Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Specter Spins, the Times Swallows
Power Line ^ | August 25, 2003 | Hindrocket

Posted on 08/26/2003 8:28:58 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican

August 25, 2003 Specter Spins, the Times Swallows

Yesterday's New York Times carried this brief correction:

"An article on Aug. 10 about the Club for Growth, a conservative political organization, referred erroneously to a comparison between the voting records of Senator Arlen Specter, who has courted the group's support, and Representative Patrick Toomey, who is challenging him in Pennsylvania's Republican primary for the Senate. According to ratings in National Journal, Specter's record is less conservative than Toomey's."

Behind this rather cryptic correction lies a story. On August 10, the New York Times Magazine ran an article called "Fight Club" which was a vicious attack on the Club for Growth. The centerpiece of the Times story was the Club's support for Toomey in his Republican primary challenge to Arlen Specter. (The Times article has been archived and it doesn't seem to be cached on Google, so I bought the article from the Times and have quoted from it below, but can't link to it.)

Here is what the Times said about Specter and Toomey:

"Although Specter is a powerful committee chairman and can count on the strong support of the White House, he is clearly anxious; he is already spending much of his time shaking hands back in Pennsylvania, and he has called some members of the club himself to plead his case. A few months ago, Specter even invited Moore [Steve Moore, the President of the Club for Growth] over to his Capitol office for a chat. A masterly politician, Specter gave it all the charm he could muster, graciously showing Moore his trove of family photos before launching into a defense of his voting record, which, he rightly pointed out, is broadly more conservative than Toomey's, according to National Journal's ratings....To Specter's astonishment, however, Moore, a nerdy 43-year-old economist with an affable, self-mocking laugh, didn't seem to care much about Specter's record."

The Times reported further that Specter was "bewildered" by "what was happening inside his own party." This account was central to the Times' story because it depitcted the Club not as a group of principled conservatives--which it is--but as opportunists, mostly interested in getting Specter's "scalp on the wall" to demonstrate their own power.

Let's dissect the Times' account carefully. The Times says that Specter "rightly pointed out" that his "voting record...is broadly more conservative than Toomey's" as measured by the National Journal. Which tells the reader two things: 1) that Specter said that the National Journal's ratings showed his voting record was more conservative than Toomey's, and 2) that the Times has checked Specter's claim and found it to be true.

In fact, however, Toomey's voting record is more conservative than Specter's as reflected in the National Journal ratings; this is what the Times has acknowledged in its Correction. So two conclusions seem clear: 1) Arlen Specter, now focused on re-election, falsely tried to burnish his conservative credentials by misrepresenting his record as compared to Toomey's; and 2) the New York Times, rather than doing an elementary check of sources like the National Journal, the ADA and the ACU, lazily accepted Specter's assertion and said that he "rightly" claimed that his record is "broadly more conservative" than Toomey's.

Why would the New York Times put up with such an incompetent report on the Toomey/Specter race? Because the Times' interest was not in reporting accurately on the Republican primary but in savaging the conservative Club for Growth. These are just a few of the Times reporter's comments about the Club:

"In Bush's Washington, where party loyalty gets confused with moral rectitude...Republicans generally speak with a kind of bland, Orwellian unanimity....what could the radical supply-siders possibly have to complain about?

"Like all good supply-siders, Moore and his members hold that the best way to stimulate economic expansion is for government to drastically reduce the amount of money it collects from its citizens. This practice, as recent history shows, has a tendency to create budget deficits, but the supply-siders say that's all right, because deficits force government to scale back spending on inefficient programs....

"This kind of inconsistency -- 'hypocrisy' would be the less charitable word -- has led critics of the club to conclude, not unreasonably, that its talk about cutting taxes and slashing spending obscures a less lofty agenda. Moore wants that scalp on his wall, and the easiest way to get it is to single out moderates like Specter and Boehlert, because moderates are always vulnerable in Republican primaries.

"The Bush White House has created such an aura of discipline that Republicans in Washington often behave as if their offices are bugged, faithfully mouthing the message of the day....For much of the first two years of the administration, Moore was part of the right-wing cabal that administration officials would consult on a regular basis. But Moore proved himself disloyal by publicly criticizing Bush and opposing some of his appointments.

"On any given day in the Club for Growth's K Street office, another smartly dressed, little-known Republican congressional candidate may come traipsing through to beseech Moore for his support. These meetings often have the feel of job interviews, with the eager candidate sunk into a beaten office chair while Moore, seated at his paper-strewn desk, flips lazily through the applicant's résumé."

We could go on, but you get the point. A lazy New York Times reporter swallowed Arlen Specter's election year spin--"My voting record is broadly more conservative than Toomey's"--hook, line and sinker. And the Times doesn't care that the spin was entirely false because its reporter was carrying out the corporate mandate to attack conservative organizations, in this case the Club for Growth, by any means possible.

Close your eyes and try to imagine any New York Times reporter writing similarly vituperative prose about any liberal interest group--People for the American Way, the Sierra Club, Emily's List. It isn't possible, is it?

But even this assessment assumes that the Times reporter was merely ignorant. Is it really possible that the Times assigns reporters to the national political scene who do not know that Pat Toomey is more conservative than Arlen Specter? Which alternative is worse: that the Times has descended to such a pitiful level that its political reporters are ignorant of the most basic political alignments, and too lazy to fact-check, or that they know the truth, but deliberately report falsehoods?


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: arlenspecter; clubforgrowth; conservatism; liberalbias; newyorktimes; pattoomey; pennsylvania; senate; stevemoore
Arlen Specter is now resorting to lying about his record, and has the gall to claim that the National Journal rates his voting record as more conservative than Pat Toomey's. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad that a septagenarian senator would resort to these outright lies instead of retiring with a little bit of dignity. And the fact that the New York Times implied that Specter was correct in his hallucination, while unsurprising, deserves a strong rebuke from the media. The New York Times not only published a hatchet job on Steve Moore and the Club for Growth, it went out of its way to distort Pat Toomey's record. That is despicable behavior.
1 posted on 08/26/2003 8:29:00 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Arlen Specter is quite possibly the most ridiculous politician with an (R) next to his name, (and I realize there are plenty). He is a buffoon.
2 posted on 08/26/2003 8:43:05 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
Elect Arnold and you can expect more of the same.
3 posted on 08/26/2003 8:50:42 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Possibly. I don't get to vote in that one.
4 posted on 08/26/2003 9:02:10 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool; JohnnyZ; Pubbie; Impy; LdSentinal; Coleus; CyberCowboy777; William Creel; kellynla; ...
Check out the lies and distortions being disseminated by Arlen Specter and the New York Times. RINOs like Specter and Arnold Schwarzenegger have no place in a party that respects traditional values and the right to life. Conservatives need to support Pat Toomey for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania and Tom McClintock for California Governor.
5 posted on 08/26/2003 9:02:30 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
I don't like the trend of the GOP pushing so-called "moderates" (Johnny Isakson, Mark Foley, Arn-uld) on GOP voters. Conservative voters should send a message to the RNC by helping Pat Toomey win the Senate primary. Karl Rove ought to stay out of GOP primaries.
6 posted on 08/26/2003 9:06:19 AM PDT by Kuksool (There are no guarantees in the Gray Recall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson