CNN's Crowley asked Shuler if he is "a Nancy Pelosi Democrat," but CNN has yet to ask Republicans if they are "Denny Hastert [or George Bush or Dick Cheney] Republicans"
In previewing the October 24 installment of CNN's weeklong series titled "Broken Government," the October 24 edition of CNN Newsroom twice aired segments in which CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley asked North Carolina's 11th District congressional candidate Heath Shuler (D) if he is "a Nancy Pelosi Democrat." Pelosi, the House Democratic leader from California, is widely expected to be elected speaker if the Democrats take control of the House. According to a Media Matters for America review* of CNN transcripts since June, no CNN anchor or host has asked a Republican congressional candidate if he or she is a "Dennis Hastert Republican." During the portion of her report aired on CNN Newsroom, Crowley also asked of Democrats: "What is wrong with these people?" She then asserted that "[f]rom Virginia to Montana to Georgia, crack open a Democrat, and they'll tell you: It's the wussy factor."
As Media Matters noted when NBC's Matt Lauer characterized Pelosi as "controversial," the notion that Pelosi is "controversial" has been advanced by Republicans and media figures ahead of the midterm elections, as Media Matters has documented.
In addition, on the October 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer previewed the October 24 episode of "Broken Government." That segment showed Democratic strategist David "Mudcat" Saunders stating that "[t]here are certain Democrats who cannot win in rural America." Crowley then asked him: "Are they the 'L' word?" Saunders replied: "No, they're not the 'L' word. They are the 'N' word for naïve. They might even be the 'N' word for ignorant."
As Media Matters for America recently noted, on October 19, Crowley presented a segment on The Situation Room looking at the Democrats' prospects in the midterm elections that was devoted entirely to reinforcing negative stereotypes about the Democratic Party that have been promoted by Republicans and repeated in the media. Media Matters also noted that an examination of media coverage of Pelosi since September 1 -- which has included several prominent profiles of the Democratic leader -- found numerous references to Pelosi as "unabashedly liberal" and one of the "more liberal Democrats."
From the 9 a.m. hour of the October 24 edition of CNN Newsroom:
HEIDI COLLINS (host): The Democratic Party, on the outside looking in. The party hasn't controlled Congress for 12 years. Well, the White House in Republican hands since the 2000 election. So what are the Democrats doing wrong, and how do they win over skeptical voters? CNN's senior political correspondent Candy Crowley looked into a North Carolina race where a six-term Republican congressman faces a challenge from a political newcomer, Democrat Heath Shuler.
[begin video clip]
CROWLEY: Are you a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?
SHULER: You know, I don't like to classify.
CROWLEY (voice-over): Washington liberal does not play well in North Carolina conservative. It is part of why over the past three decades, Southern and rural, mostly white Democrats have looked inside the national Democratic Party and gone elsewhere.
BRUCE REED, (president of the Democratic Leadership Council): Our biggest problem is that of late we've been losing elections.
CROWLEY: What is wrong with these people? From Virginia to Montana to Georgia, crack open a Democrat, and they'll tell you: It's the wussy factor.
MAX CLELAND (former Democratic U.S. senator from Georgia): You have got to lance that bubble. I mean, you know, it's been a narrative for the Republicans for decades now, kind of an underlying narrative against the Democrats, that they're soft on communism, and now it's soft on terrorism.
CROWLEY: It's the culture.
SAUNDERS: The culture is the reason the Democrats have been losing elections. It has nothing to do with policy. It has to do with culture.
CROWLEY: It's the guns.
GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER (D-MT): People ask me how many guns I have, I tell them none of your damn business, and I tell them not as many as I'd like.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This used to be an awful strong Democrat community right here.
SHULER: I think it still is. I think it still is.
CROWLEY: If his journey is to end in Washington, Heath Shuler needs 11th District Democrats to come home.
SHULER: That's why we have to do a good job of being in a district like this, where they can talk and they can spread the word and say, "You know, he's not like some of the national Democrats, you know. He's one of us."
[end video clip]
COLLINS: America's so-called broken government. We're taking an in-depth look at that issue all week long, right here on CNN. Tonight, two left feet. And our senior political correspondent Candy Crowley is joining us now. She's taking a look at the Democratic Party and its problems.
