Bush "Divisive," But Dean a Uniter Who "Brings People Together" (Media Bias Alert!)

Media Research Center via e-Mail | December 29, 2003 | Brent Baker

[PJ-Comix]

George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 as a "uniter, not a divider." But in what may be a preview of the prism through which the networks will see the 2004 presidential campaign, ABC's Terry Moran on Sunday described Bush as a divider, labeling him a "divisive President" and a "divisive figure." CBS's Bob Schieffer similarly portrayed Bush as a divider, calling him "a polarizing politician," who though as Governor did bring people together, now "seems to have become someone that you either love or you hate." But Schieffer hailed Democratic candidate Howard Dean as a uniter.

Hosting Face the Nation, Schieffer trumpeted how Dean "is a hit at this point" because "he seems to be the first Democrat who's found a way to bring new people into the process here. He's found a new kind of participatory politics....Dean has gone into the Internet and begun to bring people together."

Moran filled in on Sunday for George Stephanopoulos as host of ABC's This Week. As if it's solely President Bush's fault that some people don't like his policies, in formulating questions, during a segment with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Leon Panetta, Clinton's former Chief-of-Staff, Moran twice tagged Bush as "divisive.'

Moran observed: "For many Americans, this is a divisive President. Is he vulnerable in the manner in which he seems to polarize people's opinions?" (Panetta chimed in: "I think that is the case.")

Moran soon repeated his theme: "This President on the world stage. When he was elected, I think few would have expected him to be, within three years, the dominant figure in the world, a leader that everyone else has to reckon with essentially. And there as well, it's hard to argue with the notion that he is a divisive figure."

Over on the December 28 Face the Nation on CBS, regular host Bob Schieffer, during a roundtable with Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, Washington Post reporter Dan Balz and New York Times columnist David Brooks, admired how Dean is bringing people together, citing a left-wing New York Times columnist as the source of his insight:

"I tell you, this is not, what I'm going to say is not an essay on why I like Howard Dean, but it's, I would say this is why I think that Howard Dean is a hit at this point, and that is he seems to be the first Democrat who's found a way to bring new people into the process here. He's found a new kind of participatory politics. In this television age, where we kind of took the campaigns out of the community and put them on television and made television kind of a passive event, Howard Dean has gone into the Internet and begun to bring people together.

"I think the story we have missed. I think Frank Rich of The New York Times may be the first person who caught on to this. It's not that he has raised money on the Internet that's been important to Howard Dean, but the fact is, he's brought these people together. They now feel like they're part of his campaign. They're talking to each other. They're driving places, to campaigns, where he's not even there. They feel like a part of it. It's almost like the old ward heeler politics back in Chicago, where people felt they were a part of something. And he's the first person in a while who's done that, and I think whether you like Howard Dean or hate Howard Dean, you have to admire him for doing that. And in the long run, I think that's very good for politics."

Minutes later, however, Schieffer expressed concern about how Bush is a polarizer: "Let me ask you, Karen, because I know your magazine did, kind of did an issue on this, and that is George Bush as a polarizing politician. George Bush ran -- and George Bush as Governor was the kind of politician who did seem to bring people together -- but yet he seems to have become someone that you either love or you hate."

Maybe that's at least partly attributable to how the news media portray his policies and hold him, not those who dislike him, responsible for how some dislike him.

[Little Ray]

Ya ain't votin' for GWB.

Yer votin 'gainst Dean and the Democrat Dwarves, Nader, McKinney, Harry "Its all America's fault" Browne and all the much worse alternatives. Just try imagin' America's response to 911 under Gore. If you think that's bad, imagine Harry Browne's response to 911 (warning: don't try this on a full stomach). Try imaginin' the future of the USA under Dean or Hillary!. Yer votin' for GWB 'cause he's the only one who can keep them out o' the White House.

Yes, it ain't much of a reason, just as GWB ain't much of a conservative, but he beats the heck out of the alternatives. Personally, I'd rather be votin' for Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes, but they'd probably be runnin' 'against a Democrat incumbant. Fer some reason, folks these days don't seem to have the courage for strong medicine.

[Mo1]

The only ones that Dean has united are the commies in this country ...

oh and a bunch of young college students who in a few years will wake up to reality once they are no longer under the control of their liberal professors

[John Robertson]

"Can I quote you?"

