| |
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 In the wake of the Democrats' humiliating defeat in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District Tuesday night, members of the party were in a rush to cast blame on someone. And for many Democrats that blame fell on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Even with the loud calls for new leadership, CBS News decided to omit them from their reporting Wednesday evening. Meanwhile, ABC’s coverage simply brushed over them in a 40-second-long news brief. NBC was the only network in the Big Three to give the blaming serious consideration.
While CBS Evening News didn’t mention the heavy criticism of Pelosi, they did entertain the idea, from other Democrats, that the party’s brand was “toxic.” “We better take a good, long, strong look in the mirror and realize that the problem is us. It's the party,” Congressman Tim Ryan told CBS’s Nancy Cordes. She also read from a social media post of another, saying: “’We need a genuinely new message,’ wrote Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, ‘A serious jobs plan that reaches all Americans.’”
On ABC’s World News Tonight, Anchor David Muir and Senior White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega simply brushed over the results of the election, including the criticism of the party and Pelosi. “We turn now to that special election in Georgia overnight, being closely watched by the White House and the country,” announced Muir. “Republicans holding onto their seat, Karen Handel winning.”
The report lasted roughly 40 seconds (including Muir), with Vega just saying that:
Exactly. And the Democrats spent more than five times as much as Republicans on this race, David. There is a lot of soul searching going on here in Washington today. Some Democrats say that business as usual just isn't cutting it. Others are pointing the finger directly at Nancy Pelosi, calling for a change in leadership. But David, tonight, this White House is celebrating. This is a win.
NBC Nightly News was the only network program to dedicate serious time to the criticism of Minority Leader Pelosi. “A House special election they had high hopes of winning only to see their hopes dashed again. The latest in a string of defeats,” declared Anchor Lester Holt at the start of the segment. “Some pointing the finger now at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.”
Correspondent Kristen Welker noted how a major strategy for Handel’s victorious campaign was to tie Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff to Pelosi. The ads Handel was running were effectively “undercutting Ossoff's message of change,” Welker explained.
In an interview with Welker, Texas Democratic Congressman Filemore Vela Jr. said that “as long as Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the Democratic Party, it's going to be very difficult to win.” And according to Welker, the Democratic leader was not talking about the dissent within the ranks. “Pelosi's spokesperson not responding to those calls for her to go and instead said: ‘Republicans voters don't get to select the leaders of the Democratic Party,’” Welker reported.
Welker did try to deflate the hopes of Republicans, saying: “Still, Republicans may have their own reasons to worry. The races they've won so far are GOP strongholds and Democrats are outperforming their 2016 numbers.”
CBS and ABC can not take the called for leadership change seriously if they want too, but it won’t help Pelosi or the Democrats if that’s what is really needed.
Transcripts below:
CBS Evening News
June 21, 2017
6:35:35 PM Eastern
(…)
NANCY CORDES: Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan says it shows his party's brand is toxic.
TIM RYAN: We better take a good, long, strong look in the mirror and realize that the problem is us. It's the party.
CORDES: "We need a genuinely new message," wrote Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, "A serious jobs plan that reaches all Americans." The party had hoped to capitalize on President Trump's historically low approval ratings, but Democrats have now lost all four special elections to fill seats vacated by Trump appointees. The House Democratic Campaign operation tried to console the troops in a memo, insisting the party has enough momentum to flip control of the House in 2018, and party leaders warned against reading too much into last night's results since Georgia's sixth district hasn't gone blue in 39 years.
(…)
ABC
World News Night
June 21, 2017
6:40:49 PM Eastern
DAVID MUIR: We turn now to that special election in Georgia overnight, being closely watched by the White House and the country. Republicans holding onto their seat, Karen Handel winning. So, let's get right to ABC’s Senior White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega tonight. Because Cecilia as you know, this was the most spent ever on a congressional race and Democrats still could not pull this off. The President now 4-0.
CECILIA VEGA: Exactly. And the Democrats spent more than five times as much as Republicans on this race, David. There is a lot of soul searching going on here in Washington today. Some Democrats say that business as usual just isn't cutting it. Others are pointing the finger directly at Nancy Pelosi, calling for a change in leadership. But David, tonight, this White House is celebrating. This is a win.
MUIR: Okay, Cecilia Vega live from the White House. Thank you.
...
