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

Skip to comments.

Media Stars Refuse to Concede Election; Denigrate Evangelicals; Deny Bush a “Mandate”
Intellectual Conservative ^ | 4 November 2004 | Nicholas Stix

Posted on 11/04/2004 9:16:19 AM PST by mrustow

White, Christian Evangelicals are the Rodney Dangerfield of American politics: They don't get no respect.

After being responsible for spearheading the re-election of their candidate, instead of receiving congratulations, Christian Evangelicals got to hear NBC stars denigrate their intelligence, turn their support for President Bush into a negative, and even seek to nullify President Bush's electoral victory.

At noontime the day after, NBC "election anchor" and Hardball host Chris Mathews, who during the campaign had not sought to hide his hardcore Democrat partisanship, said of Evangelicals, "they're believing, not analytical," a statement that would have applied perfectly to your typical socialist mainstream media (SMSM) journalist or tenured professor.

Imagine if a network star said of blacks, "They're believing, not analytical." His producer would cut his mike, before the next sentence came out of his mouth. But at the networks, such disrespect for the intelligence of arguably the most powerful voting bloc in America is not only permitted, but encouraged. (Note that on some social issues, such as gay marriage, black Evangelicals think the same way as their white counterparts.)

In emphasizing that 97% of Republicans voted for Bush, and that Evangelicals are the GOP base, Mathews said that Evangelicals "love Bush," as if that were a negative, rather than observing the real negative of the election, John Kerry's failure to inspire Democrats to vote for him.

George W. Bush received 51.1% of the popular vote to John Kerry's 48.0%. (The ultimate size of Bush's Electoral College majority awaits news from some low-population states.) The Republicans increased their control of the Senate from 51 seats to 55, and picked up four seats in the House, raising their total to 228. No incumbent president had enjoyed such re-election success since FDR in 1936.

On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour after Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

Scorched-earth socialists like Couric will apparently never concede a presidential election to a Republican. Not even Mathews would engage in Couric-style denial, responding, "The rule is 50 percent," a rule that does not, however, apply to Democrats.

They keep moving the goalposts.

In 2000, Democrats refused to concede the election to Bush, supposedly due to his failure to beat Al Gore in the popular vote, and then held the nation hostage for five weeks. (Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 ballots.) At the time, socialists and other Democrats demanded that if Bush were to be president, he was obliged to run a bipartisan, caretaker government. In other words, he could be president in name only.

In this election, not only did Bush win the electoral vote and beat Kerry by 3.5 million votes in the popular vote, but with 51.1%, he was the first candidate to get a majority of all votes cast since his father in 1988. And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!

Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote. He received only 42.9% in 1992, winning due to the inroads Reform party candidate Ross Perot (18.9) made in the support of incumbent President George H.W. Bush (37.1%), and received 49.2% in 1996 (with Republican Bob Dole getting 40.7% and Perot getting 8.4%). And yet, there is no record of Katie Couric ever denying Bill Clinton a mandate to govern.

During election night, CBS anchor Dan Rather was just as much a Democrat dead-ender as Katie Couric would prove to be. Shortly after midnight, it became clear that Bush would carry Ohio, and thus the election. As Brit Hume & Co. pointed out on Fox News, Bush only needed 269 electoral votes in order to win, since a tie would throw the election into the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Admittedly playing things close to the vest, to avoid mistakenly calling a state wrong, as Fox did with Florida in 2000, Hume waited until "12:41 and 20 seconds," to call Ohio for Bush. That gave the President 269 electoral votes.

CBS' stars, however, lived in an alternate universe. Rather's heir-apparent, John Roberts, claimed that Bush required 270 electoral votes, in order to win. A CBS analyst insisted that a tie would "cause a Constitutional crisis." Since the Founding Fathers had in the Constitution foreseen just such a situation, a Constitutional crisis could only have been provoked by Democrats, led by the media, had they refused to abide by the Constitution's electoral provisions.