Endlessly

"Well put."

Thanks. I'm sending you a t-shirt: "If You Agree With Me, You Must Be My Friend."

Happy New Year.

[Jotmo]

Very well stated.

As much as I'd like to have a true conservative in the WH, that's the choice we have to deal with. Bush...or worse!

I'll take Bush

[John Robertson]

Thanks. I'm sending you a t-shirt: "If You Agree With Me, You Must Be My Friend."

Happy New Year.

[Armed Civilian]

Thanks, but no t-thirt required. I am really tired of all the so called Republicans who are disappointed with GWB that they are willing to throw away their vote.

[DustyMoment]

Trust me, I can compromise on a lot of things. I have given Bush a pass on most of the things on my list, but he is crossing the line when he first says that he will veto CFR, then passes it knowing that it contains unConstitutional provisions. He took an oath not to do that.

He will take a giant leap over the line if he succeeds with the "immigration reform" plan he is pushing to, essentially, legalize the current crop of illegals in the US. These people came to the US by breaking our laws and, to punish them, they will be GIVEN American citizenship, therby undermining the rule of law in this nation. Line up all those who stood in line for years to emigrate here legally and tattoo "SUCKER" across their forehead. Well, IMO, if ignoring the rule of law is good for one segment of our country, imagine what ignoring the rule of law will do for all of us!! Yippee, anarchy here we come!!!

The point is we are either a nation of laws or we aren't. We can't say that ignoring our laws is ok for some of us but the rest of us are expected to toe the line. It doesn't work that way. Bush ignored the law when he signed CFR knowing it was illegal; he even commented on it. He will repeat that feat by ignoring the rule of law again to legalize millions of people to whom our laws have no meaning anyway. They violated them to come here.

Either the laws apply equally to all, or they apply to none. Bush, et al, don't seem to comprehend that simple, but essential, concept.

My vote not count? I live in FloriDUH. You do the math.

[cyncooper]

The media manipulated everything to try to give AG an advantage where/whenever possible...to call Florida soooooo early--even IF they had waited until after 7 p.m. in the Panhandle part of the state--was unconscionable, if not downright fraudulent.

In addition to calling Florida way too early, they also held off calling big Bush wins in places like Georgia and Ohio. The modus was to call for Gore ASAP, and to hold off until the last second to announce Bush had taken a state.

Also the dem lamenting about the electoral college is as phoney as can be. In the weeks leading up to the election Gore's camp thought it possible Bush could take the popular vote while Gore took the electoral votes, and I well remember the solemn instruction of how our system works. All fine and well, as that is how it is structured. But when it went against them they can't shut up about how unfair it all is, when they were fully prepared to accept the opposite outcome and not countenance any handwringing by our side (as if) about it.

[DustyMoment]

But, that's entirely the point. Ever since I was old enough to vote, the choice has rarely been for the best candidate, it's been for the lesser of the two evils. That's no choice at all.

Bush has not earned my vote again. He has trampled on my rights under CFR and will negate my rights of citizenship by giving it away to illegals. What's the difference between him or Dean? Both have 4 letters in their names, they just don't use the same 4 letters. Dean is more strident and, like his Democrat colleagues, he is an idiot with lots of idealism and promises that people want to hear. Long ago, politicians learned that it didn't matter WHAT they said, anything that got them elected was fair game. IMO, that's what Bush has done. He told us what we wanted to hear and he wasn't either Al Gore or BJC.

I have seen some of my colleagues on this board being accused of being "one-issue-voters" over the CFR issue. If you want to re-elect Bush solely because of his stance on the war, wouldn't that make you the same thing?

We all pick our battles. I have chosen this one because a man who has been presented as principled and ethical has betrayed the trust that we placed in him.

[Mo1]

Nice post John

[John Robertson]

This may surprise you, but, in spite of what I said, I agree with you on this issue. If he legalizes the illegals, he loses me. I won't vote third-party, I just won't vote.

Live in Florida? Well, if you help put a Dem in, they just might go one better that W on immigration...not only will they legalize them, they'll make them live with you. In your house, I mean.

[John Robertson]

Thanks, Happy New Year.

[John Robertson]

B U T: We should do all we can to let him know our disappointment, and the potential political fallout, if he pushes this through.

