Greta Van Susteren interviewed one of Fox's favorite "Democrats", Doug Shoen -- who, as Media Matters has noted, doesn't exactly have the Democratic Party's interests at heart of late.
What's the dumbest thing about the Washington Post's decision to publish an op-ed by Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell urging President Obama not to run for re-election? Is it the fact that it had barely been two weeks since the Post last published a Schoen-Caddell attack on Obama (in which the Post inexplicably allowed them to claim to be "traditional liberal Democrats" as they compared Obama to Nixon)? Or the fact that the Post didn't disclose Schoen's work for Michael Bloomberg, a possible challenger to Obama? Or the Schoen-Caddell pipe dream that "if the president were to demonstrate a clear degree of bipartisanship, it would force the Republicans to meet him halfway" -- a fantasy undermined by the GOP's response to every previous Obama attempt at bipartisanship?
Or is it the Post's publication of a "proposal" for "address[ing] … our national challenges" that is completely without substance? Schoen and Caddell have literally nothing to offer beyond pleading for everyone to get along. They write, for example, that Obama's decision not to run for re-election would magically cause Republicans to work with him, and that this will make "boosting economic growth" possible. But they say nothing, not a word, about what should be done in order to boost economic growth. Schoen participated in an online Q&A for the Post today, driving home the point that he has absolutely nothing to say. Read on...
Let's get this out of the way: the reason Sunday's op-ed by Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell calling on President Obama not to seek another term is getting a lot of play is that The Washington Post helped them present themselves as mainstream Democrats selflessly acting for love of country. This portrayal is simply inaccurate.
I've already pointed out how the Post neglected to mention that Schoen has repeatedly served as the pollster for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a position he would likely continue to enjoy if Bloomberg were to run for president in 2012. Thus, the Post gave him space to try to push his potential client's opponent out of the race.
To their credit, the Post has now acknowledged that they should have disclosed Schoen's ties to Bloomberg. But that wasn't the only problem with how the Post characterized the pollsters.
The Post also didn't disclose that Caddell and Schoen both work for Fox News, which spent the last election cycle pulling hard for Republicans, up to and including providing millions of dollars in donations from its parent company to GOP-linked groups. Indeed, today Fox reported on the op-ed from "two leading Democratic political analysts," with Schoen appearing to discuss opposite Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Read on...
Nothing like Fox continuing to push those "fair and balanced" analysts like Schoen and Caddell to continually undermine the Democratic Party.
Steve Kornacki at Salon has more on Schoen and Caddell.