Free Republic

Yea...They announced it like there was going to be some big revelation. They even said "Coming up....Fox Exclusive Interview." Jeeze. He is blaming Osama. I recall the MSM pundits saying that tape would Help kerry. I guess the disappointment was that kerry had his "Thank you" note to Osama all written and ready to mail. Now he has wasted a stamp, too. And I waited to watch instead of eating my oatmeal.

Wearing black means they are mourning the death of something. Only thing I've seen lying around on its death bed lately is the Democrat party.

---

Right - That is specifically what the article points out. As well as the fact that by shrouding themselves in black they have exposed their bias - and that point is one they always denied. But it also addresses that we knew it all along anyway.

For the past two days we have seen the obvious bias of MSM news personalities, television commentators, talk-show hosts, political analysts, as well as entertainers and educators who have shrouded themselves in black as a symbol of their dissatisfaction with the election outcome. They did the same in 2000. Again those in the media, especially, have totally validated what the right had asserted all through the election and, indeed, for many years. In their fervor to demonstrate their suffering, they openly accepted their guilt of prejudiced coverage

The ''Men (and women) in Black'' must have assumed that we would see their selection of dark clothing as an insult the President. Instead, their display gave the pro-Bush American majority a truly optimistic and encouraging sign. To us it represented the end of the Democrat Party's socialist/liberalist/communist-like beliefs that have influenced and been embraced by the left. The ''death'' was in their family, not ours!

Reality has not even begun to sink in with this crowd. They continue to find fault and target their attacks at ''The Republicans'' as though the people who ran Bush's campaign and the people who voted for him, are two separate entities and not part of a whole. In their haste to lay blame, each time they use that phrase they prove they have no realization of how it also insults everyone who voted for the president including citizens of the Republican, Democrat, independent, and other parties. When their spokespeople freely and with great disdain say, ''Those rich Republicans,'' ''Those Republican Evangelicals,'' ''Those Republican goons,'' or resort to using other defamatory words they are, in fact, criticizing over 50% of America, not just some members of campaign bodies or political entities.

Further, it appears that they have no comprehension of the fact that those they hope will continue to watch their networks, pay to see their movies, listen to their music, buy their books, attend their colleges, and support their self-indulgent lifestyles are being even more repulsed by their ''in-your-face'' behavior. What did not work for them before the election certainly will not work for them now! Their continued anti-mainstream, anti-character counts, anti-conservative values, and their skeptic-based philosophy are not going to gain them a supportive audience.

If they were wise they would try to develop a conscious understanding of what our decision signaled. We sent them a loud message--not just through our choice for the office of the presidency, but also though the election of the largest representation of Republican leadership in the Senate and House in over 40 years. If they want to continue to enjoy the self-indulgent lifestyles to which they have become accustomed, it would be wise not to continue with their insults and inquests. We will just stop watching their programs, stop buying their books, stop seeing their movies, stop sending our children to their universities, and definitely stop voting their candidates into office.

They might choose to ignore this, but they cannot ignore: George Bush is president for four more years! He has always had a mandate and it is one we clearly understood and accepted. He does not have to take their abuse--he will not be running for re-election. And we do not have to endure their caustic criticisms. We are happy to see the evolving demise of the self-righteous premise under which they operated, i.e. that they were the ones who knew what America wanted, and the president did not.

Let them enjoy their ''wake'' for as long as it takes them to ''wake up.'' Give them their time to mourn, pout, act depressed, cry, and whine. Let them continue with their sneers, snickers, jabs, name-calling, and arrogant behavior. We realize it will take them a while to un-learn the lessons they have practiced so long. But out of their despair perhaps they will eventually discover that it was their tactics that were not successful. They can only succeed in the future if they stop blaming the president, or the Republican campaign body, or the Christian-coalition, or whomever or whatever other group they choose to target--and objectively accept blame themselves.

