Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Howard Dean's hostile takeover (MSM leading Dems over cliff)
TownHall ^ | February 9, 2005 | Bozell

Posted on 02/09/2005 5:41:11 AM PST by Uncledave

Howard Dean's hostile takeover Brent Bozell

February 9, 2005

It's not surprising that the biggest names in network news don't spend too much time on the nuts-and-bolts selection of national party chairmen. Usually, new party leaders are well respected by their field workers in the states but barely register on the interest meter. On that rare occasion when an ideological firebrand is elected -- say, Lee Atwater in 1989 -- they pounced on the "controversial" (Willie Horton-exploiting) choice. So where are they now as the Democrats are set to name wild-eyed ultraliberal Howard Dean as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee?

Consider this: If, on the cusp of the first President Bush losing the 1992 election, the Republican National Committee had united around the idea of having his conservative base-rousing primary challenger Pat Buchanan be the next party chairman, how would the media cover the story? You can bet the farm they'd have shouted from the rooftops that the GOP had a death wish, that the lemmings were pouring over the cliff, that the Republican parties were forsaking every American voter in the middle for the foam-flecked extremists.

In fact, that is how they covered his presidential bid. Liberal reporters boiled over with nasty, personal invective against Buchanan in 1992 -- fringy, racist, anti-Semitic, authoritarian, Nazi, punitive and puritanical, "right up there with David Duke on the hate chart." With that bile-spewing reception, Republicans were happy to let Pat return to the studios of CNN and elect Haley Barbour to run the party.

Dean was the Democrats' peasants-with-pitchforks equivalent of Buchanan in 2004, rallying the staunchest left-wingers across the country against the staid Washington party elite. On social issues, he is the mirror image of Buchanan, fiercely favoring abortion and the gay agenda. Buchanan opposed the first war in Iraq, until the troops went in; Dean drew his backers by loudly opposing war on Iraq first, last, and always. On fiscal issues, Buchanan railed against a broken no-new-taxes pledge, while Dean railed for more government control of health care and earned a "D" from the Cato Institute in 2002, which noted: "After 12 years of Dean's so-called 'fiscal conservatism,' Vermont remains one of the highest taxing-and-spending states."

When the campaign ended in a loss in 1992, the media quickly blamed Buchanan and the religious right for their supposedly hate-filled Houston convention that soured moderates on the GOP. Twelve years later, these scribes were nowhere to be found pointing fingers at Howard Dean and the NARALs and gay lobbies for souring suburbanites on the Democrats with their zealous excesses.

One man was portrayed as the hater on the fringes. The other was regularly dressed up in a ludicrous costume of moderation. Oftentimes, it was the same reporter making those calls. For example, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter was the first to demonize Buchanan, and also the first to declare that with Dean, "the old labels are increasingly useless."

As bizarre as it might seem, liberal media bias is proving to be a boon for the GOP. In their complete Bush-era meltdown, the liberal media elite is applying absolutely no brakes to the Dean "revolution" taking over the DNC. They are moving further and further to the left, and the media are offering nothing but happy talk. The cliff is in sight, and the Pied Pipering press is set to lead the party over the edge.

Even now, as the Democrats prepare to crown Dean their leader, NPR reporter Mara Liasson persisted in the myth-making, claiming that, while Dean is "identified" with the anti-war left, "his record on issues other than foreign policy is not left of center. He is actually a staunch centrist, pragmatic, reform Democrat who is pro-gun rights, comes from a rural state, and he's a deficit hawk."

Liasson apparently forgot how Gov. Dean signed a bill in 2000 installing "civil unions" for gay men and lesbians. (Was that "centrist and pragmatic"?) And failed to remember how Dean drew raves at a NARAL dinner in 2003 for insisting that partial-birth abortion was "an issue about nothing. It's an issue about [pro-life] extremism." He proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts to fund more socialized-medicine schemes like Hillary Clinton's. And it won't help him with military families that he said about Saddam Hussein, on the April day Baghdad was liberated, "I suppose that's a good thing."

