Posted on 09/03/2004 7:47:07 AM PDT by Joann37
I haven't watched or listened to Don Imus for a while, but heard that he is no longer supporting Kerry (he is "undecided").
But today, he had Douglas Brinkley on, and Brinkley, of course, was naturally sympathetic to Kerry. But what was most disturbing was that Brinkley said the media would soon start going after the President with personal attacks (I'm paraphrasing), and that we could look forward to them soon. What's that about? Are they now all in collusion? And what is there to attack him with regarding his personal life? Don't we know everything about him already? And who cares? What does this have to do with his qualifications to be our President?
Been living in a cave for a while, have you?
I can't believe anyone watches that Old Media show anymore. 60 Minutes is so last century.
uh.....no.
I think people might very well start noticing a pattern of behaviour among those journalists at 60 minutes should this rumoured national guard segment reach fruition.
Beyond desperate.
Bush has been president for 4 years, and unlike Bubba, he's kept his pants on, shown respect for his office and dedicated his life to doing the job well. There is nothing they can bring up that isn't old news or completely irrellevant.
The problem is they do all their "smears" on the national networks, and we don't have "one" to respond on, you know? Our response has to come on cable and a lot of people don't watch/have cable!
Ma Richards?
What about Gore slime with Chris Lehane.
They were desperate in 2000 when it would have mattered to find someone credible on the "cocaine" charge or the paid abortion charge.
They come very close right now with a personal attack from the 70's like that to completely obiliterating their chances in the Senate and House because all the Bush campaign has to do is ask:
What is this line of questioning going to do to protect your family and children in America from terrorism.
Right now Kerry is in a box. Rove drew him out last night and he made a complete fool of himself starting with his opening comment about how far back the Red Sox were.
It would be one thing if Kerry had a line about the Red Sox in every speech he'd given since April.
However, this line again displays to Joe Six-Pack who will never sit in the box seats at Fenway how elitist he really is.
I'm beginning to wonder if "Ohio football in Michigan" and "Lambert field" don't have more to do with lagging poll numbers than the Swifties do.
Ma couldn't very well do the drinking thing since she and Molly Ivins drink breakfast together every morning.
Both are well-known drunks.
This is all just BS.
The personal attacks are coming and it will start with 60 Minutes on Sunday. I knew this was going to happen as soon as they brought Lockhart in.
I think the attacks will come off as petty and will turn people off in a big way. The President will continue to build on his lead and will be above the fray attacking Kerry's senate record while the Swifties continue to attack Kerry on his Vietnam record.
Do you think 60 Minutes will do a segment with John O'Neill if they do a segment with Barnes? After all O'Neill only has the #1 bestseller in the country.
Yesterday morning, a guest (can't remember who) on the Tavis Smiley show was saying that the Kerry campaign is waiting until after Labor Day to begin its attacks on Bush, when the campaign season is going full-bore and people begin to really pay attention to the election. The guest said the Kerry people have compiled a lengthy list of Bush flip-flops.
Don't let Imus kid you,he is supporting Kerry.He is on his show nwxt week...and the doped up broad Kerrys married too will just donate more money to Imuses ranch...Its just an Imus shakedown.
I read that it is Dan Rather who is pushing the story on Barnes/Guard and has been for quite some time.
Remember, that Dan's daughter is "something" in the Texas Democrat Party.
Old Dan started a little flap when he went to a fundraiser that his daughter sponsored. (I'm vague on end result, except Dan skated through without a scratch -- no conflict there, uh uh.) I mean, how dare anyone thing that he couldn't remain objective in his reporting.
Gee, what a surprise!
Oh? That's great. Hopefully it'll provide some much needed balance to the other 60 minute specials on the SwiftVets. /sarcasm
These attacks will also not work because Bush has been in office for 4 years and will stand on his record in office. Nobody cares about what he did in the past. If Gore would have used this then it might have worked but it will not work now.
The great thing about this is that by attacking Bush on his military service, Kerry will continue to make his Vietnam service front and center and the Swifties will continue to run these tough truthful ads.
60 Minutes has not because they are an arm of the DNC. They are however going to drudge up old and disproven charges that Bush was AWOL.
We knew this was coming. So let's prepare, get the facts straight, and flank people like Dan Rather.
How do we do this? Once we have the facts, in this case those surrounding this Texas fellow, Barnes, we 'get the word out' on the coming attack by illustrating any falsehoods, distortions, and inconsistencies the 60 Minute or whatever story hit-pieces.
For starters, Dan Rather has his 'own' web site. Ratherbiased.com. It is chock full of factual evidence of Rather's bias. I use it often to make a point that the media is not to be trusted.
Another idea: just like Alamo Girl's great 'legacy' pages, we need something along that line to build perspective and context around President Bush and John Kerry.
And he got the stats wrong..... He looked "loaded" to me. Desperate people do desperate things.
I predict the Micheal Moore movie in commercial form.
A_R
That's what Rush mentioned yesterday. He didn't seem to concerned about it though. Credibility an issue with this guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.