View Full Version : 2006 Elections and the role of Media Bias
In todays world of polarized politics, scientific polling methods and focus groups, an election that comes out 52%-48% is considered a solid win.
. . . 55%-45% is considered a landslide.
Liberal media bias cannot be discounted as a factor in election politics:
The midterm elections are approaching and some members of the media are revving up their bias. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (http://newsbusters.org/node/8436) recently suggested that President Bush might be as big a threat as the terrorists. This was only a day after referring to conservative talk show hosts who visited the White House as the "Legion of Doom (http://newsbusters.org/node/8408)." CNN’s Jack Cafferty wondered if Karl Rove is planning an "October surprise (http://newsbusters.org/node/8432)" to salvage the Republicans’ chances in the midterm elections.
The print media have also offered unrestrained attacks from the left. A "Washington Post" report described House Speaker Dennis Hastert appearance as "a cross between Wildford Brimley and Jabba the Hutt (http://newsbusters.org/node/8354)." Nothing quite like objectivity, huh? A former "New York Times (http://newsbusters.org/node/8448)" bureau chief recently characterized the Christian right as "fascist." Perhaps he’d been chatting with "Newsweek" columnist Jonathan Alter. Alter told Don Imus he hoped the country has seen the last of "values voters (http://newsbusters.org/node/8363)."
The "Today" show fawned over Barack Obama (http://newsbusters.org/node/8449), describing him as "electrifying" and a "rock star." This was on the same day that they giddily predicted a "perfect storm (http://newsbusters.org/node/8442)" to wipe out the Republicans in the midterms. Another early AM program, CNN’s "American Morning"encouraged author David Kuo to call for Christians to boycott (http://newsbusters.org/node/8398) the upcoming election.
The midterm elections are approaching and some members of the media are revving up their bias. (http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/296) (http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/296)
I have seen it reported that liberal media bias accounts for as much as 15 percentage points for liberal Democrats. . .
Dire. Bleak. Grim. Those are just a few of the adjectives that have been used to describe the election prospects of Republicans just 18 days from now. So is it really that bad for the elephants this year? The answer is "yes" - and "no."
The point is that things can, and almost always do change quickly in politics - especially in today's 24/7 new media environment.
The other thing to remember is that for many people around the country who do not follow politics very closely, the election has only recently gotten underway. Both Republicans and Democrats will be blanketing the airwaves with ads and pouring every last dollar into mobilizing their supporters in the final two weeks.
The heart of the question is whether Republican voters are really as depressed and fractured as the media has portrayed them to be over the last few weeks. If they are, and they decide to sit on their hands this election, then November 7 could indeed turn to out to be a very bad night for the GOP.
But if Republican voters aren't that depressed or, perhaps more likely, if they are disgruntled at the moment for one reason or another but decide in the final days that the alternative to not voting (i.e. having Speaker Nancy Pelosi two heart beats away from the Presidency) is worse, then GOP losses this cycle might not be so severe.
As I said, a lot can still change over the next eighteen days when Americans finally go out and conduct the only poll that matters.
Carried Away by Talk of a 'Wave' (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/carried_away_by_talk_of_a_wave.html)
It’s always amusing to see media code words and phrases that seem to say one thing but, upon reflection, end up meaning less than at first thought. Phrases like "sources say" would lead one to imagine whole rafts of insiders are affirming a story's bias when really it is just one disgruntled person as the "source", or words like "many" when it is but a very few are used all the time to inflate the importance of a reporter's bias or justify his story.
The L.A. Times used a classic today in the story titled "Some See 'Pink Purge' in the GOP" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gaygop18oct18,0,1580146.story?coll=la-home-headlines). Notice the word "some"? What exactly does "some" mean? According to the story "some" seems to be the thought of many Christian Republicans.
Naturally, the story is written as if it were many Republicans (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19508#) who are urging a "pink purge" of gays from the Party. But, upon closer examination, no GOP (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19508#) source is actually quoted as looking for this purge so one is left wondering exactly who the L.A.Times thinks is pushing for it?
There is no real proof that gays being "allowed" into the GOP will eliminate the ability of Christians to support the Party. It seems more like the Times' wishful thinking as no real proof but the vague notions contained in the story is presented.
