Ignoring their widespread agreement with national Dem platform, NY Times asserted '06 freshman Dems "fit the conservative model"
SUMMARY: The New York Times asserted that Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (D-LA) "fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans." In fact, the Democratic candidates who won Republican-held seats in the November 2006 midterm elections all backed key portions of the Democratic platform, and the vast majority of them also supported embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights.
In a May 4 article by reporter Adam Nossiter, The New York Times asserted that Rep.-elect Don Cazayoux (D-LA), who defeated Republican Woody Jenkins in a May 3 special election for a congressional seat that Republicans have held since 1974, "fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans." But as Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, and here), the Democratic candidates who won Republican-held seats in the November 7, 2006, midterm elections all backed three central elements of the Democratic platform -- raising the minimum wage, changing course in Iraq, and opposing any effort to privatize Social Security -- while the vast majority of them also supported embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights. Media Matters further documented that these central Democratic platform positions enjoyed strong public support. Additionally, as purported evidence that Cazayoux "fit the conservative model," the Times wrote that he "was close to Mr. Jenkins on social issues like abortion and guns; he spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain; he rarely if ever mentioned the Democratic presidential candidates; and he suggested he would buck his party if the district's interests seemed to call for it." But Nossiter did not mention Cazayoux's reported agreement with Democratic Party leaders -- and the American people -- on major policy issues, namely expanding health care coverage and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest earners.
On April 27, The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, reported that Cazayoux's health care plan was "similar [to] presidential candidate Barack Obama's" and that "Cazayoux said he would like the public to have access to the Congressional health-care plan and to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Plan." On October 18, 2007, 229 out of 233 House Democrats voted to override President Bush's veto on a bill expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). By contrast, 154 out of 200 House Republicans voted against overriding Bush's veto.
A separate April 27 Advocate article (found in the Nexis database) reported that regarding the Bush tax cuts, Cazayoux would "[c]onsider repeal for [the] top 1 percent of earners." Similarly, The Advocate reported on April 2 that Cazayoux said that "tax breaks for alternative-fuel developers could be paid for by rolling back tax breaks for the top 1 percent of the nation's income earners." According to a February 1, 2007, post on the Wall Street Journal blog The Wealth Report, the top 1 percent of earners in 2004 had income of at least $277,983. A February 2 Times article reported, "Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would extend only the tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 and then use the revenue from the higher taxes on the affluent to help pay for other programs." By contrast, the Bush tax cuts reduced the highest marginal income tax rate to 35 percent and "Senator McCain wants to extend the 35 percent rate indefinitely," as the Times noted.
From the May 4 New York Times article:
A Democrat took an open Congressional seat long held by Republicans in the conservative district around Baton Rouge in a special election Saturday, giving the party an early boost in its quest for an increased majority in the House of Representatives.
Don Cazayoux, a state representative, defeated Woody Jenkins, a small-newspaper publisher and former legislator long associated with religious-right causes in Louisiana, by 49 percent to 46 percent, in a tight race for a seat left open by the retirement of Richard Baker, a Republican.
Mr. Cazayoux portrayed himself as little different from Mr. Jenkins on social issues, overcoming the Republicans' depiction of him as a "liberal" in lock step with figures like the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Barack Obama, who shared billing with him in a barrage of Republican attack advertisements.
The two parties saw the Louisiana race as an important test for the fall, given how safe the district has been for Republicans for more than three decades. Democrats viewed a potential victory as a measure of Republican vulnerability; Republicans saw it as an indication of how difficult it might be to defend more than two dozen open seats in play in November.
Mr. Cazayoux, a low-key member of the State House and a former prosecutor, fit the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans. He was close to Mr. Jenkins on social issues like abortion and guns; he spoke approvingly of Senator John McCain; he rarely if ever mentioned the Democratic presidential candidates; and he suggested he would buck his party if the district's interests seemed to call for it.
