The "Liberal" Media Move Things the GOP's Way

MSNBC political analyst Chuck Todd really made me mad recently. He reported on the North Carolina Democratic primary election runoff between Elaine Marshall and Cal Cunningham for the United States senatorial nomination to point out their differences over President Obama's policy on Afghanistan - Marshall opposes the President's current policy, Cunningham supports it. Todd, who showed a clip of their debate made me mad by stating that he wouldn't have bothered commenting on this election if not for this disagreement and his desire to underscore the divisions in the Democratic party over Afghanistan. Why? Because Todd dismisses the idea of either one of them beating Richard Burr, the incumbent Republican senator.

What?

So Todd thinks the Democrats are fighting a losing battle in North Carolina, hence there's no reason to report on it unless someone says something interesting? I didn't even know that the Democrats had to go into a runoff in North Carolina for this nomination; the national media didn't seem to be interested in reporting it! (The runoff is June 22.) And how did Burr, a very unpopular senator, suddenly become the favorite to win re-election to a Senate seat no one has been re-elected to since 1968?

Meanwhile, U.S. Representative Charlie Melancon, a Democrat, is challenging Republican senator David Vitter in an open nonpartisan primary. Although he had been several points behind, the BP oil leak has improved Melancon's chances, if only because a bill Vitter introduced in the Senate would have limited oil company liability to as little as $150 million, with taxpayers paying the rest. But despite that - and despite the fact that Vitter was caught with a prostitute - Melancon is still depicted as the underdog. Wonder how many people even know he's running for the Senate?

I only hope that local media outlets in these states are paying more attention to these Senate campaigns than the national media, including so-called liberal MSNBC. Pundits have been saying that incumbent legislators are in trouble, and that Democrats will bear the brunt of this anti-incumbent tide in the November midterm elections because they have more seats in Congress to defend. Fair enough. So why are the media suggesting that incumbent Republicans are pretty safe? Burr and Vitter are rather odious senators in states that have elected both Democrats and Republicans to the Senate in recent years. Vitter, given his insensitivity to local concerns about BP, should be especially vulnerable. But the media keep reporting on Democrats in trouble and thus reinforce the idea that incumbent Republicans will come out on top, especially in the Senate, just as they did in 1994.

The polls do indeed show incumbent Republicans with the upper hand in many states, but the elections are still months away. But with the kind of reporting Chuck Todd engages in, and with such huge emphasis on the horse race rather than the issues, the media will continue to make the GOP look invincible and gloss over the vulnerabilities of the weakest Republican incumbents.

They're still talking about the vulnerability of Democrats like Harry Reid of Nevada.

I could give the media credit for humiliating Nevada Republican U.S. Senate nominee Sharron Angle, but she's actually humiliating herself.