One quote is dead on, however. Republican National Committee Press Secretary Tracey Schmitt was quoted as saying: "Our core supporters understand that a Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be devoid of a values agenda. They are mobilized and committed to electing Republicans on Nov. 7."
Christian Republicans certainly realize that a vote against the GOP or even one withheld is a vote for Democrats, the Party that is anti-family values most directly, and that not supporting the GOP is a blow to Christian's agenda all the way down the line.
Sowing Dissent With Christians & GOP (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19508)
Chrystalwuzhere
10-22-2006, 03:15 PM
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (http://newsbusters.org/node/8436) recently suggested that President Bush might be as big a threat as the terrorists. This was only a day after referring to conservative talk show hosts who visited the White House as the "Legion of Doom (http://newsbusters.org/node/8408)."
What Keith Obermann said is out of line. Whatever happened to unbiased news reporting? I expect news anchors to tell me what is happening in the world (report the blasted news, already), and let me draw my own conclusions. That's what they're supposed to do!!!
The day is coming, indeed...is already here, where news anchors can convince you that the antichrist himself is the savior of the world. Just give him your vote!
CoreIssue
10-23-2006, 12:28 AM
They are indeed getting more bold all the time.
News reporting? Not much of that around.
If the election isn't close, the Democrats can't cheat!
In the past week North Korea has basically declared war on the United States and Iran has promised to make Israel “disappear.” Yet the “big news” is not about a looming nuclear war, but about the content of a private five year old instant message written by Rep. Mark Foley to a former congressional page. We are being told, according to various national polls, that this “moral” issue will cause voters to vote against Republicans on November 7th and against policies of the Republican president and Congress and their war on terror in Iraq.
Why have the pollsters, who seem to be mostly Democrats, been so consistently wrong about election results in the past 3 election cycles? I think it can be traced to the passage and signing of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by President George W. Bush on October 29, 2002. As he pointed out on the day he signed the legislation:
The legislation I sign today will add to the nation's confidence. Each state will be required to maintain a clean and current and accurate state -- statewide list of registered voters, making it easier to register and easier to detect fraud. Under this law people registering to vote are required to prove that they are who they say they are, with appropriate identification. First-time voters who register by mail will be asked to provide identification when they cast their ballots. This law also creates new criminal penalties for providing false information, and punishes anyone guilty of conspiracy to deprive voters of a fair election.
Every since that bill was signed, Republicans have won elections that, according to the pollsters and the Democrats, they were not supposed to win. It corrected, to a large degree, the fraud-friendly “motor-voter” law, the first piece of legislation signed by President Bill Clinton in 1992. That bill required driver's license bureaus to register anyone applying for licenses, to offer mail-in registration with no identification needed, and to forbid government workers to challenge new registrants, while making it difficult to purge "deadwood" voters (those who have died or moved away).
In 2006 many more precincts around the country will have voting machines, which make ballot-box stuffing a great deal more difficult to accomplish. Since the mid-1940s as one who watched my employer, who was also the Democrat political boss of Tennessee, bring in busloads of Mississippi blacks that he paid to vote illegally in Memphis elections, I have been aware of the problem of ballot box stuffing. It has been a big problem and had gotten increasingly worse over the years.
However, it will be harder to stuff the ballot box with machines counting the votes, rather than people who want their candidate to win. My prediction is that the Republicans will keep control of the Congress and the Democrats will demand unlimited voting for felons, who are mostly Democrats, and the end of the voting machines. They may hesitate at insisting on the legalization of the dead voting.
Will Biased Predictions Come True? (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3605)
Some conservatives are angry at the 109th Congress for not being conservative enough on a variety of issues. They want to “punish” the Republicans in November. For more than two months the MSM (mainstream media) has been repeating this theme ad nauseum and certain conservative activists and writers have become their enablers.
