Brit Hume retiring.

I wonder if Al Gore and/or John Kerry had put their country first as John McCain did and accepted their opponent as "their President" if Washington would have been as nasty as it became?

Change comes to Washington: Fox's Brit Hume is retiring

By Glenn Garvin | Miami Herald

It was, Brit Hume thought, about as low as things could go in Washington, that day in the spring of 1974 when the Watergate scandal was spinning toward its inevitable conclusion.

''You could still stand out in front of the White House — all the 9/11 security stuff was years in the future — and parade around with a sign,'' Hume recalls. "There was a guy out there in an old striped jailbird uniform with one of those pillbox hats, wearing a Nixon mask and waving this sign that said HONK IF YOU THINK HE'S GUILTY. Traffic was backed up, and everybody was honking, and the cacophony was so loud that, we heard, the Nixons went to Camp David to get away from it.''

Almost 35 years later, Hume says he was mistaken — Washington was nowhere near the basement of its civility or politesse. ''Those were ugly days,'' he broods, "but these are worse.''

Hume, the first marquee name to sign with Fox News when it went on the air in 1996, is now set to leave his jobs as anchor and Washington managing editor, probably in December. Though he'll still contribute to the network as a political analyst and occasional substitute host of Fox News Sunday, last week's election was his last as an anchor.

His retirement caps almost four decades in the capital, first with newspapers and then, for 23 years — including seven as chief White House correspondent — with ABC News. He has covered everything from Watergate to Whitewater, from Gerald Ford's accidental presidency to Al Gore's near-miss and has won a wall full of journalism awards in the process, including two designations as ''Best in the Business'' by American Journalism Review for his White House stories.

source

They did.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t651213.html

"
I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

.....

Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.

So let it be with us.

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.

Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president. "

In my opinion, it was one of the best concession speeches I have ever heard.

I will admit that I was pleased with his concession.

It's too bad the former VP didn't instruct the rest of the democrats to join him in his acceptance of President Bush, huh Craig.

But honestly though, the real hatred by the democrats didn't begin to surface until late 2003 and grew during the election of 2004 and then exploded.

Perhaps Senator Kerry could have taken a page from Mr. Gore's playbook as well. He didn't though, nor did many in the democratic party and that had a great deal to do with why we are where we are as a nation, don't you agree Craig!!!

Aaron,

I don't blame Kerry so much as those liberals who cared so little about what was in the nation's best interests. It was those people who for years carried on about "stolen elections" and demanded the impeachment of our President. They wanted their pound of flesh and I would imagine they will never be satisfied.

Well, perhaps if Bush & Cheney were tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes. But that's about it.

Well Steph are you saying there were no crimes committed by the Bush regime?

First of all, it isn't a "regime".

Are you saying there were no crimes committed by Clinton?

Are you saying you don't think every US President in the past 100 years, or more, has committed an assortment of crimes?

You were the one who specified the Bush/cheney chapter.

The Bush administration, and the Democrats' animosity, for some blind hatred, of George Bush is the topic of this thread.

Well it started out as a criticism of Gore/Kerry for not graciously conceding.

But then it was pointed out that they had.

The switching of the topic to Pres. Bush and VP Cheney's alleged crimes was done by you, not me.

Then, when you were asked a question you did not want to answer you retreated to your old tactics of blaming Clinton.

Apparently even you will not deny that crimes have been committed.

sodbuster wrote:The switching of the topic to Pres. Bush and VP Cheney's alleged crimes was done by you, not me.

Apparently even you will not deny that crimes have been committed.

Sherman, why do you insist on posting such asininely stupid statements?

Is this because of an inherited family problem ...... or your training and conditioning as an employee of the WVSP.

Unless I missed it, Steph made no mention of any crimes committed by the Pres or Vice-pres, ..... to wit:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I don't blame Kerry so much as those liberals who cared so little about what was in the nation's best interests. It was those people who for years carried on about "stolen elections" and demanded the impeachment of our President. They wanted their pound of flesh and I would imagine they will never be satisfied.

Well, perhaps if Bush & Cheney were tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes. But that's about it.

But Shermmy, I know why you are pissed off at her remark .... and thus the reason you made said asininely stupid statements.

You Shermmy, are one who wants them tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes even though there is no proof or evidence to support your sentencing claim.

But being a WVST I don't guess proof or evidence matters to you when really pissed at somebody, right.



.

sodbuster wrote:Well it started out as a criticism of Gore/Kerry for not graciously conceding.

But then it was pointed out that they had.

No it wasn't pointed out that they had Sherman. Craig posted a speech. That's all. Gore's actions never indicated that he accepted George Bush as his President, nor did John Kerry's after 2004 and as my daddy used to say, actions speak much louder then words.