Dan Rather refused to concede Ohio to Bush. Period. As the minutes and hours passed, Rather kept the electoral vote count stuck on 242. Occasionally, he would say, "For those of you who may have been watching somewhere with not as good information as we have," with a chuckle, that CBS was not yet giving Ohio to Bush.

These guys are starting to imitate federal judges who think that if they personally dislike a legally enacted statute, they can simply toss it.

In his folksy persona -- as opposed to his high-strung, hard-charging one -- Rather mixed in some humorous, homespun sayings: The election was "hot enough to make paint peel," and "This situation could give an aspirin a headache."

Rather understood the significance of Ohio. Throughout the night, he would say, "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio."

At 2:06 a.m., CBS' Jim Axelrod reported from Kerry headquarters with a straight face, that Kerry's people were saying, "We are winning Ohio."

At 2:53 a.m., Rather said, "If George Bush carries Ohio, that's it."

After 3 a.m., Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) appeared on CBS, to provide Democrat talking points: "It is not a mandate ... I hope he will govern from the center. He only won through tearing down his opponent. And that is not a mandate. It's simply a return to office.

"Well, there's no mandate to privatize social security. There's no mandate ..." to this, no mandate to that.

In other words, you may think you've won, but we're still in charge. Another version of Dem-logic is trotted out periodically by the New York Times, whose editorial page lectures Republican elected leaders that the only truly conservative position involves "conserving" all Democrat programs, laws, and executive orders.

Speaking of the Devil, at 3:21 a.m., the Times, which had colluded with CBS' 60 Minutes on the phony Al Qaqaa "missing weapons" story, ran the following headlines on its Web front page: "BUSH HOLDS LEAD; Kerry Refuses to Concede Tight Race; GOP Keeps Grip on Senate House."

At about 3:33 a.m., Rather's lefty colleague, Ed Bradley, tried to explain to him that Bush had taken Ohio. Bradley showed that Bush's expanding lead in Ohio, at that point 170,000 votes, was such that even if every provisional vote went for Kerry, Bush would still win. "If you believe these numbers, we estimate that Bush rather solidly has won Ohio."

Rather reproved Bradley, "Now, Ed Bradley, who does not have a degree in math ..."

Bradley: "But I used to teach math years ago."

Rather: "Well, if all that holds, Bush will win .... There's some ifs, ands, and buts there.

"While it appears that the advantage is George Bush's, the appearances may not be so...."

"Until it's official, it isn't official. That's it. Period."

At 3:42 a.m., Rather said, "Playing it cautious and conservative, as we have all night."

So, Rather will play fast and loose with forged documents, but cautious and conservative with election results? Something doesn't smell right here.

At 3:50 a.m., Rather did violence to Bradley's words, saying, "Ed Bradley has done some figuring, and concluded it's shaded for Bush."

At 3:52 a.m., Rather repeated the misleading notion, that even if Bush got 269 electoral votes, "He would still need one more vote."
 
If Dan Rather were serious, and the networks could not call a race before the total was "official," then there would be no function for them on election night. The people would merely need to wait until the next day to hear the official election results. But of course, Rather didn't mean that.

Was Dan Rather counting on some last-minute Democrat electoral black magic?

At 4 a.m., Rather went off the air without ever giving Ohio to George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, socialists and communists at the Web site democraticunderground.com were claiming that Republicans were stealing the election. They claimed variously that electronic touch screen voting machines in Florida were displaying Bush's name, when Democrats sought to vote for Kerry, and also insisted that because early exit polls were heavily pro-Kerry, it proved that the Republicans were guilty of election fraud in Ohio and Florida. It would never occur to the good folks at DU to consider that the early exit polls might have been fraudulent, due to pollsters seeking to help Kerry win, by causing a bandwagon effect that would encourage Democrat voters to go to the polls, and discourage Republican voters from going to the polls. (On Wednesday, Carl Cameron of Fox News would point out that the exit polls were skewed. For one thing, pollsters interviewed disproportionate numbers of female voters. But there's no excuse for that. A skewed exit poll is a fraudulent exit poll.)

