Kerry's Endorsement Lead

[nakedemperor]

RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, explaining Kerry's endorsement lead:

"Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal."

Slate Magazine article:

"Since 1940...only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent."


Hey, Ed! :

 

[Merlin1047]

RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, explaining Kerry's endorsement lead:

"Look, the Republican candidate will never win the contest for editorial board endorsements. The major dailies across the country tend to skew liberal."

Slate Magazine article:

"Since 1940...only two Democratic candidates -- Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Bill Clinton in 1992 -- have ever won more endorsements than their Republican opponent."


Hey, Ed! :

My how times have changed. Dan Rather has been reduced to the status of a pathetic shill for the DNC. The New York Times has become a leftist tabloid masquerading as a newspaper. Most of the American media is trusted less than the average politician.

Personally, were I George Bush, I would wear the lack of endorsement from many of the media outlets as a badge of honor.

 

[theim]

There are survey's all over the place that show 75-80% of journalists want Kerry to win.

 

[nakedemperor]

There are survey's all over the place that show 75-80% of journalists want Kerry to win.

Because they're better informed than the vast majority of the populace. Intellectualism breeds liberalism, not the other way around, as it is generally presupposed by many conservatives on this board.

 

[Hobbit]

Because they're better informed than the vast majority of the populace. Intellectualism breeds liberalism, not the other way around, as it is generally presupposed by many conservatives on this board.

THAT is an example of the typical liberal arrogance I see among so many people today. "Oh, you're just a conservative because you're too ignorant to realize that liberalism is better. You poor thing." When you can't call us evil, you just call us ignorant and take a condescending tone. Well, I don't want to hear any more of it. If education breeds liberalism, then how come most people I know with multiple Ph.D.s are conservatives while almost all Hollywood actors and 'musical' performers are liberal. The only educated population I see going liberal more often than not is the college professor crowd, and it's not like those guys have a lot of real world experience, anyhow (those I have seen who do are much more likely to be conservative). Conservatives aren't conservatives because they're either too evil or too stupid to realize that Republicans don't bend over backwards to 'help the poor,' we just happen to think that the poor are better helped by learning to make their own money rather than leeching off of the taxpayers. Sure, throwing money at them buys food, but it also breeds lazyness. We also don't go conservative because we don't realize how evil Republicans infringe on the rights of gays or women, we just happen to think that gay marriage is an abomination and that an unborn child has the right to live.

So, here's what I think about your condescending little theory.

:nine:

Now stop insulting my intelligence. I'm a 4th year college student who keeps up with all the news I can find time to listen to/see/read.

 

[onedomino]

Intellectualism breeds liberalism

NE, where did you get that idea? Machiavelli was an intellectual. Fredrick Nietzsche was an intellectual. Karl Marx was an intellectual. I am pretty sure you are not referring to their "liberalism." Communist intellectuals in the CCCP built the Gulag Archipelago, where people were liberally killed. PRC intellectuals liberally suppress the media. The totalitarian abuses of highly educated intellectuals are manifest on this chaotic planet. The educated intelligentsia of any particular culture is a product of its environment. They can be liberal or conservative, communist or capitalist, priests or atheists.

 

[nakedemperor]

NE, where did you get that idea? Machiavelli was an intellectual. Fredrick Nietzsche was an intellectual. Karl Marx was an intellectual. I am pretty sure you are not referring to their "liberalism." Communist intellectuals in the CCCP built the Gulag Archipelago, where people were liberally killed. PRC intellectuals liberally suppress the media. The totalitarian abuses of highly educated intellectuals are manifest on this chaotic planet. The educated intelligentsia of any particular culture is a product of its environment. They can be liberal or conservative, communist or capitalist, priests or atheists.

Agreed, totally. I was responding to the prevalent sentiment that professors, teachers, etc. are predominantly liberal *because* of their elitism, and "brainwash" their pupils to be liberals as well (looking for the thread...its a pretty harsh indictment by several cons. on this board that liberal intellectuals are elitist etc. etc.) I think intellectualism can breed conservatism and liberalism alike, but one doesn't become an intellectual because of inherent personality traits that are found mostly in liberals. Its a weak attempt at explaining why college campuses in the North and Northeast are so vastly liberal (in some cases).

You statement that the intelligentsia of a culture is a product of their environment is exactly what I was getting at.. my sentiment was out of place, I'ma try to find the thread that I was indirectly reacting to.

 

[nbdysfu]

1)You're posting something from slate saying the media is not biased to the left.

2)Coverage and endorsements are two different things. And in the past company owners were probably more forceful about having their say with endorsements and controlling their papers.

3)If I remember correctly, the media predicted Eisenhower would lose by a wide margin, and the exact opposite happened.

4)I don't remember the media particularly favoring Reagan, and I think they have even become worse since then.