Posted on 07/20/2005 5:30:30 AM PDT by OESY
What were the Democrats thinking? Didn't John Kerry have "loser" written all over him? After all, he was not only a Massachusetts Democrat but Michael Dukakis's former lieutenant governor. He was as liberal as Dukakis but lacked the inspiring immigrant background: a man who married another man's fortune, from a state where a man can marry another man. He had a haughty air, and he looked French, or so some anonymous Republicans told the New York Times in 2003. Mr. Kerry replied, "The White House has started the politics of personal destruction"--proving that he was thin-skinned as well. Yet exit polls showed that Democratic primary voters backed him because he was "electable."
Of course "electable" at that point chiefly meant "not Howard Dean," whose campaign in retrospect seems more performance art than politics. But once Mr. Kerry won the nomination, he had--or seemed to have--something else going for him: the support of the liberal media, which loathed President Bush and yearned for his defeat. "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win," Evan Thomas of Newsweek said last July. "I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards--I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox--but they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Mr. Thomas later revised his estimate downward, to five points.
...Yet there's a case to be made on the other side: that the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true....
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
It's a dumbed-down electorate we're dealing with... and a MSM that has gone from biased to covert.
The socialist/DNC 'Matrix' that permeates the media is only exposed by the Internet, talk-radio and FOXNews... if you don't follow these... you become part of the problem.
We're dealing with something more than simple bias here... something that won't go away without a fight.
I disagree with Taranto, who I think is terrific, but if the MSM had really done its job, in my opinion, it would have been a landslide. How does it help President Bush by telling the democrats what they want to hear? The MSM never touched his voting record and never asked Kerry, who reportedly served in Viet Nam, one tough question. The election was about much more than Viet Nam and the Swift Boat Vets.
Exactly...Why not beat the Dems over the head with the Al Shifa plant destruction? Bill Clinton told us it had to be destroyed due to Iraqi WMD scientists working with Al Queda to develop WMD? Don't forget DESERT FOX or Gorelick's indictment of OBL.
The Administration has allowed the DNC to compamentalize the Iraq debate from 9/11 onward. Can you say "Miserable failure"?
Kerry was an elitist nominated by an elite(Teddy Kennedy). And thankfully poorly managed by an elite(Bob Shrum). As much as I despise Clinton for his criminality, he won two terms not giving Teddy Kennedy much say, and having someone other than Bob Shrum run his campaign. Clinton won on geography, and being a governor from the south was a help. A senator from the south will not cut it, Gore could not even win his own state. If the Democrats were not beholden to foaming at the mouth savage elite based on both coasts, they might nominate a winner. As a conservative I would hate to see Evan Bayh head the Democrat ticket. On Cspan's road to the whitehouse last sunday, Bayh was featured talking to a few voters and reporters in NH. A blue haired old bag questioned him on how the Republicans stole the election in Ohio. With common sense, he politely told her there was nothing to it and the party needed to put their energy in positive programs for the future. Being your typical Dem automaton she would not let it drop. As long as the Dem nominee must first travel through NH and Tommy Harkin's Iowa, I doubt if a reasonable candidate like Bayh has much of a chance. The Dems did not want Clinton, he was unwelcome, not because of his criminality, but he did not kiss the right rings. If the elite would had its way the nominee would have been another loser named Tsongas. Its not the media helping to elect Republicans, its that elite nominating candidates that affectatiously pronounce Genghis Khan and like to get into Spandex and go blowing in the wind.
This is interesting because this article is right on. Kerry and the media failed to respond to the Swift Vets for 3 weeks because they figured they would ignore them and the issue would go away. The reason Kerry ran on his Vietnam service was so that his awful 20 year political record would not face scrutiny. That was effective to some degree.
However, then the media decided that Kerry was the "electable" candidate in Al Franken's NY apartment (This actually happened, do not have link) before the Iowa primary, they put all their chips on a northeastern liberal. This country has not elected a northeastern liberal since FDR, and that was a different era of democrat. The real electable people were candidates like Lieberman and Graham, but the left threw them away early.
Taranto does do an interesting analysis. However, I think that his conclusion is somewhat wrong. If the media had not been so biased, and had called Kerry on his fibs, the Bush win would have been an out and out landslide.
This is the most important point. The alternative media; talk radio, blogs, FOX etc. must continue working hard to counteract the 15% bias.
Creeps, crooks, shake down artists, grifters and assorted wackos will continue to gravitate to the Democratic Party because they know the MSM provides that party with cover.
They get no cover if they become Republicans. Except of course if they're RINOS.
Some years your party just has an empty stable. Take us in 1996 (please). I love Bob Dole but his campaign was uninspiring to say the least.
I don't think Reagan could do significantly better than Bush did.
Bush didn't lose many if any votes for not being conservative enough. We bitch and moan about him for not being conservative enough, but in the end we mostly vote - and volunteer, and donate - for him anyway. A more conservative candidate would make us happier, and get a few more conservative voters who would otherwise stay home in disgust - and we'd still be hopelessly outnumbered in the dozen states the Dems can't lose, and no better off in the swing areas.
Our problem isn't in the campaigning, it's in the electorate. You'd almost almost think the people failing to teach your kids history or economics and bringing in the unending flood of third world immigrants had an agenda or something!
...the liberal media actually helped President Bush, rendering the Kerry campaign ineffective by telling Democrats what they wanted to hear rather than what was true....
Heh heh... I don't think of the media as liberal. I think of them as "partisan Democrat". The media are filled with partisan shills. Even when those shills point fingers at Fox or Rush as being partisan or conservative, all they do is emphasize their own partisan nature. Used to be they could get away with making themselves look like the mainstream and the actual mainstream (and anyone else who got in the way) as being extremist and solitary. Doesn't work now.
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.