Republican "Motley Coalition?"
Updated at 12:27 p.m.
As its circulation plummets by six percent annually, the LA Times continues to pretend everyone thinks like its editorial board, hence today's top-of-page-one analysis of Bush's efforts to get the intelligence bill passed. (here)
Harping under the headline "Bush on Notice Despite Win in Congress," reporter Janet Hook tries to her best to paint gloom and doom out of the president's brief skirmish which culminated in an 89-2 vote in his favor. [Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) voted against the bill.] It was a tough assignment for sure, with that 89-2 vote standing in her way, but she soldiered on. The struggle was "protracted," the conservatives were "powerbrokers," and the party is "far more divisive" than it was in his last term. Gee, and all so soon after all that unity just one month ago.
Unable to control her contempt, with editors unable to control theirs, Hook writes: "The Republican rebellion slowed action on the intelligence overhaul was a warning sign that Bush will have to speak clearly -- and listen carefully -- to his GOP allies in Conress if he is to hold together his party's motley coalition of defense hawks, religious activists and economic conservatives."
Go ahead, read it again. I certainly did.
Imagine reporter Hook writing of Clinton's need to hold together his "motley coalition of wimps, abortionist advocates and tax-crazy liberals." Not in our lifetime.
Why run the story? Even Hook admitted, "In the end, Bush did not have to sacrifice much to appease enough dissidents to break the impasse." Obviously, the LATimes wrote the story because they had to. They had to say something bad because they couldn't bring themselves to say something good. If this were a Clinton story, things would have been different. That story line would have been about the masterful political skills of the president, which allowed him to create a remarkable victory out of a brief and fleeting outburst by a few less-than-loyal Dems.
That such a positive story line could have been applied just as legitimately to the story Hook reported seems to be completely lost on her and her editors.
As its circulation plummets by six percent annually, the LA Times continues to pretend everyone thinks like its editorial board, hence today's top-of-page-one analysis of Bush's efforts to get the intelligence bill passed. (here)
Harping under the headline "Bush on Notice Despite Win in Congress," reporter Janet Hook tries to her best to paint gloom and doom out of the president's brief skirmish which culminated in an 89-2 vote in his favor. [Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) voted against the bill.] It was a tough assignment for sure, with that 89-2 vote standing in her way, but she soldiered on. The struggle was "protracted," the conservatives were "powerbrokers," and the party is "far more divisive" than it was in his last term. Gee, and all so soon after all that unity just one month ago.
Unable to control her contempt, with editors unable to control theirs, Hook writes: "The Republican rebellion slowed action on the intelligence overhaul was a warning sign that Bush will have to speak clearly -- and listen carefully -- to his GOP allies in Conress if he is to hold together his party's motley coalition of defense hawks, religious activists and economic conservatives."
Go ahead, read it again. I certainly did.
Imagine reporter Hook writing of Clinton's need to hold together his "motley coalition of wimps, abortionist advocates and tax-crazy liberals." Not in our lifetime.
Why run the story? Even Hook admitted, "In the end, Bush did not have to sacrifice much to appease enough dissidents to break the impasse." Obviously, the LATimes wrote the story because they had to. They had to say something bad because they couldn't bring themselves to say something good. If this were a Clinton story, things would have been different. That story line would have been about the masterful political skills of the president, which allowed him to create a remarkable victory out of a brief and fleeting outburst by a few less-than-loyal Dems.
That such a positive story line could have been applied just as legitimately to the story Hook reported seems to be completely lost on her and her editors.
posted by Laer at 1:27 PM
<< Home