NYT Springs at "Conservative" Republican Platform -- August 31, 2004 -- TimesWatch.org

About

Contact Us

Articles

Topic Index

Reports

Quotes

On the Web

Links

TW Tracker

Support

Times Watch for August 31, 2004

NYT Springs at "Conservative" Republican Platform--
But Took a Dive Over the Democrat's Liberal One

The Republican platform manages to make it into the headline of Adam Nagourney's lead story Tuesday ("Giuliani Lauds Bush's Leadership on Terror--G.O.P. Opposes Abortion and Gay Unions"). Yet Nagourney's story devotes precisely one sentence to the platform.
The Times also devotes a full front-page story to the conservative nature of the Republican platform, Robin Toner and David Kirkpatrick's "Social Conservatives Wield Influence on Platform."

While the Republican platform is making headlines, by contrast, a Nexis search indicates the Times didn't devote a single story during the Democratic convention in Boston to the party's platform, merely mentioning it in passing over the course of several stories. Yet it’s an avowedly liberal document, which became even more liberal in Boston, with the committee dropping its previous support of the death penalty and retaining support for taxpayer funding of abortion, positions out of the political mainstream.

     The Times' David Rosenbaum and David Sanger did file a story on the first draft of the Democratic platform back on July 4 (three weeks before the convention itself) with the reassuringly moderate headline, "Democratic Platform Focuses on National Security." While the term "conservative" is used eight times in the Times' story on Tuesday, the term "liberal" is not used once by Rosenbaum and Sanger to describe the liberal Democratic platform. A July 11 story on a resolved platform fight over Iraq involving anti-war liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich also avoids the term "liberal."

     Although today's Times provides a sidebar article comparing the text of the two platforms, the story itself leaves the impression that only one party, the Republicans, have an ideological platform. It even quotes the Kerry campaign criticizing it: "Republicans approved a platform yesterday that puts the party firmly on the record against legalized abortion, gay marriage and other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples, reflecting the political clout of social conservatives and setting up a stark contrast with the Democrats for the fall campaign….The 93-page document, produced under the tight control of the Bush forces, tries to accomplish several political tasks: promoting and defending Mr. Bush's record, particularly on national security; sketching a domestic vision for a second term; and energizing the party's conservative base. Democrats and their allies immediately denounced the platform as extremist and at odds with the moderate image the party is trying to project this week. 'It's the truth behind the facade of their convention,' said Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman for Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. 'It reflects the divisiveness and extreme policies of the last four years, while the public speakers paint a very different picture.' Gay rights and abortion rights groups restated their dismay. Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, declared, 'It's one of the most discriminatory platforms in modern history.' She added, of Mr. Bush, 'He's counting on the fact that most people won't be reading the letter of the law of the Republican platform.'"

     Note how the Times portrays the platform committee negatively, as having been "produced under the tight control of the Bush forces." Yet back on July 28, Robin Toner and Todd Purdum seemed to find the Democratic Party's platform discipline admirable: "It was a night when the party not only paid tribute to its proud legacy as the advocate of Social Security and civil rights but also showed its striking unity and discipline in the face of the fall challenge to Mr. Bush. Its losing candidates Howard Dean, Carol Moseley Braun and Richard A. Gephardt ceremonially closed ranks around Mr. Kerry, and delegates approved the party's platform without the slightest hint of a fight."

     Tuesday's story from Toner and Kirkpatrick contains more talk of the influence of social conservatives (were there really no social liberals on the Democratic party platform committee?): "The current platform shows the major role that social conservatives are playing in the Republican Party as it heads into an extremely competitive race in which each party must turn out its core supporters….Social conservatives, who pushed Mr. Bush to endorse a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage earlier this year, pushed for even stronger language in the platform, and succeeded. Mr. Bush has indicated that he embraced a constitutional amendment opposing same-sex marriage only as a last resort to prevent courts from deciding the issue and said that states should be free to recognize same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. But the platform, as amended by the conservatives on the platform committee, condemns not only gay marriage but also state recognition of other same-sex unions as well."

     Eric Umansky, who writes the "Today's Papers" column for Slate, notes the baleful tone of the Times' story: "In a frontpage piece, the New York Times takes a seemingly horrified gander at the GOP's official platform."

