For the Times, Dems are divided on provision none of them oppose
October 28, 2009 1:47 pm ET by Matt Gertz
The web headline of a New York Times article published last night screams "Democrats Divided Over Reid Proposal for Public Option." I suppose that headline was slapped on solely because the Beltway press loves to claim that the party is split at the drop of a hat, because the article doesn't get close to supporting it.
There are 58 Democrats senators, and two independents that caucus with them. One of the independents, Joe Lieberman, has said he would not support Reid's health care bill unless Reid's opt-out public option is removed. The Times also lists five Senate Democrats who "have not committed to supporting the bill," one of whom, Evan Bayh, the article reports "welcomed Mr. Reid's proposal for an opt-out mechanism, but wanted to see a cost analysis of the bill."
The paper lists no Democratic senators - zero - who say they will oppose the bill at any stage because of the public option. It lists no Democratic senators offering criticism of the public option provision. In fact, the article lists no Democratic senators who say they will oppose the bill at any stage for any reason.
And yet, the Times' headline is that "Democrats are Divided Over Reid Proposal for Public Option." Apparently, all it took to divide the Democrats is opposition from someone who isn't a member of the party.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Too bad that Lieberman doesn't pretend more often that he's a Democrat!
This is why we need to insist on them describing Lieberman as an Independent whenever they describe him - because his disloyalty needs to be highlighted. He's treated like a Democrat in some ways, but she sure knows how to kick Dems in the shins on a regular basis.