Search
Republicans want their party back
One of the stories not getting any coverage in this election season is the one about New York republican infighting, dissatisfaction, and institutional aimlessness. That's part of the systemic media bias against Progressives and Democrats, who are, to pull just one example out of a very full hat, favored with one story after another over how Obama's consistent lead in the polls over months is actually a worrying sign.
What makes this so remarkable is the snarling food fight over a shrinking slice of the pie taking place in the republican party. In Staten Island - part of the raft of once-safe seats up for grabs this time around - the most influential local party grandee has vowed to defeat his own party's candidate for Congress. Upstate, there's a simmering revolt brewing fueled by anger over "downstate liberal" Dean Skelos' apparent strategic decision to throw whatever resources he has into defeating Craig Johnson, along with other races in his immediate backyard. In Joe Bruno's former district, SD-43, some ominous signs - money disparities, candidate quality - point to a possible Democratic pickup that could be devastating for the morale of Bruno's party, while Joe Bruno's once-vaunted machine seems to have dissolved with his departure.
The fighting is probably worst in the Third Senatorial District, where republicans are in open revolt against Caesar Trunzo. The feud became public when dozens of Islip republicans turned out to demand Trunzo's resignation. Today, several younger republican candidates got knocked off the ballot for other races in that district due to ballot challenges; Islip republican dissidents are up in arms and apparently threatening to sit out the November elections in consequence.
There's no reason to be sympathetic to republicans. Their beliefs and policies have proven ruinous for our state and our country. But you can't help but have some empathy for some younger folks trying to wrench their party from the grasp of a septuagenarian octogenarian who spends most of his time in one of his two Florida homes.
Not quite that bad
First of all, it's difficult to argue with someone who knows how to spell septuagenarian properly. (Of course, at 82 Trunzo is actually an octogenarian, but that's beside the point.)
I notice that two of your links are to the NY Times and Newsday, both of which qualify as mainstream media outlets. You will probably argue that these are exceptions to the general rule. Certainly most of the network television coverage is about some "rift" between the "Clinton and Obama camps," while very little coverage is given to the internal rifts within the McCain camp. Most of the reason for that, I believe, is that Republicans are better at hiding their internal struggles. They have to be better at it; it's the only way they have a chance to win anything.
Broadcast networks, and "television news" in general, operates on the squeaky wheel theory. The louder the argument, the more likely it will get on television. Democrats are louder, so their fights get covered more often. In addition, Republicans have worked very hard for the past 35+ years to learn how to manage the news, while Democrats were busy ... well, I'm not sure what they were busy doing. Running badly-designed focus groups, mostly.
But the current situation is not necessarily bad news. As Sam Goldwyn (the "G" in MGM) said, "Publicity is good ... and good publicity is even better." As long as the presidential race is about Barack Obama, he'll win. People will get used to seeing Obama on television, giving speeches, looking good, staying unrattled. They'll come to believe they know him well enough to vote for him, and his numbers will only rise. When the focus shifts to McCain, his numbers rise and he closes the gap. So let's keep the focus on Democrats, even if it means occasionally pointing out differences within the party. We'll win with that strategy.
Yes and no.
First of all, anti-Progressive and anti-Democratic media bias is real - see, for example, this.
Second, the NYT piece you cite is devoted to the meltdown the Rs in this part of the country are facing - different thing. The Newsday piece, meanwhile, is more remarkable for its comment section than the body itself.
What I'm talking about here is that republicans around the state are at one another's throats, understandably given their prospects, but that this doesn't make the traditional media, because their narratives are focused on feuds among Democrats. Now, ours may be louder, perhaps, but compared to the drawn knives on the other side, we're having a picnic.
So where's the coverage? Why is this not a story?
Different sections of the paper
The Times article you cited above was in the National section, as it should have been since it covered the entire northeast. It would be nice to see an article about the Islip insurrection (what a delightful bit of news that is!), the mess in NY-13, and the general tenor of Senate races around the state, but it's a different desk you should be complaining to - those things belong in the Metro section. I'm a little more surprised that there hasn't been anything in the News, which I've thought of as pretty good on local politics, among the tabs. Other likely outlets that have only crickets chirping for this story include New York Magazine (oops, I forgot, they're all in the Hamptons until after Labor Day - then they have to go shopping!), and the Observer, which often does very well with this sort of thing - paging Azi Paybarah!