[Landru]

There's always been a *key* hot button word the Liberal-Socialist brainiacs have focus grouped to be drummed over & over.
Like "gravitas," "draconian" et al and so it'll be once again.

This go around obviously it's, "divider."
Be watching for it often & a lot.

...ad nauseum.

[KC_Conspirator]

There has rarely been a president more willing to accomodate the opposition than Bush yet this is STILL not good enough for the lamestream press who label him as "divisive" while the nutty AND divisive Dean is labeled a "uniter."

Exactly. Bush is not divisive at all. In fact, no one in 3 years can cite a public attack or negative statement against his political enemies. However, Dean is the king of hate and his angry, vicious attacks are daily.

[PJ-Comix]

I have chosen this one because a man who has been presented as principled and ethical has betrayed the trust that we placed in him.

Please let us know the hour and minute of your Heavenly Accension.

[GmbyMan]

Dusty:

Just to be clear, you do realize that there are really only two choices in a Presidential election, right? As to CFR, I agree that Bush should have vetoed it and I wish he would have but I think he made a conscious decision not to "die on that hill". Instead, he has chosen the hills of the war in Iraq (and the greater war on terror) and the taxcuts to put the majority of his political capital. From my perspective, his gamble that the Supreme Court would strike down the poor provisions in the law was a bad one but consider the possibilities if he had vetoed the legislation.

Other than just the Iraq war, the Dems would have had another campaign issue. They could have painted him as a tool of the big money corporations (they will try to anyway but it would have seemed more accurate to the lay voter). If the Iraq war goes bad, that coupled with the "fact" that he is nothing but a shill for the corporations (in the eyes of many on the left) would have doomed us to four years of President Dean. On the other hand, ask yourself where we would be if Dean took over in these particular issues and where the President stands:



He's cut taxes twice and seems to be moving toward scrapping the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax!

He is in favor of drilling in Anwar and increasing the number of power generators (including nuclear plants)
He is the first President in over 80 years to re-affirm the second amendment to the constitution as a personal, rather than a group right!

He favors sensible clearing of forests by logging interests rather than the burned down houses favored by environmental wackos.

He unsigned the irrelevant ABM treaty that prohibited the United States from building a missle defense system.
He favors moving towards the partial privatization of Social Security.

He favors faith based initiatives to deal with the poverty problem.

His Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has been relentless in hunting down terrorists in this nation.

He favors the outsourcing of government jobs to private contractor organizations.

He has taken the tactic of hunting down terrorists and killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than trying to understand the terrorists.

He has also kept us out of both the ICC and the Kyoto Treaty.

On almost all of these issues above, he has been Reagan-esque to no small degree. You have some points of disagreement with him but ask yourself, would the alternative (Howard Dean) necessarily have done things differently than George W. Bush on these issues or not? Would Dean have vetoed CFR? Not in a million years and having Dean ensures that we will have more judges on the Supreme Court that will make laws like CFR more palapable. Not voting for Bush is the eqivalent of voting AGAINST yourself and is akin to shooting yourself in the foot because it doesn't smell right.

[GmbyMan]

I'm not sure how old either of you are but did you feel the same way when Reagan made all of the illegals legal also? Did that mean he wasn't a "real conservative" and that we needed a taste of what Walter Mondale would bring our nation? If that were the case, we would still having the Soviet Union aiming nuclear bombs at our shores.

People say that Bush is "no Reagan" but in many ways, he's EXACTLY like Reagan. I expect Bush to put into place some kind of a guest worker program in which the people presently working in this country right now get to continue to work here but with standing. I expect that after some time and the payment of a fine, they will have the oppurtunity to become legal citizens of our country or they will have the oppurtunity to return to their nation in exchange for someone else coming in their place.

Reagan gave blanket amnesty to the illegals! Was he "not conservative enough"? Did he invalidate your citizenship also?

[gaspar]

George Will likes things just the way they are. A Sunday gig with a bunch of dummies, a column now and then, a book every once in a while. The best-kept secret about Will is that he is incredibly lazy. As a student of Russian literature might put it, he makes even Oblomov look industrious.

[John Robertson]

Many good points. Whatever the deal on the illegals is...it depends on what the deal on the illegals IS. And we don't know that yet.