The NY Times treatment of candidate John Faso

The New York Conservative Party endorsed John Faso as its nominee for governor yesterday, setting up a political fight within the far-larger Republican Party between Mr. Faso, a fiscal conservative who opposes abortion rights, and a second candidate seeking the Republican nomination, William F. Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts who supports abortion rights.

This is the opening paragraph on a May 24 report from New York Times journalist, Patrick Healy, on John Faso, when he won the Conservative Party nomination for governor the day before. Apparently, abortion is the litmus test for all politicians in New York. In its first paragraph, the New York Times makes it a point on where the Republican candidates supposedly stand on abortion.

We have a state budget that is exceeding $112 billion, almost $50 billion of the budget is on Medicaid alone (where the NY Times once reported on being anywhere from 10% to 30% mired in fraud). We have a state government in desperate need of election reform and in dire need of Initiative and Referenda, where the People decide through ballot initiatives what our elected officials should do for a specific matter. We have high taxes and exorbitant spending, but to Mr. Healy and the New York Times, it is all secondary to abortion.

Then, Mr. Healy proceeds to focus on William Weld, the other Republican candidate for governor, who was not even at the Conservative Party convention, for the next few paragraphs. Perhaps after the Republican Convention, the New York Times would approach candidate John Faso differently, especially if he wins the GOP nomination.

Think again.

William F. Weld, the former Massachusetts governor, suffered a major rebuke from his own party on Thursday when he lost his bid to win Republicans' backing in the race for governor of New York, though he still won enough support to remain on the Sept. 12 primary ballot.

Another victory for John Faso and another opening paragraph that focuses on ...the other guy. The June 2 Patrick Healy report on the GOP convention reads very much like his previous story on New York Republicans. I understand that William Weld was considered the front-runner, but he lost. The Conservative Convention story should've only mentioned Mr. Weld and not given him as much attention in an event he didn't attend. At the Republican Convention, the story should've been about the winner and not so much on the "supposed" front-runner losing.

Of course, what is a New York Times article on Republicans without the topic of abortion. Mr. Healy waits until the fourteenth paragraph to mention the topic.

Other Republicans, reflecting Mr. Pataki's private view, say that conservatives who oppose abortion rights, like Mr. Faso, can no longer win statewide elections in New York. Some delegates noted that Mr. Weld, a moderate on social issues and a supporter of abortion rights, had won before in Massachusetts, a heavily Democratic state.

Whatever happened to the terms, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? Apparently, these archaic terms might confuse the New York Times reader. Or perhaps, they do not fuel as much resentment towards Republicans when you omit the word "abortion," the the new defining phrase for Republicans is opposing or supporting "abortion rights."

This is very misleading and is especially inaccurate for candidate John Faso. The moderate position on abortion is not William Weld's position. Moderates believe abortion should be legal, but putting restrictions on certain types of procedures and encouraging women against getting abortions is a moderate position. Abortions for all is a radical and exceedingly barbaric position that the majority of New Yorkers... Americans abhor.

John Faso has stated he is personally Pro-Life and wishes abortion wasn't practiced. Sort of believing that beyond the natural abortion process known as a "miscarriage," when the body rejects a pregnancy on its own terms, abortion should not be a medical practice. Even though miscarriages are emotionally difficult for women, it is something that happens and cannot always be prevented. Of course, as an elected official, a complete ban on the practice of abortion is not something politicians should be imposing. Every situation needs to be looked at carefully and Mr. Faso understands this.

In November 2005, NY Newsday carried an Associated Press story on John Faso's position on abortion. Now archived, the AP report was discusssed at two New York blogs: Urban Elephants and News Copy.

ALBANY, N.Y. -- John Faso, a conservative Republican considering a run for governor, said Friday that while he is personally opposed to abortion, he would not support legislation to outlaw it in New York state.

"I don't think such an approach would be appropriate," the former state Assembly minority leader told The Associated Press.

Faso, a Roman Catholic, said that even if he felt such legislation was appropriate, he did not think it would be "politically viable" in New York.

...Faso said he would favor limits on late-term abortions and requiring parental notification when minors seek abortions. He also said he remained opposed, as he was in the Assembly, to Medicaid funding to pay for poor women's abortions, expect in cases of rape or incest. ~ November 11, 2005

So all this clamoring from the New York Times and other media outlets are misleading the general New York public on John Faso's position. A position that, in my eyes, is the moderate position on abortion.

It would be unfortunate for any candidate to be branded by the media on one issue, especially if the media is reporting inaccurate information. There is constant debate on whether their is a liberal bias in our media and even through denials, the media continues to show its bias by reporting from one side of a debate, a side that can be viewed as a personal and private side where many people wish government stayed out.

Will our media start holding candidates, both Republican and Democrat to the same standards? Or will be continue to hold Republicans to different standards? Are we a nation who defines its elected officials on simply one social issue?