Those of us who a regular participants in liberal/progressive blogs often complain about how the MSM covers political issues. We have, with a fair amount of justification, offered objection to the apparent unwillingness to call this administration and the Republican Congress on its untruths, distortions, mistakes, abuses. Talking heads always seem willing to "diss" the Democrats. They will complain that Democrats lack a coherent message. They will pick apart perceived inconsistencies in Democratic positions while ignoring glaring contradictions visible in those of the Republicans. And even when they give the Democrats some credit, such statements of acknowledgment are seemingly balanced and undercut with caveats that it probably won't make a difference, that the superior organization and fundraising of the Republicans will still keep them in power. They thus stand in the way of communicating to the American people how much of a difference is possible by rejecting the Republicans, and this obstruction helps facilitate the Republicans remaining in power.
After watching far too much television the past few days, I believe the accumulation of what the Republicans must consider bad news has created an entirely different environment. And after last night, I wonder if we have reached a tipping point, so that the message will now be that the Republicans are in trouble.
Obviously some of this is fueled by the accumulation of polling data since the story about Foley and the apparent coverup by the Republican leadership of the House gained momentum. We have seen significant erosion in support for the president, in support for Speaker Hastert, in the willingness of evangelical Christians to support the President, and so on. This gets the attention of the media. But it is also the quality of the language that is being used, it is the bluntness of the statements that some are making.
I cannot systematically recall all of what I have noticed and recalled in the past few days. In some cases I can make specific attributions, in others Im can only described generally. And I am not certain that I can point to one specific moment as the single tipping point, although Keith Olbermann's willingness to bluntly call the president a liar was to me a key moment. Let me simply offer, in no specific order, a variety of things I noted.
On Lou Dobbs last night, his poll gave three options. The Democratic party represented the values people wanted, or the Republican party, or neither party. The context in which the question was asked was clearly hostile to both parties, and the vast majority of votes responded in kind, with 79% rejecting both parties. The really interesting part was the split of the remaining 215: it was 6-1 in favor of the Democrats. Only 3% of respondents were willing to say the Republican party represented their values, while 18% said the Dems.
Also on Lou Dobbs last night, he had a Dem operative, Ed Rollins, and a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter from New York.NOTE: I am talking about THREE people - the Dem operative is a different person than Ed Rollins, who of course is a Republican operative. Only Ed Rollins was willing to say the Repubs would hold either House at this point (he said both narrowly) and his support was fairly weak. It was clear that his analysis was more one of hope that it was of pure conviction.
Chris Matthews had two Republican congressmen who were bloviating about the possibility that the Democratic House leadership had had prior knowledge, and who were desperately attempting to deflect attention from the substance of Foley and the actions of Republican leadership by demanding that Pelosi and Emanuel testify under oath as to their knowledge of emails and IMs, but Matthews was not buying it, and was fairly hostile to their statements, and was challenging them on every point.
Among the talking heads Matthews had on later in the show was Joe Scarborough, who flat out said that the Republicans would lose both the House and the Senate. Joe has been increasingly scathing in his remarks about the House leadership.
I watched three shows back to back on my local PBS station last night. The one with far greater impact was Inside Washington, moderated by long-time Washington news anchor Gordon Peterson. Colbert King, a member of the Washington Post editorial board, repeatedly talked about the lies of this administration. He said that when his sons turned 18 he insisted that they register for the standby draft, talking about his own experience of serving in the military. But he then said that were there an actual draft he could not in good conscience urge them to serve under this commander in chief.
The recent statement by Sen. John Warner also had a huge impact on the media folks. The senator was complimented on his willingness to acknowledge that he and others in the Senate were partly at fault for the current mess in Iraq because of their failure to offer proper oversight of the war effort, to ask the tough questions much earlier. Several people noted that his willingness to leave all options on the table and his comments about oversight put him far closer to Jim Webb's position on Iraq than that of George Allen.
There was consistent savaging of Hastert's attempt to blame Democrats, the media, and George Soros for the mess over Foley.
Many people commented on the accumulation scandals - lumping Foley and that coverup with Cunningham, Ney, Delay, etc. Ed Rollins, while claiming the Republicans would keep the House, flat out acknowledged that the Dems would win the seats previously held by Delay and Foley.
Some people, like David Brooks, tried to say that the polling data was not yet showing an impact of the Foley mess on individual races (which btw is wrong - we are clearly seeing its impact in Reynolds' race), most people pointed at the undercutting of the enthusiasm of so-called value voters to work on behalf of the Republican candidates, and the implications this could have in races across the nation. Martin Walker did offer a caveat -that while the level of rejection of the Republicans seems to be similar, the Democrats are not offering a coherent alternative as the republicans did with the Contract for America. I personally think that overestimates the impact of that Contract in 1994, but I though I should mention his caveat, because it was one of the few I heard. Nina Totenberg also noted that the districts are much less competitive in how they are drawn than were districts in 1994, so that while she leaned towards a Democratic turnover, she wasn't sure a landslide was truly possible.
Many commentators dismissed the attempts by Republicans to shift blame towards the Democrats or the press. They noted that the Republicans are completely in charge, and flatly said that the public will hold them accountable.
And sober observers like John Harwood, principle political reporter for WSJ, said that the Foley news is NOT crowding out the impact of Iraq as an issue, that Iraq remains the number one issue and that it is an issue that badly hurts the Republicans and the Bush administration. There was commentary on the impact of the Woodward book. And there was much discussion of the acknowledgment of the mess now not only by retired generals, but by sitting generals - here General Jones, USMC, former Commandant and now 4-star commander of NATO, was mentioned by name: and this is a direct result of his words being quoted in Woodward's book and that so far he has not denied the accuracy of what was quoted.
There is so much more, but this diary is already getting too long. George Allen is running another dishonest ad attacking Jim Webb. Lowell Feld has posted about it. What is interesting is how quickly the local AP guy has written about the inaccuracy of the ad. The press is apparently now willing to quickly call the Republicans on their BS and their distortions in a way we have not seen for most of the past 7 years (I am going back to the campaign in 2000).
If this diary is to be of any use, I suggest people use the comments to offer specific examples they have noted, whether they support my thesis that we may have reached a tipping point or counter it. These can be from local or national outlets, print or electronic. We can use this diary as an accumulator. We can also discuss what we think all this means, and what we can do to perhaps maximize this seeming change in media attitude.
I look forward to any responses you readers might feel encouraged to offer.
NOTE at 10:38 AM EDT: I have been monitoring this diary for the past 3 hours or so. It has gotten far more attention than I ever expected. I now really need to get on with other things, so while I will check from time to time, I will no longer be closely monitoring. I promise I will read all comments. If I do not immediately respond to something you write with a recommend or a comment of my own, it does not mean that I do not value what you have written.
.
Peace