Thanks, Tonkin!
Awesome Sunday editorial from CNS News re. our enemy press. What we're up against.
If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).
It's anger at the loss of the 2000 election, which, if the vote theft had worked, would have turned America into a one-party dictatorship. The klintons would have continued to rule through their sockpuppet Algore, but they were thwarted with victory within their grasp. They are furious that Bush will prevent them from attaining their goal of one-man-one-vote-one-time until 2004, or 2008. After that, they hope, there will only be "tame" pubbies (kept in line with FBI files and the klinton secret police), and easy vote theft.
The klintons have brought disaster to the RAT party, but in the process, they have established themselves as co-dictators of the party, which was their intent. They rule in ruin, but they are supreme. This is their vision for America, too. They know that tyrants in the third world can live as mini-gods, while their people suffer. Their goal is to turn America into a turd-world country with them at the top of the pile, and a democRAT/baathist party structure to keep them there.
The klintons (no sense talking about the "democRAT party", there is no effective party there outside of the klintons) are already dictators in their own party. All they need is a "tame" opposition party to lose in rigged elections, and dishonest judges to bless everything. They almost had it in 2000, except for those nasty First and Second Ammendments, which provided enough backbone to inspire the majority of the Supreme Court to do the right thing, and shut down the RAT vote fraud in Florida.
But the RATS (the klintons) will try again in 2004. If they think they can steal the 2004 election, it will be Hitlery/Weasely. Otherwise, it will be Weasely/Hitlery, which would give her a boost in 2008, by claiming she would have won in 2004 if she was on top of the ticket, and she is now a "credible" national candidate and seasoned politician.
I spent an hour trying to figure out how to say this anonymously . . . but I couldn't. Please believe me . . . I say this not to brag, not to elicit praise or condemnation, nor for any other nefarious reason.
I say this because talk is cheap and if you're gonna "play, you should pay what you can."
I'm not rich, not even close, and sometimes rubbing two nickels together is a mental exercise only.
We're a passionate bunch at FR . . . and that's GREAT! But the wolves are still nipping at our heels. We MUST do more. We MUST support every conservative institution or cause that we can . . . both in spirit and in greenbacks.
Jim Robinson didn't put me up to this. Neither did anyone at CNSNews or MRC (Media Research Center - which is the Godfather of CNSNews). It just hit me when I read this article . . . we have to do more.
I ask each of you to look into your hearts and see if you can do more. We need you. "We" being conservatives. We've turned the corner in our battle with liberalism but the war is far from won. Please, help where you can.
Broadcast journalism uses statistical projections to predict the outcome of the elections in the various states before the official results are available. The odds against error in a statistical prediction depend on the margin of error and the margin of victory. As data on voting accumulates and the number of unknown votes yet to be counted declines, the margin of error gradually shrinks--but goes to zero only when the official vote tally is announced. The margin of victory can be quite large or (as FL 2000 illustrates) can be quite small.Retrospect shows that the statistical reliability of the call of a state for Gore was in nearly every case much lower than that of the call of nearly every state for Bush. In the famous case of Florida, of course, broadcast journalism's first call was not merely of low statistical quality but actually erroneous. And yet, the following day journalism focused like a laser, not on that huge error but on the ultimately correct call by Fox News.
As Coulter points out, journalism's postmortem claim that the FNC call was an illegitimate attempt to affect the outcome can most sensibly be understood as an admission that their own premature 8pm call of FL for Gore (that the relatively premature call of almost every Gore state) was an illegitimate attempt to affect the outcome of the election in favor of Gore.
Journalism believes in the power of PR, and deployed that power as strongly as it dared in support of Gore. Yet Bush won. Above all the constituencies in the Democratic party, it is journalism which was most aggrieved by the rejection of its own god.
That presumes that journalism can be spoken of as an entity, that it is an Establishment. To say that is to deny that journalism is competitive. Journalism is famously competitive is certain ways--especially being the first out with a story--but in ways that matter like accuracy, journalists all "go along and get along." It is in the nature of an Establishment to deny its own existence while viciously defending its turf, and that is exactly how journalism behaves.
FNC breaks that mold, is willing to at least insinuate that the competition doesn't live up to its reputation.