Where Fox News goes from here

Fox News commentator Karl Rove chides his fellow Fox analysts on a big-screen television during a Republican Party election night gathering in Denver. Fox News commentator Karl Rove chides his fellow Fox analysts on a big-screen television during a Republican Party election night gathering in Denver. Photo: David Zalubowski, STF Photo: David Zalubowski, STF Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Where Fox News goes from here 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

My most enduring memory of the election night coverage was Karl Rove, on Fox News, clutching sheets of paper and reciting numbers that appeared to be totally free of context. He was insisting, in the face of numerous network calls, including Fox itself, of Ohio for Obama, that the race was too close to call.

He did that in 2000, of course, when he was George W. Bush's campaign adviser. The state was Florida and we all know how that worked out - vindication for Rove and the presidency for his candidate. So he was trying the same thing, as the guy his super PAC had supported was going down in flames.

Same strategy, different facts. I didn't see Rove on the air after that.

I watched on three channels - MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, a cast of a thousand liberals and one token (not very) Republican; Fox with its rotating gaggle of dyspeptic commentators; and PBS, with Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill trying to keep it fair and balanced although, on this night, the facts had a liberal bias.

PBS was ultimately the most fun. Mark Shields was appropriately wonky, and I like wonky in my election coverage. David Brooks was earnest, and the usual gaggle of "presidential historians" puffed on their invisible pipes and offered wisdom. Plus, no commercials!

It was all very collegial in the TV coverage, very much a throwback to earlier eras when returns were slower to come in. The odd, long wait for the concession speech gave everyone a chance to bloviate about their hobby horses. "This is my hobby horse; isn't he lovely? See how I stroke him."

Not great television, but at least it wasn't too tedious, because Obama had won, there was no more tension in the room - my room or their rooms - and everybody felt it OK to giggle a little, except on Fox, where there was little giggling that I saw.

You had to wonder about Fox. This is the third presidential election in which Fox has been a major player, and the Democrats have won two of them. A combination of big money and big propaganda was supposed to carry the day for Romney and the Republicans, but it didn't.

Could it be that the Fox model has played out? Could it be that the lack of civility and grace, the embrace of the most extreme candidates as long as they were Republicans, indeed, the whole idea behind Roger Ailes' brainchild - a pimping station for the far right - may be politically bankrupt?

Perhaps not financially bankrupt; it seems supported by its advertisers very nicely. It could go on for quite some time. The question is: Is it hurting the very people it's supposed to be helping? Does the existence of this high-profile echo chamber deafen candidates to what the electorate is actually saying?

Obama fought an intensive, expensive, sophisticated campaign. He outorganized the Republicans once again. He was on the ground in the swing states way before Romney even had a real organization. I think he won a politically smart race. It wasn't about hope and change; it was about votes and numbers.

But still - despite Fox News telling us how unpopular Obamacare was, the polls showed differently. People appreciate universal health care, or as close as they can get to it. They don't want to hear about "socialism," which was a mantra in Republican Party circles but nowhere else.

The language that Fox News used when it talked about immigration, "anchor babies" and the like, is not really rhetoric that's going to work, as Latinos voted, and voted for Obama. Fox News insisted on defending GOP candidates who offered various bizarre views of rape, as women voted in higher numbers for Obama than Romney - and the GOP candidates in question lost their Senate bids.

Mitt Romney's concession speech was brief, gracious and humble. He said nothing to feed the crazies in his own party. Later, his website streamed President Obama's victory speech - classy move. He seemed to be returning to Mitt I, the moderate governor of Massachusetts.

Suppose Romney had run as Mitt I all the way along. Suppose he had taken the president on in the economic sphere and hadn't promised so vigorously to gut Obamacare. Suppose that guy had run? If he had made it through the primaries, he might have had a very real shot at election.

Could a moderate Republican get nominated in the era of Fox News? I don't think so. And as long as that's so, Fox News hurts the GOP.