A Media Update For Joe Klein

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As a service for Joe Klein to enable him to better understand the "extremism" of the Left blogs in their critique of the Media, I will be periodically pointing out instances where the Media "reporting" and "analysis" is fact free. In today's edition, I point to ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous and the Washington Post's Dan Balz. Balz writes:

The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) . . .The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops . . .

As reported by Kevin Drum, Gibson and Stephanopolous said:

Their conclusion? It was killed by extremists on both sides: liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans overwhelmed the centrists.

The facts? Not present in the reporting. As Kevin Drum wrote:

This is ridiculous. Look at the numbers. This was a bipartisan bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John McCain and supported by George Bush. Democrats voted 37-11 in favor of moving forward to a final vote. Republicans voted 38-7 against it. In the end, the Democratic leadership delivered nearly 80% of its votes. Bush couldn't even get 20% of his party to go along. All I can say is: if it was extremists that killed this bill, then 80% of the Republican Party is made up of extremists. For some reason, though, that wasn't quite the impression Charlie and George left us with tonight. Jeebus.

Just one more reason Joe Klein, that the Media makes reasonable people "extreme."

< The Upcoming Iraq Discussion | Crashing The Gates By Clearing The Field? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Media Update For Joe Klein | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

BTW (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:34:22 AM EST

the extreme Leftists Senators who voted against it were named Pryor, Landrieu, McCaskill, Tester, Baucus, Dorgan, Rockefeller, . . . .

This is the Media at its absolute worst.

: Indeed it is. (none / 0) (#27)
by Lora on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:25:18 PM EST

Glad to see it exposed.

And this from Balz is just criminal (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:38:12 AM EST

The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work. It is far too early to assess the viability of such a candidate, but it is easy to imagine the immigration impasse finding its way into a television commercial if someone such as New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decides to run.

This is just supremely stupid. It is easy to assess the viability of a third party candidate - there is no viability. ZERO. None. If Balz does not know this he should be fired immediately.

Second, the chances of a Michael Bloomberg running for President on IMMIGRATION is so absurd as to be ridiculous. Does Balz not know that Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York?

The man, Balz, seems supremely ignorant to me.

Bloomberg may have the ego (none / 0) (#3)
by TexDem on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:56:50 AM EST

but he's not as loony as Ross Perot. He doesn't strike me as one who would waste his money in that manner.


He may be loony enough to try (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:02:23 PM EST

His viability is ZERO. The chances that he would run on immigration is ZERO.

Balz is ignorant.


Since when has ignorance stopped these Bozos (none / 0) (#5)
by TexDem on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:14:21 PM EST

from writing/printing anything?

Hey, that can be his new name, Bozo Balz. People will ask what kind of balls are those and we'll just say, the empty headed kind.


: Stealing from A E Houseman (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:15:48 PM EST

And oh, 'tis true, 'tis true.

: Heh (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:14:59 PM EST

I Differ With That (none / 0) (#10)
by talex on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:30:23 PM EST

In a very broad sense there are third party candidates that run every year. So when Baltz says there is an interest there obviously is with some people; Libertarians, Green Party, etc.

And then of course our country has a history of fairly successful third Party runs; Ross Perot who got 19% of the popular vote; Nader, who might have cost Gore the election; John Anderson, 7% of the popular vote; George Wallace, 13% of the popular vote; Teddy Roosevelt; and more.

So it is ridiculous to say there is not interest in third parties.

Second, the chances of a Michael Bloomberg running for President on IMMIGRATION is so absurd as to be ridiculous.

That is not how I and others read it. What Baltz is saying IMO is that immigration is an example of "impasse" in DC between the parties and we all know the public is feed up with that. So he is suggesting that a Bloomberg could highlight that "impasse" in a TV ad to make a point that the current two party system is sometimes dysfunctional.

To make it simple he would not run on Immigration - he would run on getting things done using the example of the Immigration bill "impasse" among others.


: Viability (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST

was the word used, not "interest."
But you knew that of course.
A prime example of why you have been classified a "chatterer."

: And the chances of Bloomberg (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:48:42 PM EST

running any ad on immigration, or even mentioning it in a run are ZERO. PRecisely because he holds one of the "extreme" views Balz is decrying.
Do you know anything about Bloomberg?