Mr. Jenkins and the Republicans, on the other hand, sought to tie Mr. Cazayoux to his party's national standard-bearers at every opportunity, especially Ms. Pelosi. Television advertisements paired Mr. Cazayoux with Mr. Obama, and called him a "liberal" - a description that fit uneasily with Mr. Cazayoux's voting record in the State House of Representatives. He raised nearly twice as much money as his Republican rival, his fund-raising bolstered by Congressional Democrats eager to take the seat.
For two decades, Mr. Jenkins has been one of the state's best-known - and most polarizing - political figures. He led an effort in the Louisiana Legislature 18 years ago to enact the nation's toughest anti-abortion laws, which tore the state's politics apart. He was the Legislature's most outspoken across-the-board opponent of taxes and government spending.















I believe I heard Rush Limbaugh float this same talking point right after the 2006 election. I guess if you're losing, it helps to pretend the other team is you.
Limbaugh has been losing brain cells for years. The process accelerated when he was popping enough OxyContin to l=make him lose his hearing.
I am not sure what the preferred jargon is anymore? Many here, including MMFA, dislike the liberal label, especially when it's the "most', and now the conservative label is a no-no too.
When you all decide what you want to be called, just let the rest of us know.
"conservative" doesn't really do it, especially since the term has become so debased by the modern GOP. Maybe that's the idea?
I think I would just shake my head at the abject stupidity of the meaningless term. You are being intentionally obtuse here. Obama is NOT the most liberal Senator that is plain fact. Why, while running for president SHOULD the other side be allowed to portray him as extreme or MORE of anything than he is? Why are you making such silly appologies for dishonesty by intentionally missing the point. It is very simple. You cant show a single place where Obama objects to being called liberal only to MISREPRESENTING him. You blur this distinction and PRETEND to something that is NOT going on in an attempt to give cover for dishonesty to take US to task for challenging DISHONESTY. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Stupid? You were the one who introduced the religion analogy and then when you were asked a direct question to expand upon it, in the exact context in which you presented it, on this very thread, you call me stupid?
If it was so stupid then you had no place bringing into the conversation, you did, and you run from it now.
Piece of work.......
I think it starts with "Media Matters is a Progressive website..."
Liberal was never mentioned.
And out of curiosity, is Liberal better or worse than Progressive? IMO, they are both pretty bad.
I am not sure what the preferred jargon is anymore? Many here, including MMFA, dislike the liberal label, especially when it's the "most', and now the conservative label is a no-no too.
The labels are only no-nos when they don't apply, Tommy.
"...the conservative model Democrats deployed successfully in the 2006 elections when they took seats from Republicans"
The guy who wrote that must have been out of the country in 2006, and so had to ask his friends how did House Democrats take the majority in such an impressive (Historic actually) fashion, as to not have a single incumbent lose their seat, versus 29 Republican incumbents losing theirs (29 I think I recall; maybe as few as 23: 23-0 or 29-0, it was a shutout that was an Historic U.S. first either way), and for Republicans nation-wide to fail to take even a single open House seat (another U.S. Historic first!)...
It had nothing to do with "conservative models", whatever they are... and I know, because I was in the country in 2006, and followed the whole thing closely... more closely for sure, than did this guy's friends who misinformed him about it all, with that "conservative model" crap... that's what he gets for being out the country so long, and being out of touch and uninformed.
Oh yeah, Mr. Cazayoux's election also confirms what we already know (and maybe the "conservative model" guy at the NYTimes might like to learn), that Religion anf Faith have so little to do with this '08 election, as to say it they have nothing at all to do with it.
And Mr. Cazayoux's election might also mark yet another U.S. Historical first in a Congressional election: He might be the first Representative to ever have the letters x, y, and z, all in his last name... I can't be sure, maybe the "conservative model" guy's friends have the answer to that one too.
The so called liberal media just LOVE to say that Congressional Democrats are actuallly white, right wing conservative Dixiecrats.
It makes them feel better.
Oh, sorry, Snoop, I thought you were joking. I wouldn't call it a "recipe", I just sometimes put ketchup on my spuds, but first I mix it up with a little curry powder and a shot of hot sauce(like a Tapatio, red stuff) in it. "to taste", like they say.