The New York Times refused to concede that Bush had won the election until after John Kerry did. ("BUSH WINS 2ND TERM; Kerry Concedes, but 'Our Fight Goes On [sic]'") Does that mean that any candidate, no matter how soundly thrashed, can hold an election hostage, by simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious? According to the SMSM, if he's a Democrat, it does.

As Clay Waters of Times Watch (of the Republican Media Research Center) reported, on November 3, some Times reporters wrote as if John Kerry, not George Bush, had won the election. As Waters noted, the Times' Todd Purdum claimed that President Bush "has made himself not only the most polarizing president since Richard M. Nixon," and approvingly quoted socialist historian Robert Dallek's casuistry to argue that Iraq is Vietnam all over again, even if it isn't. "It's not Vietnam, but it stands in the shadow of Vietnam, and as a consequence, people see this as similar." "People" meant folks like Robert Dallek and Todd Purdum. (Purdum is the husband of Dee Dee Myers, who served as President Clinton's press secretary.)

Let's see. Jimmy Carter managed to lose re-election to Ronald Reagan, which would suggest that he was more polarizing (aka "divisive") than George W. Bush. And Bill Clinton got himself impeached, which suggests to me that he was pretty darned polarizing. Nixon, after all, won re-election in one of the great landslides of American electoral history. A "polarizing" landslide victory? Aren't they all? The only possible meaning I can determine for "polarizing," as used by Purdum would be, "is hated by the SMSM and other members of the Democrat base."

Paralleling the SMSM's refusal to concede, vice-presidential candidate, Senator John Edwards, reportedly (I can't remember where) wanted Senator John Kerry to dead-end it, and refuse to concede.

Network people and other Democrat politicians have been saying that Bush must seek to heal the rift in the country -- by moving to the left, er, "center." Again, when Bill Clinton won his victories without getting 50% of the popular vote, the media never called on Clinton to move to the right, in order to heal the country.

Carl Cameron of Fox News offered the most honest appraisal of the election: A president hadn't won re-election and expanded his control of Congress, "Since the earth cooled [1936]. Not a bad day, and a tough one for Democrats to swallow."

Blogger Ed Driscoll has come up with the most thought-provoking explanation for Memogate/Rathergate: That Dan Rather wasn't merely inflicting his own bias on the public, but serving his viewers' bias, as well. Driscoll noted that with the greater diversity the new media have given us, moderates and conservatives have deserted the ranks of CBS News viewers for outlets like Fox News, leaving behind a hard, leftwing core. Thus, do Rather and his CBS colleagues feel constrained to play to their base. The same explanation may shed some light on Rather's refusal to grant that the President had won Ohio, and thus re-election.

The challenger and the champ were gracious in defeat and victory, respectively; each called for national unity. Were the leaders of the SMSM and their base listening?

New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix has written for Toogood Reports, Middle American News, the New York Post, Daily News, American Enterprise, Insight, Chronicles, Newsday and many other publications. His recent work is collected at The Critical Critic.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bushvictory; casaloma; chrismathews; danrather; evangelicals; exitpolls; katiecouric; mediabias; mediawingofthednc; msm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2004 9:16:20 AM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Hollywood take heart!

You still have Martin Sheen!


Bwaaahaaaa!


2 posted on 11/04/2004 9:19:13 AM PST by old3030 (Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped -- Elbert Hubbard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Good reason for the Christians to come out even harder for the next election. Their belief in God is being refereed to as irrelevant.
3 posted on 11/04/2004 9:20:24 AM PST by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow


4 posted on 11/04/2004 9:21:02 AM PST by Diogenesis (Cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

That 5 week hostage crisis the Dem's held upon America in 2000 will be forever "THE MARK OF CAIN" on the SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY. I pray a Zell Miller type democrat party will erase that mark.


5 posted on 11/04/2004 9:21:57 AM PST by Uncle George
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Great as always.


