Oh god, does it never end? These wingnut losers won the election and they are STILL blaming the alleged left wing bias — for making the race close. They’ve released the latest in unhinged groupthink in the report from “Accuracy in Media,” How the Liberal Media Plan to Bring Down Bush. Please try to restrain your laughter at this fact-free drivel, gentle House Blend readers… (AIM):

Cliff Kincaid, ace wingnut, is the editor of the AIM report (and can be reached at editor@aim.org).

It is a tribute to the rise of the “new media,” including Fox News Channel, conservative talk radio, bloggers and Internet sites, that President Bush was able to barely win re-election. The old media, which we have labeled as the Big Media, are not so big anymore. They have clearly lost some of their ability to manipulate the minds of the American people.

From the CBS News “60 Minutes” attack on President Bush, a broadcast that used forged documents, to the last minute New York Times story of “missing explosives” in Iraq, a story designed to undermine the President’s conduct of the war in Iraq, the liberal media tried many different tricks. But Bush still came out victorious.

Newsweek senior writer Charles Gasparino, appearing on a CNBC show, admitted the obvious. “We sow the seeds of our own demise,” he said. “Journalists have been advocates of the liberal attitude for way too long, and now we’re paying the price—Fox News.”

It’s true—Fox News is a response to the overwhelming liberal media bias.

That bias, said Evan Thomas of Newsweek, was worth between five and 20 million votes for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

[Is Evan Thomas on crack? — Pam]

Such mind manipulation is possible because CBS Evening News anchorman Dan Rather, despite his anti-Bush partisan agenda, continues to get about seven million viewers a night, NBC Nightly News 9.8 million, and ABC World Tonight nine million.

The old media thought they could defeat Bush. They failed. But they won’t leave their perch of national dominance without a fight.

On the November 5 edition of his public television program, “NOW,” liberal media icon and former Democratic Party official Bill Moyers gave us a hint of what’s to come. He warned that the Bush administration could be hit hard by the press with corruption stories. Moyers declared that, “I think the next four years are going to be a bonanza for investigative journalism. I just think every time you wed the state and business together like this, you get corruption flowing like the Mississippi River.” His point was that the Bush administration is an insidious combination of Big Business and Big Government.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, said Moyers, “the relationship between business and government created more corruption that actually renewed the Progressive Party and brought the Democrats to power.”

So this is the game plan—to depict the Republicans as being in bed with corrupt business practices, in order to discredit them and bring the Democrats back into power. That means more Halliburton-type coverage designed to convince the public that the Bush administration has sold out to the big corporations.

[Who needs convincing — it’s true! And now, they tread into the familiar land of homophobia, chastising Bush for even mentioning civil unions. ]

But the “anti-gay surge,” rather than being fiction, was evident in those states that passed the anti-homosexual measures. Some who voted for the measures undoubtedly voted against Bush for president because of Iraq or the economy or health care. That may be why the measures passed with at least 57 percent of the vote and Bush only got 51 percent on the national level.

It is reasonable to suggest that Bush could have benefited from their passage if he had explicitly campaigned for them. He did not. Instead, he talked generally about family values, noted his support for a federal marriage amendment during one of the debates, and even endorsed homosexual unions a week before the election.

Pollster [Kellyanne Conway of The Polling Company] confirmed to AIM that Bush’s endorsement of homosexual unions, during an interview with Charles Gibson of ABC News, undermined his campaign and actually hurt him with some “values voters.” Homosexual unions are just another version of same-sex marriage under a different name.

Rove, the “architect” of the victory, failed to fully comprehend at the time how powerful cultural conservatism had become. He now says, however, that “people would be well advised to pay attention to what the American people are saying.” That advice applies to the media—and some conservatives.