This widespread derision of President Bush bothers me. I’m distressed that a man like George Bush can be so reviled, while a moral degenerate like Bill Clinton can be so widely praised.
Notice, now, that I didn’t say that I couldn’t understand why this is so, I just said that it distresses me. The why is easy to understand. Bush has been a target since the day he was sworn in. Over 90% of the members of the mainstream New York and Washington press corps voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Some of these people have come to accept the reality that it was a close election .. .and that Bush won. Others, perhaps the majority, have never come to terms with Bush’s win and have been dedicated to the idea of destroying his presidency since January of 2000.
Since day one there has been a template applied to the media coverage of Bush’s presidency. If the story makes Bush look good, either ignore it or downplay it. If the story makes Bush look bad, put it on the front page.
The media hasn’t been fighting this war against Bush alone. The Democrats, of course, have been on board. There was a momentary respite in the aftermath of 9/11. But it took no time at all for the Democrats to renew their attacks. I firmly believe that the Democrats made a conscious decision that it was more important that they destroy the image of George Bush than it was for them to get behind the war against Islamic terrorism.
That’s Boortz today, saying nothing I’ve not said here in this blog a few thousand times over the last 6 years. I’d suggest going and reading; he has much more to say on this point.
Tags: BitsBlog, Democrats, Elections, WHAT biased press?
One Response to “Neal Boortz: The MSM”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks