Lowell, there are parts of this morning's Washington Post article that make Miller look very bad. The money quote

"I'm a business guy," Miller said. "I spent my whole life as a business guy. I did work on Capitol Hill for about 10 years. But I'm a Mark Warner Democrat. George Allen is a professional politician."

The two sparred for a few minutes before Miller moved on. What did Whitehurst think?

"Sounds like a politician so far," he said. "I want to see what he's doing, what he's done to cut taxes, make people responsible for their own actions. . . . I'm still undecided."

There is very little Miller can say in response without getting himself in more trouble. The more voters learn about Miller, both as a former lobbyist and IT executive responsible for outsourcing high end jobs, the less likely they will approve.

Yes it would have been nice if the WaPo would have focused more on Miller's record, but this article is hardly a ringing endorsement.

reporting, digging into the facts and not just repeating the same-old same-old lines, etc.

By the way, Kip, I got to play teacher yesterday...well, sort of.  Actually, I spoke to the Yorktown Young Dems for about 45 minutes about Jim Webb.  Very enjoyable...

among those who re 11th graders there will be those who were my 7th graders at Williamsburg the one year I taught there.  I recognized one at the Memorial Day march

The liberal media hates Jim Webb.  Did anyone see the Robert Samuelson article in the Post yesterday ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001181.html ).  Sameuleson asks "One obvious question is why most of the news media missed the larger immigration story".  One can certainly ask why the Press is missing the Webb/Miller story. Samuelson suggests "Stories generally mirror the prevailing political debate".  The press wants to champion their "principaled Limosine Liberals" versus "right wing ogres".  Miller is close to their "Limosine Liberal": lobbyist, okay on gay rights, encourages education to elighten the filthy masses.  Jim doesn't fit their mold except for maybe "right wing ogre": southern, voted for Reagan, ex-military.  The establisment Press loves Miller because he's the kind of guy that's right on a few social issues and makes it so that they don't actually have to listen to the lower classes and their economic needs.  Webb on the other hand, is the voice of the long suffering middle and lower middle classes.  He also speaks eloquently about the needs of the lower classes.  The press just doesn't want to hear it: the DNC can speak for them, they don't need to speak for themselves.

The bottom line is Jim Webb just doesn't fit into their hardened view of the world: either you're a suburban social issues liberal or you're not.  If you're not, you're an ogre.

How Harris "the union buster" Miller is real Democrat in anyone's book proves how out of touch the Press is.  How any story on Miller doesn't come right out and say he spent 25 years promoting the concept of "guest worker" (to supress lower and middle class wages) is just not telling the story.

Thanks.

Great points Lobo. 

There is a media fairness problem, but it's not liberal.  NB: I wouldn't call Robert Samuelson a liberal.

But, yeah, I'll agree with you.  It's not really "liberal" anymore. The NYT, Post, CBS, ABC, NBC , etc. were liberal way back when but now they are conservative.  They are still very haughty and they do only allow two voices : "social liberalism" and "libertarian/right-wing".  If it doesn't fit that split, they can't really deal with it.  Third opinions don't really fit their worldview.

First, MSM isn't a monolith.  The idea only exists as an abstraction.

1. There is a distinction between print media and the major networks.  Part of this has to do with the medium (e.g. TV is image driven, interrupted by commericials, usually only has 2-3 minute stories on each topic). 
2. There are different pressures at papers that are independently owned and at the conglomerates (talk to journalists at the Post and say the Richmond Times Dispatch). 
3. There is a distinction at the major print papers between the editorial and reporting side of the paper (on the editorial side the Post tends to be center-left, NY Times, most Americans would view as way too liberal, the Wall Street Journal are on the right--from a reportial perspective the emphasis is on getting facts right--not on point of view). 

Also, keep in mind that most reporters are generalists, writing for a broad audience.  The work isn't about scientific percision, but getting the general thrust of an idea correct. 

It would be an interesting exercise to do an indepth analysis of one day of MSM reporting across the board.  I would feel entirely comfortable putting these hypotheses to the test.

if the media got it right sometimes.

Also, keep in mind that most reporters are generalists, writing for a broad audience.  The work isn't about scientific percision, but getting the general thrust of an idea correct.

