MRC's Bozell Tells Cavuto About Media's Virtual Silence on Wisconsin Recall Results
In the minds of the Left and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media, Tuesday's recall elections in Wisconsin were "supposed to be... the end of the Tea Party." It was a "$30 million investment by the Left" and it completely tanked, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell argued on the August 12 edition of Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."
"So what was the coverage of their failure?" Bozell asked, answering, "CBS, one story. The totality of NBC: 45 seconds. ABC? Nothing!"
By contrast, earlier this year the media hyped the Wisconsin protests and the potential setback to Badger State's GOP. News anchors also compared the mass protests in the streets of liberal Madison, Wisconsin, with the pro-democracy demonstrations in the "Arab Spring" demonstrations in the Middle East.
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Thanks Mr. Bozell
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:17pm.
Thanks for always keeping us informed. Never heard much about the Wi. State Fair beatings either, except they were NOT hate crimes, according to some judge. And then, two people in No. Carolina admitted they voted twice for BO and nary a report on that either. The net-works are useless in today's news reports.
All Part Of The Agenda
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:00am.
The left lost the Wisconsin State Supreme court match in April, when the lefty candidate they supported in an obscene way, with ads that were proven to be flat out lies, was defeated. She was going to tip the scales and provide a "liberal" court that would overturn Governor Walker's future laws.
The left lost again in June when the recall elections were put back to August, which gave the left less time to propagandize and get out their supporters.
They lost a third time, of course, with the actual recall election on August 9th.
How many kicks at changing laws they don't like are they going to get? That's supposed to happen during general elections, not for the flimsy reasons provided for this recall session. (The law is now under review, and it WILL be changed. The democrats don't want to be exposed to this themselves.) The left wants to make it impossible to govern, if they can't get their way. It's anarchy 101, and America is falling deeper into the hole beneath the outhouse.
They're throwing it down for real, like never before. We'd better be ready to pick it up. For real.
Like the Mass. law
Submitted by AGreer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:36am.
that said that the Gov. (Republican Romney) could appoint the Senator, then changed it to a special election, then changed it back after Dem. Patrick was elected and they didn't like the results of the Special Election of Scott Brown.
Funny thing is that my Dem controlled state of Illinois made a law in 2008 (after Gore lost and in expectations of Obama) that the presidential electoral college votes goes to the NATIONAL popular vote winner.
I'd bet my last $5 that this law will change as the 2012 campaign nears because all of the dead people in Crook County and all of the illegal aliens could vote 3 times and the electoral votes would have to go for the opponent of Obama. The alternative is that the liberals would break the law and vote for Obama anyway (remember, liberal elitists are above the law and the ends justify the means).
Obama's 1 and out is shaping up to be, at least, interesting.
dumbest dam thing I have heard in a long time
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 6:03am.
"Funny thing is that my Dem controlled state of Illinois made a law in 2008 (after Gore lost and in expectations of Obama) that the presidential electoral college votes goes to the NATIONAL popular vote winner."
So theoretically lets say your state, Illinois, voted 100% for candidate “A”, but candidate “A” lost the NATIONAL popular vote (which isn't even a factor in elections) all Illinois 21 electoral votes would go to candidate “B” even though no one in Illinois voted for candidate “B”?
And its Illinois 21 electoral votes that puts candidate “B” in office?
That's the dumbest dam thing I have heard in a long time.
Why even have an election in Illinois if your going to cede your votes to some other state!
Under National Popular Vote,
Submitted by kohler on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:09pm.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, very vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
Under the current system, Illinois is among the 2/3rds of America that is ignored by presidential campaigns.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, only 7-14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election.
Now, policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing, too.
Since World War II, a shift of only a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.
Come the end of voting on Election Day, most voters don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Two Words
Submitted by burnadams on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 1:31pm.
I admit, your reply sounds good in theory. However, the reality can be summarized in two words. Florida recount.
In a close election, we'll be going through recount hell not just in one state, but in all 50. Need I describe the mayhem and confusion as each side accuses the other of stuffing the ballots in some remote town in Alaska or something?
Recounts are Far More Likely Under the Current System
Submitted by kohler on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:43am.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years under the National Popular Vote approach. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
There is absolutely no doubt that had the recall . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:58pm.
. . . resulted in a Democratic take-over of the Wisconsin Senate, it would have been the lead story on every news broadcast and periodical.
This was an unmitigated political disaster for the unions and the Democrats, and if the two Democrats are recall next week restoring the net balance to the pre-recall numbers, they will have some real soul searching to do. . They are really scared about what this means for 2012.
Same as NY's 23rd in 2009
Submitted by AGreer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:04am.
The MSM CROWED that Owen won after Scuzzy-Pelosi endorsed him...for weeks. The TEA party was dead after that. NOT !
Screw them and the RINO establishment, I"ll NEVER give up on their word !
All I hear is TEA party resolve, unlike liberal wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard.
The TEA party is here to stay ! WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED !
Morning after: Joe Scarborough
Submitted by Texndoc on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:45am.
I remember Joe brought up Wisconsin and Barnacle responded with 30 dead in Afghanistan and the topic changed immediately.
Great to see Brent on Cavuto's show
Submitted by Boil It Down on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:44am.
Even short pieces about Wisconsin are far better than the remainder of the MSM.
It's too bad it wasn't longer and it's too bad Brent didn't have the time to expose Markos Moulitas for the complete ass he made of himself. -bidn-
AP sent out a story
Submitted by rightwinghawk on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 8:03am.
....that reported what a great election night it was in Wisconsin for Democrats and unions. The spin was laughable. It's like the sports pages reporting the loser of a 4-2 baseball game actually won because it scored two runs in the fourth inning. Newspapers around the country, including the Des Moines Register here in Iowa, dutifully printed the ridiculous article. And the media outlets still can't figure out why they have lost the respect of the people. Print your lies, folks. Just don't ask me to buy it.
Russia reported track meet results in this way.
Submitted by Thalpy on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 10:48am.
Years ago when the US and Russia participated in dual track meets, you always knew what to expect: If Russia won, their press reported it as a victory for Russia, and a last place finish for the US. If the US won, it was reported that Russia placed 2nd. They never lost and we never won.
I can't see much difference between their press then and our press now.
The Networks Are Sulking
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 11:20am.
The American people are in disagreement with the New York Networks' desire to loot the United States. It is not going to happen and now the network see their business model falling to the Web structured businesses. If they weren't already such small weak aliens in the United States they would get violentLet them sulk.
Where is Richard Trumka and His Union Thugs?
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:19am.
Must be hanging out with President Downgrade after getting his ass kicked in Wisconsin.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)