Listen to Dan Rather and John Roberts stick to Democratic talking points in defending John Kerry in this "fair and balanced" report. . . <br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/cbskerry.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>I love how, right up front, they point out Bush "taunting" Kerry, yet fail to mention Kerry's snide comments (attack if it were Bush talking about Kerry) in Cleveland only yesterday . . . <br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/W.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>With Rather and Roberts at the helm, who needs 527's, eh John?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

Boy, everywhere you look it seems the media are attacking the poor Bush administration. Here's some front and center stories from Reuters today. Why must they focus only the unsuccessful things the administration have done? Why don't they just report on how the economy is 'turning the corner?'<br><br><br><br><br><br>

<br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/cweisgram/.Music/farell.m4a" width="320" height="25" controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

The more Kerry talks about:<br><br>Iraq<br><br>Vietnam<br><br>The War on Terror<br><br>How "Wrong" George W. Bush is<br><br>....the more he sinks. The Clinton guys know this, so perhaps they'll get him back on a solid "jobs, health care and the economy" message. Otherwise, he has no chance. <br><br>At 56 days out, constantly appealing to your base is not a winning strategy. He needs to tell the independents and undecideds what HE plans to do. That was the brilliance of the '92 campaign. <br><br>

Well, he needs to talks about at least two of those things: Iraq and the WoT -- VERY important issues to voters, equalled only by the economy according to polls ... so he can't just ignore them. Especially in the face of the other side painting him as soft on defense ...<br><br>Vietnam he should just shut up about, and about Bush being "wrong" ... well, isn't that the heart of campaigning: showing how wrong the other guy is? ;-)<br><br>But it would be nice to see both sides put away the blunderbusses and focus on what positive things they will do for our country ...<br><br>***matt<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

Can't speak about CBS news. But gee willikers, Matt, if you're running against a guy who is president and who has done thing one, thing two, thing three, all of which you see as being mistaken either in conception or execution, what are you supposed to do? Oh dear, I can't possibly say he's wrong, so I'll tip toe around and hope no one spots me? For me, Bush has been wrong all along the line, point by point, in foreign and domestic issues from the moment he got into office. He's wrong on gay marriage, he's wrong on health care, he's wrong on taxes, he's wrong on . . . .<br><br>If you were running for office, and saw things that way, what would you do? Refuse to talk about the actions and policies you object to? Why in God's name would you run, then?<br><br>

Ok, Photoshop contest- GO!!! <br><br><br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>

that's a democratic talking point??? i guess i am just proud that the democrats can actually use the truth to create their talking points and that the objective media can pick up on the truth. that's high praise you're giving us matt. thanks. i wish i could return the compliment, but alas, the truth is missing from most republican talking points. <br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you were running for office, and saw things that way, what would you do? Refuse to talk about the actions and policies you object to? Why in God's name would you run, then<p><hr></blockquote><p>You missed the whole point of my post, as witnessed in your conclusion.<br><br>The point of the post is not to point out Kerry's position and whether or not I agree with it (I don't). He can say anything he wants, and should. I'm pointing out how slanted and biased the CBS report was.<br><br>As always, CBS: The official Communications wing of the Kerry Campaign.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i guess i am just proud that the democrats can actually use the truth to create their talking points and that the objective media can pick up on the truth.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The CBS report is completely slanted in Kerry's favor. It was a 2 minute 17 second Kerry campaign commercial on the CBS Evening News. I especially love the comment that Bush "taunts" Kerry, but Kerry, mocking Bush's name, somehow isn't taunting. Explain that, Sean. Why was that not in the report for balance? <br><br>How was the CBS report "objective" in any sense of the word?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>