KINDER'S COMMENTARY: CARNAHAN'S VETO OF INFANTICIDE BILL IS FULL OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE

Gov. Mel Carnahan's veto of House Bill 427, the bill banning partial-birth infanticide, will likely be the dominant story in Missouri over the next 60 days, building in intensity as we approach the mid-September veto session of the General Assembly. Look for an overwhelming override vote in the House to be followed by an all-eyes-on-the-Senate vote as the dramatic tension builds. In the Senate, as the Duke of Wellington said of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, it will be a "damn close-run thing." One liberal Democratic colleague told me a couple of months ago that he didn't think his side could sustain this veto. (This guy is one of several who told me, two years ago, that if I were to make the override motion on my bill that year, "You can forget about that prison for Charleston.")

Since the end of April, Capitol hallways have been rife with rumors that the governor will be talking jobs for wavering members of his party in exchange for a vote to sustain his veto. More than one lawmaker has indicated his willingness to consider a proffered appointment rather than vote against the governor.

Interestingly, Carnahan rejected the counsel of the chief House sponsor, state Rep. Bill Luetkenhaus, a passionately pro-life Democrat. Governors can allow bills to become law without their signature simply by letting the designated time elapse. Do this, Luetkenhaus urged the governor, and "you can save the Democratic Party."

But a veto it is, for a reprise of the drama of September 1997. Carnahan's veto clearly demonstrates to whom he is beholden, and how far left is the center of gravity inside today's Democratic Party.

The Carnahan 2000 strategy is to paint John Ashcroft as an extremist. Who's the extremist now?

* * * * *

In the ever-present story of the astonishing left-liberal bias of the national news media, there is fresh evidence to report. A researcher at the University of Michigan named Brian Patrick has done the work. Patrick compared news coverage in what he calls the elite media from 1990-98 for five public interest groups. These are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Association of Retired People, Handgun Control, Inc. and the National Rifle Association.

Patrick established 16 separate measures. To the surprise of almost no one, the NRA received much more negative press coverage than all the other groups combined. Eighty-seven percent of editorials and op-ed pieces on the NRA were negative. According to the Weekly Standard:

"NRA spokesmen were directly quoted far less in articles than spokesmen for the liberal groups, and were most often cited with loaded verbs like `contends,' `asserts' or `argues,' rather than with the neutral `says.' The NRA was more than twice as likely as the liberal groups to be portrayed as a pernicious `lobby' or `special-interest group,' while the liberal organizations were more often innocuously labeled `citizens groups' or `advocacy groups.' And the headlines involving the NRA were twice as likely to include belittling jokes or puns (e.g., `Did NRA Shoot Itself in the Foot?')

"The most interesting conclusion, keeping in mind as always that correlation isn't causation, was this: The overwhelmingly negative coverage Patrick found actually went along with a dramatic boost in the NRA's membership. Indeed, the NRA tripled its membership during the period covered by the study. ..."

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communication and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.