Precision? The lazy "bring me the story" journalists that make up most of the traditional media? They can not get even the general idea straight most of the time. For a great deal of reporters, unless somebody leads them to the scene of the crime, there is no story. And if there is to be a story, the false idea of 'balance' factors into their recitation of this administration's talking points, sometimes verbatim.

The traditional media is a joke, not likely to be fixed anytime soon unless it makes even more money for their corporate masters. There is in reality very little non-mega-corp media left in this country. Even weekly 'alternative' newspapers are big corporate freaks now.

Freedom of the press? Only if you happen to own one.

I'm guessing that you haven't worked at a newspaper?  It's one of the toughest jobs in the business--especially if you're in print journalism.  I have friends who work 60 and in some cases 70 hour weeks.  For the most part these aren't dumb people.  Especially if you're able to make it at one of the majors.

Blogs serve an important grass roots function, but it's hard to believe that they would have the resources and legitimacy to break stories such as the illegal NSA wiretapping story; CIA secret prisons; this recent bit about the Haditha raid; and other stories that are clearly in the public interest. 

may be doing more in-depth stories on the candidates.  I think it behooves the IT people and those who know about Harris's activities in Fiarfax, as well as those who have quotes re Harris's stands on the war and Bush's deficit-machie tax cuts to get in touch with their writers.  In general, the DP does responsible coverage, but I don't know how much their writers will dig on this one, since no one else seems to have done so.

The use of the term "policy wonk" is usually used as a put-down.  Fewer use it as a good thing.  Personally, I think being a policy wonk is a good thing because those we elect need not only to undersand existing policy, but how legislation impinges in a broader system and how the process works.  It's now obvious how pathetic a non-policy wonk is in the White House.  And we've got one in the US Senate.  Allen only knows bluster, ambition, and, tangentially how to pretend he's a nice guy. 

However, any journalist who thinks Harris Miller is more thoughtful (as suggested by the policy wonk label is dreaming.  Harris Miller's expertise is focused on maximizing profits for Microsoft and Diebold at the expense of American workers. If that's being a policy wonk, it's not what we need.  We've already got a whole administration dedicated to undoing Americans at large while enriching its donors. 

I agree with Lowell that the writer of that article ought to do his research.  Webb's thoughful writings, particularly on foreign policy, make Miller look like a lightweight.

Mark Warner successfully built a cell-phone company -- he made his fortuner by building value and equity for others.

Miller made lotsof money in high tech stocks, but he wasn't building a company or buidling equity directly  -- he was lobbying and the money he made was as a result of his relationships with executives of high tech companies. 

I am too sick to phrase this properly.  But it seems to me this another example of Miller stretching the truth.  I wish there there were more time -- we could look up people who worked with Miller on Dirken's staff, or in the Clinton administration, or whatever and start putting together a list of how often he not not speak the plain truth.

You can start at the following link, some college professor named Norm Matloff did a lot of research on Harris Miler ...

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html

Note the congressional testimony ( http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html ) much of which is dedicated to countering Harris Miller.

Harris "the union buster" Miller has had people countering his distortions for decades.

"Miller's first big client was the National Council of Agricultural Employers, a group of large growers who use migrant and illegal alien workers."

I also love this:

ITAA president Harris Miller, in his claims that the industry is experiencing a desperate labor shortage, is fond of telling journalists, ``Just look at all those job ads in the Sunday newspapers!'' The fact is that those ads tell a story that Miller doesn't want reporters to notice: Employers are not willing to hire ``just any programmer.'' The ads insist that the programmer have experience in a specific software technology. As mentioned earlier, most employers use re'sume'-scanning machines to screen applicants, automatically rejecting anyone who is not an exact fit for certain skills sought by the employer.

Bottom line:  Harris Miller is a nightmare, and a disaster for American workers.

And now he's the toast of the stock option "Democrats".

Gotta hand to ole Harris ... anybody that can twist "hired gun lobbyist" into "policy wonk" is a real politician.  Anybody that can morph "immigration lawyer" into "high-tech businessman" is a sort of evil genius.  Ah, Harris, if only you'd slunk off to the Carribean.  Instead, your head got all big.

