Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Ain't nobody here but us turkeys Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 15:50:37 EST Message-ID: \SE A;NATION;PRUDEN ON POLITICS \HD Ain't nobody here but us turkeys \BY Wesley Pruden \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES After a brief pause to profess a little fraudulent humility in the wake of the election, Washington is back to the things it does best, self-abuse and the cultivation of narcissism. Certain conservatives who spent the autumn sabotaging George Bush are pushing each other out of the way to get their chance to kick him, now that he's good and safely down. The media are, as usual, raising toasts to themselves, since nobody else will. Some of the best and the brightest at the Heritage Foundation celebrated by serving party goers a plastic replica of the head of George Bush on a platter, in the way that Salome, who was at least a bit of a dish herself, took the head of John the Baptist. Some of the older if not necessarily wiser heads at Heritage insisted it was just a joke, but it was a reminder of the attitudes of some conservatives who, like their counterparts on the leftmost edge of the radar screen, would rather be right in their own wild eyes than win the partial victory that most of us understand is the only victory life delivers, and then only when we're lucky. Barry Goldwater, who was buried under the greatest avalanche in American history in 1964 (they're still counting the ballots cast against him in some rural precincts), has been playing too long among the rattlers and Gila monsters. He accused George Bush of running "the worst campaign I have ever witnessed." This finally confirms what a lot of people thought at the time, that Mr. Goldwater slept through the '64 campaign and never bothered to look at - or "witness" - what was going on around him. The president's campaign made more bonehead mistakes than it could afford, and Bill Clinton's campaign made hardly any, but somebody please tell Barry Goldwater, of all people, to put a cork in it. Some of the conservatives berating Mr. Bush loudest are those who did all they could to wound him in the spring and summer, and, indeed, some of them continued to snipe at him - usually from behind elaborate disguises in the safety of the box seats - through Tuesday night. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy stakes are hotly contested. The organs of the dominant media, which threw away its traditions of objectivity and fairness to lead Democratic cheers as soon as the gavel banged down to close the Democratic National Convention in July, are busy now trying to rewrite their campaign history. Jonathan Wolman, the chief of the Washington bureau of the Associated Press, which in the waning weeks of the campaign made no attempt to hide its lust for Bill Clinton, thinks the coverage was generally pretty nifty. "I thought that the coverage was a great deal better than in 1988 when the campaign was often dominated by sideshows like Boston Harbor and the flag factories. The shift from rallies to TV talk shows had one great benefit - the candidates couldn't help but focus on issues that might actually matter over the next four years." Concurring hurrahs of self-congratulations are heard from the usual suspects. Dan Rather thinks he was terrific. Stephen Hess, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, praises the press for being "educable" in 1992. (We "grew.") Everette Dennis of the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, a man of small expectations, is a man in a maiden's swoon. He is encouraged, he says, that "both the quantity and quality have really soared this year in a way I wouldn't have expected." Robert Lichter, the director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which probably pays closest attention to how reporters do (and don't do) their jobs, applauds with one hand the coverage this year as "more aggressive and more substantive," but agrees with the conclusion, nearly unanimously held everywhere but in the newsrooms, that the coverage was tougher on Mr. Bush than on Mr. Clinton, and "less balanced than in '88." Marion Just, a political science professor at Wellesley College who has been conducting interviews with voters, finds a common complaint: "Many people object to the reporters offering their own, off-the-cuff opinions, especially about things that are obvious or that the voters can determine for themselves." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM