From: AdmrlLocke@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 1:46 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: GrammNet: McCain To Replace Bush as Liberal Media's Candidate? GrammNet Issue 8/24/99.1 Dear Friend, Did you see the episode of ABC's This Week Without David Brinkley (as I call it) last November, when Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were analyzing the victory of Republican governors? Sam, always the more visibly-partisan liberal, crowed about how conservative Republicans had been defeated or had won only narrowly, while "pragmatic" Republicans like George W. Bush had won overwhelmingly. (In liberalspeak, pragmatic means "not as liberal as I'd like, but liberal enough.") Cokie, always the more clever and canny liberal, quickly corrected Sam before anyone could notice that he'd spilled the beans about Bush's lack of conservatism. She insisted that George W. Bush was both pragmatic AND conservative. Ever since then, virtually all the liberal media have been promoting the candidacy of Bush, Jr., going to great lengths to create the story that he's the inevitable nominee. Their creative efforts put to shame such pale imitations as the movie "Wag the Dog." You may have noticed that with one exception, the liberal media organizations have refused to publish any of the polls they've taken pitting any Republican candidate except Bush, Jr. against Gore. (The one exception: one network released a poll pitting Elizabeth Dole against Gore.) Yet obviously they've been polling heavily on the question of Gore versus various Republicans: Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, Lamar Alexander, John McCain, and Pat Buchanan at the very least, and probably Gary Bauer as well. Just yesterday one of my conservative contacts in the mainstream media confirmed for me that the liberal media news outlets have indeed been refusing to publish their polls, including the latest showing Forbes 10-15 points behind Gore. And that's after months of the liberal media fawning over Bush, Jr. and either ignoring or trashing Forbes. My contact agreed with me (even though he's supporting Bush, Jr.) that if people knew that Forbes was so close to Gore, it would help his chances. Indeed, based on the way liberal media outlets take their polls--designed to capture stay-at-homes in large urban areas, who are the most liberal voters--there's always a good 10 percentage-point bias in favor of the liberal side of the questions. Bob Dole, for instance--no favorite of mine, as long-time GrammNet subscribers will recall--polled consistently lower in the liberal media polls than he did in the final election: about 10 percentage-points lower. Furthermore, the liberal media polls almost always poll all adults, or at best all adults registered to vote, rather than polling people who voted in the previous election of the sort in question and who intend to vote in the coming election. Zogby, by contrast, typically polls only those who voted in the previous election and plan to vote in the next. Since Republicans and conservatives are more likely to vote than independents, moderates, Democrats and liberals, the Zogby polls eliminate another source of liberal media poll bias. That's why Zogby polls are almost always closer to the actual election results--and why Zogby polls almost always show conservative candidates and issues with a good 10 percentage points more than they appear to have in the liberal media polls. (Actually, that might indicate a greater bias than 10 percentage points--if the conservative is 10 points higher and the liberal unchanged, there'd be a 10-point bias in the liberal poll; but if the conservative is 10 points higher in the Zogby poll and the liberal is 10 points lower, we'd be looking at a 20-point liberal media poll bias, but let it pass for now.) What the liberal media poll bias means, given the typical media polling error of +/-3 points is that being 10-15 points behind Gore in a liberal media poll actually indicates anything from Forbes being slightly behind, to a dead heat, to Forbes being slightly ahead. Obviously if people knew that Forbes was neck-and-neck with Gore it would destroy the liberal media myth that only Bush, Jr. can beat Gore. And frankly, if more people knew how close Forbes really is to Gore, he's get more support based on the "I want to go with a winner" bandwagon phenomenon. (And if the liberal media poll bias is actually greater, the unpublished polls showing Forbes within 10-15 points of Gore would actually indicate that Forbes may lead Gore despite the liberal media myth that only Bush can beat Gore.) So by publishing the results only of the Bush, Jr. versus Gore polls the liberal media perpetuate their myth that Bush, Jr. is the only viable Republican candidate. However if there's one thing that liberals in the news media hate more than real conservatism, it's candidates who will not give them straight answers. Remember that even members of the liberal media, including Sam and Cokie, abandoned Clinton when it became clear that he had lied to them about Monica Lewinsky. Sam positively hates Clinton personally, and once did a segment he should have called "Whining About Bill" in which he showed how Clinton treats the media even worse than Ronald Reagan did--from the liberal perspective. So Bush, Jr. stands on the verge of