In recent articles on the disagreements among Democrats following the midterm elections, The New York Times has portrayed party leaders as plagued by “recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting” that have “cast a cloud over the party's post-election celebration.” But while it has characterized the current rifts as “the latest episode of that familiar Washington series, Democrats in Disarray,” the Times has ignored or downplayed recent divisions among Republicans -- over the House minority leader election, the choice of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) to head the Republican National Committee, and the ousting of Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary. Moreover, the Times' coverage of the contentious election among Republicans to choose a House majority leader in early 2006 stands in stark contrast to its treatment of the current Democratic disagreements. Indeed, rather than depict that contest as an example of Republicans' “disarray,” the Times reported it as a legitimate and significant discussion regarding the party's direction, even likening it at one point to a “campaign[] for class president.”

In a November 16 Times article -- headlined "After Win, Democrats Revert to Finger-Pointing" -- chief political reporter Adam Nagourney wrote that, despite taking control of the House and Senate on November 7, Democrats have reverted to “their usual postelection syndrome,” characterized by “recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting.” From the article:

One would think that after their biggest electoral triumph in about a decade, Democrats would finally break their usual postelection syndrome -- a November loss followed by recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting.

Well, think again.

The Democrats are celebrating their big victory of Nov. 7 with recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting, no matter that they won control of the Senate and the House for the first time since 1994.

Nagourney largely focused on the disagreement among Democratic strategists and lawmakers over whether Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean could have boosted the party's gains by putting “more money into Congressional races,” rather than focusing on “his effort to build up parties in all 50 states.” Nagourney went on to highlight the contest for the post of House majority leader between Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and John P. Murtha (D-PA) as “a reminder of just how much Democrats like to rumble”:

On Capitol Hill, soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has waded into a leadership fight that has divided her caucus, providing the public -- in its first glimpse of the incoming Congress -- with a reminder of just how much Democrats like to rumble. Democrats, if grimacing, sought to put the best face on the latest episode of that familiar Washington series, Democrats in Disarray.

Other Times articles similarly depicted the leadership race as reflecting badly on the incoming majority party. For instance, chief congressional correspondent Carl Hulse penned a November 16 article -- headlined "Many Say Leadership Race Damages Democrats' Image" -- in which he depicted Democrats as “squabbling” and described Republicans as “enjoying the spectacle”:

House members acknowledged on Wednesday that the increasingly bitter contest for majority leader was sullying the image of unity and new direction that Democrats hoped to convey.

[...]

Downtrodden Republicans were enjoying the spectacle of the split between Representative Nancy Pelosi, the incoming speaker, who is publicly pushing Representative John P. Murtha, her longtime ally, and Democrats rallying behind Mr. Hoyer, who has served in the leadership slot beneath Ms. Pelosi for four years.

[...]

[S]everal Democrats said her direct involvement was clouding the Democratic takeover by showing squabbling Democrats in serious disagreement over the direction of the party.

Later on November 16 -- following Hoyer's election as House majority leader -- the Times published an online article co-written by Hulse and David Stout that also characterized the contest as detrimental to the Democrats, calling it a “bruising fight” that would require some “healing”:

House Democrats chose Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland as their majority leader today after a bruising fight that cast a cloud over the party's post-election celebration.

[...]

The healing may take some time, in view of the bare-knuckles nature of the battle. But Mr. Hoyer lavished praise on Ms. Pelosi.

But while the Times has portrayed the Democrats as “squabbling” and “in disarray,” it has downplayed or altogether ignored the “recriminations, finger-pointing and infighting” among Republicans since Election Day.

For instance, President Bush's November 8 announcement of his decision to oust Rumsfeld -- which he admitted to delaying until after the election -- was met with anger from prominent Republicans and conservatives who argued that if the decision had been announced before November 7, it might have improved the Republican Party's electoral fortunes. A November 12 Associated Press article on the uproar appeared under the headline, “Bush Faces GOP Ire Over Rumsfeld Timing.” In a November 9 article headlined “GOP furious about timing of Rumsfeld resignation,” The Hill reported that “Donald Rumsfeld's abrupt resignation from the Pentagon the day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress has infuriated some GOP officials on and off Capitol Hill.” Meanwhile, a November 9 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article quoted former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) criticizing the Republicans' performance during the campaign season -- and particularly the White House's decision to postpone Rumsfeld's departure:

Taking questions after a medical forum, the former GOP congressman from Cobb County said four c's -- an absence of competence in Republican performance, an absence of candor, corruption and the bad advice of consultants -- led to Tuesday's defeat.

But Gingrich saved his strongest words for President Bush's performance at the Wednesday press conference announcing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation.

[...]

He condemned Bush's admission that in making last week's statement about Rumsfeld, he had known he was being misleading.

“It's inappropriate to cleverly come out the day after an election to do something we were told before the election would not be done,” Gingrich said. “I think the timing was exactly backwards and I hope the President will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor.”

By contrast, the Times buried the Republican reaction in its coverage of Rumsfeld's ouster. In a November 10 article, reporter John M. Broder noted the Republicans' “recriminations” regarding the decision to delay the announcement -- but not until the 40th paragraph of the 44-paragraph piece. Similarly, in a November 10 article on Rumsfeld's departure, reporter Jim Rutenberg simply noted in passing that Republicans had “complained ... that the resignation had come too late to be any help” in the election. Near the end of the article, he briefly returned to the subject, reporting that “there were recriminations from some Republicans -- among them Newt Gingrich -- that Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster came too late, and Republicans paid a price for it.”

The White House's decision to tap Martinez as RNC chairman also set off a round of criticism in the Republican Party's ranks, as a November 15 Los Angeles Times article reported:

President Bush's decision to back Sen. Mel Martinez to help lead the Republican Party, a move intended to appeal to disaffected Latino voters, drew sharp criticism Tuesday from some of the party's core conservatives, who disdain the Florida lawmaker's support for liberalized immigration laws.

But the November 14 Times article on Martinez's expected ascension -- penned by Nagourney -- made no mention of any Republican criticism regarding the move.

Further, while the Times depicted the Democratic contest for House majority leader as “bruising” and “bare-knuckle[d],” its coverage of the race between Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) for the post of House minority leader included no similar characterizations. In fact, while Hulse noted in his November 15 article on the GOP leadership dispute that Republicans “may be divided and dispirited,” he immediately emphasized that they agree on what they are looking for in their new leader and even described them as “soul-searching”:

House Republicans may be divided and dispirited as they prepare to choose new leadership this week, but they seem to agree on the chief qualification they seek in the leader of the new minority party.

“We need the person who can get us back in the majority the fastest,” Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas said.

Still in shock over losing their 12-year-old majority to Democrats, House Republicans are engaged in their second leadership fight in a year, this one part of a soul-searching over how they lost the election and what they can do about it.

In contrast to Hulse's treatment of the Republican leadership struggle in the House, a November 14 Los Angeles Times article characterized the Republicans as having “plunged into a round of recriminations provoked by their election losses”:

Republicans, meanwhile, plunged into a round of recriminations provoked by their election losses. House leadership contests were developing, pitting more conservative party members against those who have been at the helm.

“We did not just lose our majority -- we lost our way,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who is trying to oust Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) as the GOP leader in the next Congress.

In his case against Boehner, Pence contends that public disaffection over the growth in government spending under the GOP-controlled Congress paved the way for the election losses.

In his coverage of the House majority leader battle in early 2006, Hulse also depicted the contentious leadership race as a meaningful discussion of the party's direction -- not a “bruising fight” or an example of “infighting.”

Following Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX) January 7 announcement that he would not attempt to regain his position as House majority leader, Hulse reported on January 8 that DeLay's decision “immediately kicked off a potentially divisive fight over who should become the new leader.” But in his subsequent coverage of the race between Boehner and Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Shadegg (R-AZ), Hulse did not depict it as emblematic of GOP divisions, but rather as a "scramble for change" (subscription required). Indeed, in his numerous articles, Hulse explained in detail the different positions and platforms put forth by the candidates and, in one particular piece, even likened such leadership races to "campaigns for class president."