- The Washington Times - Thursday, November 4, 2004

Sometime in those roughly 12 post-election hours between John Edwards’ early-morning threat of a promise to open up Ohio to the lawyer-legions, and John Kerry’s concession speech in the afternoon, I went back to the books, back to the 1960 election when Richard Nixon was very, very narrowly defeated by John F. Kennedy.

What a difference 44 years makes. “I eased the tension of the wait [for election returns] by driving south on the Pacific Coast Highway,” Nixon wrote in his memoirs. On that Election Day roadtrip, this sitting vice president and Republican presidential candidate was accompanied only by two aides and a Los Angeles police driver. One aide “remarked that he had never been to Tijuana, so we continued all the way to Mexico,” Mr. Nixon wrote. “We were back in Los Angeles by the time the results were coming in.”

Such whimsy belongs to a pre-satellite age. But Mr. Nixon sensed a new day was dawning with “the substantial and influential power that the emergence of television as the primary news medium gave reporters, commentators, and producers.” He continued: “It was largely they who decided what the public would hear and see of the campaign.” And you can say that again — at least until lately. The advent of talk radio, Fox News and the Internet has finally begun to bust up that old info-nopoly.

Mr. Nixon went on to describe a whiplashing election night, trending, but barely, toward Mr. Kennedy. Only 113,000 votes — including thousands of demonstrably fraudulent ones — would ultimately separate the two candidates in the popular vote. That’s 22,000 votes fewer than the margin separating George W. Bush and Mr. Kerry in Ohio alone; it’s less than 5 percent of the 3.5 million votes separating Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry nationally. Too close to call? Not according to the media, circa 1960. As Mr. Nixon wrote, they had already predicted a substantial Kennedy victory. Which, in light of the erroneous reports of a Kerry landslide this week, reminds us that some things really never change.

Describing “tremendous pressure” to concede from reporters and pundits, Mr. Nixon made a brief statement after midnight to acknowledge the sliver of a Kennedy edge. Contrast that with the tremendous reluctance of the Kerry-cheering main stream media (MSM) even to call Ohio for President Bush — probably out of fear of validating his re-election and, quite inadvertently, forcing some sort of a midnight concession from Mr. Kerry.

The 1960 morning brought a shrinking margin and reports of massive Democratic fraud in Texas and Illinois. But Mr. Nixon went statesman on his political allies and refused to demand a recount. “The effect could be devastating to America’s foreign relations,” he wrote patriotically, “and I could not subject the country to such a situation.” He also didn’t want to be known as a “sore loser.” Given the early machinations of the Kerry campaign, I doubt either reason moved Mr. Kerry. He simply realized the futility of his situation and conceded the election — to the quite obvious distress of the MSM.

NBC’s Katie Couric donned black. “It looks more and more like the president has won,” Miss Couric said — after the president had won. “You take my breath away,” ABC’s Peter Jennings told an election law expert on hearing that Ohio was out of Mr. Kerry’s reach. Radio talkster Don Imus said NBC’s Tom Brokaw greeted him around dawn, saying, “What a nightmare.”

What is most extraordinary is that the president did win, despite the shameful affinity of the MSM and the Kerry campaign. The American people managed to hear and see through the fuzz and the junk, through “60 Minutes” and “Nightline,” through the New York Times and the, well, New York Times. They also managed to see through Mr. Springsteen and Miss Streisand, through the millions of George Soros and the mouth, Michael Moore.

There is something close to poetic justice in the creaky monolith of Old Media showing its advanced age and crochety bias in a campaign that now ends in the defeat of Mr. Kerry. That is, in important ways, the MSM and Mr. Kerry are kindred creatures of the faraway 1960s, both setting their anti-establishment ways during both the Vietnam War and, stateside, the anti-Vietnam War. You might even say that together they helped create and perpetuate the poisonous myth of the Vietnam veteran as enemy of humanity — touchstone of the self-hating American.

And now, with the re-election of George W. Bush, they have been defeated. More important — and massive thanks to the e-scribes of the blogosphere and John O’Neill and his Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — they have been exposed in ways once unimaginable. Which could presage a truly new era.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide