Bush "Most Polarizing President" Since Nixon -- November 3, 2004 -- TimesWatch.org

About

Contact Us

Articles

Topic Index

Reports

Quotes

On the Web

Links

TW Tracker

Support

Times Watch for November 3, 2004

Bush "Most Polarizing President" Since Nixon

Wednesday's front-page, filed before Sen. John Kerry conceded the election to President George W. Bush, features a "news analysis" from Todd Purdum entitled, "All About the President -- After a Disputed Election Four Years Ago, Bush Seems Poised to Claim a New Mandate."

In a story filed before John Kerry's Wednesday morning concession, Todd Purdum acknowledged Bush had the edge, then wrote of Bush's "polarizing" presidency: "Perhaps no issue is more important than the judiciary to Mr. Bush's conservative base, including the 2 in 10 voters who yesterday told pollsters that 'moral issues' mattered to them more than any other. And because victory would mean that the president would have a chance to nominate a clear conservative majority to the Supreme Court, no issue would be more contentious among Mr. Bush's liberal opponents, and Democrats seem all but certain to filibuster any choice they see as too extreme. Mr. Bush would become the 12th of the 17 incumbent presidents who have sought re-election since 1900 to win a second term. Already, through his aggressive handling of terrorism and foreign policy, he has made himself not only the most polarizing president since Richard M. Nixon but also guaranteed himself a prominent place in the history books, and historical debate, for years to come."

Purdum went to a liberal historian for a view of Iraq as Vietnam: "While a bare majority of voters said the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein was correct, a majority also said that it was going badly and had jeopardized the nation's long-term security. 'It's not Vietnam, but it stands in the shadow of Vietnam, and as a consequence, people see this as similar,' said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian and biographer of Lyndon B. Johnson. 'There is no question Bush could have rallied the whole country to his side in the wake of Sept. 11, and kept it there. But he has been divisive and this is a knock on him.'"

For the rest of Purdum's election result analysis, click here.

"Conservatives" and "Democratic Stalwarts" in Congress

More labeling bias from the Times. Robin Toner and Katharine Seelye's front-page story on the outcome of last night's House and Senate races finds plenty of "conservative" candidates, both "staunch" and "angry": "Reflecting conservative strength in the Sun Belt states, Republican victories by Representative James W. DeMint in South Carolina and former Representative Tom Coburn in Oklahoma added two staunch conservatives to the Republican ranks. In Louisiana, another conservative, Representative David Vitter, barely avoided a runoff in a multicandidate race to replace the Democratic veteran, Senator John B. Breaux, who is retiring. And in North Carolina, Representative Richard M. Burr, a Republican, defeated Erskine Bowles, the former Clinton chief of staff, for the seat left vacant by Senator John Edwards, who ran for vice president. In Georgia, Johnny Isakson, a House member from the Atlanta suburbs, easily won the seat being vacated by Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who was retiring as an angry critic of his own party."

Yet Seelye and Toner don't find any "liberals," only "stalwart" Democrats, even though their report includes a laundry list of victorious liberals: "Democratic stalwarts in New England -- Mr. Dodd and Senator Patrick J. Leahy in Vermont -- easily retained their seats, as did Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat. The Democratic senators Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Mr. Reid of Nevada also coasted to victory. So did Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer in California, Patty Murray in Washington and Ron Wyden in Oregon. Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin held off a challenge from Tim Michels."

For the rest of Seelye and Toner on the Congressional races, click here.

• Campaign 2004 | Labeling Bias | Katharine Seelye | Robin Toner

Who Won The Election, Anyway?

The banner headline in Wednesday's Times reflects the then-unresolved nature of Campaign 2004, before Kerry's Wednesday morning concession: "Bush Holds Lead."

In his deadline filing on the vote count Adam Nagourney notes (in the online version, updated at 8:31 a.m. Wednesday morning): "President Bush swept to a popular-vote victory over Senator John Kerry this morning and appeared headed toward winning enough Electoral College votes to assure his re-election."

