Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Four . . . More . . . Years? The Left Contemplates the Unthinkable By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 25, 2004; Page C01 The cover of the Washington Monthly asks the burning question: "WHAT IF HE WINS?" The outcome of the race remains in doubt, of course, but there are huge implications for the media -- especially its openly liberal branch -- if President Bush is reelected next week. Some are already using apocalyptic terms. The New Yorker is backing John Kerry today in the first endorsement in its 80-year history. "There will be a period of grieving," says Katrina van den Heuvel, editor of the Nation. "We will continue to fight the good fight during what we think is the dismantling of our democracy." But her liberal magazine has grown from 100,000 in circulation to 170,000 in the past four years. "Bush has been bad for the nation but good for the Nation," she admits. From the 36-day recount through the Iraq war and beyond, George W. Bush has been at the center of the political and media universe. He's had a testy relationship with the establishment press: the fewest news conferences of any president in more than four decades, an administration that thrives on secrecy and a vice president who has denounced the New York Times and barred its reporters from Air Force Two. Not to mention a special prosecutor who is threatening to put reporters in jail in the Valerie Plame case. It's no secret that many journalists feel burned by the administration's WMD claims during the run-up to war and that their coverage has gotten tougher over the past year. Will attitudes harden on both sides if they have to coexist for another four years? "I think journalists will accept the judgment of the public and read the victory as an acceptance that the rules are now changed," says Washington Monthly Editor Paul Glastris, a former Clinton administration official. "The way they've been treated, the way the administration buries information and misrepresents almost anything they want to would just be an accepted fact of life. There will be a defining down of the acceptable standards of what government can do." Note: A Clinton official criticizing a President for misrepresenting anything is some good comic irony Here are what some liberals had to say in Glastris's magazine about a second Bush term: CNN's Paul Begala: "He and his allies are likely to embark on a campaign of political retribution the likes of which we haven't seen since Richard Nixon." Columbia's Todd Gitlin: "I would not be surprised to see outbursts of political violence the likes of which we haven't seen since the Weather Underground of the 1970s." Harvard's Elaine Kamarck, a former Clinton aide: "The beginning of the end of American greatness." At least it wouldn't be the beginning of the end of hyperbole, eh? Blogger Kevin Drum: "One word: scandal." Hyperbole, perhaps, but some on the right also see profound consequences. If Bush beats John Kerry and Republicans keep control of the Hill, writes conservative activist Grover Norquist, "the modern Democratic Party cannot survive." It's hardly unusual for partisans to use tough language in a close campaign. But liberals have a way of talking about the president that fairly drips with disdain. If Bush wins, says Joe Conason, a columnist for Salon and the New York Observer, "I will be worried. I will be concerned for the world." "Oh man," the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh said recently. "If he's reelected, we're really in trouble." The New Yorker's editorial says Bush's record is "one of failure, arrogance" and "incompetence." A Nation editorial bemoans "the list of his mistakes, delusions, deceptions, follies, tragedies and crimes." A New Republic editorial accuses Bush of "ideological certainty untroubled by empirical evidence, intellectual curiosity, or open debate." This isn't patty-cake. New Yorker Editor David Remnick says that he broke with tradition because "the magazine's not a museum; it's a living thing that evolves" and that he and his editors reached a consensus without consulting the owner. "I have no idea who Si Newhouse is voting for," Remnick says. Part of the White House/Fourth Estate divide may be cultural. Although Bush bestowed nicknames on reporters during the 2000 campaign, he's made clear while in office that he doesn't need them. He's given few interviews other than to sympathetic hosts such as Bill O'Reilly or soft touches like Dr. Phil (though he appears with ABC's Charlie Gibson today, while Kerry chats up NBC's Katie Couric). He says he doesn't read newspapers because he prefers "unfiltered" news from his staff. When Kerry invoked the press during the third debate, Bush shot back: "I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations," before stopping himself with a chortle. But just as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News thrived during the Clinton years, the Bush era has given rise to liberal blogs, Air America Radio and a slew of Al Franken-like bestsellers. And Bush would remain a fabulous target for outraged liberals who might have to modulate their rhetoric during a Kerry presidency. In a second term, writes Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff, "the take-it-on-the-chin liberal media, the imitate-the-conservative-media liberal media finds a subject -- bad Bush -- that can make it money as well as make it feel good about itself." It's always possible that if Bush wins, the tensions between the two sides will fade with the campaign -- that is, if there's not another bitter recount. "When the president is very popular, the press is less critical," Conason says. "I think he'll have a honeymoon for a while. He had a long one last time, even though he didn't win." When was this "long" honeymoon period? Read the NY Times and point to the honeymoon period, please. Media Bias Watch Has the press been unfair to President Bush? Thirty-seven percent of voters think so, while 27 percent find the media coverage unfair to John Kerry. And that is nearly double the number who found the press tilted against Al Gore four years ago. Overall, half the voters