Today's Seattle Times insinuates that Dave Reichert's well-deserved reputation for independence is merely a facade, and gets supporting quotes from three supposedly objective scholars:
"If he can't represent himself as a moderate Republican, he's dead in the water," said [UW communications professor] John Gastil.Gastil is a Democrat
"He can distance himself as much as he wants and it will be done, I think, with the tacit approval of the NRCC," [UW political scientist Mark] Smith said. "They're willing to look the other way."Smith is a Democrat (see Opensecrets.org)
"It is a common thing that you see a lot that allows a politician to portray themselves a moderate," [UW political scientist Matt Barreto] said.Barreto's only campaign contributions are to a Democrat and a Green.
The Times would do well to seek quotes from a more ideologically balanced panel of experts, or at the very least disclose when its quoted "experts" are all partisan activists.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 30, 2008 12:01 PM | Email ThisSo what's a bunch of severe bias for a local congressional candidate? Par for the course. The Seattle Times should change it's name to TheOtherHorsesAss.org
And what the hell "scholarship" are you talking about, Stefan? All the (lame) story got was single, meaningless quotes from each of the people you cited, hardly representative of, or even claiming to reflect, "scholarship."
The story had a quote from Reichert, a quote and a paraphrase from his chief of staff, and a quote from the NRCC person, so don't claim that the story wasn't "balanced," or try to make out like Reichert is being "victimized" by the "left-wing" Times, which isn't "left-wing" at all.
The best "scholarship" done opn Reichert's voting record was by Dan Kirkdorffer. You can disagree with his conclusions all you want, but you haven't, and won't, present any information with that level of detail that comes to any other conclusion.
So continue to grab at straws, because that's all this sorry post is.
No, I think the Times did exactly what they felt needed to done. They got their hit piece, found their sympathetic sources to defend the hit, and left it to the reader to question the validity of the comments.
Arguing against bias at the Times and PI is like arguing that humans don't need oxygen to live. The question is what can be done to shield an unsuspecting nation from the daily bias of liberal rags like ours here in Seattle?
BTW- that arrogant and rude liberal commenting just above here sure seems angry. If Democrats are winning everything and our future looks progressive, you'd think even the rude liberals would develop a sense of civility. Guess not.
Posted by: Reality on June 30, 2008 12:29 PMYou know, the Seattle Times just tunes you people out. I know this because I worked there, for a good long time. Hard as this might be for you to believe, they get just as many angry e-mails from wack jobs on the left, who are just as convinced that the Times is "right-wing" as you lot are that it's "left-wing."
They can't satisfy everybody. These days they can't satisfy anybody. But it's not because of any perceived political slant. It's because fewer and fewer of us, left, right, or wherever, need them as a source of information anymore.
Posted by: ivan on June 30, 2008 12:54 PMI get so irritated and frustrated myself when I see journalists become extinct and become bloggers and pundits in the guise of objectivity.
To be objective seems so easy and if it were done, we, as a country, could get along. There was a time journalists prided themselves on being objective. They didn't care, or they had the respect of their peers, what others said about them. Many, many cocktail parties later, they have lost their backbone.
Posted by: swatter on June 30, 2008 12:56 PMAlso, it is possible to satisfy a great majority of the people: report the news in a fair and balanced way. Stefan's post shows that the Times lacks both fairness and balance.
Posted by: AP on June 30, 2008 01:02 PMNow my day is complete.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 30, 2008 01:48 PMAnd I agree with Huh. Burner does not hold a candle to Reichert from an experience position, and on so many points. True her ideological position is different. She wants to troops home, hates Bush, really wants the job, and thinks that desire counts for more than experience. That's par for the left. If Burner would just finish something first, she might be a viable candidate. By far and away her biggest mistake was claiming to be a MS Exec. That means something here in the Sound. That was really stupid.
There are many well known reports of resume inflation that have ended up costing people jobs on the private sector. Burner is no different, she's just looking for a public sector job.
