It's All the Media's Fault

"What's so odd is despite the fact poll after poll shows Americans, completely fed up with the Iraq failure, agree with the Democratic initiative to start bringing the troops home, it's Republicans who are being portrayed by clubby Beltway insiders as having the winning hand. Hell, the smart boys over at ABC's The Note, all but announced Democrats had just thrown the 2006 elections thanks to their botched handling of the Iraq war debate. i.e. They were, 'on the precipice of making Iraq a 2006 political winner for the Republican Party.'

"That's certainly the GOP spin . . . Apparently if Karl Rove signs off on a political strategy (hit the Dems hard over Iraq), the press assumes it's a work of genius and shows little interest in dwelling on the pertinent questions, such as isn't there an obvious risk Republicans run in making the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, and specifically the notion that U.S. troops should pretty much stay there indefinitely, the centerpiece for their 2006 campaign?"

But are journalists supposed to ignore the very public Democratic disagreements?

American Prospect's Greg Sargent also insists there's a tilt toward the Republicans:

"Here's something we should keep an eye out for as the political battle over Iraq unfolds: How often do reporters and commentators portray the GOP as being on offense and the Democrats as being on the defensive? Compare these two takes on Wednesday's congressional skirmishing over the war:

"The New York Times: Democrats have found themselves trying to fend off accusations from the White House and other Republicans that they are 'cutting and running,' and many lawmakers demonstrated flashes of exasperation and anger about the level of partisanship .

"Los Angeles Times: Democrats and Republicans dueled over the Iraq war in the Senate on Wednesday, exchanging rhetorical jabs as each side sought political advantage on a debate many strategists believed could be a decisive factor in determining which party would control Congress after the November elections .

"What happened yesterday was this: Both parties attacked each other. The L.A. Times piece made this very clear. The N.Y. Times piece, though it did quote a couple Dems criticizing the GOP, essentially downplayed it. It's important to understand that these were editorial choices. The L.A. Times's choice was closer to the whole truth.

"Look, this is admittedly a very small example. But it's indicative of a larger media failing: The frequent depiction of Republicans on offense, and of the Dems on defense; that is, of Republicans winning and Dems on their heels . . . The reality is this: Republicans have a massive albatross around their neck that's getting heavier every day."

As for the preordained vote in the Senate yesterday:

"An overwhelming majority of the chamber's Democrats backed a resolution that urged President Bush to start the troop redeployment by the end of this year but stopped short of setting a deadline for complete withdrawal," says the Los Angeles Times . "Some Democratic leaders hailed the support for the proposal -- designed to signal to Iraqis that they need to assume more control of their country -- as an expression of party cohesion."

Is there anything the administration isn't snooping into?