[...]
COLLINS: The Democratic Party on the outside looking in. The party hasn't controlled Congress for a dozen years. The White House in Republican hands since the 2000 election.
So, what are the Democrats doing wrong? And how do they win over skeptical voters?
CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley looked into a North Carolina race where a six-term Republican congressman faces a challenge from a political newcomer, Democrat Heath Shuler.
[begin video clip]
CROWLEY: Are you a Nancy Pelosi Democrat?
SHULER: You know, I don't like to classify.
From the 4 p.m. hour of the October 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Tuesday, Candy Crowley digs into why Democrats seem to have so much trouble winning elections.
[end video clip]
SAUNDERS: There are certain Democrats who cannot win in rural America.
CROWLEY: Are they the "L" word?
SAUNDERS: No, they're not the "L" word. They are the "N" word for naïve. They might even be the "N" word for ignorant.
* Results based on a Nexis database search for "George Bush Republican or Dennis Hastert Republican or Denny Hastert Republican" from 06/01/06 to 10/24/06
What kind of question is that anyway? A stupid one that's for sure.
It's a perfect demonstration of "the wussy factor". "You know, I don't like to classify". Oh, grow a pair, would you?
Why is it that some Republicans get credit for being "straight-shooters" (even to the point of someone like Coulter), but this guy is scared to just say "What does 'Nancy Pelosi Democrat' mean, exactly? Do you even know?"?
What are these people afraid of, that if they respond to a stupid question in a way that reveals its inanity, that they won't get any more TV coverage? If so, it shows another way that television is a harmful influence on our system.
So yes, Candy, something is wrong with these people. But the behavior of partisan hacks like you, and the corporate interests behind you, are probably what's creating that problem.
Shuler should have said “Enlighten us as to what a Nancy Pelosi democrat is 'unbiased' reporter Crowley” or he could have said “Are you a Mark Foley Republican?”
she's a Jabba The Hut lardass.
How long did that retarded cow have to interview Shuler to get the HALF SENTENCE of footage that she actually aired? For all we know he could have said "I don't like to classify, but I agree with everything Pelosi stands for, I just think it's stupid to label like that and you are an idiot for even bringing it up." The media fails miserably at filling 24 hours with actual news, how about they actually give air time to candidates and their opponents instead of churning out this horseshit journalism with the only goal of crafting some kind of "story" or "narrative" around what is probably the most serious political happening of our time, and on top of it all praising republicans and reinforcing every cliched stereotype in the book?
When someone like Jack Cafferty criticizes Democrats and occasionally goes off the mark with equating republican corruption to democratic corruption, it's acceptable compared to this kind of propaganda. This ought to be filed as an in-kind contribution to the RNC.
Watching Candy Crowley tonight and she's talking to Max Cleland. The chiron reads "Two Left Feet." Open wide CNN.
She's a cheap hack. Her act consists of repeating Republican talking points in the form of loaded questions. She is not even distantly interested in taking an objective, neutral position as an interviewer. Instead, she is functioning as a propagandist, detirmined to advance a partisan cause.
By the way, her bias would be just as offensive & unproffesional if she looked like Katie Holmes. Its not her weight that is the problem... it's her arrogance. Would her partisanship by any less obnoxious if it were coming from Michelle Malkin? Let's stay on point here. Her physical appearance is the least of her ugliness.
This should NOT be about Candy Crowley appearance and when I see posts alluding to her "girth" it only makes THAT particular poster look like an ass.
Were Crowley not an OBVIOUS shill for the Right I don't think the question would be out of line.
Certain politicians "represent" viewpoints or ideology that can be defining. For instance I have written here on occasion that I am a "Pat Buchanan Conservative" when it comes to my views on foreign policy and immigration. Simply put, my opinions on those TWO issues mirror his.
Nancy Pelosi is in the headlines these days and is perceived to be a Far Left Democrat. Just as Bill Clinton was considered to be a Centrist Democrat. To define someone as a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat" OR a "Bill Clinton Democrat" is just another way I suppose of saying "far-left" or "centrist". I don't find THAT insulting. Nor would I find it insulting if a journalist/reporter asked a Republican candidate if they were a "Newt Gingrich Republican". Unless the "comparison" was meant to be insulting or snarky AND the person asking it had a Left-Wing bias...THAT could be a legitimate objection.