I wonder if ivan would hire someone to work at his place of employment who did not have the requisite work experience, did not finish some of her schooling, and inflated a past position on her resume, but hated Bush and was planning to vote Obama.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 30, 2008 03:04 PM
Ivan are union's progressive or regressive? I've seen that lately from liberal folks about moderates and conservatives. Why would folks that don't want to be socialist or join the Environmental Religion (The next Scientology) be regressive? I don't get it.
Anyways, back on topic somewhat...if Obama, Nancy and the other clowns get their way, would this article be evidence of the need for the fairness doctrine?
Posted by: dengle on June 30, 2008 03:27 PMhint: the Times quoted several Republicans in that piece. The Times is not "liberal". try issues, oh wait, the American people don't agree with you on those. Stick with the Wine.
Posted by: Tim Crowley on June 30, 2008 04:48 PMIs there any other way they could ever hope to win?
Posted by: demo kid on June 30, 2008 05:00 PMRather than just say oh look, the Seattle Times is wrong becuase it quoted democrats, why don't you address the claim the Times is making?
Posted by: Lysander on June 30, 2008 05:01 PMYou really are slow... The issue is that the 3 people making commentary responses on Dave Reichert are all hard-left folks, with no objective view of the situation.
So how about going and checking out the American Conservative Union's rating of the Congress. You'll find that on a scale of 0 (hard liberal) to 100 (hard conservative) Dave Reichert rates a 56, right smack dab in the middle.
For the 5 Congressmen right above him in ratings, we'll find 3 Republicans and two Democrats. For the 5 right after him, we'll find on Republican and four Democrats.
If that's not moderate, what is? It's pretty empirical proof that he's a LOT more moderate than most members of Congress, and that the Leftists simply demand everyone to be hard-core Marxists or be shunned.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 30, 2008 05:10 PMIs you brother Mike the pothead who got fired from Virginia Mason still living in your basement? Are you still doing the weed too?
Posted by: I_KNOW_YOU on June 30, 2008 05:17 PMGood God, that's scraping the barrel, isn't it?
Look, people in the 8th CD like me don't care about all that political hocus-pocus that goes on behind the scenes - it's the voting record where the rubber meets the road. I care how the decisions that my representatives make affect me, my family, and my country and from everything that I've seen and read, Darcy Burner is out to harm all three.
BTW, it's quite objective that the author of the Seattle Times article mentioned that a recent political report states that Burner's chances are improving against Reichert and declared the race a "tossup", but failed to reveal that a SurveyUSA poll taken after the political report showed Reichert beating Burner 51% to 45%.
Posted by: Smoley on June 30, 2008 06:26 PM"You know, the Seattle Times just tunes you people out. I know this because I worked there, for a good long time."
Thanks, Ivan, for confirming what we already thought about most of the people who work for the Times. Not very smart.
That is a much better arguement to counter the Seattle TImes article than the actual post by Stefan. You gave facts to counter their point. He called them democrats and thought that was enough of a point and called it quits.
Posted by: Lysander on June 30, 2008 07:11 PMHmmm.... what "work experience" is required in order to best represent my interests in the legislature? Voting in line with my opinions would belong fairly high on the list, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Bruce on June 30, 2008 08:27 PMAgain, you don't get it.
Regardless of whether these people are all Greens, or Libertarians, or Dixiecrats, or whatever, you still have not established why their opinions don't make sense.
Stop whinging about the people, stop bleating about "media bias" and start commenting about their statements and why you think they're patently false. Until then, you're just a sore, sorry loser.
Posted by: demo kid on June 30, 2008 08:52 PMThanks. Of course, there was a LOT of truth in Stefan's statement. In general Democrats are HARD left. Witness the ratings of Reichert, McCain, and Rossi. All are measurably moderate Republicans. Yet to the Democrats they are all to the right of Mussolini.
The Republicans really haven't moved right over the years; they've stayed put. The Democrats have moved extremely to the left, right there with Stalin and Chavez (witness nationalization of health care and energy).
Ninety nine times out of 100, when a Democrat makes a statement about a Republican, you can simply toss it aside as a lie - either overt or by twisting context.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 30, 2008 08:56 PMObjectively, Dave Reichert is a moderate. In fact, there are only two other Republicans in Congress rated lower than him on the conservative scale by the ACU. And there are dozens of Democrats rated higher.
So, objectively the claims by the Democrat shills in the paper - insinuating that Reichert is just "playing" moderate - are patently false.
Now can YOU post something close to a fact to show otherwise? Barring that, consider it game, set and match.
Reichert is a moderate. Period. No need to "change his image" or "create an appearance". He is one, provably.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 30, 2008 10:43 PMWhen a reporter writes a story, of course they are OBLIGED to quote Republicans and Democrats. The professors are quoted to offer the reader some sort of impartial, objective, academic assessment of the situation. So the criticism is for lazy journalists who quote Democrats who happen to have tenure and offer it as impartial. Probably more of the criticism belongs to schools like the UW who have very few poli sci professors who aren't actively engaged in Democrat politics.
Posted by: AD on July 1, 2008 12:33 AMYou do realize that pales in comparison to Reichert. Sure other legislators have won election with even less experience, but there's no comparison in this race. Reichert has more significant leadership experience and a much more significant resume than Darcy Burner. And I don't think most people consider middle management, with one year of law school, as duly qualified for US Congress.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2008 12:47 AMRead Kirkdorffer's posts. There's a fundamental difference between racking up votes for a record in a district where you need to appeal to Democrats, and actually taking action on important liberal/moderate positions.
Take "H.R. 6, Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act". He voted against it, until he was for it (when it looked as if it was going to pass). Don't you agree that a true moderate that supported an Act like this would have a more consistent level of support for the bill?
@28: When a reporter writes a story, of course they are OBLIGED to quote Republicans and Democrats.
Nope. They are not. You need to ensure that there are no blatant biases, but is that the case here? Hardly.
@29: Reichert has more significant leadership experience and a much more significant resume than Darcy Burner.
I'm sorry, but being sheriff seems to have just about as much (if less!) to do with being a US Representative as being middle management. The only reason why he was able to win was that he had name recognition from a case that he, in fact, screwed up.
Posted by: demo kid on July 1, 2008 08:15 AMHe's a good speaker long as he has a teleprompter?
(-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 1, 2008 09:45 AMI don't think the average Joe squares middle manager with county sheriff. I think sheriff holds more sway. This is just the reality. You may see them as equal, but most don't. One is a lot more visible position that effects a lot more people.
Tragic news about Darcy Burner's house. I hope the MS and greater 8th District and Puget Sound community pull together for her and her family. We should start a donation page here at SP.
Shrug. The Seattle Times is clearly being irresponsible.
If you want to defend that and make yourself look bad (er, worse) too, go ahead.
Spin as you like. The record is there in black and white - Dave Reichert is a moderate Republican, one of the most "liberal" Republicans in the Congress, and more liberal than a few dozen Democrats. And he's been that way for his entire Congressional career.
Of course, when Darcy "Bush=Hitler!" Burner is your reference for "moderation", anyone to the right of Stalin is a knuckle-dragging Rethuglican...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 1, 2008 07:37 PMTo claim we're pumping "bias" into the story, you have to believe that (a) he doesn't need to come across as moderate, (b) the party will punish him if he tries, and (c) this is uncommon for party members to do. All three are untenable claims, as this election will bear out.
None of us said or even implied that he's a right-wing Republican. He *is* a member of the GOP and, as a result, votes conservative relative to Dems. Whether he comes across as too conservative for his district's *voters* is the question that may determine the outcome of his reelection campaign.
Sheesh.
Posted by: jgastil on July 7, 2008 07:43 AM