Chuck Todd, the NBC political director, is incensed by a Center for American Progress Action Fund update on the clean energy jobs bill being marked up by the House energy committee. The update described Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) as “moderate Democrats” who announced their support for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), driving Todd into a tizzy:
Did I read this right? Did CAP call John Dingell and former black panther Bobby Rush “moderates”? . . . Maybe on the energy issue, as far as CAP’s concerned, Dingell is a “moderate” since he’s always been on the side of the auto industry on key emissions votes. But should CAP really call these two moderates? Stuff like this in official press releases can immediately cost folks credibility with readers of said releases.
“Perhaps ‘fence-sitting Democrats‘ or ‘Democrats who are moderate on climate’ might have been a tad better,” Joe Romm points out on Climate Progress, “but this press release hardly deserves the harsh attack from Todd.” Dingell and Rush are two of the 18 committee members who the trade publication E & E News identified as undecided on Waxman-Markey. In fact, E & E News senior reporter Darren Samuelsohn described Rush as a “moderate” last week:
Even as Waxman said he could pass the bill out of his committee, at least a half-dozen moderate and conservative Democrats held back in declaring their support for the climate bill, including Reps. Rick Boucher of Virginia, Bobby Rush of Illinois, Diana DeGette of Colorado, John Barrow of Georgia, Baron Hill of Indiana and Melancon.
Both Rush and Dingell have voting records on energy issues that put them to the right of most Democrats, according to Oil Change International:

Todd continues to read “tea leaves” to make prognostications about the prospects for climate change legislation. To maintain his credibility, perhaps he should pay more attention to facts and better reporters instead.


Jeez…
sensitive much?
I like you guys a lot, and I did read First Read earlier, but you just come out as real snarky with a post like this. I agree he didnt need to dedicate a complete post to this, but I also did recognize the “moderate” label, which your own climate progress person noted as well. I wouldnt consider what Chuck Todd said a “harsh attack”. You endanger yourselves of becoming more and more like the Fox News types if you cant be a little critical of yourselves once in a while…
May 19th, 2009 at 4:37 pmThe critical difference between these guys and Fox News, especially in this case, is that they’re actually right.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pmYeah, Jake. What’s wrong with hitting back hard if you are factually correct? Righteous indignation is only annoying when it comes without the “right” part.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:19 amTodd has actually stumbled onto a fair point. The words “moderate” and “centrist” should probably be banned from coverage of the political scene, since they’re simply euphemisms for Democrats who support Republican positions and Republicans who support Democratic ones.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am