Generally we were sour on the election coverage this year in the major newspapers. However, we must give credit to Robert Robb's post election dissection in the Republic.
Astute analysis remarkably free on the anecdoctal "Many believe. . ." that has become so popular among journalists. Should be required reading for those looking for the lessons and trends of the past election.
Of course I would credit Robb's secondary job as a blogger for being responsible for his superior journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The unfortunate part for Giffords and Mitchell is a lot more depends upon how the Democratic House as a whole acts in the next two years rather than their individual record, making the result largely out of their control.
Should Pelosi overreach, these two will bear the brunt of it, perhaps even if they vote against some of the more unpalatable issues for district Republicans and moderates.
If, however, the conservative Democrats hold more sway, this could be beneficial for their chances in 2008.
First up, Hoyer vs. Murtha.
Curious as to who my Democratic friends think Gabby should vote for, and who she will vote for. Tough decision for her. You don't want to move against Pelosi this early, yet you don't want to be on the hook for Murtha either when Hoyer is much safer for her reelection bid.
Not to mention Alcee Hastings. Why not Hoyer and Harman? Are they really that bad? They certainly feel more like the congress that has just been elected rather than "Friends Of Nancy."
Maybe the Democratic overreach will occur before Nancy even takes the gavel.
Simply amazing.
Actually, the reason for Murtha is because he is a Pelosi loyalist. Hoyer has long been a Pelosi adversary and the last thing she wants is to have him in her rear view mirror waiting for her to trip up. If most Democrats were honest, they would feel a lot more comfortable with him going forward than Pelosi.
Murtha is just as corrupt as any Abramoff Republicans, but he is Nancy's creature which seems to excuse that.
Should be fun today and tomorrow.
Except that Lott is just a windbag, he is not really corrupt. If being a windbag disquallified anyone in Congress, you could feed the remaining members with one sandwich.
Ive got mixed feelings about Lott. He will be very effective as a whip, as long as it is a "behind the scenes" job. I do not want to see him take an active role in crafting policy. Certainly I do not want to see him back as the leader of the caucus.
Also, a whip and the Majotiy leader are not really similar in nature. The leader sets the agenda, the whip just enforces it. The two call for different skill sets. Being a whip is more in line with what Lott is good at.
And by looking at media response today, the Murtha-Hoyer thing is going to get uglier.
Post a Comment