6 posted on 11/04/2004 9:23:08 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

The resounding NO that this gaggle of sillys is hearing is not religion-based values per se, although there is a great part of the electorate who are religious.

The NO is a resounding denunciation of Socialism.

Socialism is inimical to not only those of faith, but also to those who believe in this Constitution, free enterprise and personal responsibility.

If I wanted limitations on my ability to succeed and pursue goals, I would move to France.


7 posted on 11/04/2004 9:23:34 AM PST by OpusatFR (Let me repeat this: the web means never having to swill leftist garbage again. Got it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow; All

There are some "believing" AND "analytical" Christians I know, who after finishing with Chrissy, Ms. Matthews would be too ashamed to say his own name...if he remembered it...


8 posted on 11/04/2004 9:27:05 AM PST by Christian4Bush (President George W. Bush. Misunderestimate him at your own peril!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Rather reproved Bradley, "Now, Ed Bradley, who does not have a degree in math ..."

Bradley: "But I used to teach math years ago."

And where did you get your math degree, Dan? Clearly there wasn't a math requirement for that journalism degree from Sam Houston State College. Ed taught math, Dan.

What a putz. A fourth-grader could solve this kind of story problem:

If Candidate A is ahead of Candidate B by 170,000 votes and there are 169,000 votes remaining to be counted, which Candidate will win the election?" *sheesh*

9 posted on 11/04/2004 9:27:22 AM PST by macbee ("Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
At 4 a.m., Rather went off the air without ever giving Ohio to George W. Bush.

I kept going over to SeeBS becuase I was getting a huge kick out of their bias. Watching Blather was like watching the tape of something that happened three hours ago. It was hilarious. I hope somebody does a documentary about the MSM's behavior on this election night.

10 posted on 11/04/2004 9:27:33 AM PST by capydick ("History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." --President Dwight Eisenho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
At about 3:33 a.m., Rather's lefty colleague, Ed Bradley, tried to explain to him that Bush had taken Ohio. Bradley showed that Bush's expanding lead in Ohio, at that point 170,000 votes, was such that even if every provisional vote went for Kerry, Bush would still win. "If you believe these numbers, we estimate that Bush rather solidly has won Ohio."

Rather reproved Bradley, "Now, Ed Bradley, who does not have a degree in math ..."

Bradley: "But I used to teach math years ago."

11 posted on 11/04/2004 9:27:55 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Yesterday Michael Medved played part of a conversation between Katie Couric and Chris Matthews...unbelievable what all Matthews said! Things like "they're a lot of just 'simple' people", "...actually BELIEVE that God created everything in 7 days", etc. Again, UNBELIEVABLE!! Then Medved played the theme from "deliverance"...the banjo playing idiot thing. LOL!!

If Katie or Chris just happens to be reading this...there are actually quite a few of us out here in the red states who have indoor plumbing and we do not handle snakes in our church services.


12 posted on 11/04/2004 9:28:40 AM PST by Maria S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Go to billoreilly.com and vote against the msm.


13 posted on 11/04/2004 9:29:23 AM PST by Woogit (IN GOD I TRUST...NO MATTER WHAT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

If you are self-annointed, you are no star. But you might be a stooge.


14 posted on 11/04/2004 9:30:31 AM PST by auboy (Bye bye Daschle, bye bye Kerry, you can go now, please don't tarry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
These clods have drawn the battle lines. It's them versus America.

We'll see who wins.

15 posted on 11/04/2004 9:32:09 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Boy, the Grass-roots Demos are really crabby today, aren't they?


16 posted on 11/04/2004 9:35:54 AM PST by Old Professer (About the hearty and haughty the humble harbor a horrid hatred that hobbles the heavy heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

I was just rushing through this thread and about to close it when I saw the cartoons you posted.

The middle one literally had me Laughing Out Loud!

Thanks...


17 posted on 11/04/2004 9:36:04 AM PST by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

It has always been this way.


