« Question No. 6 | Main | Question No. 6b »
February 15, 2006
Question No. 6a
The questioner in yesterday's entry responds:
"Do you think the media favors moderate/dissenting Republicans over conservative Democrats? For example, Joe Lieberman rarely seems to enjoy the type of generous coverage that Hagel, McCain, Chafee, et.al regularly receive. When Lieberman crossed party lines recently to support President Bush on a several issues related to the war in Iraq, I didn't see any editorials or profiles championing his brave stand against Harry Reid.
"President Clinton complains in his autobiography of suffering from a similar phenomenon, especially on welfare reform and deficit reduction.
"Are conservative Democrats just less enticing subjects than maverick Republicans?"
I don't think so. Just to cite the Lieberman example, the story of his pro-Iraq war stance did get widespread play. Not all of it was unfavorable. The Monitor editorial on the subject appreciated Lieberman's sincerity and consistency on the Iraq war while disagreeing with his position. It also said the Democratic Party needs to be big enough to include Lieberman and his views.
Further on Lieberman: He got extensive coverage during the 2004 Democratic primary. I mean, he literally moved to New Hampshire for that campaign. But for voters it proved not to be a case of "the more I see Joe, the more I like him." Press coverage, and editorials, reflected this.
On Clinton: The only thing he has to complain about is too much coverage on certain subjects. I think his complaint in the biography was that the media didn't give him enough credit for deficit reduction and welfare reform. His administration produced balanced budgets, but because the economy was booming, how much credit he should get for that is open to question. Clinton may well deserve more credit on welfare reform, which was a smart direction for him, the party and the country. But that's just my opinion, and opinions on this varied widely during and after the debate.
I don't think the conservative Democrats vs. Republican mavericks comparison is the right one. Almost everything depends on political skills and strategy. And, of course, if you're looking for a conservative - or at least moderate - Democrat who attracted heavy media interest from the get-go, Clinton is exhibit A.
Posted by Mike Pride at February 15, 2006 06:43 PM
Comments
Thanks again for taking the time. I'm now convinced you are right: "Almost everything depends on political skills and strategy."
Posted by: Jonah at February 15, 2006 09:04 PM
I don't think the media favor any moderate as far as coverage goes. It seems to me that they are always quoting the whiniest, most vitrolic politicians in both parties. Nice guys are invisible to the press.
For editorials, I don't know that it's true that Lieberman is ignored. His views on the war aren't going to be applauded by the NYT/WP/LAT et al. But if Lieberman actually is ignored, it's because he is too nice. Too calm and collected. Too "friendly". McCain and gang may deviate from typical Republican ideology, but they do it in a loud way.
People are always speculating that Hastert has less power than the House Majority Leader. Why do people think this? Because Hastert is too nice, and the media effectively ignore him.
But let me ask this: why are Republicans who are in the middle often labeled "moderate" while Democrats who are in the middle often labeled "conservative"?
Posted by: Skoody McGugin at February 16, 2006 08:46 PM