It is interesting how the MSM covered the primaries this year. Especially the Lieberman/Lamont fight in Connecticut, naturally. But, looking over the coverage I saw a strange difference in how the MSM treated the Connecticut race and one not so nationally known in Michigan. Apparently, according to the media, a victory by a liberal counts for more than a victory by a conservative.
To illustrate my point, I will use two Associated Press reports made on the very same night, Primary night, August 9th.
We all know what happened with the Lieberman/Lamont contest, of course. Lamont eeked by Lieberman with a spread of only 10,119 more votes (of 283,055 cast) than the 3 term Democratic Senator giving Lamont 52% to Lieberman's 48%. This is hardly a landslide by any honest reckoning. Yet, the MSM played this like a groundswell for Lamont. Here is how the AP reported it on election night...
Lieberman's defeat poses opportunity and challenge for Democrats
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary defeat Tuesday night came at the hands of Democratic voters angry over the war in Iraq and demanding that lawmakers stand up to President Bush rather than stand with him.
It wasn't a polite message they sent their three-term senator, a former vice presidential running mate who fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. It was an eviction notice, served by an electorate that has grown remarkably sour about the course their country is on.
That makes the result both an opportunity and a challenge for Democrats nationally as they head into a fall campaign with control of the House and Senate at stake.
So, AP has decided that this win by Lamont might bode a sort of national referendum for the Democratic Party. That this portends great "challenges" to the Democrats, that this is a groundswell of support for Lamont's position, if you will.
Perhaps it is. Closer analysis puts that in doubt. Regardless, the AP has decided that it is an anti-war "message" that the Democrats must listen to nation wide and that incumbents better pay attention.
That same night there was a race in Michigan that sort of ran to the polar opposite of that in Connecticut.
Michigan Republican Loses Party’s NominationDETROIT (AP) -- Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost his party's nomination Tuesday, falling to a staunchly conservative challenger in a primary race dominated by a struggle over GOP principles that attracted more than $1 million in spending by outside groups.
Schwarz, a moderate who supported abortion rights, was defeated by former state lawmaker Tim Walberg. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Walberg had 53 percent, or 31,869 votes, to 47 percent for Schwarz, or 28,168 votes.
--Note-- the final totals in Michigan were: Walberg - 33,144 (53%) and Schwarz 29,349 (47%)
I'll bet few of you reading this ever heard of this race in Michigan even though it almost mirrors the Lieberman/Lamont race.
So, for a quick recap, we have Lieberman, the claimed moderate, being ousted by his party over a win by a more ideologically extreme opponent in Connecticut. In Michigan, a moderate representative is being told he is not going back to Washington by his party due to the better showing of a more conservative opponent in the Primary there.
Curiously enough, the results in the Walberg/Schwarz race gave Walberg, the Conservative challenger, a tad larger win than the leftist Lamont's win over Lieberman with Walberg garnering 53% of the vote and Lamont getting only 52%.
Yet, notice the difference. As far as the AP was concerned, the win for the leftist Lamont meant a nation wide mandate from rank and file Democrats to lead a leftist revolution in the Party. Yet a conservative win in Michigan was ... well, it was merely reported matter of fact, apparently signifying nothing all that earthshaking. No national "challenges" or widespread and important meaning for a GOP that has increasingly tended toward the moderate, middle of the road positions.
So, why is this win in Connecticut such a bellwether, yet an almost identical situation (though in reverse) in Michigan is not? Why did the MSM treat the Lamont win as a "message" that all should heed, but the Walberg win was apparently not a "message" and is seemingly nothing to get all worked up over?
Could it be that the race in Connecticut gave the MSM the result that was on their Christmas wish list? Could it be that a leftist "message" being sent nation-wide is more interesting to them than a more conservative one? Could it be they have more invested in helping that leftist "message" get out? The contrast is amazing, is it not?
UPDATE 17:15 by Matthew Sheffield. I couldn't help but notice how the AP frames the Walberg victory within the context of a "staunchly conservative challenger" beating a "moderate" with the assistance of evil-sounding "outside groups."
The "anti-war" Lamont, meanwhile, won his victory thanks to an electorate who wanted to "stand up" to President Bush.
Posts
6 comments:
The AP (Arab Press), like Al-Reuters, has a clear agenda.
Game, I know you link to your source material, but without providing clear attribution on the front page, you lead the lesser informed of your readers to believe that you have done a lot of thinking and writing instead of simply copying verbatim from your source. Bad form, old chap.
As to your copied text, the entire NewsBusters article is a waste of time. It's like complaining that the media didn't give as much coverage to the invasion of Grenada as it did to World War II.
That said, percentage-wise, Lamont's margin was bigger than Bush's in 2004. Did Bush "eek by" Kerry?
Seems to me that Lieberman is a 3-term senator, a former presidential and vice-presidential candidate, well-known throughout the country. Schwartz is a, ahem, congressman, virtually unheard of outside his state.
The crux of the Connecticutt race was Lieberman's support for Bush's Iraq war "policy". Given the state of conflict in Iraq and the middle east, this is an important and very visible topic currently, and is a subject which most political thinkers believe will be a KEY ISSUE in the 2006 elections.
The crux of the Michigan election was that Scwartz was not anti-abortion enough. I know of nobody who considers this a key issue in the 2006 election.
I find it interesting that you all consider a senator who has voted 90% of the time with his party, a party that you consider out of the mainstream liberal, a moderate and the voice of bi-partisanship and moderation. At the same time, Lamont who has a position similar to Lieberman on virtually every position except supporting Bush's failed Iraq policy is some sort of "ideologically extreme" radical leftist.
It's laughable, really.
And your ominous "outside groups" merely means groups outside of the campaign itself. Big whoop!
Scorpion says---
Jumbled one-the lesser informed are the ones who challenge the GAME
regularly,but please keep it up because the challengers are truly laughable all the time,and are greatly appreciated whenever those
words of wisdom can be viewed.
only an idiot Jim...good article, want everyone to read it...have a life, can't always take the time to pick out fav points
Scorpion why do you come here? You never contribute anything but your above post --
Scorpion says---
I enjoy seeing competent points of view in my few available moments
and I also enjoy less than competent"sources" and amusing points of view also.I'm well passed
the stage of my daily routine reading the folly of so-called experts--so these debates on this
outstanding site are certainly enough and worth looking at now and then.Thanks for asking.
Post a Comment