Wednesday, July 19, 2006

All News Is Good News...If You're a Republican

This morning I started a little experiment. I went out looking for reactions in the press to the whupping handed to former Christian Coalition head, Abramoff buddy, and third-place winner in a Rick Santorum lookalike contest Ralph Reed. Reed was running for lieutenant governor of Georgia, and, given his connection to Abramoff and others, Reed losing (and badly, 56-44) is a big deal. I expected at least to see stories talking about how this is an example of how Republicans are in trouble in the fall, much as we saw stories a month ago that Francine Busby’s loss in the special election for Duke Cunningham’s seat illustrates that the issue of massive Republican corruption is not helping the Democrats.

I mean, there should be such stories, right? Reed was a shoo-in who lost entirely due to his massive corruption. It doesn’t take much to connect the dots, does it?

I checked the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal stories. Both of them were pretty straight news stories, which is fine. The election was yesterday, and it usually takes a couple of days to produce election analysis.

Then I got to the New York Times. You know, the “liberally biased” (as we’re endlessly told) New York Times? What did the Times have to say?

"Mr. Reed's candidacy was viewed as a test of the effects of the Washington lobbying scandal on core Republican voters."
All right, here it comes. And how did that test come out?

Well, they don’t mention that. They don’t have any insight into whether turnout was down, and, if so, why (disgust with corruption?). They don’t have any insight into whether that test was passed or failed at all. Nothing. Just that passive declaration that it was viewed as a test (by whom?).

But, surely they made some sort of extrapolation...

But some Democrats actually rooted for Mr. Reed, believing that he would be prove to be a liability for the incumbent Republic governor, Sonny Perdue, and that he would have been easier to defeat.

"It may mean that Democrats lose the lieutenant governor's race," said William Boone, a political science professor at Clark-Atlanta University. "It certainly takes away the issue of corruption that the Democrats nationally have been using."
WHAT? So now, this is bad for the Democrats? A Democrat loses, and it's bad for the Democrats. A Republican loses...and it's still bad for the Democrats???

Is it even possible for ANY outcome to happen in anything that won't be viewed by the press as bad for Democrats?

No comments: