GOP's "Stinging Defeats" in 2005 vs. Yawns After Past Wins

New Jersey and Virginia's tradition of odd-year elections for governor give the media ample fodder for speculation on how Democrats and Republicans will perform in future congressional and presidential elections. But for the New York Times, the Democratic successes of 2005 seem to have far more significance than did the Republican successes of 1993 and 1997.

In 1997, New Jersey's Republican governor Christine Whitman won a close race for re-election, while Republican James Gilmore won in Virginia. The Republican successes in Bill Clinton's second term, when he wasn't up for reelection, were downplayed by the Times two days afterward in a headline: "With Big Issues Absent, The Little Things Count." Reporter Richard Berke didn't see any political significance at all: "Forget the post-mortems about ideological shifts, Republican revivals or which candidate had the most money. The legacy of the off, off-year elections on Tuesday may simply be this: Think small."

Even in the more significant races of 1993, when Republicans replaced Democratic governors in New Jersey and Virginia during Clinton's first term, reporter Berke played down the G.O.P wins, as shown by the front-page headline from Nov. 4, 1993: "An Electorate in Revolt; Voting Nationwide Was Less an Embrace Of G.O.P. Than a Warning to Incumbents."

Berke threw cold water on the 1993 Republican wins in the lead sentence: "The three major Republican victories on Tuesday were less a partisan triumph than a warning that the revolt against established politicians that helped send President Clinton to the White House may imperil incumbents next year and ultimately threaten Mr. Clinton himself....It would be a stretch to portray the Republican victories in the six contests as a repudiation of Mr. Clinton, even though he and many of his top aides campaigned hard for Mayor David N. Dinkins in New York and Gov. Jim Florio in New Jersey....The Republicans, of course, did their best to promote their victories as part of a trend. But except for Mr. Allen's landslide in Virginia, the margins of victory for Mrs. Whitman and [New York Gov. Rudy] Giuliani were so narrow that they more aptly demonstrated that the electorate that brought Ross Perot to prominence in last year's Presidential contest was still restive."

Given that history, did the Times also downplay the significance of the 2005 Democratic wins in New Jersey and Virginia, in which the party held on to seats it already controlled? Hardly.

Reporter Robin Toner's wrap-up is headlined, "Stinging Defeats for G.O.P. Come at a Sensitive Time." The text box drives up hope for the Dems: "In races for governor, Democrats perceive a shifting electoral tide."

In contrast to how the Times dismissed the significance of the Republican wins in 1997, Clinton's 5th year in office, the Democratic wins in 2005 (Bush's 5th year in office) are portrayed as significant setbacks for Bush and Republicans nationwide.

The Republicans didn't actually lose seats (both seats were under Democratic control), but the Times treats the results as politically damaging for Republicans nonetheless: "After months of sagging poll ratings, scandal and general political unrest, the Republicans badly needed some good news in Tuesday's elections for governor. What they got instead was a clear-cut loss in a red state, and an expected but still painful defeat in a blue one."

There's more woe for Republicans: "Republicans argued on Tuesday that Virginia was a local election driven by local events, with little long-term national significance. But the loss clearly stung, as did the double-digit defeat in New Jersey, a blue state that had seemed within reach for the Republicans....But the two governor's races loomed large. Democratic strategists said they were counting on the victories to help them mobilize for 2006....Still, the results are likely to feed the Republican anxiety on Capitol Hill and exacerbate the sense among Republican lawmakers that after years of having Mr. Bush as an advantage at the top of the ticket, they are increasingly on their own."

To comment on the Times' double standard of election coverage, visit MRC's blog NewsBusters.

To read Toner's story on the NJ and VA results, click here.



NJ and VA Elections: Recycling an Anti-Bush Phrase

Great minds think alike, and so do Times' reporters. In a front-page story mostly about Sen. Jon Corzine's victory in the race for New Jersey governor, reporter David Chen throws in an aside on the win in Virginia by Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (it sent "a powerful message that President Bush's political standing had fallen in this reliably Republican state").

In an amusing gaffe, that exact formulation (with a change in verb tense) is repeated in the first line of James Dao's story from Virginia: "Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat, won the race for governor on Tuesday night, scoring a major political victory for his mentor, Gov. Mark Warner, and sending a powerful message that President Bush's political standing has fallen in this reliably Republican state."

Dao also emphasizes the election as a Bush setback: "Equally significant, Mr. Kaine's victory was a major hit for Mr. Bush, who campaigned for Mr. Kilgore on Monday night, even though his own approval rating had dipped below 50 percent in Virginia."

For Chen in New Jersey, click here.

For Dao from Virginia, click here.



The Francais Riots

In a tone reminiscent of media coverage of the L.A. riots, a front-page story on Wednesday from Paris reporter Craig Smith, "Inside French Housing Project, Feelings of Being the Outsiders," again takes the angle that the rioters burning cars and shooting policemen are just victims of government discrimination. Meanwhile, the Times is still downplaying that the rioters are Muslim.

Squatting in a Paris suburb, Smith writes: "Amin Kouidri, 20, has been hunting for a job for more than two years now and spends his days drifting around a government housing project here under the watchful gaze of France's national police. He and his neighbors in one of France's now-notorious housing projects say that they feel cut off from French society, a result of a process of segregation lasting for decades, and that alienation and pressure from the police have now exploded in rage across the country�.For these men, the violence that has swept the country is easy to understand, even, they say, long overdue, not only because of the unemployment but because of the increasing confrontation with the police."

Apparently, the very presence of police is a provocation to riot: "The police circle the apartment blocks in their cars or sit at the two roads that lead in and out of the sprawling neighborhood, periodically stopping and searching -- and angering -- the men they see. Worse, said Mohammed and others, is when the police appear in riot gear."

Without actually fleshing out the point, Smith unwittingly reveals how even generous social welfare failed to quell the violence: "Working-class French and working-class immigrants lived side by side in the buildings. Education was free and all of the children were taught the catechism of France's republican ideal: that under the French state, they enjoyed liberty, fraternity and equality. The reality of discrimination was something they learned on their own."

Then it's back to the paper's runningtheme that France's top crime-fighter is somewhat responsible for the crime in the street: "His tough interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, replaced the police on the beat with officers from an anti-crime brigade who cover several towns at a time. Their aggressive tactics have won almost universal scorn in the projects and created an air of hostility that has precipitated the current violence�.Many young people now spend the majority of their time in the small world of their projects, threatened by the police if they venture too far."

To read the rest of Smith, click here.