It may be a political first that the Democrats are nominating a well-known national figure with high polling negatives to lead their partisan parade. The latest CNN poll showed Dean held a 31 percent favorable view among Americans in both parties, but 38 percent held an unfavorable view. Does that sound like a good starting place for the DNC's grip on the political pulse? It's at moments like these where you can see the point where so-called "mainstream" media cluelessness might backfire and ultimately cement an era of Republican domination.

Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
I've believed for a while now that the MSM has been a big help with our rise to electoral gains. Having worked under their biased scrutiny for decades, the pubs have had to fly straighter, develop better arguments and learn to communicate better than the rats. Pubbies had better keep pushing and teaching and not get lazy.
1 posted on 02/09/2005 5:41:11 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
We also have to work hard at showing the nation how big a kook Dean and his brethren are.
2 posted on 02/09/2005 5:45:48 AM PST by satchmodog9 (Murder and weather are our only news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Having worked under their biased scrutiny for decades, the pubs have had to fly straighter, develop better arguments and learn to communicate better than the rats. Pubbies had better keep pushing and teaching and not get lazy.

Political Darwinism's Law of the Jungle.........

3 posted on 02/09/2005 5:45:53 AM PST by Red Badger (ANONYMOUS IRAQI VOTER: "I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
I have a very positive view of Dean...bring'im on.
It IS a boon for the GOP.

As for the GOP getting lax and lazy, it will happen. These things tend to cycle. It really depends on who comes up through the ranks to invigorate (or not) the parties.

Obama may do it for the Democrats one of these years. Hillary sure isn't the one, though she will run in 2008.

4 posted on 02/09/2005 5:45:56 AM PST by starfish923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starfish923

the GOP probably didn't want Dean....

this writer is loonier than Dean is...
I don't know about the Cato institute 2002 study..

but the Heritage foundation at one point had Dean rated the 4th most conservative governor.

Dean was endorsed by the NRA , and put through 5 tax cuts in a row as governor...

the corporate media painted Dean as something he wasn't and you all drank the Kool aid...

Dean is bad for the GOP he actually stands for something...

The worst thing that could have happened to the DNC would be a milk toast washington insider like Harold Ickes or martin frost..

the other benefit is Dean cannot run for pres. in 08 which would have been far worse for the dems..


5 posted on 02/09/2005 5:51:04 AM PST by ReadTheFinePrint (right is right , wrong is spin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
...and learn to communicate better than the rats.


6 posted on 02/09/2005 5:52:19 AM PST by pageonetoo (you'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Howard Dean's hostile takeover (MSM leading Dems over cliff)


7 posted on 02/09/2005 5:52:23 AM PST by pookie18 (Clinton Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
The MSM has no idea what to do or say about Dean.

Frankly, no one can quite determine the strategery behind choosing this man as their chairman.

8 posted on 02/09/2005 5:53:08 AM PST by OldFriend (America's glory is not dominion, but liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starfish923

Good points.

Of course, the ones who "come up through the ranks" are the ones we recruit and send. It's up to all of us. Your reply seemed to infer a bit, at least to me, that these people pop up spontaneously like weeds and we have to deal with what we're given.

Maybe I'm too idealistic.


9 posted on 02/09/2005 5:53:53 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"After 12 years of Dean's so-called 'fiscal conservatism,' Vermont remains one of the highest taxing-and-spending states."

So this is their definition of fiscal conservative, which Dean is always called. I did not know this, and would not have learned it from the MSM.

10 posted on 02/09/2005 5:54:04 AM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

I know, I know. Imply, not infer.


11 posted on 02/09/2005 5:54:34 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Frankly, no one can quite determine the strategery behind choosing this man as their chairman.

Is there any way Dean could become chairman if the Clintons really didn't want him there? That's the one issue I just can't overlook. How does this benefit Hillary?

