« GA-12: GOP Shut-Out Is Official As Dem Barrow Wins Reelection | Home | Report: Rahm Emanuel And Howard Dean Make Peace »
New York Times Inexplicably Says Dems Are "Fingerpointing"
Ah, signs of the Times. From the paper's front page, above the fold:
Not to quibble, but the term "fingerpointing" is generally ascribed to those who are trying to blame each other for losing, not those who are ascribing blame for not having won by an overwhelming enough margin.
Advertisement
Once again the NYT confuses what they perceive as balance, with objectivity.
November 16, 2006 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to read complete CW-spouting, which is completely wrong, check out the NYT article on how powerful Lieberman has become, complete with Susan Collins (R-ME) not-so-subtle attempts to lure him to the dark side.
Bet Lieberman loved waking up and reading that piece of garbage. Hope no Dems in the Senate are fooled as to who wears the pants in this relationship.
November 16, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ohiomeister, I saw that piece yesterday. It was awful. I wrote about it on The Horse's Mouth, if you're interested:
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/11/post_423.html#014521
g
November 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Ohiomeister, I saw that piece yesterday. It was awful. I wrote about it on The Horse's Mouth, if you're interested:
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/11/post_423.html#014521
g
November 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT seems to be talking about Carville complaining about Dean not spending the last penny on a handful of competitive races that might have used a push. I was indeed puzzled by lack of sufficient support for some candidates--I suspect Duckworth could have won with a last minute TV blitz to counter RoScam's distortions--but shouldn't Carville look at his own senatorial friends who have not done enough?
BTW, Kerry's flub not only failed to backfire but seems to have had an unexpected positive effect--it made it easy to point out that GOP was so desperate that they tried to make an issue of a misdelivered statement by someone who was not even a candidate. This might have killed off Kerry's presidential aspirations, but I don't believe it hurt any congressional races.
Given the fact that Kerry's statement pretty much finished off his candidacy for '08, Carville should have made Kerry share the wealth instead of blaming Dean for not doing enough.
Does this qualify as "fingerpointing"?
November 16, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all that righties usually like to dump on the New York Times as a biased, liberal rag, Adam Nagourney's bucket-o-tripe piece about "Democrats in Disarray" ought to really disabuse them of that notion: as well as any Democrats who might expect any kind of real objectivity in "the paper of record"s political reporting.
"Some Democrats", here really means James Carville, who has taken, for whatever warped reasons of his own, the opportunity of the Democrats' big election win in 2006, to basically crap all over the rug at their party. And the NYT has just gone with the (flawed) narrative; gleefully spotighting the Democrats' "troubles" - petty as they might be - and ignoring any bigger picture to their upcoming control of Congress, in favor of personality spats, and bogus "ethical concerns".
And the Times even reinforced the point with their choice of photos: right opposite the isolated single shots Greg reproduces above, was a group shot of a bunch of Republicans beaming in partisan comity.
"Liberal media bias", I guess.
November 16, 2006 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Carville's also irritated with Emanuel (see Sunday Chi. Trib article on Rahm) for not heeding his advice to go with positive ads in the last weeks. Judging from what I saw at frontdoors and on the phone in the IL-06 it would have worked. People
were sick of this election and the constant attack ads. Do you know how hard it is to explain in 10 seconds or less before they slam the door in your face that a) the Republicans own the WH, Senate and the House b) negativity is how they did it and c) who are democrats to argue with success?
We could have left Roskam high and dry looking like a screeching banshee if we didn't have those stupid Dr. Suess commercials.
November 16, 2006 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carville is biased in favor of the view that Carville knows what he's talking about. So naturally, Carville's going to say that Democrats would've done better if they'd hired Carville. The CNN "Analyst" gig must not be working out so well.
-- GOP, STFU
November 16, 2006 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink