From the Archives: The Democrats Get No R-E-S-P-E-C-T

(This MediaBloodhound op-ed column was originally posted on June 22, 2006. At the time, following the White House's lead, the mainstream media was busy attacking Democrats for not agreeing on a uniform plan to bring our troops home from Iraq. The fact that Democrats were unified on the need for a plan - regardless of the plan - was ignored. Their mild disagreement opened them up to cliché  partisan attacks and hack media characterizations of being weak on national defense. In the end, it was our troops who paid the price - and continue to do so - for this kind of twisted national political discourse.)

Yesterday’s Washington Post report “Democrats Divided on Withdrawal of Troops” is indicative of the mainstream media’s lopsided coverage of Democrats and Republicans. More proof that Dems, their shortcomings aside, are treated like the Rodney Dangerfield of political parties.

First, let’s review for the sake of context.

• We have a Republican president who, under false pretenses, consigned our sons and daughters to a war of choice, resulting in over 2,500 of their deaths, with more than 18,000 wounded - missing limbs, losing sight and hearing, severely burned, suffering brain damage and chronic psychological impairment.

• Inconceivably, this Republican president sent them into battle without sufficient body armor, a clear objective or an exit strategy.

• This same Republican president directly sanctions torture and scoffs at the Geneva Conventions (which, in part, were originally set in place so our own soldiers were less likely to be treated inhumanely should they fall behind enemy lines). Uses fear of “evildoers” for political gain at every opportunity (like other fascist regimes in history). And has invoked unprecedented, unconstitutional and impeachable presidential powers (one of which includes spying on millions of Americans’ phone calls).

• Ironically, with all of his tough talk about doing whatever it takes to protect Americans, uttered ad nauseum like a robotic monkey, the 9-11 Commission graded his efforts in preparing our nation against terrorist attacks with a resounding “F.”

• Furthermore, this Republican president has denied that human activity is directly linked to global warming, gutted environmental laws (that have, and will for years to come, greatly contribute to its expansion) and refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

• Finally, this Republican president let New Orleans drown and, to this day, has not come through on his promises (stated during a nationally televised photo-op) to help its citizens rebuild their homes and lives.

This Republican president has amassed an indefensibly abysmal record. And this Republican-led Congress has staunchly supported him in lockstep fashion.

Yet the mainstream media pillories the Democrats for not unanimously agreeing on the same date for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, while praising the Republicans’ unequivocal support for Bush’s disastrous policy there.

Starting with the headline “Democrats Divided on Withdrawal of Troops,” this Washington Post article gives the false impression that their bone of contention is whether or not to withdraw troops; their disagreement, however, lies in when troops should be withdrawn. The majority clearly agrees that troop withdrawal must be in the plans. A simple edit could’ve clarified their stance: “Democrats Divided on Timetable to Withdraw Troops.” One could argue the Levin-Reed plan speaks of a date for “redeploying” troops from Iraq and does not specify a date for full withdrawal. But, let’s face it, setting a date to start redeploying troops from Iraq instead of setting one for a full withdrawal is largely a nuanced, semantic buffer from the misleading Republican accusations of “cutting and running.” And, yes, a withdrawal under the Levin-Reed plan would take longer than under the one proposed by Senator John Kerry, but the underlying intention of both is to finally provide an exit strategy that Bush and the Republicans have failed to do.

Here’s the article’s intro:

While congressional Republicans continued to show almost unanimous support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Democrats struggled for consensus yesterday, reflecting what some of them called the public's mixed feelings about the three-year-old conflict.

So the Republicans are painted in a positive light for showing “almost unanimous support” for Bush’s failed policy and strategy in Iraq. Can you imagine the same coverage if the Democrats were in power and Iraq had occurred on their watch? It’s simply inconceivable. The mainstream media continues to frame strong leadership - as if taking their cues directly from Karl Rove - on the basis of being decisive rather than sound in judgment (something, incidentally, that Senator Kerry underscored about Bush during their presidential race and the mainstream media found of little consequence – until, however short-lived, they witnessed first-hand in New Orleans a direct consequence of rewarding a leader for being decisively wrong). They reward Republicans for being faithful to party rather than country, something our Founding Fathers cautioned us against.

More kudos for Republican consensus on failure:

Debate and votes on the two measures are likely to be held today and tomorrow, with Senate Republicans happy to clear the way for Democrats to showcase their divisions. Senators predicted that few, if any, Republicans will embrace the Democrats' proposals, mirroring the nearly unanimous support House Republicans displayed last week for Bush's policies.

Not until eight paragraphs into the article are we provided with an accurate glimpse into the Democrats’ view on this issue:

Kerry, Levin and Reed say Iraqis must understand that the U.S. military presence in their country is not open-ended and that Iraqis therefore should step up efforts to train and equip their police and army.

Then, time for more Dem bashing:

GOP leaders took obvious pleasure in the Democrats' disarray, issuing a stream of press releases with headlines such as, "Democrats Divided On The Meaning Of Their Own Amendments."

It’s telling how similar that headline is to the one the Washington Post chose for its article. Is it not merely the subtext of the WashPo headline?

The best example of the report's bias, however, is that this was saved for its final paragraph:

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged his party's divisions over Iraq but played down the significance. "One thing Democrats agree on is this war has taken too long, it's too expensive and costs too many lives and too many soldiers injured," he told reporters. "We all agree there should be a change in the course of the war. We all agree that there should be redeployment starting sooner rather than later."

Reid attempts to make quite clear to the mainstream press and the American people that it’s the Democrats’ common ground - a joint belief we need to lay down an exit strategy in Iraq and the underlying reasons why - that is of much greater importance here. Not the quibbling over when to exit.

But, whereas the Republicans are the star basketball players rarely called for fouls or traveling, Reid and the Dems don’t get any breaks from the refs in the mainstream media. His quote is sidelined to the last paragraph of the article. His point clanking off the rim and quickly forgotten, if ever read.

I tell ya, no respect, no respect at all.