For those Democrats who also cherish morality and espouse virtuous behavior it is a difficult time. They feel indignant when morality is targeted as the decisive issue that led voters to favor the right and the imposition that all Democrats are amoral. That is understandable. But, it was their responsibility to affect a return to those principles within their own party. They did not make their protests known. Instead, they allowed the nihilists and hypocrites to take the lead and represent them. They did not publicly voice objection when candidates encouraged participation of disingenuous entertainment personalities such as Whoopie Goldberg or contemptible opportunists such as Michael Moore who openly offended people with their foul language and obscene gestures. Rather, they applauded their candidates’ assertions that such types represented the ''real America.'' They defended the tactless and insensitive statements of the contenders’ spouses and excused it as being ''outspoken'' and ''refreshing.'' Without their denial otherwise, people were left to believe that all Democrats gave credence to such behavior. But, perhaps some did not, and simply cast their ballots for the incumbent, while remaining silent. It's surely a possibility that the campaign leaders should consider! If morality-concerned Democrats ever want their party to be accepted by the majority they will take a look inside their own establishment and weed out the offenders.

Without doubt, the country needs good alternatives and viable candidates from all parties in all elections. We want sensible, more centralist policies to consider and welcome the opportunity to judge opposing viewpoints. But we want them presented with dignity, decorum, and respect for the viewpoints of others. Until the left offers reasonable arguments with acceptable solutions and not just incessant faultfinding, caustic comments, and unsubstantiated rhetoric they can continue to wear black and shout in the dark.

I think this was more of a reflection of the mess we have seen and are seeing with this campaign. I didn't mention either the Republicans or Democrats. It did not seem to be offensive but, was more of a reflection of how things seem to be getting less dignified during the campaigns. I heard the same thing said on Fox a few minutes ago. I can't say that I disagree.

I guess I forgot to put the link for the above post. Here it is. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10809

I don't post on here much, mostly just read. I hope I did this right. I think this article says how we all feel about this election and how it has left us wondering about conditions in America.

Re: Kerry's story - they never mentioned (yet - at 1/2 through the program) that Kerry has not agreed to release all of his military records. Never questioned "why?"

Re: Bush's story - they DID say not all of the President's records "could be found."

To the liberal - this is just what they wanted. Absolutely NO mention of the contraversy over Kerry's records and a direct reference to the question of Bush's service.

I will wait to the end, but so far I see nothing to hurt Kerry in the eyes of the general public who support him. It may even give them strength.

It now seems that there is no media, no reporter, no producer, who will do justice to this issue.

At the end: My wife watched this with me, she is a staunch Bush supporter and she said:

"If I hadn't known from you what Kerry's actions after the war and his testimony has meant to the men of Viet Nam, and if I had been for Kerry, this would have made me more solid in my support of him. Looking at it objectively, that part about Kerry reaching down, while wounded, laying on his wounded arm and pulling that man out of the water while under fire, was very emotional. I can see how people who support him will be vitalized by that. Since his non-disclosure of all his military record was never mentioned in this program, it left only the image of Kerry saving that man in the mind of the viewer. They even showed film of how frightening it was -- boats manuevering, fire hitting the water, etc. Very dramatic.

Then, when it came to Bush, there was the intentional reference to the possibility of him being AWOL, and the comments from the men who never saw him in Alabama were detrimental. There was no significant retort to them. There was nothing to support Bush that evoked an emotion. The program may not of done any harm to Bush, but it certainly did not hurt Kerry either."

I take some objection to her comments, but I also see her "objectivity" and point of concern. Many Americans who do not know enough about, or remember those times, would only be left with that thought of Kerry under fire. Nothing was said to arouse any new suspicions.

The beginning of the piece did show the paranoia of the Democrats in general over the release of this. And it pointed out where all the pressure has come from over its airing. But, that is not what people remember when comes to voting.

Not what I expected.

Couric in a mock up of the Oval Office? Hmmmm seems I remember some other gal hanging around there. Yeah, now I remember.
Well, Katie was probably just practicing what she will do if Kerry comes in and she gets to be the first to hand him a cigar. Wonder if she has ordered one from Rush?

The way he is holding the gun, if he would have stumbled he would have shot the dog. Not smart. And why is that dog posing for the camera? Didn't anyone tell the dog this was an action shot?

Yeah, he sure goosed that bag! Whoops, I meant bagged that goose. I am sorry. English is not my first language. Sometimes I get mixed up.

Elegant Evil - I get it, as in the Perfect Evil. Or in mathematical/scientific terms, as in the Elegant Equation. Perfect.
Good idea psychological tests. Would they submit is the other thought?

As to the article it is EloQuent.