Washingtonians opened their top newspaper on Sunday, Jan. 19 to
see what could have been predicted down to the letter. "Thousands Oppose a
Rush to War," the headline announced, resting under a large color picture of
a sea of protesters. Not one, not two, but three articles on the front page
cast doubt on the Bush preparations for war on Iraq. Inside, the anti-Bush
rally was awarded two entire pages of articles and pictures, and then, as if
that weren't enough, the Post tacked on another half a page for the protests
in San Francisco.
"Chill Doesn't Cool Fury Over U.S. Stand on Iraq," said another
headline, and that's the closest the Post came to describing the furious
tone of remarks from the Washington, D.C., rally podium. Many speakers
lacerated the president and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but these
sulfurous comments never made the Post. Like? The leader of the rally
organizers, leftist crank Ramsey Clark, called for Bush to be impeached.
Another speaker called the Bush team "greedy imperialist murderers."
Reporters were most impressed with the protest turnout,
especially since temperatures stayed below freezing all day. Yet the Post
(and so many other national media outlets) has never outpoured warm feelings
at the top of the news when tens of thousands of pro-lifers brave freezing
January temperatures year after year to make a solemn statement on behalf of
the unborn children so casually killed over the last 30 years.
Even putting two major Washington marches five days apart
couldn't scare the liberal media into avoiding the trap of plugging away for
the anti-Bush rally while ignoring the pro-life event. The March for Life
crowd never makes the news the way anarchist and communist hooligans like
the "anti-globalization" activists did in Seattle a few years ago. March for
Life speakers are often soft-spoken and prayerful, talking about faith and
family, and mourning for the millions lost. Maybe they should break windows
and invite tear gas attacks. Is that what must be done to earn the interest
of The Washington Post?
Every year it's the same. Except for a modicum of attention to
President Bush's phoned-in remarks, last year's March for Life typically got
lost in the media shuffle. Despite the depth and breadth of the crowd, only
six TV cameras were there, less than half of what a pro-abortion Congressman
can get standing alone on Capitol Hill on an average day. Washington
journalists were spending their time and wattage that day on tender concern
for the human rights not of the unborn ... but of suspected al-Qaeda
terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. They know the
truly defenseless when they see them.
CNN anchor Judy Woodruff buried the day's activities into this
afternoon summation: "Anti-abortion activists held a rally earlier today on
Capitol Hill. Later, abortion-rights supporters plan to hold a vigil at the
Supreme Court." It did not matter than one side had amassed a throng of
100,000, while the other had trouble assembling 100. It did not matter while
the pro-life speakers made no spiteful remarks attacking feminists, NOW
staffers yelled vile falsehoods into a bullhorn, including "Pray by day!
Bomb by night! That's the motto of pro-life!" and "Pro-life, your name's a
lie! You don't care if women die!" To CNN, they were just two sides of an
old coin, but only one side gets every benefit of the doubt.
Washington Post reporters and other supine anti-war publicists
claim that the large rallies organized by the (unlabeled) Trotskyite kook
group International ANSWER demonstrate a broad public sentiment against
President Bush's war plans. So why won't they make this case for the
Let's look at the last poll that really counted, the November
elections. Which Republicans or Democrats suffered for supporting the
president's resolve to disarm Iraq? The hardened "anti-war" Bush-haters were
exactly the same types who turned the Paul Wellstone memorial service into a
partisan freak show ... and look at what happened to them. Then look at how
the pro-lifers scored. In general, voters handed all the elected branches of
government back to the pro-life party. Specifically, NARAL targeted six
Senate races (Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and New
Hampshire) and lost them all, except Iowa, where the GOP ran thin-gruel
moderate Greg Ganske.
So which set of marchers represents a substantial slice of
public opinion, and which is the lunatic fringe? The liberal media are
getting it backward, presenting the mainstream as the fringe and the fringe
as the mainstream. So the anti-war protesters get all the sympathetic air
time, while the mainstream pro-life movement solemnly prays away like a
solitary tree that fell in the woods, ignored.