(originally posted at Deny My Freedom)
It’s a sad shame that the word ‘liberal’ has taken on such a demonic meaning in politics today. Only a rare few politicians will admit to being deemed as liberal; most people tend to run away from the label these days. Most polls show that more Americans consider themselves to be conservative than to be liberal. In a time when the Democrats have a dearth of charismatic leadership and a troubling inability to frame issues – something that is not helped by the right-leaning mainstream media – it’s a fight that we won’t win for some time. However, it allows for hack pieces like this one by Andrew Taylor to give off the vibe that if the Democrats take control of Congress, the big bad liberals will tax your ass to hell and all the other evil things we’re supposed to be.
WASHINGTON – If the chips fall right for Democrats and their party seizes control of the House,
President Bush’s agenda on Capitol Hill would fall into the hands of some of his most dogged opponents.It’s not just would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, but a boatload of Democrats newly running committees who would determine what legislation gets debated and which programs and agencies get scrutiny.
So who are the chairmen to be?
-a Polish-American lawyer with a reputation for making witnesses quiver.
-a die-hard liberal from New York’s Harlem with 35 years in the House.
-a free-spending progressive from Wausau, Wis.
-one of the few remaining “Watergate babies” swept into Congress in 1974.
First, it’s important to notice the title of this hit piece: “Prospective Democratic chairs all liberal”. First of all, this is a blatant lie, as the author himself points out later in the article. Secondly, notice the descriptions of the above politicians (John Dingell, D-MI; Charles Rangel, D-NY; David Obey, D-WI; George Miller, D-CA) are hardly relevant to the jobs they do in Congress. What is the insinuation of singling out Dingell as Polish-American? The rest of his description gives one the impression that he is one hell of a frightening character. Charles Rangel may indeed be (he is) a ‘die-hard liberal’, but with the negative connotation that the word entails, it gives a bad image of him. Calling Obey a ‘free-spending progressive’ is a much-outdated term; if you asked most progressives what they believe in, I’m sure most of you would say that fiscal responsibility is one of their beliefs. This enforces the notion that Democrats are ‘tax-and-spend’ politicians, even though it’s been the GOP that has been spending more money than we have at a record pace. Finally, is Miller’s only accomplishment is that he was elected in the 1974 midterms that heavily decimated the GOP congressional delegation?
It’s disingenuous that a piece that should be profiling Democrats about what they’ve accomplished during their time in Congress is about anything but that. What’s even worse is that they mention that African-Americans would be chairing committees, such as John Conyers (D-MI) with Judiciary and Alcee Hastings (D-FL) with Intelligence, and then they promptly introduce readers with these less-than-flattering notes about the representatives:
Conyers has been accused by former aides of misusing his office by turning them into baby sitters for his children. He is the prime sponsor of a resolution that seeks to investigate grounds for possible impeachment of Bush over the war in
Iraq…Hastings, a charismatic former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for fabricating evidence that secured his acquittal in 1983 on bribery charges.
Great job, AP. The Democratic Party is full of a bunch of free-spending crooks who use their congressional offices for babysitting, while the GOP is completely blameless. It’s not like Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, Bob Ney, Roy Blunt, or any of those guys ever did anything wrong. It’s a sad reflection of our time when the wire services, which should be the most impartial source of news, is putting out hit jobs like this.
The ideal thing would be that someone on our side with some charisma – a Barack Obama, for example – come out and simply re-frame JFK’s famous position on liberalism for our times.
…if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