 NBC Nightly NewsJune 21, 2017 7:12:28 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: Let's talk now about the blame game under way among Democrats tonight left soul searching after a disappointing defeat in Georgia. A House special election they had high hopes of winning only to see their hopes dashed again. The latest in a string of defeats. Some pointing the finger now at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. We get more from NBC's Kristen Welker.
(…)
KRISTEN WELKER: Some Democrats also taking aim at leadership after the GOP consistently linked the Democratic challenger in Georgia to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in ads, undercutting Ossoff's message of change.
FILEMON VELA: As long as Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the Democratic Party, it's going to be very difficult to win.
WELKER: Pelosi's spokesperson not responding to those calls for her to go and instead said: “Republicans voters don't get to select the leaders of the Democratic Party.” Still, Republicans may have their own reasons to worry. The races they've won so far are GOP strongholds and Democrats are outperforming their 2016 numbers.
MARK HALPERIN: They have to have a message that contrasts with what Republicans want to do, not just say we're anti-Trump.
WELKER: All underscoring Democrats still haven't found their Trump card. Kristen Welker, NBC News, the White House.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
Washington Post journalist Ed O’Keefe on Wednesday attempted to spin away yet another loss for Democrats in a congressional election. Appearing on CBS This Morning, he even insisted that the GOP going four-for-four in congressional races is a potentially bad “sign” for 2018. Talk about fake news.
Asked what the implication is of Republican Karen Handel winning in Georgia, O’Keefe offered talking points: “Look, these were all Republican-held seats and Republicans won them, so status quo has been maintained. But the fact that they had to spend tens of millions of dollars to defend them is a sign going into next year.”
It was left to co-host Charlie Rose to offer some reality, pointing out that “Democrats spent even more in the Georgia race” and lost. Co-host Gayle King wondered if Tuesday’s results have implications for 2018.
 O’Keefe somehow insisted, “Absolutely. We're going to be up late that night.” So, four GOP wins in 2017 means very close midterms in 2018? How does that math work? He justified:
O’KEEFE: If you think about it, tens of millions poured into these special elections and Republicans barely got by. Even in that South Carolina race, it was a single-digit win for a Republican in a place it shouldn't have been. They are not going to have that much money to defend in dozens of competitive districts next year.
(This biased segment on CBS was brought to you by Progressive insurance and Honda.)
In a surprising turn, CBS journalists, unlike the Post, offered clarity on what Tuesdaymeant. King acknowledged that the Georgia race “was widely seen as a referendum on the Trump presidency.”
She also reminded, “With those victories, Republicans have won all four House special elections for appointees to the Trump administration.”
A transcript of the segment is below:
CBS This Morning
6/21/17
8:04
GAYLE KING: Republicans are celebrating two big special election victories this morning. In Georgia, Karen Handel won nearly 52 percent of the vote to defeat Democrat Jon Ossoff. That race was widely seen as a referendum on the Trump presidency and it was the most expensive House race in history. President Trump congratulated Handel yesterday in a tweet saying, quote, "Fantastic job, we're all very proud of you." In South Carolina, Republican Ralph Norman won a race to replace Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. With those victories, Republicans have won all four house special elections for appointees to the Trump administration.
CHARLIE ROSE: CBS News contributor Ed O’Keefe is a congressional reporter for the Washington Post. Ed, good morning.
ED O’KEEFE: Good to see you, guys.
ROSE: So, what are the implications of all this?
O’KEEFE: Look, these were all Republican-held seats and Republicans won them, so status quo has been maintained. But the fact that they had to spend tens of millions of dollars to defend them is a sign going into next year.
ROSE; But also the Democrats spent even more in the Georgia race.
O’KEEFE: Yeah, and they themselves I think — we talk about Republicans being in trouble with an unpopular president, I think Democrats really now have to sit back and really discuss how it is that they campaign into next year.
ROSE: One thing they say is they have to run on something other an anti-Trump. That they gotta present a progressive message.
O’KEEFE: I think it’s fascinating. You look at the polling you put out yesterday. People are asked are Democrats doing enough or not enough to oppose the president, Thirty two percent say Democrats aren't doing enough. Thirty two percent say they're doing the right amount. 31 percent say they're doing too much. So it's a three-way split. You look at among Democrats, there's a 44-45 split there, not enough or the right amount. So the Democrats still don't quite know what is the correct cocktail, if you will, of message that they need to be putting together. There are many I talked to late last night that said, “We have got to come up with our own agenda, but then hit the President as hard as we can. Ossoff perhaps didn't do enough of that and may have compelled more people to turn out if he had. They don't know at this point.
KING: Indication of things to come in 2018?
O’KEEFE: Absolutely. We're going to be up late that night, I think. If you think about it, tens of millions poured into these special elections and Republicans barely got by. Even in that South Carolina race, it was a single-digit win for a Republican in a place it shouldn't have been. They are not going to have that much money to defend in dozens of competitive districts next year. Could be a real scramble for both sides.
JEFF GLOR: Karen Handel won a little more comfortably than some people thought. How much of this is Republican voters saying, listen, “We're not necessarily that concerned about the Russia investigation” and not concerned about the inaction in Congress and the fact that not much has happened and talking about tax reform, that we talked the health care bill has not been finalized either.
O’KEEFE: Yeah. That's the important thing to remember here. This was a district that's been held for 40 years by Republicans. There's more of them there. And for whatever reason, they felt compelled to turn out. This time they didn't turn out in the first round, perhaps because — as you said, they understand. We have to support the party, demonstrate that we're with the President and do what we can to hold the seat.
ROSE: Although health care bill from Republicans is coming out in fashioned by a few people in secrecy.
O’KEEFE: Right. Really just one person. Mitch McConnell.
ROSE: Yeah. Does it have a chance?
O’KEEFE: Well, look, McConnell wouldn't be sending the senate on a glide path to have a bill on the floor next week if he didn't think it was going to pass. All he'll need to do is find 50 of his colleagues plus the Vice President to pass it. That's a messy way to do it. Passing a bill is passing a bill and this sort of disciplined focus of keeping it secret until the last second is something they criticized for the last eight years but works and as Senate leader he knows that. He can be this focused, disciplinary guy and just pop it at the last second and if there's enough in there that people like, all this chatter about it being secret won't matter when they realize that there's things in there they like.
KING: That sort of leads to my next question because the secrecy seems to be ticking a lot of people off, but that doesn't seem — as long as it gets the result they want, you're saying that really doesn't matter.
O’KEEFE: By this time next week they won't be worried about it.
ROSE: Nobody knows the senate like Mitch McConnell.
O’KEEFE: Exactly. Important to remember that.
GLOR: And we think it’s going to make more people happy, the question will be cost.
O’KEEFE: Right. Not only cost but, you know, do my premiums come down, and how many tens of millions of people would lose their coverage. Their goal is to get lower than 23 million. Democrats will turn around and say, “Well, even if a few 15, 16, 17 million people lose their health care, that's unacceptable.” But the goal is to basically produce a diet version of what the house did.
KING: So, do Democrats have any leverage, Ed?
O’KEEFE: All they can do is show down the train. That's all essentially all Democrats are good for these days on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate. They can yell and scream and produce Facebook live videos running around the Capitol. But that’s about it.
|
|
By Brad Wilmouth
Appearing as a panel member on Wednesday's New Day, left-leaning CNN political analyst and Daily Beast editor John Avlon tried to spin Democrat Jon Ossoff's defeat in Georgia as being because of a "rigged system of redistricting" that gave Republicans a "heavy advantage."
Avlon: "All the money in the world can't fight a plus nine Republican advantage. Folks got to remember there's a rigged system of redistricting in this country which means all districts are not created equal. Republicans were set up to have a heavy advantage in this district."
He did not mention that, in the 2016 presidential election, the 6th Congressional District was the most competitive district in the state, with Donald Trump only receiving 48.3 percent of the vote versus 46.8 percent for Hillary Clinton -- which is nothing like a nine percentage point advantage.
Shortly after 6:00 a.m. ET, after CNN correspondent Jason Carroll narrated a setup piece in which he described the special election outcome as a "major loss" for Democrats, co-host Chris Cuomo went to Avlon and asked his take on the election. The liberal analyst immediately tried to put the best face on for Democrats as he began:
First of all, all the money in the world can't fight a plus nine Republican advantage. Folks got to remember there's a rigged system of redistricting in this country which means all districts are not created equal. Republicans were set up to have a heavy advantage in this district. They ran a very experienced candidate who had statewide experience against a first-timer. And all that money and all that enthusiasm couldn't overcome those deficits.