Drum (none / 0) (#8)
by talex on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:19:15 PM EST

is being the protective mother here. 20% is 20% - a Dem is a Dem if the Party includes them in their caucus - and a no vote is a no vote. So Baltz is correct in saying "opponents on the right and left". There certainly was that.

In fact there were many outside groups that identify as Dem who had many issues with the bill and for good reason. One can only wonder what would have emerged from the House and then from conference. Maybe we will still find out if the Right can get over their xenophobia.

And as for the MSM being fact free - well so are the blogs all to often. Markos just displayed that yesterday in one of his posts at dkos, MyDD has done it, as well as this blog and others.

People who live in glass houses...

Drum's point (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by killer on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:38:37 PM EST

was that the dems that voted against the bill were anything but "extremist" and that 80% of reps can't be "extreme" by definition. His point is not that anyone had total party unity, but rather that the descriptions of the votes was inaccurate and appeared to be written to further the beltway perspective.


: Talex knows this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:50:55 PM EST

His comment is dishonest and intentionally provocative.
It is why he has been classified a "chatterer."

Dems equals Left? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:49:48 PM EST

Since when?

That is not at all what Balz was saying and you prove yet again why you have been classified a "chatterer."


You are (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by talex on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:31:03 PM EST

taunting me.


No (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:34:24 PM EST

I am informing commenters of your status and why.


Recommendation: (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:53:20 PM EST

ignore Talex. It is vey distracting.


: He is supposed to be limited to 4 comments (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:29:58 PM EST

and I want people to know whjy.
For some reason the limit was not working and he wasnot respecting it so I needed to delete his comments.
And explain why.

It's possible (none / 0) (#9)
by misplacedpatriot on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:20:40 PM EST

As I've pointed out in a comment on Kevin Drum's post, using the final vote to determine who caused the compromise to fail is a bit of bad logic.

If 'liberal extremists' added amendments to the bill so that it became less palatable to conservatives, then the failure of the compromise bill could be ascribed to those 'extremists' even if they voted for the final bill.

How different was the final bill from the original compromise?

: Would call for some reporting (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:45:44 PM EST

to make that assertion dontcha think?
the facts as we know them do not say anything but the opposite of what you write.
Shouldn't reporters, um, you know, report?

Hmm (none / 0) (#18)
by chemoelectric on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:30:56 PM EST

This seems similar to the common theme you hear from such as Air America Radio hosts, bless their hearts, who invent and sometimes re-invent the false factoid that bomb-strapping terrorism is caused by poverty or lack of a job. I imagine this is extending a mental-emotional model of oppression in the United States into other realms of oppression. A question to ask about Balz-Gibson-Stephanopoulos-etc. is whether there is anywhere on Earth that their brain-model actually applies.

Suicide bombers in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
by Dadler on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:50:24 PM EST

Explain how they aren't doing so out of desperation and miserable living conditions that we brought them?

Yes, some bombers could be employed and wealthy, but I suggest you go out and find one before assuming they aren't largely poor and/or living in desperate conditions.

What you miss about these bombers is this: they are YOUNG. The young can be manipulated to do just about anything, given the right circumstances. Because they lack the experience to fall back on, the maturity. Look at tall the young people in the military who bought this administration's wretched lies about this war being for America's safety. They have killed and destroyed for reasons just as flimsy as a suicide bomber. Wearing a uniform does not insulate you from being brainwashed. In fact, it helps the process by encouraging greater conformity. Just like religion done when abused.


: Dadler (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:10:27 PM EST

At one time I thought the terrorists that blow themselves up to kill others were driven by poverty.
It is clear now, when you view England, Ft Dix, etc., that the driver is a false view of what their religion wants them to do.
Your giving our troops and them equilavence is as wrong as usual, but I have figured out you're not gonna change.

Dishonest chatterer (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:35:34 PM EST

Maybe (none / 0) (#23)
by garyb50 on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:04:06 PM EST

it was just too many numbers - they got confused by the math.

Koshembos (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:31:29 PM EST

Sorry, I accidently deleted your comment.

I was going to ask you to explain it because it was not apparent to me its relevance.

If you repost it could you explain what point you were making?