[Tacis]

But, this isn't the first time the media has supported the sleazes and opposed the good guys. In the past two presidential elections, they set up coverage the clearly tried to influence the outcome.

In 2000, the outfit they set up to question voters coming from the polls falsified the responses and indicated that Gore, not Bush, was winning. The reports from Florida were designed to make Nader voters in California stay home. It was a dishonest and blatant attempt to influence the outcome of the election. Where's the surprise?

[cyncooper]

They did it to Reagan, too.

I was younger, and not immersed in politics like now, but I remember jaw-dropping moments of mental disconnect as the media would report something one way while my lying eyes and ears told me something else.

They have stepped it up a notch or three, there's no denying, but I say again: They tried this with Reagan, too, the he's dumb, he falls asleep at meetings, he'll blow the world up, and so on and so on and so on and so on. Despite clinton getting elected, I try not to underestimate Americans and I think the truth will triumph, but it will take unrelenting and unremitting work to make sure the message gets out.

[CasearianDaoist]

But, this isn't the first time the media has supported the sleazes and opposed the good guys.

Yes but never like this. Not even during the Reagan years. As I said in a prior post the only way it to take it back to the media. A Bush loss will do such damage to th conservative movement in this country, particularly to a person like Kerry. For a president that has accomplished so much and to have such a clear choice of alternatives to loss to a flack like Kerry will be a disaster to us. This election will set the course of the is country for at least a decade and maybe a generation. Rove and Co. need to understand that they are fighting for the life of the nation and do whatever is necessary.