He then further griped:
The other thing, Republicans successfully tied the candidate not only to, you know, who tried to campaign as a centrist, as some far-left millennial, but also to Nancy Pelosi. So there are deeper issues about turnout, about brand, and about that uphill climb folks have to succeed to bridge in order to win that kind of a district.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
Commiserating with Democratic Senator Michael Bennett on her 12 p.m. ET hour on Wednesday over the Republican heath care reform plan, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell accused the GOP of “trying to sabotage” ObamaCare. She fretted to the Colorado lawmaker: “The other issue here is what’s happening to ObamaCare and whether the White House is trying to sabotage ObamaCare by missing deadlines where insurance companies have to decide whether to re-up. What are you hearing around the country?”
Predictably, Bennett joined in the attack: “It’s very clear that that’s what’s happening.... And then what happened was the Republicans said, ‘See, ObamaCare has failed.’ But it was the critics of ObamaCare that had screwed it up.” He added: “And that’s what’s happening now with the insurance markets as well. You're hearing the insurers say that with this level of uncertainty about what we’re going to be doing going forward, that they can’t participate in these markets.”
Mitchell’s claim was in line with recent editorials put out by The Washington Post(Headline: The GOP’s Obamacare sabotage continues) and The New York Times(Headline: How the G.O.P. Sabotaged Obamacare). On June 10, the Post’s Editorial Board ranted:
Another week, another insurance company deserting patients in a wide swath of the country....Are these moves more evidence that Obamacare is fundamentally unworkable? Hardly. Of greedy insurance companies callously disregarding their customers’ health? Not that either. Anthem explained clearly what is responsible for its retreat: Republican sabotage of the health-care system.
In the Times on May 25, Abbe Gluck launched into a similar tirade:
Obamacare is not “collapsing under its own weight,” as Republicans are so fond of saying. It was sabotaged from the day it was enacted. And now the Republican Party should be held accountable not only for any potential replacement of the law, but also for having tried to starve it to death.
The liberal talking point goes back years. As the law was facing a rocky rollout in 2013, NBC’s then-Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd proclaimed on Meet the Press: “...you could argue that there are some Republicans that are trying to sabotage the law, that they're hoping to not get it off the ground and then they can suddenly make the case, 'See, we've got to get rid of it.' And they've got some state governors that are openly trying to sabotage it.”
David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at The Federalist, picked apart such absurd arguments:
First of all, isn’t this exactly what conservatives had warned would happen when you created fake “markets?” Isn’t this exactly what the legislation was supposed to fix? When Obama was selling healthcare reform to the American people in 2009, he argued that the individual market exchanges would soon be almost entirely self-sufficient, driving down costs because insurance companies would have “incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.”
As it turns out, the real incentive for many of these insurance giants was the presence of taxpayer subsides. Removing corporate welfare can’t “sabotage” a healthy marketplace, it can only expose the rickety infrastructure of a fabricated one. Nothing, it turns out, sabotages Obamacare quite as well as Obamacare.
Here is a full transcript of Mitchell’s June 21 exchange with Bennett:
12:51 PM ET
(...)
 ANDREA MITCHELL: The other issue here is what’s happening to ObamaCare and whether the White House is trying to sabotage ObamaCare by missing deadlines where insurance companies have to decide whether to re-up. What are you hearing around the country?
SEN. MICHAEL BENNETT [D-CO]: It’s very clear that that’s what’s happening. This is not a strategy that started with this president. The Republicans in Congress defunded what were called the risk corridors which allowed insurance companies to lay off their risk on each other depending on what happened in the actual markets. And that resulted in a nonprofit co-op in Colorado going bankrupt. That happened all over the country. And then what happened was the Republicans said, “See, ObamaCare has failed.” But it was the critics of ObamaCare that had screwed it up. And that’s what’s happening now with the insurance markets as well. You're hearing the insurers say that with this level of uncertainty about what we’re going to be doing going forward, that they can’t participate in these markets.
(...)
|
|
By Curtis Houck
On Wednesday morning, White House press secretary Sean Spicer gave an interview to rumored replacement and conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham and lambasted the opposition party that he faces at the Briefing Room podium as wannabe “YouTube stars” thirsting for “getting their clip on air” tussling with Spicer.
Spicer first discussed the blowback he received for Monday’s no audio, no video briefing that caused CNN’s Jim Acosta to blow a gasket (but let’s be honest, he frequently does this at briefings or Trump press conference).
“We made that clear, from the beginning, that in a variety of ways we’re going to look to do things differently, to do things better and this is one area that we've done that. And we talked about it literally from the beginning,” Spicer explained.
With changes like the Skype seats for local news outlets outside the Beltway and calling on organizations in the back rows more often, Spicer trumpeted the fact that he’s given “more access to folks who haven’t had it” even though it’s drawn the ire of the liberal media:
The mainstream media, who has had a stranglehold on deciding what information the American people got to see, in some ways, are upset that more people, more voices are getting an opportunity to get involved in having their questions answered, to participate in our democracy.
Hinting at folks like Acosta and his comrades in the first few rows, Spicer blasted their “sniping” at him not because they want important questions answered but they “want to become YouTube stars and ask some snarky question that's been asked eight times.”
Spicer later circled back to Monday’s controversy, telling Ingraham that “we had several outlets violate the press guidance a couple times” in carrying audio live when they were asked to run portions of it later after it concluded.
He added that he’s come to appreciate off-camera briefings because “it is not ‘performance art” as Ingraham dubbed it and thus “a more substantive discussion about actual issues because they're not trying to get their clip.”
Instead of trying to understand the issues and ask thorough questions, Spicer noted that on-camera briefings devolve into shenanigans:
‘How do I get on TV? How do I make — ask some snarky question?’ You can actually focus on the substance of the issues....So days in which the President was speaking, we would generally do an off-camera gaggle. It's a tradition that has been held for a while....[O]ne of the folks will gaggle on the plane, which is they go back, they talk to the pool on the plane, give them an update. That’s a tradition that’s gone back forever.
“We continue to follow that and so there is a bit of snarkiness now with the press because, again, I think a lot of them are more focused about getting their clip on air there than they are of actually taking the time to understand an issue,” he concluded before Ingraham shifted to other topics.
Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from June 21's The Laura Ingraham Show:
The Laura Ingraham Show
June 21, 2017
SEAN SPICER: We made that clear, from the beginning, that in a variety of ways we’re going to look to do things differently, to do things better and this is one area that we've done that. And we talked about it literally from the beginning. I was interviewed multiple times in December and January after I got this job and I talked about how we would be bringing change there, we would be interacting with the press despite some of the bias that a press — a free press is part of a democracy — but that we would be doing it in some of ways that were different and better. We've allowed more access to a lot of folks who haven't had it and the bottom line is that I think the mainstream media, who has had a stranglehold on deciding what information the American people got to see, in some ways, are upset that more people, more voices are getting an opportunity to get involved in having their questions answered, to participate in our democracy. But the fact is that they’ve had – we are here, as a I mentioned yesterday, at the briefing, I just get in, usually around 6:00 a.m., we leave fairly late at night and so we have a press staff that is totally accessible during those hours and on the weekends to the press. I think there’s a big difference when you see a lot of the sniping. There’s a lot of them that want to become YouTube stars and ask some snarky question that's been asked eight times and that's right, that's their right to do that. But our job is to make sure that we're providing updates and readouts of what the president is doing and the advances he is making on his agenda.
(....)
SPICER: The issue was is that I think that we had a lot — not a lot — we had several outlets violate the press guidance a couple times when we said ‘hey, look — you know —’ because the nice thing about turning the cameras off sometimes, and I find this, is that when you — when it is not 'performance art,' as you call it, that you end up having a more — I think — sometimes, a more substantive discussion about actual issues because they're not trying to get their clip. They're not trying to figure out, 'How do I get on TV? How do I make — ask some snarky question?' You can actually focus on the substance of the issues. What we found was, is that outlets were violating what we had said at the beginning — which is, you can use the audio, just not right away — and sort of broadcasting the briefing at the same time, just putting the picture up and running that over, which was not the intent and so days in which the President was speaking, we would generally do an off-camera gaggle. It's a tradition that has been held for a while. Again, today, the President is traveling to Oh — Iowa to talk about agriculture, talk about trade and the — one of the folks will gaggle on the plane, which is they go back, they talk to the pool on the plane, give them an update. That’s a tradition that’s gone back forever. We continue to follow that and so there is a bit of snarkiness now with the press because, again, I think a lot of them are more focused about getting their clip on air there than they are of actually taking the time to understand an issue.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment