RAINING ON THE PARADE

Now that George Bush has been re-elected, John Kerry has capitulated, and Rush Limbaugh has been gloating over the astounding electoral victory, I'm going to rain on the parade a bit.

Yes, the 59 million votes cast for President Bush are the largest number of votes ever cast for a president, and yes, he is the first to win a majority of the popular vote since his father did so in 1988, and yes he did get 4 million more votes than John Kerry did.

But - but - this election was decided by about 68,000 people. Not many, out of the 114 million who voted. That's merely 0.0059% of the popular vote.

Because of the idiosyncracies of the Electoral College system (a sword that can cut either way), it came down to Ohio. Whoever got Ohio won. And Bush got Ohio with a margin of about 135,000 votes, as reported on November 3 when Kerry threw in the towel. Half of 135,000 is just less than 68,000, so if only 68,000 people had voted the other way, John Kerry would be naming his cabinet next week.

While Bush had a popular margin of some 4 million votes, or about 3.5% of the popular vote, his victory in the Electoral College was eked out by the decisions of only one person in 1,676 - concentrated in Ohio. One in 1,676. Not much. If the population of one mid-size town on Ohio had voted differently, John Kerry would have won in the Electoral College even though Bush would still have had a popular majority of 3 or 4 million.

Yes, it was a victory for Bush, and it added a dozen or more Republican seats to Congress, but, in my book, it was much too close for comfort.

On Sunday, 10 October 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle published an excellent article in its Insight section, written by Mark Hertsgaard and entitled: "Left in the Wings: The looming fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."

"Fights over a political party's future are common after the party loses a big election. But John Kerry figures to face a fight over control of the party from fellow Democrats even if he beats George Bush on November 2.

"Influential figures on the party's left wing are planning a long-term campaign to move the Democrats to the left, just as right-wring activists took over the Republican Party and moved it to the right over the past 30 years.

"If the left's campaign is successful, it could transform the political landscape of the United States, changing the terms of the debate and bringing dramatically different policies on local, national, and international issues"

"The left is uniting behind Kerry out of a widely shared conviction that a second Bush term would be an unmitigated, perhaps irreversible, disaster. 'Four more years of George Bush would destroy the country,' Dean said in announcing last summer that he would campaign hard for Kerry."

"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, because we have serious disagreements about what the party should stand for and where this country needs to go,' said one activist at the 'What We Stand For' conference, Bertha Lewis, co-chair of the Working Families Party in New York State and a leader in the grass-roots anti-poverty group, ACORN."

" . . . 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."

" . . . none of this new activism on the left would have happened if Bush had not pursued such an extreme course as president.

"Thus the threat of four more years of Bush may end up calling forth a genuine American left for the first time in a generation - an ironic accomplishment for the most right-wing of presidents."

That's about 10% of the article. I recommend you go to the source and read it all. But it's enough to make the point - John Kerry is far too conservative to please the American left, and four years from now they hope to elect somebody they really like!

So brace yourselves, folks. You thought the Kerry campaign got nasty? It may have been nothing more than batting practice for the next one.

And that means that those of us who think that steering America well away from the thinly veiled neo-Marxism of the American Left is critically important, for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren, cannot afford to let our guard down or sleep on watch anytime soon, or anytime in the foreseeable future. We won this battle, but the next one already looms.

Fortunately, the Left's expectation of a Kerry victory did not come true, but that only means that they will not have to wrestle with a President Kerry over control of the party, and they will be even more energized, sensing victory at the tips of their fingers. They may not have to change many minds or many votes to put someone in the White House "who we really like" just four years from now. Hillary comes to mind.

One morning in the summer of 1992 during the first Clinton campaign against President George H. W. Bush I was having breakfast with a friend who had served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican during the Reagan administration, when Bill began grumbling again about the liberal bias of the Los Angeles Times.

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"

"Yes," I replied, "but the WSJ reaches a pretty narrow demographic of business people and investors who are already fairly conservative, most of them. Most people never see it, and a lot of people probably don't even know it exists. We need something with broader distribution, that gives a conservative perspective on the news that the L.A. Times doesn't."