The elites are hoping that conservatives will abandon those congressmen and senators who had the temerity (and perhaps, even worse, the bad manners) to reject amnesty and faux enforcement unapologetically. Elites are hoping that conservatives will abandon the likes of Rick Santorum, John Hostettler, Peter King, John Doolittle, Thelma Drake, J. D. Hayworth, Conrad Burns, George Allen, Jim Talent, Jon Kyl, the House leadership, and all the rest of the those that they consider “yahoos.”
Perhaps elites are right, and conservatives truly are, in John Stuart Mill’s famous phrase, the “stupid party.” But, I’m betting this is not true, and that come Tuesday, November 7, conservatives will go to the polls in large numbers and stand with those who stood with them — and more importantly, beyond partisan considerations, stand with those who stood for our national interests as Americans over the special interests of elites.
Immigration Is No Joke (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJmOTU0NWM5MmFiYzY0NjI4YmZhYTFkYzRhYmE3M2E=)
The mainstream media must firmly believe if you tell someone a story enough times, whether it be true or not, people will start to accept that story as fact. With that, all their efforts spell a Democrat blowout of Republicans next month. Some consider that prediction as absurd as Cindy Sheehan being nominated for a Nobel Peace prize.
Reality is another thing….
Seeing how the liberal base is flaky at best when it comes to showing up at a ballot booth, the only way Democrats can win is if Republicans stay home. Do these liberals really believe that conservatives will stay home because THEY say so? Yes.
Who’s sinking now?
October Surprises (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/16/october-surprises/)
By now, we have all seen this business where the Media Dinosaurs are touting the upcoming midterm elections as already in the bag for the Democrats. But we are also starting just this week to see stories disputing that assumption.
Rove and Bush are said to be strangely buoyant and upbeat about the chances of the GOP keeping their majorities. Several pundits and magazines as well as some pollsters are beginning to say that, while the GOP will lose some seats, the Party won’t lose all power in some great midterm Democratic landslide.
So the question becomes, how could all the leftist pundits, poll skewers and Democratic Party fellow travelers be so far off with their predictions for a total Demo take over?
Maybe they aren’t. Well, not in private anyway. Maybe they have known all along that this is going to be but a mildly successful Democrat Party election, with the Dems taking a few seats in both houses of Congress. But maybe they know full well that this won’t be a tidal wave of Demo success.
And, maybe they are misreporting it all on purpose?
Scotching the centrist vote in a time when elections are so often won by three and four percentage points is quite an interesting and possibly successful strategy. Get rid of the people that could vote either way and gin up your base with inflammatory claims of GOP vote fraud and you get a won election as well as the elbow room to continue your drift left without being slapped by the electorate for it.
And who can doubt that the mainstream media would fall all over themselves to assist such a plan? Or, if they aren’t necessarily in on the plan from the beginning, who can doubt they will at least be inclined to slavishly report Democratic Party happy-talk since they so lovingly root for their pals in the DNC anyway?
So, there goes my theory. The mainstream media and the Demos are over reporting a success in November so that they can then come back afterwards, after it doesn’t pan out, and say they have further proof that the system is “broken” and “rigged” against them in order to drives centrist or moderate voters out of the electorate. This, in turn, will eliminate enough GOP votes and pump up their own base enough to win close elections in the future.
Why Are the Dems Already Claiming Victory? (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=24606)
They are the faces and voices the media wants you to see and hear. Both are young, charismatic, intelligent and African American. More importantly, in the eyes of the mainstream press, they are Democrats. Illinois Senator Barack Obama and Tennessee Senate candidate, Congressman Harold Ford, are the featured stories and interviews in magazines, newspapers and on talk shows. There are other prominent African Americans running for high profile offices, but they are viewed with great disdain because they run under the banner of the GOP.
Why does the press grant high profile exposure to men such as Obama, who finds himself on Oprah and Meet the Press and Congressman Ford, who graces the current cover of Newsweek, but ignore African American candidates and office holders who are Republican?
The promotion of African American Democrats compared to the apathetic attitudes toward African American Republicans should serve as another example of a liberal bias within the mainstream media. The greatest fear Democrats and their cohorts in the media have is the prospect of losing the African American vote. African Americans make up approximately 13% of the population, but they generate as much as 20% of the total vote cast for Democrats. African Americans tend to support Democratic candidates in upwards of 90%. In 2000 Al Gore received 91% of their vote, while John Kerry got 89% in 2004.
