From last week’s episode of “Meet The Press”
came this little nugget, an element worthy of an entire show if Tim Russert really desired presenting cutting-edge developments:
CHUCK TODD: You know, it’s funny. There’s a real split in the House, this is among House Democrats. I talked to one House Democrat, I would say, with the new guard who is just completely frustrated with the old guard. You know, you have a bunch of committee chairmen who were elected in the `60s and `70s who ended up getting back into power, and guess what, they want theall the goodies back. They want everything that they got to do in the `70s and `80s when they saw theiryou know, the guys they looked up to. And, and the new guard doesn’t want this. I think we’re getting to the point if Congress’ job rating gets lower in the next six monthsnot betterit gets lower, you’re going to see, I think, this internal spat between the new guard House Democrats and the old guard, old bullsJohn Dingle, David Obey, those guysand you’re going to see it blow up. And it, and it may be that the Democratic Party needs that to happen.
Preceding Chuck Todd’s commentary was a discussion about the abysmal approval rating for Congress.
If the reactionaries and transcriptionists in the mainstream media would simply re-position themselves to obtain a wider vantage from which to better survey the landscape and not resort to knee-jerk and unwieldy conclusions, or take the bait offered by the GOP — are you listening David Broder and compatriots? — then this Democratic divide could become a crucial storyline.
Todd says as much in his quote about the Democratic newbies attempts to institutionalize change — for the better.
Another common thread some in the press have earlier picked up and run with is the chant that the Democrats have failed to offer and institute a countervailing practice to the Republican culture of corruption.
And yet a third literally constant meme is that the netroots leftish wackiness is a deadweight to Democratic political gains.
News bulletin!!! Earth to the cabbage heads in the mainstream press!!! A large percentage of the newly-elected reform House Democrats won because of their political positions AND due to financial and other support from the netroots. These are the ones who are fighting the entrenched Democratic dinosaurs against going back for the future. And in doing so, they are receiving continued support and coverage from the netroots. And reform is the so-often-revisited subject matter that newspaper editorials continue to issue concerns about in periodic clarion calls.
Yet the Democratic Party as an whole, with no talk of except the brief Chuck Todd piece, continues to be smeared.
And yes, the netroots continue to take a pounding, a bashing for being too leftist, for harshness of blog content, for taking stands based on nearly universal-supported beliefs, for pressuring politicos to remember that it is the public constituency that is supposed to be receiving service, et al.
Go figure.
The vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want visibility throughout our government branches and processes.
The vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want to limit if not eliminate corporate financial influence of legislation.
The vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want to know who in Congress institutes any ‘holds’ — thereby blocking proposed legislation.
The vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want more government information and more freedom to access such information.
The vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want greater clarity pursuant to congressional factfinding missions and which entities are funding them.
In sum, the vast majority of the new Dems and the netroots want greater accountability to the American public.
With nearly every pundit reiterating that the 2008 presidential election will turn on which individual is perceived as the best change agent, why is the coverage of what the new Dems and netroots are attempting to change so scant, and negative when it does appear?
