On Wednesday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty, following the lead of NBC's Kelly O'Donnell [1],
didn't provide the context of a remark made by Republican Senate
candidate in Colorado Ken Buck, thus giving the impression that he was
sexist, and went on to label him a "moron."
Cafferty began his 5 pm Eastern hour commentary by characterizing
Tuesday's primary results as possibly being good news for Democrats,
especially President Obama: "After months of taking a beating, the Democratic Party- and, by extension, President Obama- finally got some much-needed good news in yesterday's primaries.
The biggest victory came in Colorado, where Michael Bennet, the
candidate backed by the President and the party establishment, won
handily."
The CNN commentator then cited The Politico's recent assertion that
even better news for the party lay in apparent stumbles being made by
the GOP with their choices of nominees, beginning with Buck:
CAFFERTY: But, as Politico reports, the best news for the Democrats may have actually come from the Republicans' results, with the GOP nominating candidates who are either vulnerable or plagued by gaffes and scandal- or just plain dumb. Take, for example, Ken Buck, who will face off against Bennet in Colorado. He was backed by the Tea Party, but opposed by much of the national Republican leadership. Running against a woman, he was caught on tape, saying that he should be elected because he doesn't wear high heels- moron.
Earlier in the day, NBC's O'Donnell played the very "tape" in
question by the Republican candidate on the Today show, but, as the
MRC's Geoffrey Dickens pointed out, she didn't provide his explanation of the remark [2]: "My
opponent has said a number of times on the campaign trail that people
should vote for her because she wears high heels, because she wears a
skirt, because she's a woman...She ran a commercial that said Ken Buck
should be man enough to do X, Y, and Z...I made a statement, it was a
lighthearted statement that I'm man enough, I don't wear high heels and I
have cowboy boots on."
Cafferty went on to list the candidacies of Linda McMahon in
Connecticut, Tom Emmer in Minnesota, and Sharron Angle in Nevada (though
he didn't explicitly name her) as other examples of Republican missteps
in choosing candidates. Before asking his "Question of the Hour," the
commentator questioned whether "this whole narrative of the 2010
elections is true. The anti-incumbent, angry electorate ready to dump
all of the insiders might not be the case after all."
The full transcript of Jack Cafferty's commentary on Wednesday's
Situation Room, which began 14 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour:
CAFFERTY: After months of taking a beating, the Democratic Party- and, by extension, President Obama- finally got some much-needed good news in yesterday's primaries. The biggest victory came in Colorado, where Michael Bennet, the candidate backed by the President and the party establishment, won handily. After backing several candidates, who went on to lose this primary season, the President may have needed this victory more than anyone.
But, as Politico reports, the best news for the Democrats may have actually come from the Republicans' results, with the GOP nominating candidates who are either vulnerable or plagued by gaffes and scandal- or just plain dumb.
Take, for example, Ken Buck, who will face off against Bennet in Colorado. He was backed by the Tea Party, but opposed by much of the national Republican leadership. Running against a woman, he was caught on tape, saying that he should be elected because he doesn't wear high heels- moron.
In Connecticut, Republicans nominated Linda McMahon for the Senate race. Her main claim to fame is a huge bank account and a past association with professional wrestling. In Minnesota, Republicans chose Tom Emmer, who is off to a rocky start after suggesting that the minimum wage be lowered in order to take tips into account. And in Nevada, Harry Reid has actually pulled ahead in the polls, after his Republican opponent [Sharron Angle] has repeatedly shot herself in the foot by saying one stupid thing after another.
Yesterday's primaries also raise questions about whether this whole narrative of the 2010 elections is true. The anti-incumbent, angry electorate ready to dump all of the insiders might not be the case after all. While Congress's approval rating remains in the toilet- and they've earned it- 19 percent, according to Gallup's latest poll- the people who make up that Congress continue to be re-nominated.
Here's the question: is this year's anti-incumbent fever for real? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog.
-Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here [3].