I usually like the stories of the Washington Post's climate reporter Juliet Eilperin -- but why isn't her article today titled "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Both Parties"? -- or even "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Republicans." So much for the so-called liberal bias of the Post.
She focuses at length on the cost of the climate plans of Clinton, Obama and the other Dems, but hardly talks about the benefits at all -- and never mentions the costs of inaction: catastrophic global warming.
She does quote Former House speaker Newt Gingrich who
said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on "litigation and regulation" could alienate voters, he said in an interview. "You can just calculate the costs," Gingrich said.
"Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme," he added. "A candidate who's anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs."
And she also writes:
"It's a huge issue. I've been stunned by this," said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who found in a May poll that energy independence and global warming were cited as America's most important domestic challenge by 29 percent of respondents, second only to health care. "I think this is a top-tier voting issue that has crossover appeal," Greenberg said.
So the piece has the wrong headline and the wrong emphasis and an incomplete argument, leaving readers with the idea that this is a politically riskier area than it in fact is.
I am not saying this is a can't-lose issue from a political perspective, especially if handled wrong, but it definitely isn't can't-win, especially if handled right -- as most of the Dems seem to be doing.
The Washington Post needs to do a better and fairer job covering the politics of this top-tier issue.
Originally posted here.