RAINING ON THE PARADE

CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | NOVEMBER 8, 2004 | RAYMOND S. KRAFT

[CHARLITE]

I'm for "The American TIMES," a national newspaper serving "We The People" from coast to coast and from north to south; a paper representing unbiased news, with generous amounts of conservative commentary. The Michael Morons and their liberal geek followers need thorough re-education in true, traditional American values.

[Graybeard58]

John Kerry is far too conservative to please the American left

This just shows how screwed up the democrat party is.

John Kerry - Too conservative.

[boris]

The man was Antonio Gramsci. He outlined a decades-long program of subversion and sedition of Western Civilization by capturing the schools and the media.

His insight was that culture was the key to bringing down the West. A giant being brought down by hordes of Liliputian midgets; "being pecked to death by ducks".

It will take an equally long and sub rosa program to reverse the continuing fall of Western Civilization to Gramscian influence--all the while fighting a war against Islamic barbarism. One newspaper won't cut it.

--Boris

[SteamShovel]

68,000

At least 68,000 is larger than his last 300 or so vote victory in Florida, 227 times that victory. I'd say that is an improvement.

[Restorer]

" . . . if we keep working and build on the lessons learned and the partnerships we're forging during this fight against Bush, we can elect somebody we really like four or eight years from now."

No, they can nominate somebody they really as the Democratic candidate.

Kerry, somewhat transparently, ran as a moderate despite his genuine tendencies (assuming has any such) to leftism. I have no problems with the Democrats nominating and running an openly leftist candidate. I've always wanted to see the GOP pull a 2:1 majority in a presidential election.

[ElectionTracker]

"...so if only 68,000 people had voted the other way, John Kerry would be naming his cabinet next week."

But then if only 8,000 people in Wisconsin had also voted the other way, Bush would still be president, etc. Even PA was closer than OH. This was NOT a very close election - there were quite a few states that Kerry won that were closer than OH. Therefore, all this speculation on Bush losing OH if a few hundred thousand votes changed hands is junk, because fewer vote changes in other states could have let Bush win without OH.

[Restorer]

Make that "really like as the Democratic candidate."

Sorry.

[prairiebreeze]

I'd buy stock in such an endeavor. And I believe sales of the paper would skyrocket.

Ping

[tjg]

"We're going to celebrate with John Kerry the night of November 2. But on the morning of November 3, we're going to start organizing to take the party away from him,..."

This may be the most revealing look at why the democrats lost the election. Kerry never had control of the party.

How can you give directions to the driver when you don't even know who she is?

[Arrowhead1952]

I said something like, "Maybe we ought to try to get together some group of conservative investors to set up a national daily newspaper to butt heads with the L.A. Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post"

Forget that. We have FR.

Thank you Algore for inventing the Internet. < /sarcasm>

[xtinct]

One can only hope that RAYMOND S. KRAFT is the guy that kicked his own bucket at the World Trade Center.

What a crock of crappy...

[freedumb2003]

This is rather specious. You can keep playing that game in other states where the win was narrow.

Wisconsin was 11,813 or apx 5500 vote difference. Same deal with Minnisota.

They just have to look at the Red/Blue County map to see that the Left is losing. Period.

[GeorgeBerryman]

John Kerry is far too conservative to please the American left.

If that's true we're going to keep winning elections for the next 40 years.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The conceit of "objective" journalism is the problem. Even Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" comes perilously close to the same trap - the trap of assuming one's own wisdom.

If you assume your own objectivity you assume your own wisdom - and if you assume your own wisdom you blind yourself to countervailing facts and logic. Therefore journalists who abide by the go along and get along premise that all journalists are objective are blatant propagandists.

It follows that "objective" journalism should be banned from the public airwaves. The Constitution was designed to work without broadcast journalism, and broadcast licensing is a form of "title of nobility" which makes "some animals more equal than others." In contrast the Internet makes it economical for all citizens (nearly all now, absolutely all within a historically insignificant time) to make their thoughts available nationwide and even worldwide. The contrast between the great addresses provided to the few by the FCC and the far less accessible addresses like FreeRepublic.com is an unconscionable violation of the First Amendment.

