Chieftain, CBS4 articles on "fight" between Salazar and Allard reported no direct comment from Salazar, used "Democrat" as an adjective

Summary: Reporting on a "partisan split" between Sens. Wayne Allard (R) and Ken Salazar (D) over vacant Colorado judgeships, nearly identical articles published on the KCNC CBS4 website on January 17 and in The Pueblo Chieftain on January 18 provided extensive remarks from Allard but no direct comments from Salazar. January 18 Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News articles, in contrast, directly quoted Salazar about the disagreement, in addition to reporting Allard's comments.

Articles published January 17 on the KCNC CBS4 website and January 18 in The Pueblo Chieftain about a dispute between Sens. Wayne Allard (R) and Ken Salazar (D) over three vacant U.S. District Court judgeships in Colorado reported extensive comments from Allard, but not any direct comment from Salazar. In contrast, January 18 articles on the same topic by The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News directly quoted Salazar's comments. In addition, both articles in three instances used the noun "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the grammatically correct "Democratic," a slur commonly used by conservatives.

The Chieftain article by Robert Boczkiewicz and the non-bylined CBS4 article reported that "[a] partisan split between Colorado's two U.S. senators ... raised the odds there will be a political fight that could cause a major delay in filling three coveted federal judge spots in Colorado." The articles cited "the previously undisclosed split between Republican Sen. Wayne Allard and Democrat Sen. Ken Salazar, whom (sic) often are united on other issues," and continued:

The controversy stems from a combination of election-year politics, from the fact that President Bush's term ends in 11 months and from the desire of both political parties to have a big influence in the selection of federal judges, who have lifetime appointments.

The split came to light less than an hour after Salazar announced he wants the Republican president to give him a key role in filling three spots on the U.S. District Court.

The Chieftain and CBS4 articles each claimed credit for having "discovered the previously undisclosed split," although neither article named the other media outlet. The virtually identical wording in the pieces claimed that "Allard said, 'We're concerned that Sen. Salazar is positioning himself to delay the president's nominations,' " in the one instance "[i]n response to an inquiry from The Chieftain," and in the other instance "[i]n response to an inquiry from CBS4."

Both articles also quoted Allard as saying, "We're disappointed that we're not getting any cooperation from Sen. Salazar." The articles noted that Allard in November sent "a confidential list" to President Bush in which he recommended four people for Bush to choose from for two spots, and reported, "Allard said he consulted with Salazar before sending the list." According to the articles:

Allard contends Salazar threw a wrench into the process by sending a letter to the president Thursday, saying that Salazar intends to submit a list to Bush by March 15.

Both articles then reported that following his critical comments -- "to CBS4" and "to The Chieftain," respectively -- "Allard quickly fired back again at Salazar by releasing a statement statewide saying Bush's staff has informed Allard that the president 'is close' to nominating two people for two of the three spots." The articles further reported:

Taking a shot at his Democrat [sic] colleague's March 15 timetable, Allard said, "these nominations must be through the confirmation process by April 1 in order to avoid adding to the tremendous backlog of cases."

[...]

To bolster support for Allard's recommendations, he [Allard said] that Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter supports one of the four. He said the four included two Republicans, an independent and a Democrat.

Allard said he already is compiling a list to recommend to Bush for the [U.S. District Judge Phillip] Figa vacancy. He said Ritter and Denver attorney Jim Lyons, a national Democrat [sic] figure who was an adviser to Clinton, support one of Allard's choices for the new list.

However, the Chieftain and CBS4 reported no direct comments from Salazar but instead quoted an excerpt from a January 17 letter Salazar sent to the White House:

Salazar, in Thursday's letter to one of Bush's key advisers on judicial appointments, asked to be "consulted directly regarding any individuals you are considering with ample time given for me to evaluate the potential nominees and provide a meaningful response" before the FBI begins its typical background check of possible nominees.

Salazar cited three instances that still irritate Colorado Democrats from the years when Republicans controlled the Senate and blocked three nominations to the court that President Clinton made.

In contrast, the News directly quoted Salazar about the disagreement with Allard, in addition to reporting Allard's comments:

Salazar criticized Allard for not opening up the process to all interested applicants, saying that decisions on the lifetime appointments shouldn't be made "in stealth" or in the "the dark of night."

Salazar also said that the Bush administration has not consulted him on the potential nominees, as it is required to do.

"I will demand that right as a U.S. senator," he said.

Asked if he would try to torpedo any nominee he doesn't approve of when he or she goes to the Senate, Salazar replied: "I'm going to withhold judgment on that."

The comments capped months of back-and-forth over the selection of candidates.

The disagreement came to a head Friday, when Salazar sent a letter to the White House asking that he be "consulted directly" on any nominations.

The Post also included comments from Salazar:

Salazar says he has not been consulted by the White House about who should be nominated, and he's never met three of the four candidates endorsed by Allard.

"I am a U.S. senator, and ultimately, I will be involved and will be consulted and will make sure at the end of the day that we have the best, stellar jurist for the U.S. District Court," Salazar said.

Additionally, CBS4 and the Chieftain three times employed the word "Democrat" as an adjective instead of the grammatically correct "Democratic" -- referring to Salazar as Allard's "Democrat colleague[]," referring to Colorado's governor as "Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter," and identifying Denver attorney Jim Lyons as "a national Democrat figure who was an adviser to Clinton."

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Republican Party officials, politicians, and their allies in the media frequently use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" as a pejorative reference to things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party.

Media Matters for America has pointed out that the ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

—C.H.