HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

I've complained several times over the past few days about how badly misguided media coverage has been over the detainee treatment bill, but today's example is so bad I need to highlight it on its own. From MSNBC:

First, the headline:

The smart politics of the detainee vote Did adroit Democratic candidates take away one of the GOP's best issues?

Then, the article:

WASHINGTON - When the House voted Wednesday to pass the Bush administration-supported bill on treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Naval Base, the biggest surprise— at first blush — was that Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, a fierce opponent of the Iraq war and of President Bush, voted for the bill.

Brown, the Democrats’ Senate candidate in Ohio against Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, led all House Democrats in 2005 in the percentage of votes in which he opposed the president: 93.5 percent, according to Congressional Quarterly.

Brown is now appealing to voters beyond his own strongly Democratic district and needs to win over all Ohio voters since he’s in a tight race with DeWine.

Brown explained his vote this way in an interview with MSNBC.com Thursday: "Unlike Mike DeWine, I'm willing to stand up to my party when they're wrong."

Why Brown voted 'yes'

He said the detainees "are not soldiers, not combatants representing a government, these are terrorists."

He added, "I supported a compromise because I think John McCain, a former prisoner of war, understands what we need to do to ensure our soldiers are safe."

He added, "Some people just don't want me to agree with George Bush on anything."

Brown’s vote for the detainee bill made sense. In one move, Brown snatched away an issue that the Republicans might have used to tar him.

Absolutely brilliant. It treats the issue as if it is not just primarily, but only about politics. No mention of right or wrong whatsoever. (Tip o' the cap: Ezra Klein)

Imagine if this approach to journalism was taken during the civil rights movement. A Democrat up for reelection in the fall, in an effort to appeal to "voters beyond his own strongly Democratic district," decided to vote against the Voting Rights Act in an effort to widen his appeal. Imagine if he ignored his own principles and beliefs and decided to break with his party and vote against the measure. Using the logic of this article, that decision would have been praised as a brilliant political ploy. It would be morally unconscionable, but it would somehow be a victory nonetheless.

Politics is not a sport. It is about real people making real decisions that affect millions and billions of lives. Why is this so hard for people to understand?