     For the rest of Kirkpatrick and Toner on the platform, click here:

Over-Excitement Over Bush's Terror Comment

White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller gets a front-page story out of a comment Bush made on the "Today" show in "Bush Cites Doubt America Can Win War On Terror." The subheads read: "No Change In Policy Seen--Comment Is a Departure From Earlier Optimism on a Defining Issue."

Bumiller opens: "President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday, said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail. In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program 'Today,' conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration and the central thrust of his re-election campaign. 'I don't think you can win it,' Mr. Bush replied. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.' As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. 'I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror,' he said."

Bumiller tries valiantly to create controversy: "It was unclear if Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke. But White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle. Taken at face value, however, Mr. Bush's words would put him closer to the positions of the United States' European allies, who have considered Mr. Bush's talk of victory simplistic and unhelpful."

The Times' over-excitement over Bush's statement, which makes sense in context, was too much even for the liberal Eric Umansky of Slate, who wrote in his "Today's Papers" column: "Only the NYT thinks it's a big enough deal to front; in fact the Times puts it above-the-fold: 'BUSH CITES DOUBT AMERICANS CAN WIN WAR ON TERROR.' It's an interesting choice: Since as the Times points out, while the comment contrasts with Bush's previous rhetoric it doesn't auger a change in policy. For a smarter, and frankly fairer take, see the Post, which puts the comment inside...and in context: Rather than focus on the simple verbal flip-floppery, the paper emphasizes that this was the latest in a string of recent comments by Bush toning down his war rhetoric."

For the rest of Bumiller on Bush's word choice, click here:

• Elisabeth Bumiller | George W. Bush | Campaign 2004 | Republican Convention | Terrorism

Did Republicans "Cross the Line" on 9-11?

A "news analysis" by Todd Purdum, "First Night, Single Theme For Double Term: Sept. 11," is the latest criticism of the Bush campaign for discussing the single-most significant event of his presidency.

Purdum suggests the Republicans have crossed the line in talking about 9-11: "Less than four miles from the site of the attack that horrified a city, unified a nation and transformed George W. Bush's presidency, speaker after speaker at the Republican National Convention yesterday summoned the still-raw memories of Sept. 11 in service of a single, overriding theme: the nation will be safer if Mr. Bush wins four more years. There is only the finest of lines between invoking a disaster in which all New Yorkers, and all Americans, regardless of party, felt such a devastating stake, and exploiting it for partisan advantage. From morning to night, the Republicans strode proudly, even defiantly, right up to that line--if not over it--and the delegates responded with roaring approval."

For Purdum's story in full, click here:

• George W. Bush | Campaign 2004 | Todd Purdum | Republican Convention | Terrorism

Party Centrists in Despair

     Katharine Seelye's "Party Centrists Find Places On Stage but Not on Agenda" is the latest Times story on the plight of the embattled Republican moderate: "Republican convention is featuring speeches by some of the party's centrist stars, but rank-and-file moderates said yesterday that they were unhappy with the direction of a party that is dominated by conservatives. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, spoke last night at the convention, as did Senator John McCain of Arizona, who, while an opponent of abortion rights, appeals to centrists and independent voters. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is to speak tonight. But while these centrists dominate the lineup, the delegates are mostly conservative, the party's platform is conservative, and the president and vice president being nominated are mostly conservative. The paradox of moderate and independent speakers serving as the face of a conservative party with a conservative agenda has left some of the party's centrists in varying states of despair. Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, president of a group called the Republican Main Street Partnership, said that the party's 'big tent' had shrunk to a 'pup tent.' Many moderates are irked that in the party's search for independent and undecided voters, it is putting forward moderate candidates but not a moderate agenda, allowing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, to deride the scene as a Potemkin convention."

     Soon after relaying those helpful comments from Hillary Clinton, Seelye notes: "But the Log Cabin Republicans, made up of gay men and lesbians, are furious over what they describe as the party's intolerance. The group said yesterday that the radical right wing had hijacked the party, with the platform making no accommodation to gay rights or gay marriage."

     Seelye gives coverage to some obscure "moderate" Republican groups: "Mainstream 2004, meanwhile, held a conference call yesterday to express concern that the party had been 'kidnapped' by conservatives. Mr. Cargo, the former governor of New Mexico, said that too often the administration spoke of needing to satisfy the base. But, he said, 'the base is not in tune with Republican voters or the electorate at large.' He cited the environment, the growing budget deficit and the appointment of conservative judges."