We don't need The American Times, we need Free Republic. Free Republic, and a level playing field of no political competition from government-licensed broadcasters like CBS.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[rjmeagle]

I like your idea for developing a national newspaper on the lines of "The American Times". An idea is a place to start, how can we make it happen? Can't we start a campaign to fund such a venture via investment solicitation from FR, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and plain folks like myself? Why can't we setup a "feasibility corporation" to give this some legs and get it running?

[rjmeagle]

Forget that. We have FR.

Yes. Which means conservatives talking to conservatives. "Preaching to the choir". The point that was made in the article was to reach the "unreachable" i.e. Independents and moderate Democrats. How do you reach them? Seems having a daily newspaper similar to USA Today with a conservative bent selling across the nation would reach a larger, more impressionable audience a.k.a voter!

[Manny Ortiz]

"We don't need The American Times, we need Free Republic. Free Republic, and a level playing field of no political competition from government-licensed broadcasters like CBS."

There is precious little actual reporting that occurs on FR or anywhere on the internet. Like it or not, the AP and NYTimes and to a lesser extent the rest of the MSM are the source for 99.9% of what is discussed here. What news that is presented here is often buried or attacked.

A national conservative paper with actual reporters (and no, the WSJ is not conservative--just it's editorials are) is a good idea. It probably won't happen, but it is a good idea.

[Bush2000]

This just shows how screwed up the democrat party is. John Kerry - Too conservative.

The big problem for the Democrats is that their primaries are so infused by the far left, that they rarely produce a candidate who has anything in common with the middle-of-the-road American voter. My prediction is that the Democrats will look South for a candidate such as Clinton who embraces most of their values but works toward more moderate policy accomodation (ie. welfare reform). Unless the Democrats win the South, they have no prayer of prevailing against the GOP in 2008. People tend to scoff at the possibility of Hillary Clinton running in 2008. But they should be careful on that point. Hillary Clinton may only appeal to liberal eastern elites -- but her husband is a draw for blue-collar Southern Democrats. Thus, people shouldn't be lulled into thinking that Southern Democrats would be chased away by Hillary in '08. The opposite could prove true. People remember the prosperity under Bill Clinton (despite the fact that he had nothing to do with creating that prosperity -- he tailcoated the GOP) -- and could be fooled into thinking that two times is the charm.

[rjmeagle]

We don't need The American Times, we need Free Republic.

I disagree. FR preaches to the choir. We need to have an "outreach program" that circumvents the MSM's stranglehold on the airwaves and print. We need to be able to reach the guy reading a newspaper on the subway, the gal reading on the bench in the park and folks reading at the breakfast table.

Why not use ALL MEANS POSSIBLE to spread conservatism?

[Lucky Dog]

Maybe there are investors out there who will see the potential of publishing the "The American Times" as a newspaper targeted to a broad audience that can be found on every news stand and in vending boxes in front of every Dennys across the the country. With more than 59 million voters voting for Bush there is obviously a market large enough to easily support a national paper to challenge the historic ideological supremacy of the Gray Lady and its kin, face to face, and it might turn quite profitable.

This guy doesn’t understand that the news business being liberal is a result of capitalism.

Capitalists invest in any business to make a profit.
Profit is made from advertising sales in the news business.
Advertising effectiveness is based upon audience size.
Audiences are drawn to news outlets by only a few things:

Actual events that happen on their own schedule and to which the news media can only respond.
Sensationalism which an unscrupulous media can manufacture.
Controversy which the media can foster by advocating shocking changes.
Scandal which the media can generate with half-truths and out-of-context information.

A conservative news source would survive in competition with a liberal one only in first audience driver. A truly conservative news media outlet could never generate unwarranted sensationalism, controversy or scandal. Hence, a liberal media outlet will always be able to generate more profits and a conservative one in competition with it would be forced to fold.