I don't believe it's the QUESTION you guys object to [at least I hope not] BUT the person, Candy Crowley [who has an obvious Right-Wing bias] that's asking it.
...what exactly is the question supposed to mean or imply? Something bad? It smacks, to me, of that blanket response by the hard-liners where they feel calling someone a 'liberal' is supposed to be some sort of insult?
What exactly is a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat"? And, why is that supposed to be a *wink-wink* slam? That, to me, is the basis of this MMFA piece... there's an implication here of something bad, but no one really talks about it, gives good reasons, or explains why.
...I just agreed with you. :) It's early...
I don't know which time-zone you're in, but it's 10:40am here, I've had 3 cups of coffee [thus far] so I'm finally waking up myself ;-)
My point [which I'm guessing you got] is that it depends who is asking the QUESTION and what connotation they are putting on it.
For instance there are folks who might define themselves as "Goldwater Republicans" or "Eisenhower Republicans". On the same token I'm sure there are Democrats that consider themselves " [John F.]Kennedy Democrats" or going back further "FDR Democrats".
Being referred to as a "[Bill] Clinton Democrat" would NOT be the least bit insulting, IMO... UNLESS of course it was Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh saying it.
It appears the GOP and their minions are attempting to make any association to Nancy Pelosi as a negative. AND when a Candy Crowley asks if someone is a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat" it's a sure bet she's NOT being complementary.
However, Democrats should not run away from the Pelosi comparison if they agree with her on issues and should tell Crowley and the others that they admire the lady that might soon be Speaker of the House. THAT would shutup Crowley & others like her fast...
Welcome Back, I, personally, missed you and glad you've returned.......
And you absolutely correct here. Look at the insults thrown at Crowley in just a few posts. Amazing. She is anything but a right wing hack, but let her say something as innocuous as this and she's slammed at instantly. Yet can you imagine that all hell would break loose here if some dumb talk show host called some liberal fat - oh my god, well, that's just mean. There is such a double standard with regards to tolerance, it's staggering.
And so what's the big deal anyway? Why are many of you offended by the term "Nancy Pelosi Democrat"? Instead of being all bunched over it, embrace it and her...........are many of you secretly ashamed of the label, because that's what it looks like.
Get over it.
Tommy,
I agree that ad hominem attacks on Crowley are childish and stupid.
I disagree that anyone would complain about being called a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat". It is an attempt to paint people with a broad brush. I may agree with Cindy Sheehan on a few things, but if I called myself a "Cindy Sheehan Democrat" you can absolutely bet that I would be attacked for some of Cindy's more outrageous comments and actions (which I may not share).
Asking people whether they are a "Pelosi Democrat" is just plain silly. It isn't the kind of question a journalist should ask. "Nancy Pelosi Democrat" means different things to different people, which definitely makes the question propagandistic at best. Reporters need to be precise and not engage in labeling, propaganda and/or smear tactics.
Nancy Pelosi is fast becoming the most visible member of the Democratic party right now, certainly not Harry Reid or some other representative. She may well be the Speaker of the House.
You know as well as I do that reporters and TV pundits love to affix these labels to people - it happens all the time - "Gingrich Republicans", or "McGovernites", or "FDR Democrats" - it's all harmless.
It's just like the term "liberal" that the right has seized upon as a dirty word. Many ran from that too and that only enflamed it's intended meaning. If the left does the same with Pelosi, then it's their own fault if it comes back to bite them. Embrace it, then the criticism is vastly diffused.
The segment began with a loaded question (loaded because it could mean anything the interviewer/interviewee/audience wants it to) from Crowley, and not even a full sentence of response from the candidate. Then you hear "What is wrong with these people?" over some ominous music with footage of a national convention, followed by rapid fire clips of prominent democrats (I'd pick each one apart but I want to keep this short), all of them reinforcing Crowley's negative message. That, any way you look at it, is shoddy journalism.