surveyed by the Pew Research Center say most newspaper and TV reporters want Kerry to win, and 58 percent say their personal views color their coverage. Partisan affiliation, not surprisingly, plays a major role. More than half the Republicans surveyed, for example, see an anti-Bush bias in the press. Only a quarter of Democrats see a slant against Kerry. Media preferences are also a key factor in these judgments. Forty-six percent of those whose main source of election news is Fox News say the media's campaign coverage has been excellent or good. But 61 percent of those who rely on newspapers, 63 percent of network news watchers and 64 percent of CNN viewers give the coverage excellent or good ratings. And 72 percent of Fox viewers say the media have too much influence on the outcome, though a majority of other media consumers agreed. (The Supreme Court, apparently, was not offered as an option.) As for the great cable divide, 70 percent of regular Fox News viewers are supporting the president, while 67 percent of CNN watchers are Kerry backers, according to Pew. There was more of a split among network news viewers (51-40 Kerry), newspaper readers (50-40 Kerry) and local TV watchers (46-42 Kerry). The good news: Sixty-six percent of those surveyed find the election interesting (up from 35 percent in June), and 73 percent say it is informative. And even the media's approval rating has been creeping up, with 54 percent rating the coverage good or excellent, up from 47 percent in June. That could change, of course, depending on whether the networks can avoid a repeat of their last Election Night fiasco. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 CNN's Paul Begala: "He and his allies are likely to embark on a campaign of political retribution the likes of which we haven't seen since Richard Nixon." Well, if INXS doesn't post one of his many pearls of wisdom, this will probably get my laugh of the day. Say, perhaps Begala is INXS... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BHK 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Life will go on if Bush is reelected, people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 No it won't -- we will all DIE... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 No it won't -- we will all DIE... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 25, 2004 No it won't -- we will all DIE... No it won't -- we will all DIE... TWICE~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 What the hell? How did I double post this time?! I only had one post when I looked at this thread before. Well, I'm sure if we all DIE, then Halliburton gets some sort of tax break or something... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 What were you saying about irrelevant topics? "The left doesn't like Bush" isn't exactly a breaking news story. Those quotes were good for a chuckle, but other than that, the purpose of posting this is...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted October 25, 2004 The thing is, I don't think Mrs. Edwards is wrong. If Kerry wins, there will probably be some grumblings but nothing big. But the Left has built up Bush into this horrible pariah at best and evil monkey demon at worst. If I believed half of the crap spewed at Bush by the Left I would probably be pissed enough to have a good ol' fasioned riot in the streets if he won. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 But is Bush a SUB-HUMAN monkey demon?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Hmm, Clinton said Kerry gave his "specific" plans and complains that the "other side" is trying to scare voters. Well, I guess he lacked blood in his brain for a while... -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Back on topic -- with the N-disgr-ATION getting more readers, perhaps they can now afford to use better quality paper... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Back on topic -- with the N-disgr-ATION getting more readers, perhaps they can now afford to use better quality paper... Socialists spread misery. They don't improve things. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Tell me about it. In all my crap go-nowhere jobs I never saw one union whore smile or act cheerful whenever they were delivering an order. Oh, and peep this. I just heard on the radio that PA turnpike toll-takers may go on strike. THEY MAKE MORE THAN $35K A YEAR SANS OT. And PennDOT has just finished whining about how they don't have enough funding and want to raise the gas tax by 8 cents per gallon... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 $35,000/year to take money from people in toll booths? Sure, the job seems insanely dull --- but it's not worth that. Then again, baseball umps used to get vacations DURING THE SEASON --- so unions don't tend to be in support of, you know, work. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Sad thing was on KDKA a while back, a PENNDOT lapdog was DEFENDING the high wages. Now granted I'm sure they have to do other things than just give out change, but sweet Jesus -- $35k!? And then they bitch about not having enough money. This is why I won't take the turnpike on principle. Fuck PA... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 I'm sure those jobs will be dreadfully hard to fill if they do strike. Man, at those wages, how much of the toll do they eat up? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Don't know. Oh, and our public transportation system is THREATENING to raise fares and eliminate routes if these welfare queens don't get more funding. I heard they want to raise the cheapest fare to $2. Hell, if you're an evil commuter to Pittsburgh, It'd be almost as costly to just park all-day (some areas have like $5-8 all-day rates). Hell, PAT should eliminate the routes nobody uses -- but our pussy state pols will just cave and give out more money... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 The thing is, I don't think Mrs. Edwards is wrong. If Kerry wins, there will probably be some grumblings but nothing big. I don't think there'll be riots or anything if Kerry wins. However, I do think that the conservative pundits & idealogues will engage in a campaign of retribution against him (and the liberal establisment in general) that will make what happened to Clinton in the 90s look tame by comparison. Basically, either way, no matter who wins I don't see our country being any less "divided" politically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 The thing is, I don't think Mrs. Edwards is wrong. If Kerry wins, there will probably be some grumblings but nothing big. I don't think there'll be riots or anything if Kerry wins. However, I do think that the conservative pundits & idealogues will engage in a campaign of retribution against him (and the liberal establisment in general) that will make what happened to Clinton in the 90s look tame by comparison. Basically, either way, no matter who wins I don't see our country being any less "divided" politically. Oh, indeed. Under Clinton, Republicans felt the need to deny any personal animosity towards Clinton, always saying that he was, personally, a nice guy. With Kerry, they will be VERY open with the hatred. -=Mike ...And Kerry would bemoan the meanness, and the right would simply post links to anti-Bush screeds. God willing, the douchebag left-wing bloggers --- dailykos, for example --- will suddenly forget how to type, to go along with their inability to think... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Either way it's going to be 4 more years... Of bitching whining and moaning and villifying by both sides. (Of course I think it's going to be 4 more years in the real sense as well.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 Tell me about it. In all my crap go-nowhere jobs I never saw one union whore smile or act cheerful whenever they were delivering an order. Aren't PA unions rather weak anyway? The area of PA I'm in seems very pro-union, but in the past unions have often backed away from supporting strikes. Plus Krogers and Country Market have pulled out of the state. Oh, and peep this. I just heard on the radio that PA turnpike toll-takers may go on strike. THEY MAKE MORE THAN $35K A YEAR SANS OT. To sit in a booth all day, reading comic books? And PennDOT has just finished whining about how they don't have enough funding and want to raise the gas tax by 8 cents per gallon... They sure do a great job of fixing up the roads here in PA... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 As I said, I can understand the power of a mechanic's strike, or pilot's strike. But why can't they hire a hundred other bums who can count? You'd think it would be a fairly desirable job, and that there's enough high school dropouts (or people with Bachelor's in English) to fit the bill. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 As I said, I can understand the power of a mechanic's strike, or pilot's strike. But why can't they hire a hundred other bums who can count? You'd think it would be a fairly desirable job, and that there's enough high school dropouts (or people with Bachelor's in English) to fit the bill. They should. They should take a page from Reagan and shitcan ALL of them if they strike. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 25, 2004 As I said, I can understand the power of a mechanic's strike, or pilot's strike. But why can't they hire a hundred other bums who can count? You'd think it would be a fairly desirable job, and that there's enough high school dropouts (or people with Bachelor's in English) to fit the bill. They should. They should take a page from Reagan and shitcan ALL of them if they strike. -=Mike I would. And why does Bill Clinton help the democrats? The party turned its back on him in 2004 and cost Gore the election. I don't understand why Bill hasn't just told them to go to hell, flashed his package and ran off with a hooker named Sunshine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 25, 2004 As I said, I can understand the power of a mechanic's strike, or pilot's strike. But why can't they hire a hundred other bums who can count? You'd think it would be a fairly desirable job, and that there's enough high school dropouts (or people with Bachelor's in English) to fit the bill. They should. They should take a page from Reagan and shitcan ALL of them if they strike. -=Mike I would. And why does Bill Clinton help the democrats? The party turned its back on him in 2004 and cost Gore the election. I don't understand why Bill hasn't just told them to go to hell, flashed his package and ran off with a hooker named Sunshine. There is a Senator he wants to see become President, but mentioning her name is considered bad form right now. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 Tell me about it. In all my crap go-nowhere jobs I never saw one union whore smile or act cheerful whenever they were delivering an order. Aren't PA unions rather weak anyway? The area of PA I'm in seems very pro-union, but in the past unions have often backed away from supporting strikes. Plus Krogers and Country Market have pulled out of the state. You obviously don't live near Philly. Unions are pretty strong in the city. There was genuine concern that "Real World" might have pulled out of Philly because of issues w/ unions. The Convention Center is another example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 Pittsburgh and Philly are pro-union whores. Now they're probably not as strong as they were 50+ years ago, but I would regard them as strong. Oh, and now there's more talk of the turnpike toll collectors going on strike. I'd love them to do that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted October 26, 2004 Pittsburgh and Philly are pro-union whores. Now they're probably not as strong as they were 50+ years ago, but I would regard them as strong. Oh, and now there's more talk of the turnpike toll collectors going on strike. I'd love them to do that... So, if they go on strike, does that mean no tolls on toll roads? Why would anybody want to get them back on the job? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted October 26, 2004 Note: A Clinton official criticizing a President for misrepresenting anything is some good comic iron And why is that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