losing his liberal media support by waffling around on the cocaine issue. You can tell that they're starting to lose their patience with him (even though George Stephanopolus defended him against criticism from conservatives Bill Kristol and George Will on This Week this week). Below is a recent AP report on the Bush drug story which seems designed to keep the story alive until either he does give a straight answer or they find another candidate to replace him as their darling. As the second following report indicates, Senator John McCain is poised to become the new liberal media darling. Some of the liberal media have already laid the foundation by claiming that the Straw Poll in Iowa--which McCain conspicuously boycotted--was a sham anyway (even as they also claimed that it cemented Bush, Jr.'s status as the front-runner; how many sides do they have to their mouths?). Why have some liberal media outlets subtly laid the foundation for McCain? Liberals like McCain's tobacco-bilking tax plan (and the additional government spending it would allow), but they LOVE his proposal for "campaign-finance" reform, which would silence the NRA, Right-to-Life, the Christian Coalition, Americans for Tax Reform, U.S. Term Limits, Harry-and-Louise-style anti-socialist-healthcare campaigns, and everyone else against Big Government. McCain's "campaign-finance" infringements of our liberty would leave the liberal media with a virtual monopoly (or, more accurately, oligopoly) over the dissemination of mass political information in our republic. Not incidentally, McCain's infringements would silence the little voices too--like my GrammNet. And it's no coincidence that, just as the liberals' patience with Bush, Jr. is wearing thin, McCain has abandoned the pro-life position, which he held through last November's election, and endorsed the liberal mantra of "keep Roe v. Wade." Liberals are so excited with McCain's flip-flop that they can hardly contain themselves. Since the liberal media are a group of individuals and organizations, rather than the monolithic block some conservatives think they are, it may be that only some of the liberal media will dump Bush for McCain. Now remember: the liberal media have been sitting on the results of polling they've done on the question of McCain versus Gore. So one sign that the liberal media are starting to abandon Bush for McCain would be a sudden release of the McCain versus Gore polls (assuming that those polls show McCain close to or ahead of Gore). So if you start seeing McCain versus Gore poll numbers in liberal media reports, you'll know that the new fix is in--at least by some of the liberal media. Actually, the best thing that could happen from the conservative perspective is for the liberal media to split between Bush, Jr. and McCain. That would tend to split the establishment Republican vote, undermine both sides' efforts to paint their guy as the inevitable candidate, and open up more room for some conservatives--those fooled by the liberal media campaign for Bush, Jr.--to see that Forbes is the true candidate of Reagan conservatives. Even if all (or most) of the liberal media switch to McCain, they will be hard-pressed to derail the Bush, Jr. train they've brought to full steam, and a full-bore effort to switch to the McCain railroad might do more to sidetrack ALL establishment Republican candidates than would a split liberal media. Stay tuned. Sincerely, David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA GrammNet is an independent newsletter, not affiliated with Senator Gramm. To subscribe to GrammNet, email me at AdmrlLocke@aol.com, with a message to the effect that you'd like to subscribe. GrammNet back issues available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3390/ --------------------------------- Rivals Advise Bush on Drug Questions WASHINGTON (AP) - As questions about past illegal drug use continue to dog Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush, some GOP rivals said Sunday that he should answer them directly and get the issue behind him. But at the same time, his competitors and supporters maintained that past indiscretions, including possible use of illegal drugs, should not disqualify the Texas governor or anyone else from becoming president. Noting that Bush has addressed the issue partially, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Bush should ``just answer the darn question and get rid of it.'' ``If there wasn't anything here, then George Bush should have just said there wasn't,'' Hatch said on NBC's ``Meet the Press''. ``If there was, I think he, at this point, should answer it, get it behind him, because the polls show most of the American people are forgiving,'' Hatch added. There has been no evidence or credible allegation that Bush ever has used an illegal drug, although he has admitted to formerly drinking heavily and ``mistakes'' as a youth. Questioned repeatedly on the drug issue, Bush said this past week that he had not used illegal drugs within the past 25 years, but would not elaborate. ``He has a right to privacy,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another GOP presidential contender, who declined during an interview on CNN's ``Late Edition'' to say whether Bush should address the issue further. Conservative GOP presidential contender Gary Bauer said the candidates will ``have to answer questions that go to law breaking.'' ``I think anything that involves a felony, I don't see how you can get away with'' not answering such questions directly, Bauer said on ``Fox News Sunday''. Former Vice President Dan Quayle, another rival for the GOP presidential nomination, said he admired Bush for trying to draw a line by not discussing his private life, but that ``he now sort of opened the door a bit'' and should go further. ``Once he started talking about it, you really probably are somewhat obliged to answer these questions,'' said Quayle, who appeared on ABC's ``This Week.'' Still, he called the issue of Bush's past indiscretions ``a sideshow'' in the campaign. Some Democrats agreed. ``It's whether or not he committed a crime. ... The voters are entitled to weigh what he (Bush) did and make a decision on that,'' said Geraldine Ferraro, a former New York congresswoman and Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said the drug questions were legitimate but that Bush did not have to be compelled to provide answers. ``I do think that the American people ought to hear a lot more about his past and about his positions,'' Daschle said on CNN. ``They haven't heard much yet.'' But Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, a Republican and strong Bush supporter, said his colleague had sufficiently answered the questions about drug use. ``I don't care what somebody did in college as long as he didn't kill somebody,'' declared Keating, who also appeared on ABC. Except for Bush, all of the GOP candidates have said unequivocally that they never have used illegal drugs. Democratic rivals Vice President Al Gore and Bill Bradley both have admitted to experimenting with marijuana during their youth. Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine while in college, said the question of past drug use - even if true in the case of Bush - is irrelevant in the presidential campaign. ``I see an incredible hypocrisy here,'' Johnson said on NBC. He added that he didn't think the 78 million Americans who have tried illegal drugs ``would want to disqualify themselves from becoming president of the United States or want to disqualify themselves from serving in public office.'' Rep. John Kasich, R-Ohio, who abandoned the GOP presidential race and now supports Bush, also decried ``gotcha'' politics that delves into a candidate's past. ``I don't think it's relevant in terms of the ability of George Bush to be president,'' Kasich said on the same NBC program. Meanwhile, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed said experimental drug use while young should be forgiven, but 69 percent said they would want to know about a candidate's past cocaine use. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Separately, Republican Lincoln Chafee, who is seeking the Senate seat from Rhode Island being vacated by his father, John, announced Sunday that he had used cocaine during college. He said he made the disclosure in part because of the media pursuit of Bush. ------------------- From Hotline 8/23/99 Campaigning in San Francisco on 8/19, McCain talked about abortion: "I'd love to see a point where (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations" (Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20). Marinucci on McCain's visit to CA: "I have to say, he's getting good reception everywhere he goes, and in some respects, his presence here has served to underscore some differences with Bush, particularly on this lifestyle issue. He was asked at a press conference yesterday, where was he 25 years ago when the headlines were Bush ceased drug use, and he said I was getting out of a prison camp in North Vietnam. Very dramatic contrast, and I think that contrast is going to keep being drawn as this campaign goes on" (release, 8/20). Columnist George Will: "The Republican race ... is about to take a turn, I think. John McCain, in an interview published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Friday, says the following, 'I'd love to see a point where Roe v. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade.' ... Well, people are going to ask him ... at what point and in what sense are abortions necessary? But also, here's his 1998 Congressional candidate questionnaire from the National Right to Life Committee. 'Do you support complete reversal of Roe v. Wade?' 'Yes' -- John McCain. Now, obviously, what he's doing is he's going to make this Armageddon in California. And he plans to go out there and turn that into a referendum on choice and the Republican Party. And if he wins that, you'll get your third party candidacy" ("This Week," ABC, 8/22). More McCain, on abortion: "I am proud of a 17-year voting record of pro-life positions. And I adhere to that position. I believe this issue of the repeal of Roe v. Wade is important. I favor the ultimate repeal of Roe v. Wade. But we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations. I want us to be a party of inclusion. I think that we can all be members of the Republican party whether we are pro-choice or pro-life because we share the same goal and that is the elimination of abortion. ... I hope we can all work together and maintain a dialogue within our party as we help try to resolve this very difficult issue that affects America in such a grievous way" ("Late Edition," CNN, 8/22).