Yet someone reading bits of Nagourney's story could think that John Kerry, not Bush was the one on the verge of the presidency: "With the economy struggling and the war in Iraq going off course, Mr. Bush increasingly built his campaign around the threat of terrorism, invoking the symbols of the attack on the World Trade Center and portraying Mr. Kerry as not having the strength to stand up to terrorist attacks. The survey of voters leaving the polls found that Mr. Bush did indeed enjoy a big advantage over Mr. Kerry on the issue of terrorism. But it also showed that a majority now believed that the war had gone badly off course, and had jeopardized the long-term security of the United States. And while Mr. Bush was seen as much better able to protect the nation from terrorist attacks than Mr. Kerry was, the survey suggested that in the end, domestic issues -- like health care and job creation -- were critical factors in the choices of many Americans, and many of those voters were going to Mr. Kerry."

For the rest of Nagourney's analysis, click here.

• George W. Bush | Campaign 2004 | Sen. John Kerry | Adam Nagourney

Will the Times Take Its Own Advice?

Wednesday's lead editorial was agnostic on the then-unresolved election (which was resolved Wednesday morning, when Kerry conceded to Bush): "The American people know what to do in these situations: a painfully close division in the Electoral College, and at least one large state with a big pile of disputed ballots. We wait for the best possible count, ready to accept whoever wins by the rules of the game as the next chief executive. When a victor is finally, officially announced, it is important for the entire country to accept him as the rightful president."

Good advice -- let's hope the Times takes it. After all, former Times columnist turned Executive Editor Bill Keller raised doubts about Bush's legitimacy in a column from August 10, 2002, saying of Al Gore's campaign: "A bone-headed campaign he WON, don't forget. He got 537,179 more popular votes, and only lost the Electoral College thanks to a lot of well-documented funny business. The best estimate of the various investigative post-mortems was that an honest statewide recount would have awarded Florida to Mr. Gore and denied Antonin Scalia the role of American kingmaker."

For the Times post-election editorial, click here.

Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking NYT's Pro-Dem Hints

Some of the paper's more optimistic pro-Democratic stories of Campaign 2004 didn't pan out on Election Day. On Monday, Ralph Blumenthal filed a story from Houston, Texas about alleged slippage in Bush support in his home state: "Bush Victory Seems Certain; Margin Doesn’t." The story's cut-out line: "Some experts say the president's support in Texas may be slipping."

Not so fast: Bush actually increased his margin in Texas, winning the state 61-38%, compared to just 59-38% in 2000.

Back on Friday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg filed "A Onetime Senate Shoo-In Now Struggles to Hold On," about the close race for a Senate seat in Kentucky. The story's cut-out line: "Democrats exult in their gains against Jim Bunning."

Bunning pulled out his race against Dr. Daniel Mongiardo, 51-49%

On the opinion side, here's Paul Krugman's October 22 prediction of a clear Electoral College win for Kerry: "If the election were held today and the votes were counted fairly, Senator John Kerry would probably win. But the votes won't be counted fairly, and the disenfranchisement of minority voters may determine the outcome….Electoral College projections based on state polls also show a dead heat. Projections assuming that undecided voters will break for the challenger in typical proportions give Mr. Kerry more than 300 electoral votes."

Kerry Wins! Says Media Types

Campaign reporter turned food critic Frank Bruni blogged (though the Times is reluctant to use the term) the Campaign 2004 coverage Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Bruni noted that some of his media colleagues were early in the day predicting a Kerry win: "I started my day by conducting an entrance poll. Who, as of now, can say that my survey is any less reliable? I called or e-mailed various colleagues who, like me, were with and around George W. Bush and his advisers in the week leading up to Election Day in 2000 and on the day itself. They remember Bush’s demeanor and his advisers’ moods four years ago and all of them are in good positions to compare then with now. By an extremely significant margin -- OK, five to one -- my news media colleagues, a.k.a. drinking buddies, said their readings of the signs, couple with their instincts, pointed toward a victory for Senator John Kerry."

Bruni later wrote: "On an Election Night in which state after state is voting against gay marriage, I feel compelled to ask if CNN's choice of green over lavender serves another agenda and carries another discriminatory message. I also, um, have space to fill."

For the rest of Bruni's election night "blogging," click here.

E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org