Posted on 11/01/2004 5:57:30 PM PST by Mike Fieschko
Of all the outrageous aspects of this year's presidential campaign, nothing exceeds the Old Media's overt mission to defeat President Bush. They've always been biased, but this year, they barely tried to hide it.Because of their bias, a large number of people remain in the dark about who John Kerry really is, which is alarming. I dare say that if they had not sheltered Kerry's past and his official record, if they hadn't conspired with Democrats to bring down President Bush, Kerry would be lucky to receive 40 percent of the popular vote.
Why do I say that? Simply because Kerry's left-wing beliefs are drastically out of step with a substantial majority of Americans. The only reason our elections have been so close in recent years is that the Old Media has helped to conceal that the liberal fringe has overtaken the Democratic Party. It is the party of Michael Moore, Howard Dean and, yes, John Kerry.
If the nation were truly divided along ideological lines, John Kerry wouldn't have to go to such lengths to conceal his support for gay marriage, his unabashed support of abortion, his discomfort with America's autonomy over its own national security, his aversion to national defense, his persistent opposition to the CIA, his consistent sympathy for Communist regimes and his commitment to punishing earned wealth and productivity.
Kerry's liberalism is not all the Old Media have hidden. They have shielded major portions of his past and sugarcoated others. They have deliberately ignored bona fide allegations against Kerry, some of which are substantiated by his own damning admissions. They've not only abrogated their duty to investigate Kerry's conduct, they've often refused to report it at all.
Credible claims have been made that John Kerry: cavorted with the North Vietnam enemy in Paris; was present at a meeting in Kansas City in 1971 where serious discussions occurred among his close anti-war confidantes about assassinating U.S. senators; perjuriously testified of alleged atrocities "routinely" committed by American troops in Vietnam; suborned other perjurious testimony in furtherance of his antiwar agenda; grossly exaggerated his own combat exploits and injuries and shamelessly lobbied for medals.
Kerry's own statements prove he committed war atrocities himself; that he wasn't in Cambodia during Christmas despite the experience being "seared" in his memory, and that he couldn't have been entitled to at least one of his Purple Hearts because no enemy fire was involved.
Any of these things alone would be sufficient to disqualify a Republican candidate for office. Taken together, they are devastating. But the Old Media remain uninterested.
Their response to a quarter of a thousand decorated Vietnam Swift Boat heroes decrying John Kerry's Vietnam record and anti-war activities has been to slander them and attack their credibility based on tenuous and unsubstantiated alleged connections between them and certain Republican groups. In stark contrast, they have pursued the non-story of President Bush's honorable National Guard service at least five separate times.
Even worse, the Old Media have been sordid coconspirators with Democrats throughout the campaign. Dan Rather and CBS participated with Democratic thugs in a forged documents scandal against President Bush and, when caught, unrepentantly stood by the "accuracy" of their fraudulent story.
ABC's political director Mark Halperin issued a memo directing his staff to be tougher on Bush than Kerry in their debate coverage. Newsweek's Evan Thomas boasted that the Old Media would deliver Kerry some 15 points in the popular vote. The New York Times and CBS did an October hit piece on the mythical missing explosives at al-Qaqaa. "Sixty Minutes" delivered another preposterous last-ditch hit on President Bush Sunday before the election alleging he hasn't properly equipped our troops in Iraq.
Worst of all, the Old Media have refused to insist that Kerry respond to any of the allegations about his Vietnam, antiwar or Senate records. They have participated with him in a cover up of Watergate proportions about these and his failure to sign Form 180 to release his military records.
They have exhibited a striking incuriosity concerning credible charges that there is something fishy about Kerry's medals. And now, as unfathomable as it may seem, they are ignoring potentially serious questions about the history and status of Kerry's discharge from the Navy.
Can you imagine the lengths to which these "objective pursuers of truth" would have gone had just a fraction of these credible charges surfaced against President Bush?
Only after the election will we learn the full truth about John Kerry, whether he wins or loses. And I suspect it's going to shock the daylights out of America.
And if those revelations don't make them start to pay attention to political matters, nothing will.
But if Kerry wins, it's too late and too bad for us who are concerned about the fate of this wonderful nation.
Right on Mr Limbaugh. Mr Kerry is part of the problem BUT the MSM is a bigger problem!!!!!!!
And the media will crow about how effective it was to uncover these "new" revelations, and about how its (investigation and reporting) actions are essential to the preservation of freedom.
I hope they crow loudly, from the rooftops. Their bias will thereby be all the more obvious.
"Even if Bush is reelected, there must be no letup in the drive to expose the truth about Kerry. He must be driven from public life..."
I don't agree. Many folks who will be voting for Kerry had never heard of him four years ago. It is the media they looked to to inform them about Mr. Kerry, good and bad, and all they got was the good. The media intentionally hid the bad, and I think the public will react very unfavorably.
When this election is over, someone should start a serious conversation on the excesses of the media.
No one wants to limit freedom of the press, but we seem to have a very corrupt media which just smirks when confronted.
Amendment XIV
Section 3.
[No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.]
Even if you proved that Kerry was seditious and aided and abetted the enemy (which proof, I think, is close) there are people in this country who don't care. Imagine that. Problem is they constitute about half of the registered voters. Neal Boortz may be right in his assertion that this election is the beginning of the end.
As a Boomer myself, and former leftist, I'm with you all the way.
No worries there. It will continue come what may.
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.