     She concludes: "But some moderates seemed satisfied. In the Sky Club at the top of the MetLife building, with sweeping views of Manhattan, the Republican Main Street Partnership held a packed cocktail party on Sunday. Representative Christopher Shays, a moderate Connecticut Republican who attended, said he was happy for voters to see 'the full breadth of our party' in the speaker lineup."

     For the rest of Seelye on the plight of moderate Republicans, click here:

• Campaign 2004 | Moderates | Republican Convention | Katharine Seelye

Cute Communists and Jerky Anarchists in Manhattan

Ah, those cute little Commies. Julie Salamon celebrates young Communist protesters in Manhattan in "At Midnight, Protesters Turn Poets and Dreamers."

Salamon gushes: "The Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade didn't want the day to end. So toward midnight, tired and sunburned from marching and hanging out in Central Park, about 65 of its members gathered in a borrowed Chinatown space to eat and entertain themselves with what they referred to as a 'talent show,' which lasted until nearly 2 a.m….Ms. Taylor and the rest of her group--Marxist-Leninist-Maoist followers of Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party--are young, mostly in their late teens and 20's, which may explain their casual mixture of summer camp and radical rhetoric (they believe in the inevitability of armed revolution) and their stamina….For some counterculture visitors to New York, the protests merely provide an excuse for poetry. At close to 4 a.m. on Monday, C. C. Arshagra was sitting at the bar of the Bowery Poetry Club explaining how he and some poet friends managed not to find the half-million or so people marching in Sunday's big protest."

In contrast, reporter Randal Archibold goes into some of the violence delegates encountered in Manhattan in "Protesters' Encounters With Delegates on the Town Turn Ugly."

He notes: "Outside a hotel in Times Square, delegates to the Republican National Convention were swarmed by protesters dressed in black and swearing at them. Blocks away, delegates engaged in shoving matches with protesters seeking to spoil their night at the theater. And outside 'The Lion King' on 42nd Street, a delegate was punched by a protester who ran by. Although the organized protests yesterday and Sunday have been largely peaceful, there has been a starkly different tone to smaller incidents in Midtown and elsewhere: angry encounters and planned harassment of convention delegates as they go out on the town….The harassment of delegates came as organized protests continued to draw thousands of people. The Still We Rise march by advocates for social issues was peaceful, and a Poor People's March, a column several blocks long, proceeded from the United Nations to the Madison Square Garden yesterday after the police decided to let it go ahead without a permit. When marchers approached the Garden, a police detective was knocked off his scooter. He was then repeatedly kicked and punched in the head by at least one male demonstrator, the police said….As delegate buses arrived at the Garden yesterday afternoon, protesters who had gathered for a demonstration screamed obscenities and gestured rudely at them. When the police spotted Pete Coors, a Republican candidate for Senate from Colorado, walking near the group, they swiftly steered him away."

For the rest of Salamon on the cute Commie protesters, click here:

For Archibold on the violent anarchists, click here:

Selling Anti-Republican Art in Manhattan

Here are the latest entries in the Times' anti-Bush art project.

Stephen Holden, perhaps the paper's most outspoken liberal critic, bashes a new convention themed anti-Republican cabaret show but admires one segment from a radicalized novelist: "The writer E. L. Doctorow has supplied the most politically incendiary segment in his essay 'Why You Can't Sleep: A Rant,' read at a feverish pace by the four performers. The devastating, beautifully written overview of the Bush era compares the rise of neo-conservatism to McCarthyism and worries about the erosion of civil liberties and entitlement programs. In assessing Bush administration policies, this scary broadside left no stone unturned."

David Carr celebrates leftist comedian Margaret Cho in Monday's "A Partisan Whistle-Stop Comedy Tour (Lots of Bite, No Baby Kissing)." The story's cut-out line: "Republicans are rich fodder for Margaret Cho's new routine."

