BCT Editorial – 8/24/10

9/1/10:    On 9/1/10, AP reported Ms. Murkowsi conceded defeat to Mr. Miller.  It will be interesting to read how the Times handles the news.  If the Times addresses the outcome at all, I suspect it will label Mr. Miller as an “extremist” and will question whether such “extremists” can win in a general election.  I would also expect the Times to opine Mr. Miller’s win indicates the Republican Party is becoming a party of “right-wing extremists.”

The editorial asserts, “Incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski is the pork-barrel candidate, while Joe Miller is the Palin-endorsed Tea Partier,” but presents nothing to support that assessment.  Are we to believe the only difference between the candidates is “pork?”  I don’t even know if Ms. Murkowski is a major “pork” offender as the Times clearly wants us to believe.  In the only document I found comparing Ms. Murkowski’s “pork” activity to others, it listed her 86th out of the 100 senators in 2008.  I don’t know if that ranking was representative of Ms. Murkowski’s time in the Senate or not.

The editorial failed to note Ms. Murkowski is not exactly a conservative’s conservative.  Ms. Murkowski’s American Conservative Union lifetime (seven years) rating is only 70%, with ratings of 58% and 68% for 2008 and 2009, respectively.  With ACU ratings like these, and if Mr. Miller is more or less a strong conservative, it’s fair to assume there are more differences between the candidates than “pork.”

While a “tea party” endorsed Mr. Miller, I didn’t find anything that would support the editorial calling him a “Tea Partier.”

Something else the editorial failed to note is the latest poll shows Ms. Murkowski leading by 11 points while a mid/late-July poll showed her leading 62% to 30%.

Another tidbit omitted by the editorial is the Murkowski campaign has raised over 10 times as much in campaign contributions ($3.5 million vs. $0.28 million) as the Miller campaign as of 8/23/10.  Since it appears the winner of Republican primary will run essentially unopposed in the general election, this means Mr. Miller has little money to spend relative to Ms. Murkowski to get his message out because Ms. Murkowski doesn’t have to worry a lot about saving for the general election.

Given all the above, what’s the point of the editorial?  The left is desperate to discredit Republicans in general and the tea party movement in particular.  That’s why the Times chose a primary that appears to be a lock for the incumbent and cast it as pork-barrel spending vs. the “tea party” whether that’s accurate or not.  This way, should Ms. Murkowski win, and that’s likely, the Times can write a follow-up editorial proclaiming Republicans aren’t serious about getting spending under control.  We also need to remember not all Republicans support true “tea party” principles (conservatism) and not all “tea party” supporters are Republicans, though lefties like to conflate the two groups.

Did you notice the Times failed note how the Pennsylvania version of “Pork or purity?” worked out?  The Times hopes we forgot “Republican” Arlen Specter (“the pork-barrel candidate” and #31 on the above list) moved to the Democrat party when polls of Republicans made it clear he had little chance of beating Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.