The Beltway Media Still Irrelevant On Iraq

Glenn Greenwald documents again how the Beltway Media is clueless, but I think he overlooks an important sidebar, it is also remains irrelevant on Iraq. Glenn goes through the atrocious Pelosi in Syria coverage and her rising poll numbers:

Yes, Pelosi's trip to Syria sure did make Democrats look weak and untrustworthy on national security -- just like our brilliant media stars told us it would. After all, the percentage of Americans who trust Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq increased after Pelosi's trip -- from 54% to 58%. And the gap between those who trust Democrats more than The Great War Leader George W. Bush with regard to the war is now a startling 25 point gap -- up from 20 points as compared to the period before Pelosi went to Syria. . . . These media stars have absolutely no idea what and how "Americans" think. They take the conventional Beltway wisdom they pass amongst one another -- all generated by their White House confidants and other right-wing sources who have long ruled Washington (and therefore "their world") -- and they mindlessly assume it to be true and then run around repeating it without any effort to determine if it is actually true . . .

All true, but consider what happened - their relentless bleating had ZERO effect on public opinion. The Beltway Media has rendered itself irrelevant to the American People when it comes to Bush and Iraq.

The views of the folks back home should be uppermost in the minds of the Democratic Congress when it considers what type of Iraq funding bill should emerge from conference this week:

[O]n troop-withdrawal language, negotiators are likely to bend toward the Senate bill, which says troop withdrawals must begin within 120 days after bill passage but sets a date of March 31, 2008, only as a goal for final withdrawals. The idea, aides said, is to show Democrats as willing to compromise with Bush and to make a veto more difficult to defend.

That strategy would make it hard for House Democratic leaders to round up the 218 votes for passage, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. About 40 antiwar Democrats reluctantly voted for the original House bill, even though they thought it was too weak.

"We had nothing to spare in the last vote," Moran said, "and a number of members have gone home who voted for it and who just heard from their base that they should have stuck with" the hard-line antiwar Democrats who voted against it.

Let me put it this way, if the withdrawal language in this bill is nonbinding, then Reid-Feingold better be the next bill on the table, and the Democrats better vote for it. Otherwise, the Democrats will end up owning co-owning the Iraq Debacle.

In other words, Democrats better listen to the American People, not the irrelevant Beltway media.

< Other Cases In the News | Va. Tech Shooter Had Disturbing History >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    a number of members have gone home who voted for it and who just heard from their base that they should have stuck with" the hard-line antiwar Democrats who voted against it.
    I'll bet they did. Good, that means the message is getting stronger everywhere.

    Pressure from the left is real (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by fairleft on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    Hopefully Pelosi doesn't believe the right-wing Beltway spin, that she needs to be even more accomodating to the least popular President in American history.

    I wonder how all those bloated egos in the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    Beltway media feel now that the writing is on the wall and no one is listening to their nonsense except for themselves.  That is, if the Dems actually abide by the polls and stand firm.

    Sounds like Reid is doing just that. Not sure about Pelosi.  Though, she probably can't help but grin at the wasted effort spent in smearing her. Way to go press, you gave her a bump up.

    As for the tin-eared Levin, he can go pound the sand.

    Obama and Clinton. Hello? Anyone home? Weak words and taking a mushy stand on Iraq is not leadership and not exactly a winning strategy these days. Do you want to be President or just a politician with wads of cash thinking WTF? as you watch someone else who took a bold stand win the nomination?

    To sum up most of the Beltway Media -- all sound and GOP lies/propaganda, signifying nothing. The public finally gets this. Be nice to see the Democrats in DC catch on as well.  

    If the Beltway media and political consultants get any more irrelevant, they'll dry up and float away. Sounds good to me, the country would be much better for it.

    Millions and Billions in research... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Freewill on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    And this is their conclusion after all that money, time and study group surveys:

    See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. -- President Bush, May 24, 2005

    I've wondered, who mentored President Bush and all those Beltway Media Types?

    Unsupported conclusion. (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    All true, but consider what happened - their relentless bleating had ZERO effect on public opinion.

    It's not clear why you think this is true.  While public sentiment moved only a small amount in the Democrat's favor after Pelosi's trip (not necessarily associated with the trip) that doesn't tell you what the effect of the media's reporting was.

    There are three possibilities:

    1. The nature of the reporting had no effect on public opinion.

    2. The nature of the reporting had a negative effect on public opinion.  Had the trip been reported in a more favorable light it's possible sentiment would have swung by, say, fifteen points, instead of four.

    3. The reporting had a positive effect on public opinion.  It's possible that the media-consuming public ignored the negative aspects of the media circus and simpy thought "Hey, someone's talking to Syria, I wonder why the heck the Administration isn't doing that".

    You have to be kidding me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    That is ridiculous.

    A 15 point swing you say?

    Absurd. 3 strikes me as almost as ridiculous.

    Let me tell you what this is about - I-R-A-Q.

    And B-U-S-H.

    Being seen as against him pushes up your numbers always now.