Media Criticism

The Eighth Congressional District in Wisconsin was one of the targeted races during the 2006 midterm elections. The seat was opened when Representative Mark Green ran for governor in the same year and lost. Dr. Steve Kagen, a millionaire allergist from the Fox Valley, defeated Republican candidate and former State Assembly Speaker John Gard by a narrow margin. The narrow margin of victory for Kagen means that Republicans will push to regain the seat in the 2008 election.

John Gard is running once again for the seat which represents Green Bay and portions of the Fox Valley. This area has expanded rapidly over the last few years as the Fox Valley becomes an important business corridor in the state. I lived in Green Bay from birth through college graduation and know that the area is inherently conservative. Kagen and other Democrats who have run in the area lean toward the middle to gather up the votes of Democrats and disgruntled Republicans. This moderation is beneficial as part of a party sweep through local, state and federal bodies. The problem with being a moderate Republican or Democrat in a tight race is taking advantage of the top of the ticket.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairman Howard Dean can speak about appealing to voters outside of the party all they want. Voters who chose Democrats in 2006 may vote for the party’s presidential candidate but turn against lower office holders. Gard has a number of factors on his side in 2008: money from a desperate party, maverick voters in every part of the Badger State and the virtue of not having a vote in Congress the last two years. Kagen has been less than impressive as a rookie representative and the Congressional Democrats may be overconfident in their assessment of the fall races. I think that the race will come down to a few hundred votes and Gard will emerge the victor.

I read through an entry from last week on the Columbia Journalism Review website that highlights a point I made last week about the power of the presidency. The presidential candidates promise all manner of vague changes to the federal government but they bypass the problem of passing legislation through Congress. Columbia Journalism Review had an article about the generalizations made by the presidential candidates on local environmental issues during the course of their campaigning.

I suggest that every voter who thinks that candidates like Obama, Clinton and McCain can bring change should read this article. Curtis Brainard outlines local media efforts to draw out responses to environmental issues at a local level from national candidates. Each newspaper started out with good intentions but ended with “round-up” stories and concessions that the candidates had no specific plans for ecological areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. While Brainard concludes that a mixture of factors contribute to candidate ambivalence about local environmental issues, I think that the main issue falls in the separation of responsibilities within our government.

The president is the leader of our military forces first and a cog in the checks-and-balances machine; everything else after that is gravy according to the Constitution. There is no need for presidential candidates to lay out individual strategies for each state because that would be a massive overreach for the executive office. The ultimate responsibility for environmental problems lies with governors, state legislatures and members of the U.S. Congress. It is ridiculous to ask presidential candidates to get specific on a local watershed when we should be asking for specifics on conservation and clean fuel programs with a national scope. Journalists and voters need to demand detailed policies from the right people. I wouldn’t be impressed if a candidate like John McCain had a specific plan for the Fox River Valley in Wisconsin; I would be annoyed that he wasn’t thinking about issues within his purview.

My disdain for Senator Harry Reid was confirmed once again when I heard that the Senate passed legislation to widen President Bush’s surveillance program. I am proud to say that one of my senators (Russ Feingold) spoke out vociferously against this legislation due to civil rights concerns. It is too bad that other Democrats were uncomfortable with opposing the president over something as fundamental as the privacy of our conversations.

I want to say that I have no problem with eavesdropping and surveillance when there is overwhelming evidence (i.e. a combination of a criminal history with activities that would suggest illegal activity in the future) that makes these activities necessary for public safety. I have a problem with blanket surveillance over foreign phone calls, emails and other communications. I also have a problem with a nameless, faceless intelligence court acting in the shadows to approve these activities after phone taps are used.

Harry Reid and his Republican friends in Democratic clothing can put lipstick on this pig as much as they want. They will never appeal to people like me who are skeptical about the Democrats as an agent of change after the big clunker put up following the 2006 election. I am pretty sure we are still in Iraq, I don’t think that Congress is working harder and it seems that earmarks and pork barrel spending are still keywords for access to power in Washington.

We are no closer to a progressive nation than we were before 2006 except that we have another group of leaders who failed to achieve what they promised. I am voting in primaries at the local, state and national level for progressive candidates of ANY party who have little connection with the hacks we currently have in power. I hope that the secret police don’t take offense at this post but I don’t recognize their authority. The only people who have legitimate power are those who expose their ideas (and their weaknesses) to the light of public scrutiny.

I was nerding it up on Saturday night by working on a project while watching the coverage of the caucuses and primaries. I heard some of the most ridiculous analysis of caucuses in places like Washington and Kansas as well as the all-important primary in Louisiana. People like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer were making Senator Obama’s victories in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska sound like a general election sweep. These primaries aren’t important in the grand scheme of things because they involve such a small number of people yet the media is helping perpetuate the idea that these victories are important in the long run.

I know CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others need to fill time with something during their 24 hours of programming. The problem comes when voices of reason like Roland Martin on CNN and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC are drowned out by professional political junkies who only care about the story instead of the result. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make fine presidents but they wouldn’t make massive changes during the presidency. John McCain is an American hero but his first term would be marred by disagreements with a Democratic Congress upset with another Republican term in the Oval Office. These primaries reveal that our nation is caught up in a hype that will never be matched by results.

Every hour of primary coverage should begin with a disclaimer stating that any comments made about the presidency do not represent facts or common sense. President Obama or President McCain would need to get through the thicket of 435 House members and 100 Senators with their own aspirations. I think that the media needs to spend more time covering these races because they are more important in the long run than the presidential race. Democrats need to reach the 61-seat mark in the Senate to thwart efforts by Republicans to block legislation. A larger majority in the House would provide momentum for a more progressive agenda. Senator McCain would need a miracle to get anything done in his first term as president since it is unlikely that the House will turn Republican.

The presidential candidates can promise all they want but the reality is that they will need additional seats in the House and Senate to fulfill their campaign promises. We all need to cool down about the pageantry surrounding the presidency to deal with hard facts. We can listen to speeches about “change,” “experience,” and “straight talk” all we want but Congress holds the keys to America’s future. I hope we all learn about our congressional races as well as our state legislative races to shape the face of governance in the 21st century.