18 posted on 11/04/2004 9:36:49 AM PST by JRPerry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maria S

Even in our own country, one founded by God-fearing people, they attempt to persecute us socially and verbally. If they held the majority, they would not only succeed, but the sin in them would take that persecution to the next level and they would call it ... justice. Those who hate God must never be allowed the majority in this, our country, founded to protect us and to free us from persecution.


19 posted on 11/04/2004 9:37:16 AM PST by so_real (It's all about sharing the Weather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maria S

At one point Chrissy Mathews asked plaintively if there were some "pockets of dem votes" out there somewhere. LOL


20 posted on 11/04/2004 9:38:27 AM PST by Carolinamom (I'm standing by President Bush per his request.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

What's a "mandate", anyway, and does a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote, a 5% margin in the Senate, and about a 4% margin in the House qualify as one?


21 posted on 11/04/2004 9:40:42 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

>


Democrat dead-enders?

The Dems are starting to remind me of the
Baathist party in Iraq


22 posted on 11/04/2004 9:41:20 AM PST by oldbrowser (the people have spoken............loud and clear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maria S

Chrissy also asked someone last night, 'how do you get someone to vote against their best interests?'


23 posted on 11/04/2004 9:42:23 AM PST by rudypoot (Kerry sold out the US for political gain before now and he is doing it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

It's like Christmas :-)


24 posted on 11/04/2004 9:42:54 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Media Stars Refuse to Concede Election; Denigrate Evangelicals; Deny Bush a “Mandate”

...and continue to amaze observers by making themselves even more irrelevant.

25 posted on 11/04/2004 9:45:10 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour after Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!

Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.

I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.

Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

26 posted on 11/04/2004 9:47:16 AM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

LIBERAL DEFINITION OF POLARIZATION - Republicans (MAJORITY PARTY) who DO not Support Democrap (MINORITY PARTY) agenda are POLARIZING

If the situation is reversed as it was for 40 years, its called DEMOCRACY.


27 posted on 11/04/2004 9:48:40 AM PST by The_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From now on, any mention of GWB must be followed by ,the most popular president in American history

Let's try one:
OLD WAY: I agree with George W. Bush on tax cuts.
NEW WAY: I agree with George W. Bush, the most popular president in American history, on tax cuts.

OLD WAY: I agree with George W. Bush on winning the War On Terror.
NEW WAY: I agree with George W. Bush, the most popular president in American history, on winning the War On Terror.

59.1 Million people can't be wrong.

No American President, with the exception of our beloved George W. Bush, has achieved that level of popularity at the ballot box.

28 posted on 11/04/2004 9:53:49 AM PST by ChadGore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
I remember back in '84 when Reagan was hitting 60% of the PV and 98% of the EV and the 'Rats were still claiming that "he has no mandate", or that "it's a personal victory". It's clear that for 'Rats, only when their candidate wins, no matter by how narrow a margin, is there ever a "mandate".

Well, to hell with this "mandate" crap. George Bush won the election, clearly and decisively. Republicans have significant majorities in both the House and Senate. They have a job to do. It is clear that the majority of voters in the country want them to get on with it. The 'Rats can either get on board and help in a constructive way, move off to the side and sulk, or stand in the road and to be run over and left as a grease spot. It's their choice.

29 posted on 11/04/2004 9:54:43 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow; Grampa Dave; MeekOneGOP

BTTT


30 posted on 11/04/2004 9:58:26 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capydick
I kept going over to SeeBS becuase I was getting a huge kick out of their bias.

It probably has been 5 years since I watched ABC, NBC or CBS, but, like you, I was interested to see how they were handling this ass-kicking.

The thing that astounded me was how, though the same faces were there (Brokaw, Rather, Jennings), they all looked and sounded like dodering old dinosaurs.

I was astounded with how ancient and feeble they all looked and sounded.

31 posted on 11/04/2004 9:58:52 AM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RonF
What's a "mandate", anyway,

A mandate is a command. Comes from some latin word that I forget now.

If I say, "I want to do such and such," and you say, "OK, here's the authority, go do it," that's a mandate.