And the actions of democrats has been a ever deepening hatred of Republicans and vise versa and I merely pointed out that if Gore or Kerry had taken the road McCain did, we may not be where we are now.

You Shermmy, are one who wants them tried, convicted, and executed for war crimes even though there is no proof or evidence to support your sentencing claim.

Sam,

You hit the nail on the head.

Aaron wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Well it started out as a criticism of Gore/Kerry for not graciously conceding.

But then it was pointed out that they had.

No it wasn't pointed out that they had Sherman. Craig posted a speech. That's all. Gore's actions never indicated that he accepted George Bush as his President, nor did John Kerry's after 2004 and as my daddy used to say, actions speak much louder then words.

John Kerry, November 3, 2004:

"Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush and I offered him and laura our congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation. We talked about the danger of division in our country, and the need — the desperate need — for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing."

"congratulations on their victory"- that sounds like an acceptance of the previous day's presidential election to me.

As daddy said, actions speak louder then words.

Aaron wrote:As daddy said, actions speak louder then words.

Well, it is politics, you know.

And I think that expectations of some grand post-election political love-in are wholly unrealistic- Sodbusters and Kerry's expressed sentiments notwithstanding.

Life goes on- including political life. People can recognize Bush as the president and still think of him as a dangerous, lying, doffus a-hole.

ziggy wrote:
Life goes on- including political life. People can recognize Bush as the president and still think of him as a dangerous, lying, doffus a-hole.

You’ve proven the point. Those actions are what lead directly to the diverseness that this country is at right now as Hume indicated.

Those actions are what lead directly to the diverseness that this country is at right now as Hume indicated.

It was not "those actions" that cause some people to think of GW Bush as a dangerous, lying, doffus a-hole. It is Bush's own actions that lead to that assessment.

I never said anything about what people think of GWB or why.

I said diverseness in this country is a result of the actions of people who feel that way.

Is there some particular reason you feel the need to twist my words Frank?

Aaron wrote:I never said anything about what people think of GWB or why.

I said diverseness in this country is a result of the actions of people who feel that way.

Duhh, yeah. But to suggest that people shouldn't feel that way in spite of what they see is to suggest that political harmony is more important than what politicians do. I refuse to give anyone a political blank check just for the sake of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I never said anything about what people think of GWB or why.

I said diverseness in this country is a result of the actions of people who feel that way.

Duhh, yeah. But to suggest that people shouldn't feel that way in spite of what they see is to suggest that political harmony is more important than what politicians do. I refuse to give anyone a political blank check just for the sake of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

I never said people shouldn't feel that way and I certainly never suggested anything in regard to political harmony or of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

In your zeal to prove me wrong, you've put others words in my mouth that are not mine. but are the suggestions of others. It is I who has called for continued partisanship in politics and it is I who has stated that I don't care about being liked, both in just the past few days on this forum.

I merely posted what Mr. Hume stated and why I believe it's happened. I never said it was a bad thing.

And for the record, no one has yet to dispute what I belive is the reason for the current diverseness of our political leaders.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I never said anything about what people think of GWB or why.

I said diverseness in this country is a result of the actions of people who feel that way.

Duhh, yeah. But to suggest that people shouldn't feel that way in spite of what they see is to suggest that political harmony is more important than what politicians do. I refuse to give anyone a political blank check just for the sake of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

I never said people shouldn't feel that way and I certainly never suggested anything in regard to political harmony or of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

So what did you mean when you said:

You’ve proven the point. Those actions are what lead directly to the diverseness that this country is at right now as Hume indicated.

What actions?

It is the actions of GW Bush that cause my "diverseness", if that is what you want to call it, from the current president- and apparently that of about 80 percent of other Americans, too- according to the presidential approval rating polls.

I don't think that peoples "diverseness" about Bush, nor even about politics in general, is related to what Gore or Kerry did or didn't do.

I agree Frank. At least with your last sentance.

You don't think.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. You and I are the only ones who know that.

So keep it quiet. If word got out, it might affect my reputation!

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I never said anything about what people think of GWB or why.

I said diverseness in this country is a result of the actions of people who feel that way.

Duhh, yeah. But to suggest that people shouldn't feel that way in spite of what they see is to suggest that political harmony is more important than what politicians do. I refuse to give anyone a political blank check just for the sake of preserving some notion of political non-divisiveness.

Exactly, Ziggy! You've done a marvelous job putting into words what I've been trying to convey to die-hard Democratic Party loyalist for days! Now, kindly explain to him this doesn't make mean I don't love my country and want what's best for her and her people.