From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity

[agcatter]

Negativity?  Geez, anyone listened to the Democratic attacks on the Bush administration over the last 18 months?  Oh wait a minute, that's different.

[agcatter]

Would be a lot more concerned about what the Washington Post and NY Times had to say about the Bush campaign if this was 1968 and they were the only game in town.  They are not anymore so their liberal spin is not taken by the masses as the final word.  Just a couple of liberal rags with a transparent agenda to elect Senator flipflop.  It's not that they are exactly neutral and everyone understands that....

[agcatter]

Of course they have.  What galls me is that this article tries to leave the impression that the Kerry campaign has not engaged in negativity.  Good Lord, anyone, anyone at all who has followed Kerry since the months before New Hampshire knows he and his people have bashed Bush relentlessly.  Partisan Washington Post using a one sided news story to make partisan points.  Unfortunately, that's par for the course with the Washington Post as well as the NY Times.  

The total lack of any effort to even try to look objectively at the campaign is ridiculous.  Slanted as hell and any objective observor who has followed the campaign knows it.

[agcatter]

Again, I have no problem with Dana whatshisname reporting the negativity of the Bush campaign, but to act like Bush has been anymore negative than the Kerry people is absurd.

[agcatter]

Yes I do because the article fails to point out that Kerry was running ads for three months in primary states before the NH Primary almost every one bashing Bush.

Aside from that, the CLEAR implication of the article was that Bush had gone negative and Kerry has essentially not.  Kerry hasn't had a campaign event yet covered by the press that didn't bash Bush and bash him hard on every conceivable issue.  This includes the Memorial Day event where he apparently couldn't help himself.

The article is harmless however since everyone knows the source is the Washington Post.  Voters aren't stupid.  They are well aware of where the NY Times and Washington Post are coming from.  That's the problem the liberal outlets have.  They've gone so over the top on their constant campaigns against Bush that they've lost the bulk of their credibility. No one thinks they are in the least objective anymore.  

[agcatter]

Come on.  You trying to say we any cozier with the Saudis than we were under Clinton.  I don't remember the Clinton administration doing a damned thing to get Saudi Arabia to do anything about their support for terrorists.  If they did, please refresh my memory.

[agcatter]

No one cares

[agcatter]

No, Clinton just did nothing for 8 years while terrorists declared war on America, bombed the WTC, blew up two U S embassies, ran thousands thru terrorist training camps unhindered, bombed the USS Cole - all with no significant response from his administration.

You really don't want to go there.

[agcatter]

conspiracy 101

I can read all about it on the moveon.org web site.

Or maybe I'll just wait and go see Michael Moore's "documentary".

[agcatter]

Guess that depends on what part of the country you are from.  I have no doubt that is the prevailing view in Seattle.  Probably San Francisco, Boston and a lot of other liberal bastions.  Out here in "flyover country" it doesn't wash.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Wrong move?  Maybe.  I know Saddom and his two twisted sons would agree with you 110%