So if GWB says, "I want to hunt down and kill terrorists, reform social security, and cut taxes," then says, "You all know where I stand and how I'll do things," and then we say, "OK, here is the authority, go do it," that is a mandate.

In the sense used in politics, a mandate occurs if the candidate wins AND has won on the basis that he told the voters he wants to office in order to do something.

The size of the victory is irrelevant.

32 posted on 11/04/2004 10:05:50 AM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: old3030
I heard Tony Snow really nail Juan Williams when he insinuated that the election was won, because of bigots and homophobes.

Tony told him, "You know better than that you are a man of faith with children, you know that is not so."

33 posted on 11/04/2004 10:06:21 AM PST by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Last night on Hardball, Matthews and Gregory were acting as if Bush's victory was a loss since he failed to unite the nation. Instead of any introspection on how the Democrats failed so miserably, even with their huge get-out-the vote drives, they attacked Bush for not taking New York and California, as FDR and Reagan did.

The media, just like the Democrats, are in complete denial about why they continue to lose power. And while it may give them comfort to mischaracterize the tightness of this presidential election, they continue to ignore just how much power and influence the Democrat Party has lost over the last decade, plus. This is a party that still controlled much of the South through the 1980s...yet has since been reduced to what can truly be described as only token representation in a few states.

The fact that the Democrat Party can't see this trend that has now been occuring for over a couple decades is an indication that they are incapable of governing themselves...let alone this country. As long as they continue to blame others for their failures, they will remain a minority party lost in the wilderness.


34 posted on 11/04/2004 10:15:29 AM PST by cwb (Defeat after defeat, Democrats are still living in denial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maria S

Katie, Chris Matthews, Susan Estrich, Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd, and Don Rather and the other media leftist writers are all idiots. They are also very miserable most of the time. I always wonder what is in their "closets". An abortion here or there? broken marriages? They probably got the s**t kicked out of them while they were at some Catholic school someplace and have now grown up to hate God, the church, religion, --you know--typical normal people. So they do not have a clue as to what makes the average true patriot and hard working american tick. They are clueless. And they will be forever clueless because they think they are God(s). Yesterday was trully a remarkable day in America. I wished I could have been able to hang out at each of the above individuals homes and watched them skirm and cry. We won. They lost. They are lost. God, I love this country!


35 posted on 11/04/2004 10:27:14 AM PST by JKerryLIES
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
What fools in Hollyweird! bump!

36 posted on 11/04/2004 10:39:18 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: macbee
And where did you get your math degree, Dan? Clearly there wasn't a math requirement for that journalism degree from Sam Houston State College.

Sam Houston State College - SHSC?

Dan sounds like he went to Sam Houston Institute of Technology.

37 posted on 11/04/2004 10:48:59 AM PST by N. Theknow ("We will take your money and use it for the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Excellent post. Amazing, isn't it? Dan Rather still thinks Bush can't win Ohio 'til Blather announces it. This level of denial is psychotic.


38 posted on 11/04/2004 10:53:51 AM PST by talleyman (A foreign leader told me on his deathbed: "Kerry is a liar - he just makes stuff up...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6
I had the same experience. I was watching FOX all night (Britt Hume did a masterful and even entertaining job, BTW, despite some on this site who think he should have "seen through" the exit polls immediately and because he didn't he is "sold out" and is "a liberal".)

Late in the evening I clicked over to CNN. I was shocked. There was no ticker on the screen, like on FOX, so you could see results coming in no matter what the talking heads were focusing on at the moment. The studio graphics looked old and washed out and hard to understand. They had not yet called Ohio an hour after FOX had called it. The discussion moved at a snail's pace and facts I knew from earlier in the evening were not yet in the assumption base.

It was like entering a time warp to the election coverage of 1969.

Some would quickly respond that I just need flashy graphics and the like, that the difference is one of style over substance. No, on the contrary, if you would click between FOX and, say, CBS during election coverage the biggest difference is literally A COMPARATIVE DEARTH OF INFORMATION on the Old Media. The dinosaur anchors will never let go of the power of deciding what information you simple viewers can handle. Till they die or are led off on walkers.

