Blitzer called Steele "a good, strong Republican" despite campaign materials suggesting he's a Dem
On the January 28 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer called unsuccessful Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele "a good, strong Republican," despite, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the Steele campaign's misleading tactics, which included the distribution of a flier labeled "Democratic Sample Ballot" that referred to "Ehrlich-Steele Democrats" and falsely suggested that certain prominent African-American Maryland Democrats endorsed Steele for Senate and then-Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for re-election.
As Media Matters has also noted, Blitzer previously told Steele that he ran a "spectacular campaign." Further, as noted by the weblog Crooks and Liars, CNN's The Situation Room once mistakenly identified Steele as a Democrat.
From the January 28 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: Who do you think, from a Republican perspective -- and you're a good, strong Republican -- would be the most formidable challenge on the Democratic side? Who, in other words, would run the biggest threat to you?
Maybe Wolf Blitzer was simply reminding Michael Steele of his party affiliation as a courtesy. Apparently, Steele must have trouble keeping track of it. But the way the Republicons got their butts kicked last November don't be surprised if Steele comes over to Democratic side. He already had some Democratic support in the election he lost and for some reason we just love to take in former Republicans who have seen the light. Look at Jim Webb. But Steele needs to start saying the right things...
I don't really get why this is here, other than an excuse to put in the previous post and the C&L">[link to www.crooksandliars.com] link.
Steele is a big-time jerk, but I don't see how this is anything other than a NYAH-nyah-nyah-NYAH-nyah. Is it just me... ?
It is just you. After all, that's a major omission on the subject and could be potentially misleading.
Well, has Bitzer ever referred to anybody as a "good, strong Democrat?" I doubt it. And MM is quite correct in noting that Steele's losing campaign is always described as "strong" or "impressive," it's never noted that the race was considered "tight" and a "real sleeper" and "possible upset" by several news outlets, but in the end Steele lost by 12 percentage points.
The media has also largely given Steele a pass for hiring homeless people in Philadelphia and busing them into overwhelmingly black Prince George's county to hand out brochures which implied that Steele had been endorsed by well-known African American leaders like Kweisi Mfume and Congressman Al Wynn. This was a sleazy, dirty trick, but because Steele lost, its just water under the bridge, I guess.
I havent heard Harold Ford congratulated for running a "spectacular campaign." In fact, I havent heard any other Senate loser praised like Steele has been many, many times. And I'm still waiting to hear a Democrat referred to as a "good, strong Democrat"- whatever that is.
Good point JJ...
I think Wolf is reaching out to the black vote. Seeing if he can pull a few into the Con column....what a joke.
Don't forget several other times when Steele campaigned durty. Go here to see how he used campaign signs and banners that gave the false impression that he was the Democratic candidate for the US Senate: [link to www.tpmcafe.com] can also go here to see more on Steele's dirty tricks:
http://harfordem.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/steele-last-minute-dirty-tricks/.
Good strong Republican? God, what a tool Wolf Blitzer is.
"Steele campaigned durty"
"...a good, strong Republican"
There you go... I fail to see any contradiction there. Pretty descriptive, actually...
I like Wolf Blitz-butt....
He's a good, strong, jackass.
I guess MMFA has a problem with the words "good" and "strong" because Steele is a Republican. In fact, MMFA notes that he was "mistakenly" referred to as a Democrat on a different program.
If Steel is so proud of being a Republican, why did his campaign distribute material on election day in black neighborhoods claiming he's a Democrat?
Your point makes no sense?
Bruce1Ace, I would actually have a problem with a member of the media referring to someone as a "good, strong Democrat," too. For two reasons: first, why would a journalist be giving an opinion as to whether someone is a "good" or "strong" member of his or her own Party? What guidelines are being used to judge? Second, why offer praise to any politician beyond "congratulations on your win," which is only polite?
I dont want to see any media types praising any politician. Its not their job. I dont think they should be bashing politicians either. They are supposed to REPORT on what politicians DO, PERIOD. Unfortunately, the vast majority of media types seem to have forgotten this.
jjamele,
Just a question[and not being snarky here]
Would you object to Wolf or anyone in the media referring to any of the current Presidential candidates as a "good" "strong" candidate?
Isn't that "opinion" and/or "praise" as well?
Also would you[or MMFA] object or even notice if Wolf had referred to Jim Webb as a"good" "strong" Democrat? Webb used to be a Republican. And he's certainly a lot more Conservative than the average Democrat.
Where do we draw the line?
Personally I find this thread just a tad nitpicky.
Jeter
Not to be snarky either but just wanted to point out that there is room in the Democratic party for conservative types. A lot more room and acceptance than say for a "liberal republican" or is that an oxymoron?
(Personally I don't think that would be)
Not snarky at all...
Hey Spin I agree 100% with your statement: "there is room in the Democratic party for conservative types."...and yeah with FEW exceptions a Liberal Republican is rare indeed. Of course there are Republicans that do tend to be a bit MORE Liberal on certain social issues. Myself included.
My observation is that it depends on context. I have no issue with an analyst/commentator describing someone as a "strong candidate" assuming that they provide a reasonable argument for the assertion. E.g., the candidate has good poll numbers, ample finances or abililty to raise money, views with broad appeal, etc.
Blitzer's comment, by contrast, was an empty attempt at a compliment. There's no question Steele succeeded as a candidate. However, it seems questionable that he did so as a "good, strong Republican."
Is this still a nitpick? Probably. The headline drew me in. However, I ultimately found your question more intriguing than the topic.
There's no question Steele succeeded as a candidate. However, it seems questionable that he did so as a "good, strong Republican."...by ChristianDemocrat
=====
I see your point. I guess I'm just wondering IF too much is being made of Wolf's words. Wolf, IMO, is a lightweight among his peers and does seem to attempt to establish a personal--almost buddy buddy like relationship with some of those he interviews, thus heaping praise where none may have been warranted. I'll admit I don't know a great deal about Steele, other than what I've read here [which was mostly about the Oreo controversy]. But my question was more about the boundaries that seem to be being set by MMFA as to what they deem acceptable as to what those in the media can say without being called out for bias or mis-information.
In this case, I don't know that Wolf's "complimentary" tone/words towards Steele are that big of a deal.
I guess I'm just wondering IF too much is being made of Wolf's words.
I agree. There's alot of issues that concern me more than Wolf's abililty - or lack thereof - to provide deserved compliments. I.e., I doubt this was a calculated action.
How is there "no question that Steele succeeded as a candidate?" To my mind, there are only three reasons to run for office: to win the office and be able to take part in the legislative process, to draw attention to an issue or issues that the other candidates are ignoring, or to set yourself up to run for another office in the future.
Steele did none of these things. He didnt even come close to winning. He didnt articulate any issues that strayed from the standard GOP playbook. And the last minute dirty tricks he and Bob Ehrlich used left a sour taste in the mouths of the electorate, which probably ended any chance of a political career in Maryland. So what's with the nonstop praise for this guy?
Steele's just one of many, many losing candidates from the last cycle. What he's done to deserve plaudits completely escapes me.
Yes, I would object to Blitzer or any media type referring to anybody as a "good" or "strong' candidate. As I said in my post (did you even bother to read it?) its not the job of the media to tell us who the "good" or "strong" candidates are. Show us the candidates, let US decide who WE think are "good" or "strong." I'm amazed that this seems too much to ask.
To me it's just hosts being polite to their guests. It's different than reading the news, there's dialogue and give and take. I wouldn't call it anything more than that.
And there on the screen we see Michael Steele wading through his own b******t. You know, I can't help but notice that he is so Republican.....and so black......
- Wolf Blitzer