I go through other phases of horseradish/mustard combos that are pretty painful.
Here's the disconnect:
MMFA pretends that voters care what is in the political parties' platforms. MMFA thinks that it is important that the Democratic Party platform mentions "changing course in Iraq". Ah, we're all for change, aren't we? Not in agreement about those specifics, though...
In the cited article, the NYT makes no mention of any political platform, just how the Democrat disassociated himself from the leaders of his party, instead presented himself as like his voters, and won.
In the 70's, I sometimes listened to Radio Moscow on shortwave radio. Once they told how the Soviet constitution guarantees freedom of religion, unlike the United Kingdom, which actually has a STATE RELIGION. They huffed in disgust about the high regard people in the world had for religious freedom in Great Britain I think the US political platforms may be important to politicos, but to the vast majority of us, are as relevant as the old Soviet constitution was.
You have lost your mind. They are losing readers on a daily basis, have more leadership problems than Yahoo, and have never represented the American people. Just because they supported the war does not make them conserative. Most of the country if not the world supported the war, and for good reason. You dont really believe that BO or HC, if either wins, will just step in and end the war do you? Conseratives on the editorial page hardly make them a conserative voice. FOX has so many viewers because they present a conserative view, along with liberal views. It was ED Rendell who said that Fox has been more fair to HC than the other cable news sources. The liberal medis is still in force, but thankfully losing ground.
B Kristol, one year before Fox News was launched,"I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
So since then the liberal media has gone from strength to strength somehow. Amazing, how'd they do that? Howcum I can't hear them cept on Air America?
The onslaught of Wright all the time, everywhere. How did that get past those pesky liberal media types in control. How are they responding to the effect of the Wright coverage, on the public being slightly over zip point nill?
Give an example of a current liberal point being deeply supported by the so-called liberal media. I can work up about 10 that they seemly ignore without working up much of a a sweat.
“They are losing readers on a daily basis,……… and have never represented the American people.”---POV
IMO this will be a good thing in the long run. The way other news outlets take their lead from the NY Times is deleterious to the Republic. We should never have had a choke point like this.
“Just because they supported the war does not make them conservative”
The only way I can make sense of the damaged-beyond-repair “liberal/conservative” political continuum in America is to substitute Democratic Party/ Republican Party. As to your point, there are degrees to which one can be either this way or that way, D or R, Lib or Con, etc. And there is direction. The NYTimes has been trending towards R to some degree. Because they are not the Washington Times does not deny this movement.
“You dont really believe that BO or HC, if either wins, will just step in and end the war do you?”
I’ve heard this a lot. Sounds like a psychological (another one) trick, to frame the debate so as to make it seem certain that a potential Dem President couldn’t reasonably be expected to do what they say they will do. You thereby give cover to them to do what you (the war lobby) want when and if they get in office. We then back down when they fail to redeploy out of Iraq because you have trained us to believe that we’ll be ignored and so we’ll not protest too loudly when our will is in fact ignored in this regard.
“Conseratives on the editorial page hardly make them a conserative voice.”
Same as above, there is a continuum.
“FOX has so many viewers because they present a conserative along with liberal views.”
First substitute “Republican type views” for “conservative views”. The Republicans are homogenous to a much larger extent than the Democratic Party. You can get an audience easier if you are willing to pander to what it wants to believe, as opposed to any attempt at objectivity. It would hard to replicate the Fox model for the Democrats because their party is more diverse in so many ways.
“I think it is a mistake to ever look at the media in the liberal/conservative dichotomy.” ………..…..”Trying to say because the NYTimes is not a conservative voice means they are pushing a liberal agenda is ludicrous.”---Solon
I agree with that, and my point to POV was similar, that there is not a dichotomy but a continuum in this regard generally (w/regard to media or otherwise).
But in my view, the conservatives of yesteryear (the real thing as opposed to the radicals who call themselves Conservatives today.) had a legitimate point about the media of which the NYTimes was prototypical.