Suggesting that an employer should hire just "any" person sort-of related to the skills being sought is, putting it kindly, not within reality.  The suggestion also implies that those who may have lost their jobs weren't qualified, which I don't think was your intent.

Any employer, particularly among small businesses that create the most jobs in America, is now increasingly precise in the experience and qualifications they seek to fill specific positions.  And, of course, they are looking for specific experience. 

The stuff about what an anti-worker slimeball Harris Miller is?

I was commenting on the point in the shaded box about employers requiring specific experience.  The implied point in the box is that, although there may be jobs listed in the paper, they are not really jobs because they require specific experience (in that case a certain programming language).  And my point was/is that of course they do.

If I were hiring an engineer for an advanced environmental technology that involved pulsed-power electronics, I wouldn't just hire any electrical engineer.  I would be looking and advertsiing for someone with specific experience in pulse forming networks and plasma control.

And if I eliminated resumes without that background and experience, I don't think I would be anti-worker.

how easy it is to find a well-paying job in the IT sector.

College just proves you can put up with going through a schedule.  Everybody learns what really goes on at work at work.  So what if you don't have "Texas Instruments Digital Signal Processing chip X19J".  "Do you know how to code?  Do you understand the math?  Can you smash your brain against a problem for a couple of months?  Okay ... come in Monday morning and we'll get ya up to speed with our specifics.  We know it'll take a few weeks to get you productive and we expect you to push yourself to catch up."

Every "combat line" worker and manager knows this is how it is in the real world.  Lawyers and accountants (and sometimes HR) aren't always cognizant of reality.

Look, if you want 26 year old single males from India (not Pakistan though ... "dirty Muslims") that can't join a union or quit their job and won't complain, just say so.  "Latest Java 1.5 with Enterprise beans and published in a journal and a PhD." is just horsefeathers.

The people that backed Harris Miller are the richest people in the world (Bill Gates, Micheal Dell, Larry Ellison).  These people can afford to train workers.  Read the Norm Mattlof piece carefully.  *America can do the job* !!!!

We have to look for Tom Davis for honesty on this issue ...
( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ITAA )
"Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) remarked, 'Once it's clear [the visa bill] is going to get through, everybody signs up so nobody can be in the position of being accused of being against high tech. There were, in fact, a whole lot of folks against it, but because they are tapping the high-tech community for campaign contributions, they don't want to admit that in public.' A major supporter of pending legislation which would increase the H-1B quota, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), said, 'This is not a popular bill with the public. It's popular with the CEOs . . . This is a very important issue for the high-tech executives who give the money.'"

Tom Davis and Harris Miller, what a pair !!!

I really have been impressed with Webb and his concern for the big picture-the common man.

I also, enjoy the idea of an independent voice for the common man who not beholdened to anyone (except the people). 

Webb is my man for Senate - Miller & Allen are not.

Miller is a multimillionaire.  Clearly he's shorter so people buy into the "poorer" implication.  Technically he is poorer than Warner, but it is deliberately misleading.

Good grief.  It is equally as valid to say that I'm a shorter poorer version of Angelina Jolie.

I guess logical fallacies aren't technically lies, but in a way they are more offensive given the attention that their construction requires.

Intent - it matters.

as will the antibiotics.  I had to do this now or I wouldn't make it to Yearlykos next week  -- I will be in Vegas this time next week.

Miller is more and more of a sleaze.  And his people have gotten the local free newspaper in Arlington to spin things their way -  that there were too many Webb signs visible during the "firehouse primary' for school board, that Miller insiders are saying anonymously that there won't be any "new" people turning out in the primary.  They try to give the impression that both candidates would do as well against Allen, and that no one is saying yet that the Dems can win.  Bull-hockey.  ON all counts.  I have been to events public and private and I am seeing faces I have not, in almost 24 years in Arlington (and I have been politically active since I moved here because my college classmate John Milliken was on County Board in those days) I ahve never seen before, I am seeing people who until recently counted themselves as Republicans.  I know of NO independent analyst who think Miller has any chance of beating Allen, while most think Webb has a real fighting shot, and oh by the way I personally know a couple of them (the benefits of living in the DC metro area).

