Framing state politics
Published February 20, 2014
by Scott Mooneyham, Capitol Press Association, published in Greenville Daily Reflector, February 19, 2014.
A day before tens of thousands of people gathered for a protest march in the state capital, the head of the state Republican Party, Claude Pope, called a news conference to conduct his own protest.
Pope told reporters that elected Democratic officer-holders like U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan and Attorney General Roy Cooper should condemn the key organizer of the march, state NAACP head William Barber, for his inflammatory rhetoric.
“We can have our disagreements on policy,” Pope said. “But if Democrats want to have a seat at the table, they need to learn how to turn down some of that rhetoric and discourse.”
In an indirect sort of way, his words get to the heart of the current state of politics here.
The problem is that they imply that the Republicans who control the levers of power in Raleigh, like the Democrats before them, have not acted as if politics is a zero-sum game, one in which those in the losing party are ignored like a dull water-colored landscape hanging on the wall.
And the words imply that those in the minority party, whether Democrat or Republican, who publicly cooperate with the majority party won’t eventually be punished for that cooperation.
After spending almost two decades watching Raleigh politics, I could write five columns citing examples to show that doesn’t happen very often.
So, what is one to make of those words, coming from someone whose job is electoral politics and not the formation of public policy?
They likely mean that, while Pope and Republican leaders hope to use Barber’s Moral Monday protests as a wedge (as I have already written about), the GOP also worries about the effect of its message.
Pope can say that the media pays too much attention to Barber.
When you can tap into voter anger and organize a rally that brings tens of thousands of people to Raleigh on a weekend, you deserve media attention. When you can do that after having organized weeks and weeks of protests during a single summer that brought thousands more to the Legislative Building, a political reporter who ignores that isn’t doing his or her job.
What Pope and his fellow GOP leaders fear is that Barber may help turn the 2014 elections into a bottom-up election, with voters more focused on policies bubbling up from Raleigh than those rolling down from Washington.
It would be quite a feat.
At a time when many voters are fairly disengaged when it comes to following the machinations of state and local politics, votes up and down the ballot are cast based on the political winds pushing out of Washington.
The Republicans hope that is the case again this year, that they can make all contests about Obamacare and turn Hagan, at the top of the ballot, into an Obamacare villain who damages the Democrats below her.
When thousands show up in Raleigh on a weekend to change the conversation, some worrying and fretting might be in order.
February 20, 2014 at 11:30 am
Norm Kelly says:
It is 100% appropriate to use Barber as a wedge. If anything being said by Barber were said instead by either a white guy or a Republican/conservative guy, or God-forbid a Conservative white guy, the press wouldn't simply report on him. The press, and all the other Demon allies, would publicly vilify that person, do as much digging of trash as possible, and in the case of media outlets, make up stuff about that conservative white guy to portray him in the worst possible light. Whether the conservative/white guy was telling the truth/saying true words wouldn't matter to the libs or media types (redundancy alert!). The important thing to liberals everywhere would be that some conservative was saying dumb things about libs (or truthful things about libs).
The press does pay too much attention to Barber. The press does nothing when it comes to pointing out the hypocrisy or racist comments coming from Barber. The press and the libs who they support ignore the fact that Barber is making bogus arguments, and trying to use 'helpless blacks' as a wedge issue. Barber does not use facts, but then the libs and media types who support them rarely use facts either. Most of the time libs of all stripes do what they can to prove that facts are actually wrong, and demonize those who use facts to bolster their positions. Libs prefer to rely on, and have their supporters rely on, feelings.
When you can tap into voter anger over made up issues, over mis-information (lies to the rest of us), then you do deserve media attention. But not the kind of attention given to Barber by the media. Remember when the media covered the TEA party protests. The media had to make up stories about the TEA people in order to vilify them. Remember when the media covered the Wall Street protestors, the ones who called themselves the 99%, or whatever they called themselves. The truth about them never came out in the media. When there were stories about TEA people using racial epithets, the press simply repeated the stories over & over & over, never having any proof, never finding anyone or any recordings of when it happened. But they sure reported it. Remember when there was illegal activity, provable illegal activity, by the 99% protestors. How was that covered? With great skepticism, when it was covered at all. How many in the used-to-be-mainstream reported on the rapes, robberies, failure to use the porta-potties? Most of the media reported that conservatives CLAIMED this stuff happened, but they couldn't find any proof. The media purposely avoided finding anything negative about the 99%'ers, but went out of their way to report on anything that anyone claimed about the TEA people. So where's the fair, balanced, and truthful reporting? I ask the same question when it comes to Barber. Where is the truth about him, where is the truth about what he says, where is the truth about his complaints of the NCGA?
Using Obamacancer against Hagan is a logical approach. It's not the only approach, won't be the only topic, but it is a big one. K is an Obamacancer villain. Has anyone in the press asked her about her comment that the name of the legislation should be changed to something that contained 'single payer'? Nope. Did K want to change the name? Is this her position? Yes. Has K said that her biggest problem with Obamacancer is that it didn't go far enough? Yes. Should this simply slide by? Nope. K is showing that she is a socialist. Should we simply sit back and let her take the country in that direction? Based on what proof that ANYONE outside of politics is better off under a socialist regime? Should the senate race also include K's stand on raising taxes, raising spending, increasing the national debt, increasing government subsistence programs? How about all the other socialist plans coming out of Washington? Are these & other plans of the socialist Demon party valid discussion points in the upcoming race? Of course. But how will the media types respond? They will call the conservative arguments for freedom and against socialism simple straw man arguments. They will claim, as will K, that conservatives are simply 'scare-mongering', and that their is no truth in any of their claims. When conservatives use K's words against her in ads, she & her media supporters will claim that everything was taken out of context, they will blame the Koch brothers, and claim that 'outside' groups are trying to 'buy' the NC Senate race. Their stand will have nothing to do with truth. I'm willing to bet that all of K's ads will try to explain why her socialist stands are good for the 'common man', the 'single mom', and the 'middle class' in general. Kinda like the idea to raise the minimum wage to $10.10; like Obama has done outside of his authority (again) with federal contracts. What does raising the minimum wage mean to me? Higher costs, fewer entry level jobs, higher unemployment especially among teenagers, blacks/minorities, inexperienced and unqualified people. A higher minimum wage means higher government spending, increased rolls of government subsistence programs. What good comes out of the central planners setting a wage? None. But some/many unions will automatically get a raise if the central planners, the union buddies, manage to raise the minimum wage. But a raise like this has no positive impact for the majority, only negative.
Nothing about socialism is good. Prove me wrong.