Indeed they are, and Carr doesn't seem to mind: "Of course she is in New York because those Republicans are, and she says the city is being used as a prop. Her willingness to pursue a political agenda--advocating abortion rights and gay rights, opposing war--has made her a significant target. She was recently disinvited from an appearance at a Human Rights Campaign fund-raiser at the Democratic convention after Whoopi Goldberg's barbed remarks about the administration at another event were thought to have damaged Senator John Kerry's campaign. Ms. Goldberg sent Ms. Cho a note of encouragement before her performance on Saturday. Ms. Cho's backstage presence--measured and demure--bears little resemblance to her buck-wild onstage persona. But her political sentiments, the reasoning behind a self-declared political emergency, remain in plain sight….Ms. Cho has responded with a kind of whistle-stop tour, a rolling comedy sketch that will morph and elide to allow her to annotate current events. Ms. Cho is particularly concerned about post-9/11 racial profiling, in part because she has been attacked because of her race."

For the rest of Carr's profile of Margaret Cho, click here:

For the full Holden review, click here:

Apple Takes a Bite Out of the Swift Boat Veterans

Long-time campaign correspondent and former Times Washington bureau chief R.W. Apple files an interview with his old friend Sen. McCain and draws the senator out on the subject of the Swift Boat Veterans (McCain hates the group's attacks on Kerry).

Apple takes the already- clichéd Times view of the matter, emphasizing the alleged Republican ties of the group and ignoring the substance of the charges: "But when we talked over a drink the night before, Mr. McCain grew agitated about the television commercials sponsored by a group of Vietnam veterans who question the war record of Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee, and specifically his entitlement to the medals that he won….Last week, he and Mr. Bush said they would act jointly to try to rein in all so-called 527 groups--the unregulated committees purportedly independent of major-party campaigns--on both sides of the partisan divide. The advertisements questioning Mr. Kerry's war record, the work of a 527 group of Swift boat veterans, were largely financed, at least initially, by rich Texas Republicans, some with past links to Mr. Bush. But Mr. Bush has never specifically condemned the Swift boat commercial, confining himself to a mild statement that Mr. Kerry served honorably."

For the rest of Apple's musings, click here:

Uchitelle's Liberal Economic Agenda

Economics reporter Louis Uchitelle again boosts an increase in the minimum wage, as well as an expanded government role in health care, in his Sunday Business section column, "Economic View."

Near the end of his piece on jobs, he writes: "Losing ground is a disheartening experience. On a broader plane, it contributes to the wage stagnation and income inequality that have characterized the last 30 years. Both are reappearing after a hiatus that started in the mid-1990's and lasted more or less until 2002. Yet Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry fail to spotlight this alarming downward trend, from which they could segue into a debate over how to ameliorate the income deterioration. A higher minimum wage would probably help. So would an expanded government role in providing health insurance, relieving employers of some of the rising cost. Perhaps some or all of the money saved would go to wage increases. Mr. Kerry embraces these positions much more than Mr. Bush, who prefers to let the marketplace solve wage and employment problems, allowing a minimum of government intervention, except tax cuts. These are huge differences, yet the candidates become sidetracked in debates over the quality of 1.5 million newly created jobs and fail to pound away at each other in the main event - how to arrest declining income in the vastly larger work force."

For the rest of Uchitelle, click here:

• Campaign 2004 | Economy | Employment | Minimum Wage | Louis Uchitelle

GHWB vs. NYT

Paula Zahn of CNN talked to former president George H.W. Bush in an interview that aired Monday night, and the elder Bush discussed his low regard for the paper of record: Zahn asked: "You really believe the criticism in that paper has been all that different from what we've read in other papers across the country?"

George H.W. Bush: "Oh, yeah."

Zahn: "How so?"

Bush: "It's consistently liberal, consistently opposes the president on almost everything editorial. Most of their editorial comment on the op-ed page is extraordinarily liberal. And the thing that troubles me is, in my opinion, their news columns are getting to show a certain bias. There's a new way you do it now: 'Reporter's Notebook.' And then that gives you a little chance to be an advocate in the news column. Or 'Washington Whispers' or something like that and that relieves the reporter of objectivity, objective reporting."

Bush: "And so, you know, I expect we'll get a big argument about this, but I'm absolutely certain of it. I've given up on them."

• Campaign 2004 | George W. Bush | George Bush Sr. | New York Times | Republican Convention

Stop the Presses

"Swing-State Delegates Confident in Bush and Don't Much Like Kerry."

--headline to Tuesday's story from the convention floor by Michael Cooper.

• Campaign 2004 | Michael Cooper | Headlines | Republican Convention

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org