It’s almost as if they’re constitutionally mandated to balance a story about Bush’s horrible poll numbers with yet another story about “Democratic disarray”.
Fractured:
# To cause to break: fracture a bone.
# To disrupt or destroy as if by breaking
# To abuse or misuse flagrantly, as by violating rules
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
The Post’s headline: “Democrats Are Fractured Over Strategy, Funds”
Based on that description you’d expect to find a Hatfield & McCoy style war in full on action, but instead as the story itself admits the difference of opinion isn’t anything new and has been around since Dean became the DNC chair last year. Essentially Dean thinks the best investment of the party’s money is a long term growth strategy, while folks like Rahm Emanuel – understandably – want a ton of money spent on Novemeber’s elections. Everyone knows this dichotomy exists, but the Post slaps it on page A1 in order to somehow “balance” the actual news about the ongoing erosion in Bush’s support in his base – something that’s actually news because they’ve stuck with him past the point of absurdity.
I happen to agree with Dean, strategically, because while we could see modest to large gains this fall the real prize is 2008. The Democratic party is on the verge of being regionally shut out and if we follow the 2002 strategy of betting the farm in an election year we’re apt to have blown any infrastructure built up elsewhere. I really don’t want to put the Dem nominee in 2008, no matter who he or she is, in the position of Kerry, Gore, or Clinton where they’ve got to build a national operation from scratch while also running for president.
(Also, I don’t get what the Democrats “close to the situation” gain by leaking unflattering things about their party to the Post. If it’s one thing I admire from a hard-nails politics perspective about Sen. Clinton is that her staff rightly views the media as an adversary and not a bimbo to chat gossip with.)
That said, this isn’t news. This is the Post again being mau-maued by the bias pimps into providing “balance” to a story that is unflattering of Dear Leader.
Maybe if Dean hadn’t spent all the money he didn’t raise, there wouldn’t be an argument about how to dole out what’s left.
I’m not sure if Democratic party disarray is much of a story either. But, OTOH, I don’t think Bush’s poll numbers are a story but once or twice. Why not commission a poll every two hours and let the MSM cut in with ‘breaking news’. Its the same non-story: Bush’s poll numbers are low. How many times does that non-story have to be ballyhooed before its understood for what it is: an effort on the part of the MSM to get Bush.
Dugger, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action
A Headline That Distorts And Exaggerates The Content Of The Article!!
Well, whoever heard?
Yeah, the post has stuck by Bush. Does that mean they endorsed him in ‘04? Didn’t think so.
And the reason these articles about the shortcomings of Democrats are so common is because given the current popularity of Bush and both houses of congress (which is pathetically low), it is probably assumed by a lot of people that the Dems are gonna sweep control of both houses this November.
As it turns out, that is highly unlikely, and the post is merely illustrating why. And the reason why, is because of no message and a dumb, racist moron running the DNC.
Yet Another GOP Washington Post H…
Because the Washington Post can’t let the fact that Bush and the Republican Party is truly unpopular go unchallenged. From page A01…
Democratic Disarray? Nahhhh…
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=6713
Based on this news, I eagerly await our host slamming the good Dr. as a Bigot.
“Bush s poll numbers are low. How many times does that non-story have to be ballyhooed before its understood for what it is: an effort on the part of the MSM to get Bush.”
Did you have a problem with the media regularly reporting Bush’s record high approval ratings in the aftermath of 9-11? How many times did I have to hear that Bush was at a 90 percent approval rating after he took a bold stand ona pile of rubble? Was the media trying to “get Bush” when it touted
again and again that he was the kind of guy people wanted to have a beer with (despite the fact that he’s a supposedly recovered alcoholic)?
Public opinion is a dynamic thing, it changes in response to events as they occur. It also happens to be an election year. The public’s attitude toward Bush and the Republican leadership impacts election strategies at every level. The Bush administration is desperately trying to turn public opinion around before November and reporting poll numbers is part of that story.
Don’t bother with any actual evidence on those idiotic charges, and lord knows nobody has ever voted for a party based on their chairman.
frame, reporting any number that reflects on cons badly is evidence of liberal bias, you know that, right?
Because MSM’s job is to provide propaganda for the Reich, not to report the news. Not that they ever did much of the latter anyway.
Cons really don’t like numbers: Poll numbers for their Leader, Number of Dead in Iraq, amount of the federal budget deficit, the dollar/Euro exchange rates…. why do numbers hate America!
“frame, reporting any number that reflects on cons badly is evidence of liberal bias, you know that, right?”
What was I thinking. I beg your forgiveness for being so shrill.