On page A19 of Saturday's 8/12 edition of Newsday, Craig Gordon has the byline on a story headlined, "GOP may get a boost."
This is the same man who Friday wrote, "Terror War Doubts Rise." Somebody must have gotten to him.
Some nuggets from Saturday's column (not labeled as an op-ed, by the way):
"In one remarkable sign of public discontent with Bush, voters actually give Democrats a slight edge over Republicans on who is better equipped to handle terrorism in some recent polls."
(why is it so remarkable? Didn't 9/11 happen on the GOP watch?)
"Republicans have wasted no time trying to turn the defeat of Lieberman by anti-war newcomer Ned Lamont and the foiled British plot into a political one-two punch to whack Democrats.
"Republican pollster Whit Ayres argued that the two events taken together remind Americans - even those who have soured on Bush's position on the Iraq war - of the imminent threat and why they supported Republicans in the past to stand up to it.
"'The country is not going to turn to the anti-war party in the time of war,' Ayres said."
This was not a story that was devoid of Democratic representation. However, certain key GOP themes are allowed to float by, unchallenged. Again, why should an article indicate that it would be "remarkable" for the public to perceive Democrats as stronger against terrorism. It is the media who are responsible for continually hammering out the GOP message that they are somehow better for National Security when nothing could be further from the truth.
Also, why is the Ned Lamont win being portrayed as a negative, as if the anti-war view does not have broad and popular support?
We really cannot allow the media to become co-conspirators of misinformation, along with the GOP.
We need to call them out every time they insult our intelligence this way.