Look at the segment in its full context though. In the past month or two, even at the height of the Foley scandal, or countless other Republican scandals, was anyone asked if they were a Foley Republican, Tom DeLay Republican, Jack Abramoff Republican? Were there any fluff pieces reinforcing negative stereotypes about Republicans? Even in the northeast where Republicans are in peril - Shays, Kean jr., Lieberman - the issue of whether they are 'too conservative' or are 'George Bush Republicans' is either never brought up, or treaded lightly. Contrast that to Crowley's last piece, which was nothing more than a reinforcement of stereotypes.
Republicans started the campaign to brand every democrat with the mark of san francisco, with the implication that Nancy Pelosi is going to turn the country gay or something. The media through Candy Crowley and her ilk has found itself a willing tool of that campaign.
Glad to be back...I think ;-) I'm sure YOU held down the fort really well while I was on vacation!
How many times have you heard the term "Ronald Reagan Republican"? I've heard it scores of times AND many Republican/Conservatives like to identify themselves as such. I'm pretty certain BOTH Hannity & Limbaugh do. Now they are obviously proud to call themselves "Ronald Reagan Republicans"....BUT if a Democrat refers to them as such, it could be they mean it as a negative.
IF Democrats HERE or anywhere are in tune with Nancy Pelosi then being referred to as a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat" shouldn't be offensive.
I do think Candy Crowley LEANS to the Right. AND I think she considers a "Nancy Pelosi Democrat" to be a Far-Left Democrat. AND it does appear she considers THIS a negative.
HOWEVER, if Democrats embrace Pelosi and her views then they shouldn't be insulted. Instead they should be able to tell Crowley or any other reporter that they take pride in the term.
There's somewhat of a double standard when it comes to these labels. When someone calls themselves a 'whatever' republican or democrat, they are making it clear who they support and what they stand for. When they are called the same by someone else, it is usually for different reasons all together, such as a broad brush attack, even if inaccurate. People usually self-identify with old leaders like FDR or Goldwater because they have a clear legacy, and usually attack with contemporary leaders like Pelosi or Bush to play off hostilities and prejudices.
CROWLEY IS ANOTHER RIGHT-WINGER ON CNN.
she's been in the Bush camp since pre-2000.
I think they might have given her a wing of that texas "ranch" because she's always the first one in there when Bush goes down.
The couple of questions I read above would have been very sharp ones for Shuler to fire back with.
What is the POINT of this story? Another one of media matters' "hey u asked a difficult question 2 a democrat but not a republican whaaaaa!!!!!!!!" STOP CRYING MEDIA MATTERS WHY DON'T *YOU* ASK SOMEONE IF THEY'RE A DENNIS HASTERT REPUBLICAN?! WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS STORY?!?!
if someone is prone to shouting and displaying ignorance, it is not surprising that they didn't understand the point of the article.
Nice to get an apparent conservative's view of fairness. If it isn't fair, just suck it up.
I suppose that applies to the regular "whiners" who frequently claim the media are supposedly liberal. Maybe they should just suck it up as well.
Unfairness is unfairness. If you recognize it as such, to ignore it or apologize for it is to condone it. It is interesting that it doesn't appear to matter to you. I guess that says a lot about your character.
It may interest you to know that the whole purpose of this site is to
But thanks for trolling here! Hope you had fun! B-bye!I don't think an education is a pre-requisite to anchoring a CNN News broadcast for the lady, and I say that guardedly, does not know that Senator Shuler is in the Senate and Representative Nancy Pelosi is in the House.
Why would a anchor associate a Senator with such a label that denotes his being in the House?? Ignorance, or maybe they assume we're ignorant.
This is how a Republican lead America effects our so called "free press" , bought and paid for by the corporate media moguls and corporate elite whom wish to make the message whatever they want, or need it to be.
Not a conspiracy, overtly done because they beleive we're to complacant and stupid. Wonder why being nuanced about policy matters played so negative in '04 election.
A little nuance would be nice right about now, don't you think?? Or just some competance?? Senator in the Senate, Representative in the House.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I pray that we voters here in the 11th district can unseat Congressman Charles Taylor the incumbent. He is the ultimate rubberstamper.
It's a tight race. Everyday I must erase harsh political messages from my answering machine.
The League of Women Voters, a non-partisan organization, held a candidate meet and greet forum in my county and no Republican reps showed at all. Says a lot about how much they care.
