From the ArcaMax Publishing, L. Brent Bozell III Newsletter:
http://www.arcamax.com/news/brentbozell/s-642211-224843
The New York Times editorial page is a perfect weather vane for the
way the liberal media's hot air is blowing. In an Oct. 26 editorial
called "Torching the Big Tent," they lamented: "The feeble pulse of
moderation in the Republican Party is in danger of flat-lining in the
Nov. 3 Congressional election in upstate New York."
The feeble "moderate" the Times was backing for Congress was Dede
Scozzafava -- pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-union power, pro-tax
hike. The Times found these positions to be proof of "refreshing
tinges of centrism." The Times lectured the conservative movement to
embrace this candidacy, since "creative ideas and candidates, not
right-wing zeal, are the obvious way to get back in the game of
democracy."
Any New Yorker foolish enough to follow the political advice of The
New York Times deserves what he gets.
What if the Times portrayed this battle for the 23rd District of New
York the opposite way? What if the surging campaign of conservative
Doug Hoffman was portrayed as "Revenge of the Irate Moderates?"
Liberals would rub their eyes in utter disbelief. But just three years
ago, the Times editorial page was using those exact words to describe
the hard-left forces behind Ned Lamont, who upset moderate Democrat
Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only to lose to him in the general
election.
The idea that Ned Lamont was a leftist was downright ludicrous to the
Times. Lieberman "tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as
wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with
Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn
toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be
called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing
isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily
with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of
revolution."
Ned Lamont was Cindy Sheehan in drag, whose only "steady habit" was
lashing out at Bush. But the press corps as a whole couldn't have been
water-boarded into acknowledging in their copy that Lamont was even a
"liberal." Instead, he was consistently described as merely an
"anti-war" idealist.
A non-ideological national media would acknowledge that both Democrats
and Republicans over the last several decades have shunned centrism
and embraced a bolder ideological approach. A nonpartisan press corps
would report that self-identified conservatives outnumber
self-identified liberals in a landslide. But our liberal media are
transparently partisan. Instead we get two very differing and
self-serving portraits. The Republicans are in a "civil war," on a
"disastrous turn toward extremism." For Democrats, their embrace of
hard-core leftists is an "opportunity" and revenge of the "moderates"
upset by "deeply unmoderate" conservatives.
Conservatives have heard enough of this siren song over the years to
ignore it. The same cannot be said for the Republican Party, with its
Helen Keller approach to the obvious. In presidential elections, every
time Republicans nominate the kind of moderation-embracing D.C.
dealmaker the media would select for them -- think Bob Dole or John
McCain -- they've been trounced.
Yet they continue heeding the advice of The New York Times by
endorsing the likes of Scozzafava. How thoroughly embarrassing it was
for them when Scozzafava petulantly left the race and endorsed the
Democrat in this district. She was even less than a Republican In Name
Only.
The biggest head-scratcher in this game was Newt Gingrich, who
embraced this Democrat-in-GOP-clothing as the "best" the Republicans
could do. Is this the way Gingrich built a majority in 1994, by
identifying a "revolution" of Arlen Specter wannabes across America?
No. Through his lectures and cassette tapes, Gingrich built a cadre of
conservative candidates who could stand behind the idea of rolling
back an overweening federal government. He didn't lead a slithering
surge of centrists eager to go to Washington and stick their fingers
in the wind to protect their own careers.
There can be a robust debate over the advisability of a supporting
moderate, even liberal Republicans over liberal Democrats in
blue-state districts. What is settled, however, is that conservatives
will no longer blindly embrace "moderates" like Scozzafava when
there's an open seat in a staunchly Republican district.
Every Republican should know that there are two divisive forces in the
Republican Party that always threaten to break it apart and ruin its
chances. The first is the insincere consultants in the "news" media
that try to rule it from the outside. The second is the consultants in
the party that listen to them.
========
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.
To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.