CNN and MSNBC are among the latest media outlets to suggest that the term "slow bleed" was the Democrats' description of Rep. John Murtha's strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq. In fact, the term has been embraced by Republicans to attack Democrats after it appeared in a Politico article.
In their coverage of the Foley scandal's political effects, numerous media figures have suggested that conservative Christians are most likely to react negatively to the Foley scandal. In doing so, they presume that so-called "values voters" are more concerned than others with protecting children.
The News York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN uncritically reported Republican claims that the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley has had little effect on potential voters. None of the three noted that recent, nonpartisan, publicly available polls contradict Republican claims that voters do not appear concerned about the scandal.
Following House Speaker Dennis Hastert's press conference, numerous media outlets trumpeted the news that Hastert took "responsibility" for the Mark Foley scandal but ignored his later statement, during that same press conference, that "I haven't done anything wrong."
CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash twice uncritically reported that Republicans planned to cast a victory by businessman Ned Lamont over incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman as evidence that Democrats are "defeatist" and "weak on security" because of Lamont's criticism of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war, but she did not point out in either of her reports that a majority of Americans oppose the Iraq war.
Several news outlets portrayed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's harsh criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a purely political maneuver to "find the exact middle" in the Democratic Party or to position herself for a potential 2008 presidential run.