host

<b>
I guess, if I comprehend what you are asking, the thread title could be
changed to "Anyone want to defend Bush against the negative reaction
about half of those who read "Bush by Numbers: Four Years of Double Standards" <i>by Graydon Carter</i>, will probably display after they read it.</b><p>
There was Bush on TV this AM, repeating his daily mantra that Kerry is
a flip-flopper. I guess Graydon Carter heard this mantra one too many times,
and decided to counter Bush's mantra about Kerry by publishing one on Bush.
I was visiting my elderly in-laws today, and their elderly friend was with them.
They know that my opinion is that Bush was appointed, and by his deeds over
the last 32 months, is a failed President. I accept that because they have
been conviced by the efforts of the Republican party to believe that it is
the christian party, and that Bush is a saved christian, they have no other
political options to consider. I remained silent while the three enthusiastically
discussed how impressed they were with the convention last week, and
their unanimous approval of speeches by Arnold and Zell. When their friend
commented about the terrorist attack in Russia, I offered that since Russia
insisted that Chechnya must remain part of their confederation, and in view
of the terrible suffering of Chechnyan people at the hands of the Russian
government, Russia must negotiate or will probably have to kill or imprison
every Chechnyan to end the terrorist attacks. The woman replied that
Kerry wants to negotiate with terrorists to end our involvement in Iraq.
A news item perceived unfavorable to Bush suddenly caught our attention
on CNN, and both my in-laws immediately griped about the media bias against
Bush. I countered by naming the ownership of the three major networks,
and stated my belief that the corporate media's top priorty is profits, and
if anything, their bias actually favors Bush, since they don't emphasize
his avoidance of holding news conferences, or his consistant policy of
public and campaign appearances in front of pre-screened audiences who
ask him only pre-approved questions, or at military installations. They cut me
off at that point, and they told me that I was entirely wrong.
<p>
As I drove home, I told my wife that the exchange with her parents had
reinforced my admiration for the results of Karl Rove's four year Psych Ops
on the American electorate on Bush's behalf. He has programmed people to
believe that all negatives reported about Bush are malicious and baseless,
instigated by a biased press establishment that persecutes Bush by
reporting negative stories about him, but reports truthful and instantly
accepted negatives about Kerry. Rove has manipulated these followers into
total, unquestioning acceptance of everything Bush says or does, no need
for any independent thought or research. If you are a Christian, Rove has
your soul, as well as your brain, locked up for Bush.<p>
<b>I don't see (m)any posters here who defend Bush by offering linked factual information to be accepted or further debated. I'm becoming ever
more certain that to support Bush, one must not give any weight or inquiry
to negative news and comments about him. Will anyone defend his record
and justify voting for him with a linked, fact based argument that does not focus on trying to discredit Graydon Carter, me, the media, or the list
of Bush factoids. Are the major points unfair to Bush, and......why?</b>