39 posted on 11/04/2004 11:12:04 AM PST by Taliesan (The power of the State to do good is the power of the State to do evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: old3030

"Thus, do Rather and his CBS colleagues feel constrained to play to their base." Yes. They and the rest of the "SMSM" are all sounding LaRouche-Like as they continue their descent toward the cess-poll of Tabloid Journalism.


40 posted on 11/04/2004 11:13:21 AM PST by rennatdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
At noontime the day after, NBC "election anchor" and Hardball host Chris Mathews, who during the campaign had not sought to hide his hardcore Democrat partisanship, said of Evangelicals, "they're believing, not analytical," a statement that would have applied perfectly to your typical socialist mainstream media (SMSM) journalist or tenured professor.

Imagine if a network star said of blacks, "They're believing, not analytical." His producer would cut his mike, before the next sentence came out of his mouth.

Oh, but that's completely different . . . isn't it??? [/sarcasm]

41 posted on 11/04/2004 11:20:40 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Kill 'em all; let HaShem sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maria S
Yesterday Michael Medved played part of a conversation between Katie Couric and Chris Matthews...unbelievable what all Matthews said! Things like "they're a lot of just 'simple' people", "...actually BELIEVE that God created everything in 7 days", etc. Again, UNBELIEVABLE!! Then Medved played the theme from "deliverance"...the banjo playing idiot thing. LOL!!

Meanwhile, the Black Church is made up of radical intellectuals whose scripture is On the Origin of Species. [/sarcasm]

You know, this objecting to one person's religious fundamentalism while celebrating the identical fundamentalism of someone else is getting real old real quick.

If Katie or Chris just happens to be reading this...there are actually quite a few of us out here in the red states who have indoor plumbing and we do not handle snakes in our church services.

Don't knock it . . . you don't know what you're missin'!

42 posted on 11/04/2004 11:25:59 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Kill 'em all; let HaShem sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
I agree with you about Brit Hume's masterful job.

And I thought Michael Barone did a good job of explaining how the nuts and bolts of the decision desk worked.

43 posted on 11/04/2004 11:29:00 AM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
I took great pleasure in reading the letters to the editor in todays SF Chronicle. The moaning and groaning of the Democrats was quite enjoyable. A couple letters even suggested the exit polls were CORRECT and the voting machines were wrong in that they had been tampered with by the GOP so Bush would win. Unbelievable.
44 posted on 11/04/2004 11:32:37 AM PST by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

Wonderful, as always!


45 posted on 11/04/2004 11:35:06 AM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Get out your Webster's and read the facts.

Mandate "The will of the people as expressed to their chosen leader." This seems clear enough to me. President Bush is expressing the will of his followers and thus has a mandate to lead us as a nation. Get it?

46 posted on 11/04/2004 12:06:03 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
What's it gonna take for them to understand that we were serious when we pulled those levers...a 59 million man march?

They just don't get it. The electoral majority wins, guys...and in this case, the popular majority, too! The country is more UNITED behind this president than it has been behind any of the presidents in 16 years. Join the crowd or shut up and watch us lead.

47 posted on 11/04/2004 12:12:37 PM PST by Fredgoblu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Well, there's no mandate to privatize social security.

Maybe not a "mandate" to privatize...but there's sure as hell a "moral obligation" to fix it for our descendents.

If Social Security were a teacher's union pension fund, the NEA would be screaming bloody murder for it to be fixed. It's an underfunded liability to the tune of trillions of dollars. The politician that doesn't fix it should be run out of town.

48 posted on 11/04/2004 12:19:54 PM PST by Fredgoblu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

not bad.


49 posted on 11/04/2004 1:11:59 PM PST by King Prout ("We've found more WMDs in Iraq than we've found disenfranchised blacks in Florida." - Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old3030

bttt


50 posted on 11/04/2004 1:13:33 PM PST by ConservativeMan55 (http://www.osurepublicans.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-153 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