States such as California, Illinois and New York are considered solid Democratic or Blue States. These states are all ranked in the top 5 in population, which means they have the same ranking within the Electoral College. The African American vote plays an enormous role in these states having great national significance. The chance that their vote could be remotely hindered could have catastrophic effects for Democrats nationwide.
It is undoubtedly in the best interest of the Democratic Party to keep African American Republicans under the political radar. With help from their media allies, they have been able to accomplish that goal. However, the more African Americans who campaign for and hold prominent offices under the GOP banner, the more likely they will take a second look at the Party of Lincoln. That could cause the Democratic Party to have the same fate as slavery.
African-American Democrats Only (http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_miller/10282006.htm)
CoreIssue
10-30-2006, 01:24 PM
The conflicts of the illegals and hurting of poor blacks is a problem for the Dems. For sure.
I think more are seeing them as the party of opportunists and not the opportunity.
The conflicts of the illegals and hurting of poor blacks is a problem for the Dems. For sure.
I think more are seeing them as the party of opportunists and not the opportunity.
The conservatives don't refer to the situation as plantation blacks for nothing.
There is already talk that Condie Rice is the only Republican who can beat Hillary in '08.
But back to the subject of media bias:
To my fellow conservatives, Republicans, and even independents, who are so frustrated with some in the GOP for abandoning the principles of our party, that you plan to sit out this election, I implore you to change your mind. While I share your anger and disappointment, I am still eagerly going to vote on November 7th for one simple reason. To stop those in the mainstream media trying to hijack this election.
I would submit that never in the history of modern American campaigning, has the media displayed such an unethical, unprofessional, and gleeful bias, as they have with this midterm election. Many members of the left-of-center mainstream media are deliberately trying to dictate, manipulate, and deliver the vote of the American electorate to the Democratic column, and for them to say otherwise is to deny the obvious.
To offer up proof, is as easy as predicting the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, or that the press will ignore the ethical lapses of Democratic politicians. While this media disinformation campaign has been going on for much longer, just go back the last two weeks and look at the front pages (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=vote_against_an_unethical_med ia&ns=DouglasMacKinnon&dt=10/30/2006&page=full&comments=true#) of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, or any of the other liberal newspapers in the nation, and gaze upon the hundreds of the above the fold stories of how the Democrats are all but certain to cruise to victory on election day.
Vote: Against an unethical media (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=vote_against_an_unethical_med ia&ns=DouglasMacKinnon&dt=10/30/2006&page=full&comments=true)
CoreIssue
10-31-2006, 08:45 PM
Hilary would be the perfect Dem for the Rep. to run against. She doesn't have a chance of winning.
42% of Americans are ironclad against here right off the bat.
The Dems know this and that is why they are desparate to find someone else.
Hilary would be the perfect Dem for the Rep. to run against. She doesn't have a chance of winning.
42% of Americans are ironclad against here right off the bat.
The Dems know this and that is why they are desparate to find someone else.
Core:
I hope you're right.
Back to the role of media bias:
If you're hearing about this shift in momentum for the first time, don't worry. You're not alone. New York Post columnist John Podhoretz thinks it may have something to do with the difference between that he calls "Mainstream Media Time" and "Blog Time."
Mainstream Media Time is slow and still clings to the conventional wisdom (or is it a hope?) that the 2006 elections are a foregone conclusion of Republican defeat.
Blog Time is fast -- it moves at the speed of the Internet. It started noticing the momentum shift to Republicans earlier this week.
Which will be proven right is anyone's bet. But my money is on Blog Time.
Mainstream Media Time vs. Blog Time (http://www.humanevents.com/winningthefuture.php?id=17722)
CoreIssue
10-31-2006, 10:18 PM
There is no media bias! And I can fly and shoot lasers from my eyes! :D
Republicans are defending their House and Senate majorities in a tough election. But the broadcast networks have so far refused to scrutinize the Democrats who wish to lead the next Congress. Case in point: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive Speaker if the Democrats win next month. MRC analysts reviewed all 106 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories that have mentioned Pelosi since she was picked to lead House Democrats in 2002:
Labels. The last time an evening news reporter called Pelosi a "liberal" was November 14, 2002, the day she was elected House Democratic leader. "She is a high-octane San Francisco liberal with a fondness for high-fashion Armani suits," NBC’s Lisa Myers explained that night. Since then, evening news reporters have omitted any ideological labels for Pelosi, who in the past five years has earned a 99% approval rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, compared to a mere 3% approval from the American Conservative Union.