12 posted on 02/09/2005 5:56:43 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ReadTheFinePrint
I do respectfully disagree.
SOME of the GOP wanted Dean, Carl Rove for one. :o)

Dean stands for something, but it is very left. Vermont is a TINY state in the northeast and it doesn't represent much more than itself. That made him a loser in a left-leaning party (especially those who vote in primaries and caucases) where he lost to a milquetoast who could NOT, if his life depended on it, make a decision.
Considering what a flat-out loser Kerry was, it tells me how off the radar a loser Dean is for the Democrats.

A loser for the Dems translates into a winnder for the GOP.

13 posted on 02/09/2005 5:57:15 AM PST by starfish923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: starfish923

"Obama may do it for the Democrats one of these years."

They'll stab him in the back too. On the Democratic Party Plantation they don't like their colored members to get too high.


14 posted on 02/09/2005 5:59:17 AM PST by jocon307 (Vote George Washington for the #1 spot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
There is only one thing to say to this author...

Shhhhh.

15 posted on 02/09/2005 5:59:28 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountaineer

"How does this benefit Hillary?"

One explanation I was given is that it takes him out of the race for President. But I'm sure you are right, he wouldn't have the job if it wasn't ok with Bill & Hill; therefore we must to continue to view him with suspiscion.


16 posted on 02/09/2005 6:01:29 AM PST by jocon307 (Vote George Washington for the #1 spot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: starfish923
Obama may do it for the Democrats one of these years.

I personally think Obama is overated. He is a good speaker and comes off very well on T.V., but the guy doesn't even have a Senate voting record.

I remember the first time I saw Clinton in an interview on McNeil Leher Report in 1991. I thought that he talked a very moderate to conservative game. I did not vote for the Clinton, but that was my first impression. We all now know history. I will not fall into that trap again.

17 posted on 02/09/2005 6:01:52 AM PST by GWB00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Dean was the Democrats' peasants-with-pitchforks equivalent of Buchanan in 2004

Pat Buckanan has to use paper and pencil to draw a crowd.

The Repubican base has never supported Pat Buchanan, and had he even run for head of the RNC no one would have voted for him.

Pat Buchanan's claim to fame is he was a secretary to Nixon in 1966, and 1967. When nixon was traveling the nation druming up support, he needed a secretary. Traveling the nation trying to build a political organization with a female secretary was not thought to be such a good idea. So Nixon hired a male secretary.. that person was Buchanan. As a reward nixon, once elected, used Pat as a speech writer. But Pat was pushed out of the administration for not being a team player.

He got a job writing for Reagan but could not hold that job either. The only important person who was ever for Pat Buchanan was TEd Turner.

It was Ted Turner who said I want an loud mouth ineffective conservative for CNN's Cross Fire. Anyone who has ever listened to Ted Turner talk knows he hates conservatives. Turner wanted an inferior conservative who could only lose to a liberal on Cross fire. It was not much of a surprise that Turner turned to Pat Buchanan.

If Pat had evern become effective as a Conservative on TV , turner would have fired him.

IT is the same sort of thing on Fox. If Combs ever becomes effective against Hannity, Combs will be fired.

18 posted on 02/09/2005 6:02:26 AM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starfish923
Obama may do it for the Democrats one of these years.

I personally think Obama is overated. He is a good speaker and comes off very well on T.V., but the guy doesn't even have a Senate voting record.

I remember the first time I saw Clinton in an interview on McNeil Leher Report in 1991. I thought that he talked a very moderate to conservative game. I did not vote for the Clinton, but that was my first impression. We all now know history. I will not fall into that trap again.

19 posted on 02/09/2005 6:02:45 AM PST by GWB00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

I have a different take. Didn't the Hellery wing of the party threaten last year to start their own committee in competition with the DNC? Dean's chairmanship would be a great way to bump off the DNC, and the Clintoon's could establish their own organization for launching Hellery's campaign for president.


20 posted on 02/09/2005 6:04:24 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson