not nearly as well as in years gone by. Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust the Democrats more on National Security while 44% prefer Republicans.

Look, efforts to gauge public opinion on complex matters like these can be inconclusive, and it's of course possible the Dems could overreach at some point. But can we at least wait until there's a single shred of evidence that this is happening at all, much less that the public disapproves of it, before we report that Republicans are "gleeful" about it? More broadly, given all that's happened over the past nine months, how can it be that the cruise control setting for many in the Beltway media on issues from the Attorney Purge to Iraq is still that Dems should tread carefully about confronting the White House in ways the public supports lest that same public turn on them? What the hell has to happen for this to stop?

Update: Incredibly, the Washington Post's most recent poll clearly demonstrates the absurdity of its current thesis. Needless to say, the paper's own numbers -- even though they're directly relevant to the topic at hand -- weren't included in its story today.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.