I hope Schuler's a better Congressman than he was a quarterback.
of being a highly successful businessman, notwithstanding the attack adds about his property tax and business tax payments practices falsely implying that he did something illegal (standard business practice to delay payments to the last possible extension). He's a smart young man with excellent progressive goals. But as to your stupid comment about his quarterbacking, if one if fifty legislator's had half the skill at their job that he had as a quarterback, we wouldn't be in Iraq, we would be respected around the world, we wouldn't have extensive poverty or people with inadquate devastatingly expensive health care, and so on. Read this:
"Heath set every passing record in school history, including accounting for 106 total touchdowns. He led the Maroon Devils to three North Carolina state championships and was the Most Valuable Player in the 1990 state championship game. Heath was named North Carolina High School Player of the year and was a Parade All-American. The following spring, he graduated from Swain County High School with honors. After being the most heavily recruited high school quarterback in America, Heath made the decision to attend and play for the University of Tennessee. In his three-year career at UT, Heath set numerous passing records, was selected to multiple All-America teams, and was named Southeastern Conference Player of the Year. He made the All-SEC Academic Team, was named NCAA Male Athlete of the Year, and in 1993, was runner-up for the Heisman Trophy. After retiring from the NFL, Heath returned to the University of Tennessee and completed his education, graduating with a degree in Psychology.
The Washington Redskins made Heath the first quarterback selected and the third pick overall. Heath played three years with the Redskins, followed by two seasons with the New Orleans Saints, where his teammates elected him Team Captain. In 1997, Heath sustained a career-ending injury."
Stupid. Sorry, I can't help myself. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
but judging by his performance every Sunday on a U. Tenn. post-football call-in show, he can be quite articulate. He probably got into this campaign a little late and is still learning how to handle loaded questions, especially when they come from someone as prominent in the political news scene as Crowley. As Bill Cosby said in an old "song" he recorded many years ago: "Young man, you've got a lot to learn." (Silver Throat, Li'l Old Man)
I didn't pay much attention to Crowley before the 2000 elections, but her commentary during the returns coverage was as slanted in tone and word as any I've seen before or since. Thought I was watching Fox. I guess I've gotten hypersensitive, but I don't seem to be able to watch a single piece of her reporting without thinking, "Gee, Candy, do you think you could be just a little more blatantly biased in your 'reporting?' "
Heath's opponent apparently wasn't smart enough (he's not very) to think up the idea of calling Heath a Pelosi Democrat, but now that Candy has inserted this notion into the debate in her inimitable fashion, don't think it's the last time the phrase will surface in an election where a label that implies that Nancy is "arch liberal" (in Joe Scarborough's words before Bill Maher beat him into submission over the label), and maybe Heath is, too, (he's quite moderate) made at the last minute, could make all the difference in who wins. Mission accomplished.
by saying "Candy Crowley digs into why Democrats seem to have so much trouble winning elections," she'd be re-investigating Florida in 2004 and Ohio (and other States) in 2004.
Yes, hatchet job. She picks and chooses the comments she wants to air, and this is what you see: "It's the wussy factor." "It's the guns." "There are certain Democrats who cannot win in rural America." "They are the "N" word for naïve. They might even be the "N" word for ignorant."
How about "N" for What The F*** Are You Talking About?
It doesn't matter what Shuler's response was to that intended-to-be-pointed question. The editing made him look like they/she wanted him to look: evasive and weak. This is just more evidence of the lie of "liberal media bias". These so-called journalists who are really nothing more than dolled-up broadcasters (to put it flatteringly) - and I do mean male AND female - are performing their assigned task: to further confuse the voting public with non-information, crowding out facts essential in determining who would truly represent your interests.
Maybe it's just me, but on re-viewing that clip I was struck by Crowley's tone of voice when she asked Saunders at the end, "Are they the 'L' word"? Like she was uttering some forbidden, taboo, filthy term. And to answer some queries put forth here: I don't think that anyone who is here at MMFA is offended or wounded personally by the "Pelosi Democrat" label, but we're not so naîve as to think that on a nationally broadcast program aired during an immensely important campaign, that it is not intended to be perceived as a negative by the too-large number of undecideds.