But that brief and casual conversation has bothered me for fourteen years. Many Republicans seem to think that the truth and merit of their ideas are so self-evident that no rational person can disagree, and little needs to be done to disseminate and explain them. I sensed this attitude in George Bush during the debates, especially the first one.

Establishing a new, major, national newspaper with a consistently conservative editorial policy would be expensive, yes, but compared to what?

Compared to the $300,000,000 the Republicans just spent to squeak President Bush back into office? Compared to the billions or trillions of dollars that might go into the great black hole if someone, encouraged by the real or perceived "soft on terrorism" stance of the guy who almost got elected, managed to stage a truly devasting attack on one or more of America's cities?

It is always important to compare the cost of doing something with the cost of not doing it; and the cost of losing America to a presidency and a party in the thrall of the anti-war, anti-defense, anti-capitalist Left, especially at a time when America faces an unprecedented kind of threat from an anti-Western ideology that is, or may soon be, armed with chemical, biological, radiological, or even nuclear weapons, and is not deterred by the risk of death, could be catastrophic.

The rhetoric of the Left is seductive, yes, even now echoing the prescience of Rudyard Kipling's lines from 1919:

" . . . In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, by robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul . . ."

- a sentiment echoed, precisely, by John Kerry's campaign promises to end poverty and pay for universal health care and miraculous stem cell cures before Christmas by raising taxes on The Rich.

It too easily persuades too many of those who have been under-educated in public schools largely dominated by Liberal ideologues, who teach, and probably know, much too little of history, economics, and logic.

Conservative America faces a critical mission if it hopes to keep America Conservative - and that is to educate as many as possible of the 55,000,000 voters who almost elected John Kerry this year, and who may well elect Hillary Clinton in 2008, about the realities and values of conservative ideas (the ones the Big Media won't tell them about), and the deficiencies of the Liberal faith in the neo-Socialist solutions the Liberals want to impose on America, even as they have failed disgracefully in Europe and Asia.

The "internet press" and conservative talk radio saved our bacon this time - without Rush, and Sean, and Savage, and Drudge, and without NewsMax and World Net Daily and ChronWatch and Front Page Magazine and hundreds of other websites and blogs and talk show hosts, and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and other veteran activists, and Fox News and the National Rifle Association, this election would have much gone differently.

But while these sources of "alternative" news and opinion do an excellent job of preaching to the choir, none are nearly as effective as we need them to be in "reaching out" to the unconverted but potentially convertable among the Independents and Democrats and other Liberals, many of whom I suspect really know little or nothing of conservative ideas except what they have picked up from the rants and diatribes and disengeniousness of the Big Media and the DNC and the Kerrys and Deans and Clintons and Kennedys.

Unlike Fox and USA Today, which try to be more or less "fair and balanced," I would propose that, just as most of the Big Media is a tireless advocate for modern liberalism, "The American Times," or something like it, must be an unapologetic advocate for what President Bush calls "compassionate conservatism," a news source that relentlessly counters the left-wing spin from New York and Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, with "the rest of the story," consistently and insistently.

Maybe there are other good ways to reach out to the misguided masses on the left, as well, ones that I haven't thought of, ones that others will. It's a long-term project for everyone who doesn't want to see America go where the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party wants to take it.

American Conservatives and Republicans have, in my view, done a fairly poor job of explaining our ideas and reasons and the foundational logic that underlies them to the folk on the Left and in the Center. We spend too much time and effort talking to ourselves. Hey, it's fun, and we all like those who agree with us.

But if we want to create a durable legacy of modern Conservatism, which is actually what used to be called Classical Liberalism, the Liberalism of Edmund Burke and Abraham Lincoln, we have to figure out how to change that.

About the Writer: Raymond Kraft is a lawyer and writer living and working in Northern California. Raymond receives e-mail at rskraft@vfr.net.

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.

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

" . . . 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.

"...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.

"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?

Forget that. We have FR.

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

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.

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

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?

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!

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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.