Spin. Since 2002, Pelosi herself has been the subject of just 16 evening news stories, eight of which were flattering vs. two that cast her in a negative light, a four-to-one tilt in Pelosi’s favor. (The remaining six stories were neutral.) In November 2002, ABC’s Linda Douglass touted Pelosi as someone who "rose to a leadership job with sheer hard work, raising money for colleagues, spending hours listening to their problems, providing them dinner during late night votes." A month later, ABC’s World News Tonight picked Pelosi as one of five heroes of 2002. Anchor Charles Gibson said ABC wanted to recognize "people whose bravery, resolve, and character really shown through."
Attack Soundbites. Most of the time, the evening newscasts gave Pelosi a podium from which she could attack Republicans. Sixty-three stories included anti-GOP soundbites from Pelosi; in another 10, the network reporters simply read Pelosi’s attack quotes to viewers.
Nancy Pelosi is an unabashed, hardcore liberal, and her rhetoric is as negative and "angry" as any member of the Class of ‘94. The difference in 2006 is that the networks show no interest in the extremism and nastiness of the liberals who want to control Congress.
— Rich Noyes (http://www.mrc.org/bios/noyes/noyesbio.asp)
TV News Gives Free Ride to “Speaker Pelosi” (http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20061019.asp)
(http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y4MzY1ZjQyYzNhODUwZTliOTEwNDk1OTM4NzcxZGE=)Me dia reality says that the Democrats are going to win — either a colossal win or at least a narrow win — in the House and Senate races November 7. Maybe. But I am sticking to my view, expressed last June 15 (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTkzNjE3YTc4YWZkZDBkNDE3ZDYxZWUxZWVkMzBmYWQ=), that the Republicans will actually gain seats this fall, both in the House and in the Senate. Well, maybe only in the Senate, while holding the House.
Whatever Democrats think, actual reality will set in on the morning of November 8, or perhaps not long thereafter.
Good luck, my Democratic friends. If you lose, don’t despair. Go back to the drawing boards and put the Democratic party back on its older, winning track.
For Democrats, it will be hard even to admit that they lost. Democrats do not go easy into that good night.
For some number of Democrats, the highest paying job they will ever have is provided for out of the public purse. Besides, Democrats really do believe that the nanny state is what a good state should be, and that only they can run it.
For Republicans, losing is a bit easier. Republicans depart from government with a lighter step. They do not place such hopes in it.
I cannot shake the feeling that the night of November 7 might be a happy one for me. The common sense of voters, first, and then the efficiency of a highly motivated turn-out effort on the part of Republicans, should surprise most of the prognosticators.
Of course, that, too, may be an illusion. We will shortly see.
— Michael Novak
November Surprise (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y4MzY1ZjQyYzNhODUwZTliOTEwNDk1OTM4NzcxZGE=)
Since shortly after 9/11/2001, these media have been working solidly to help the Islamo-fascists and to hurt the US. The New York Times has published classified information on our national security programs over and over again—from printing US programs that tracked terrorist financial transactions to our NSA call-monitoring programs. It even gave specifics as to how the programs worked and were implemented.
The Washington Post, SF Chronicle and others quickly followed suit in publishing the specific programs’ data. The leftist mainstream media’s hatred for President Bush has trumped their ostensible reason.
Do these actions constitute working for the terrorists?
Of course they do. We also have the CNN embedded-with-Islamic-terrorists “journalist” Michael Ware who reported on and sent a videotape of the terrorists performing the snuffing of an American soldier back to the CNN Mother Ship—the terrorists’ US network.
Little to no doubt remains that the majority of Democrats and their media work against the US and for the Islamo-fascists—whether by design or due to naiveté. The reason behind their madness doesn’t really matter. The mere fact that it exists should send chills down the spines of each and every thinking and rational American. The data are inimitable and compelling.
Want the possibility of losing the country to the very real threat of an Islamic caliphate? Then, vote Democrat.
If you’d like the US to continue as a country, vote Republican. It really is that straightforward.
Mainstream Media and Democrats: Terrorists' New Best Friends (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19894)
Nightly news coverage on the major television networks dramatically favored the Democratic Party during the first seven weeks of this year's midterm election, according to a new study released Tuesday in Washington, D.C.
The analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) (http://www.cmpa.com/), a nonpartisan research and educational organization affiliated with George Mason University, found that three out of four evaluations of Democratic candidates' chances of winning - such as soundbytes - were positive, compared with one out of eight for Republicans.
"What's hurting Republican candidates is the media's focus on two non-candidates: Mark Foley and George W. Bush," Felling noted. "They're using figures who are not up for election as symbols of disillusionment on the part of many Americans."
Felling added that the six-year itch is keeping pressure high on GOP candidates across the country.
"The middle of a president's second term is notorious for being unfriendly to his party," Felling said. "And when that president's party runs both houses of Congress, then it just jazzes up the coverage.
Midterm Election Coverage Is Bad News for GOP, Study Says (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200611/CUL20061101a.html)
Our American media machine is broken. Journalists can no longer be trusted. Many conservatives have seen years of evidence that the mainstream media is shifting further and further to the left. But this week a new study (http://www.cmpa.com/documents/06.10.31.Study.pdf)from the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/) shows an unprecedented bias in the network news coverage.
Between September 5th and October 11th of this year, 77% of coverage regarding Democrats was favorable. But only 12% of coverage about Republicans was positive. The disparity is the most significant we have seen since these studies began. The American public has been spoon-fed liberal mush for the last two months so it’s no wonder the GOP is polling behind the Democrats.
The constant barrage of anti-Americanism and anti-war sentiments in the media is playing right into our enemies’ hands. An excerpt from an article (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6960&Itemid=109)written by the American Forces Press Service today:
“America’s wars have always had critics, but the difference in this war is the prevalence of the media, Rumsfeld said in his interviews. Terrorists recognize the influence the media has, so they use their own media committees to determine how best to manipulate the American public through the media, he said.
Terrorists plan their attacks to deliberately dishearten the American people and make them think the cause isn’t right or America makes terrorism worse, Rumsfeld said.”
Why hasn’t there been another attack on American soil since 9/11? Much of the answer has to do with the outstanding efforts of our intelligence and national security communities. But perhaps the terrorists are simply content to let our own media break down the spirits of the American people.
Media Bias No Secret, But Now It's Proven (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=19906)
To my fellow conservatives, Republicans, and even independents, who are so frustrated with some in the GOP for abandoning the principles of our party, that you plan to sit out this election, I implore you to change your mind. While I share your anger and disappointment, I am still eagerly going to vote on November 7th for one simple reason. To stop those in the mainstream media (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=vote_against_an_unethical_med ia&ns=DouglasMacKinnon&dt=10/30/2006&page=full&comments=true#) trying to hijack this election.
I would submit that never in the history of modern American campaigning, has the media displayed such an unethical, unprofessional, and gleeful bias, as they have with this midterm election. Many members of the left-of-center mainstream media are deliberately trying to dictate, manipulate, and deliver the vote of the American electorate to the Democratic column, and for them to say otherwise is to deny the obvious.
Point being, the liberals in the media masquerading as journalists, will do anything to undermine those who don’t bow to their opinion and will. To counter such hubris and totalitarian thinking, we need to vote.
Think of it, not as a vote for those Republicans who have let us down, but rather, a vote in defense of democracy, and against those with unchecked power who seek to weaken that which our soldiers fight to preserve and bestow.
On election day, vote to honor liberty while sending a message to a media that has forgotten its sacred mission.
Vote: Against an unethical media (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=vote_against_an_unethical_med ia&ns=DouglasMacKinnon&dt=10/30/2006&page=full&comments=true)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.