Much of the media then -- and to a large extent still-- was owned, managed and produced/written by one non-majority group—ethnic Jews. This has been unhealthy for our great country. It has caused much distortion of the body politic. The Democratic Party did not move organically, as a unified group to the socially liberal positions it adopted. It was influenced all out of proportion by the politics of American Jews. While I personally am in agreement with the politics of liberal American Jews, looking back now with hindsight, I see how a gangster element has taken over the GOP due to a marginalized Democratic Party in the minds of the majority of Americans. If these changes had come naturally, albeit less quickly, they would have been more evenly distributed between the parties---not associated so heavily with the Democratic Party, which already carried the electoral burden of being the party of the outsider and could less well afford encumbrances of this kind than can the nativist party.
The Republican Party adapted to this distortion and put the American Jews in handcuffs over the security of Israel which left little independence in the press to perform their watchdog function. We need a competitive system to allow the voters to sweep out a party when it goes bad. We don’t have that now. After the corruption and incompetence of the GOP over the last 14 years, the polls should have the Republican candidate in single digits. Instead we face the possible election of a man who promises more wars we don’t have the money for and probably an economic decline which in a newly competitive world we likely will never recover from.
Democracy is a delicate thing and I’m afraid we’ve made a mess of it. And I do me we. When one faction gets out of line in a party, it’s up to the rest to make the appropriate adjustments for the long term good of the party and by extension the country.
I think it is a mistake to ever look at the media in the liberal/conservative dichotomy.” ………..…..”Trying to say because the NYTimes is not a conservative voice means they are pushing a liberal agenda is ludicrous.”---Solon
After rereading your comments I see misunderstand your emphasis to be definitional, like mine was, as to the non-dichotomous nature of the "liberal/conservative" political continuum. I believe you were instead stressing the absence of any kind of liberal/conservative continuum in the media, which from my comments I obviously disagree---especially so in the past but also today, although less pronounced and not as widespread.
"There is nothing conserative about the NY times. In fact, it is barely relevant anymore."(POV)
So you admit that the Times at least has some conservative characteristics?
Col
put down the mashed potatoes and the slaw and back slowly away from the plate. You guys cant even out poll McCain at this point. Gramps as you like to call him looks more presidential each day thanks to you guys.
They CANT? Yes Obama can
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/polls/main3874915.shtml
When all registered voters were asked who they favored in a head-to-head general election match up between Obama and McCain, Obama led by 12 percentage points, 50 to 38 percent.
Do you EVER know what you are talking about or do you just spew out whatever you WISH were true in hopes the magic will happen? When will you learn your delusions do not define reality?
Get real. Why dont you look at reality, instead of the fantasy you choose to look at. Here are several polls to look at. Wonder why you picked the one you did? Looks like liberal miss info to me
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Perhaps if you dont know how to READ. YOUR claim was that they COULDNT outpoll McCain, even YOUR Link shows three out of seven times Obama DOES. I saw that. To make my point. That he CAN, which is all that is needed to show your CANT assertion to be garbage, all I had to do is show ONE POLL where he does, if he DOES, then he CAN. This is actually pretty simple. The fact that in seven polls three go one way and four another means its pretty close.
I did not say you could not find any poll that shows a dem winning. You really are mentally ill. After all this time and money, the dems still cant pull it together. But if the average voting dem is a dumb as you are, it is really no problem.
I have no trouble showing a poll that shows McCain behind. Unlike you, I dont look for the most out of wack poll thats shows one person ahead by 12. Only a dumb a$$ like you has to do that. You cant read, you cant see reality, you dont know if you are a democrat, a progressive, or a liberal, or what you are. I do like it when you try and use big words. Now go find another big boy academic sight.....like wikipedia, or google yourself, and see if moron comes up.
"You guys cant even out poll McCain at this point." -POV
Wow, despite the invective, Solon schooled you on this point. But if you don't want to admit it, I understand. It's pretty easy to sit behind the anonymity of a comments thread and not take responsibility for your words.
On a side note, polls don't mean s**t. Right now people have primary fatigue, and I can guarantee you you won't get an accurate reading of the American populace until after the conventions. Polls are just spin with numbers.