Yes, Miller was "just" endorsed by Al Eisenberg, whose wife just lost the firehouse primary to Sally Baird.  And the same writer in the local paper tries to say how Baird might have problems because some more traditional democrats resent her defeating Sharon Davis, Al's wife.  Well, Sharon had the Dem endorsement several cycles ago and lost to Republican Dave Foster.  And Arlington Dem politics are hardly rigid toe-the party line in their approach.  One County Board member has endorse Miller, two have endorsed Webb.  Three school board members have endorsed Webb, none has endorsed Miller.  Miller has done better among those currently in the state legislature, but cross the border to Aleandria and the reverse is true.  And some of those who have endorsed Miller have quietly let it be known that with  Webb in the race they will not be doing anything further to help Miller.

But the press seems to like the meme the way it is being phrased and spun by the Miller people. 

Right now I don't think anyone can predict the shape of the turnout.  Webb has more volunteers than Webb, far more once you get out N Virginia.  We will see if that converts to votes.

And enough  -- sick teacherken is going to take a nap.

All of the stories that appear about the candidates so far have been fluff pieces. The MSM continues to simply regurgitate the same old stuff. An indepth look at most things is beyond the capability of most of these reporters, and this race is no exception. It seems whoever is able to frame the argument - by constant repetition of the same things - will be the opinion represented. Reporters are lazy. That's just the way it is.

I will ask one thing, though. Has Webb written off South Hampton Roads? His calendar shows no events down here.

The simple fact is, he's racing around the state, right now in SWVA heading north to C-ville, trying to cover as much ground as possible.  Keep in mind, Webb is trying to do in 100 days what most Senate candidates take a year or more to do - build an organization, raise money, get a ground operation going, develop issues/position papers, seek endorsements, travel to all parts of a large state like Virginia, etc., etc.  Personally, I think he's done well given the short time, and is getting better all the time.  Oh yeah, he also must waste a lot of time responding to scurrilous attacks by Harris Miller's surrogates, and the "regurgitation" of the MSM, as you accurately call it. 

I hope that Webb makes it down to that area - I felt the same way about Charlottesville and Lynchburg. 

I saw that you are going to that bloggers conference.  Maybe I can figure out when a break is and come by and say hello.

From a purely journalistic standpoint I thought the Washington Post, Virginia Pilot, and Lynchburg News Advance articles were all good.  Yes, the may have been good press for Miller, but from a journalistic standpoint that's not the issue.  If Michael Shearer catches Miller on the one good day hoofing it--he writes about the one good day hoofing it.  He doesn't say, "but I understand that a lot of people closed the door in Miller's face when he did this other time".  All of these pieces were clearly written in good faith by journalists who probably enjoyed spending time with Miller and who had done more than perfunctory background research.  While none of these pieces was right-on-the-mark, I didn't get the sense that any of these were wildly out of the ballpark, or that any of these writers had a vested interest in the performance of either of the primary candidates.

As a side note--the WaPost online editor made the Miller story one of its front page story.  The Marc Fisher op'ed piece was buried in the website (it's not under politics, it's not under VA Metro section).  In fact, the same day that the piece ran, the WaPost had Fisher's blog about the loogie in the Mountain Dew at a Taco Bell drive-thru on the front page, but you had to dig for the Fisher piece on Miller.  Interesting journalistic choice on the part of online editor. 

Contrast these recent articles with Tyler Whitley's piece in the RTD last week.  If I was Whitley's first year journalism professor I give him a D+/C- simply because he went to the trouble of getting three quotes.  From a professional journalistic standpoint though the article was crap.  There was a clear bias that shone through in the way that the material was organized (anonymous blogger quote 3rd paragraph?!), the way quotes were collected (9 day old quote from Allen's guy towards the top, comments of Democrat representatives BURIED in the article even further below the blogger and Allen advisor quotes), the way relevant information was ommitted (active Miller supporter not labelled as such, partial rendering of the "Anti-Christ" quote, no mention of committee straw polls in Fairfax--which would have been a relevant detail for any journalist interest in giving the full picture about the race in Fairfax).  There are good writers at RTD, but Whitley isn't one of them.  His editor did a sh#%ty job too.  If they were looking for some filler on deadline, they would have been better off simply running an AP story.