On Tuesday, Americans chose as their next president anAfrican-American named BarackObama who campaigned on a near-universal health-care plan, allowing the Bushtax cuts for the wealthy to expire, and a move away from the belligerentforeign policy of the past eight years. Republicans, and some journalists, hadspent months falsely saying Obama is the single most liberal member of the U.S. Senate -- and maybe even a socialist. The Americanpeople responded by electing him in a landslide.This, naturally, is very good news for the Republicans,according to many pundits. It proves once again that America remains a⋎nter-right" nation.Right about now, you're probably scratching your head,wondering how the election of the "most liberal" member of theSenate, a man who campaigned on a promise of near-universal health care, couldpossibly be described as evidence of a conservative country.To be sure, it requires some creative thinking.NBC's Tom Brokaw, for example, looked atcounty-by-county election results and concluded that counties carried by JohnMcCain account for greater land mass than those carried by Barack Obama. Thiswould be meaningful, if only fields and streams and rocks and trees wereconservative voters. But they aren't: They are fields and streams androcks and trees. They are neither liberal nor conservative; they tell usnothing about the nation's political leanings. ώm>People tell us something about the nation's leanings -- and more ώm>people voted for Barack Obama.Then there's CNN's John King ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/05/acd.01.html">Wednesdaynight. Just try to follow his logic: ϋlockquote>KING: Without a doubt, the electorate voted for Barack Obama, but stillperceives him to be a liberal. And one thing you don't want to do when you win an election like this, a sweeping electionlike this, is ϊ name="ORIGHIT_6">ϊ name="HIT_6">county four years ago. You don't want to drive them away....So, Barack Obama is making inroadsin communities that not too long ago voted Republican. The last thing you want to do if you want to keep themfour years from now is to ϊ name="ORIGHIT_7">ϊ name="HIT_7">ϊ name="HIT_8">liberal agenda.That simply does not make any sense. John King says Barackwon a "sweeping election" even though the electorate"perceives him to be a liberal" -- so he better not pursue a "liberalagenda" or he will Ȫlienate them."Got thatLater that same night, King ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/05/acd.02.html"�that Obama ȭoes not get a mandate to be a liberal." Again, this ispure nonsense. John King says voters perceive Obama to be a liberal. John Kingsays Obama won a "sweeping victory." And yet John King says thatObama's sweeping victory among an electorate that considers him a liberaldoes not constitute a mandate to be a liberal. This is illogical,self-discrediting foolishness.<pϪt least King was considerate enough to debunk his ownabsurd conclusions in near-real time. Conservatives making similar claims werenot so kind.Media Research Center president BrentBozell -- who does notget nearly the recognition he deserves for being one of the most clownishfigures in the conservative movement --took to Fox News to ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200811070010"Ϫnnouncethat Obama had won by campaigning as a "Reaganite" and aȯiscal conservative."<pϯirst, Bozell didn't explain what he meant byȯiscal conservative," but its typical meaning -- supportive of restrained spending andbalanced budgets -- isso far removed from the actual governing performance of actual conservativesthat the phrase ought to be retired from use.Second, Bozell's claim that Obama won as a"Reaganite" is a little odd, given that it wasn't that longago that conservatives were saying Obama was campaigning on a"redistribution of wealth" that constituted"socialism." And when I say Ȭonservatives," I meanBrent Bozell. And by "it wasn't that long ago," I mean lastweek.How much of a fraud is Bozell In 1998, Bozell claimed themedia weren't paying enough attention to Monica Lewinsky -- at a time when there were 500 news reports ώmϪ day on the topic. Now he'salternately claiming Obama is a "socialist" and a"Reaganite." And in his column last week, he ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20081028.asp"Ϭomplainedthat a recent Project for Excellence in Journalism study overstated the extentof negative coverage of Obama by including "talk-radiohosts from Rush Limbaugh to Randi Rhodes" who are supposed toȮxpress an opinion." But that complaint is completely false. Thestudy in question specifically ώmϮxcludedtalk radio. It's right there in the study's ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://journalism.org/node/13314">methodology: "Talkradio stories, which are part of PEJ's regular NCI, were not included inthis campaign study of tone." If Brent Bozell tells you the sun isshining, you better grab an umbrella.It isn't hard to figure out why Brent Bozell makesabsurd claims about Obama winning as a "Reaganite" -- he's an ideologuewith far greater commitment to his agenda than to the truth.Newsweek and countless other Beltwayjournalists and pundits continue to say things like Ȫmerica remains a center-rightcountry" and insist that Barack Obama's clear victory does notconstitute a mandate for the progressive policy positions he ran onIt might have something to do with the long-held assumptionsof many journalists and pundits and more than a few progressives thatprogressives are inherently politically weak and conservatives are inherentlypolitically strong.Three of the most foolish pieces of punditry of the pastseveral years reflect such assumptions.ώm>Newsweek's HowardFineman ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300010#3"Ϫnnouncedin late 2005 that Democrats were justifiably "gloomy" about theirelectoral prospects. It seemed preposterous, given that President Bush'sapproval ratings were in the tank, his mishandling of Hurricane Katrina hadenraged the nation, and Republicans in Congress were being fitted for orangejumpsuits by the dozen. Still, Fineman insisted, it was true: Democrats were introuble. One reason A "Lack of star power." Fineman explained:"it's incontestably true that the Democrats simply aren't blessedwith much charisma in the leadership ranks." The 200,000 people who stoodin Chicago'sGrant Park for Obama's victory speech would probably disagree. Yes,Fineman said "leadership ranks," and Obama wasn't in theparty "leadership" in 2005. But Fineman contrasted the Democrats'purported lack of Ȭharisma" with Republicans who weren't,either, so that doesn't get him off the hook.Since Fineman argued that Democrats had good reason to begloomy, they've picked up more than 50 House seats, 12 in the Senate, andthe presidency. Republicans have won ... well, John Boehner has probablywon a few rounds of golf, but that's about it.Then there's NBC political director Chuck Todd.Shortly before the 2006 elections, Todd ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200707050011">predicted that ifDemocrats won control of Congress, President Bush's approval rating wouldbe above 50 percent by the following July. Democrats did win control ofCongress -- andBush's approval rating was at 30 percent the following July. And at thispoint, Bush wouldn't be above 50 if you added his approval ratings in thelast two CBS/ώm>New York Times pollstogether.<pϪnd finally, the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder: InSeptember 2005, Broder ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/rdto=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301005.html" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301005.html">predictedthat Bush's handling of Katrina would help him regain his standing withthe public. Things didn't work out that way, as Broder eventually acknowledged, but he continued topredict a Bush resurgence. In early 2007, Broder announced that "President Bush ispoised for a political comeback."It isn't just that these three predictions were wrong;people make incorrect forecasts all the time. Many of those incorrectpredictions are based on reasonable analysis that just turns out to be wrong. Butit has been pretty clear since mid-2005 that the Bush administration has been aspectacular failure, that the public has rejected the disastrous conservativepolicies President Bush had used to drive the nation into a ditch. Therehasn't been any reason to believe the Republicans would rebound, otherthan blind faith. And that isn't something that is clear only inhindsight: It has been ϊ href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300010f=s_search#3">obvious foryears. <p㻞mocrats have won the popular vote in four of the past fivepresidential elections. When the new Congress is sworn in, they will hold morethan 250 seats in the House and at least 57 in the Senate. Public polling shows-- and has shown forquite some time -- thatAmericans back progressive solutions to the nation's problems. Thecurrent progressive ascendancy won't last forever, of course. Butit's about time for the Beltway pundit crowd to let go of their tired oldassumptions about the relative strength of the parties and the ideologicalleanings of the country. Unless, of course, they ώmϮnjoy making fools of themselves.ώm>Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.