Monday, July 19, 2004

The Gray Gog Has Moved

Please Visit The New Gray Dog Web Site

I AM NO LONGER POSTING AT THIS LOCATION !!!!!

Please click on the link below to find me at 'The Gray Dog' website!!!

VISIT AT: http://www.thegraydog.org

EMAIL COMMENTS TO mailto:alpha@thegraydog.org

Hope we see you at the site.

The Gray Dog

Friday, July 16, 2004

And the Winner of This Year's MVP Award: John ???

And the Winner of This Year’s MVP Award:  John ???
 
by The Gray Dog
 
Stalled contract negotiations, open animosity toward management, threats of free agency and jumping leagues, have plagued the early months of this year’s season for John. It was sometime in early June, when only after threats of a new contract with the cross-town team seemed imminent, that management broke down and offered the kind of deal John had been waiting for.  Specifics of this multi-year pact have not yet been made public. However, it is rumored that much of the compensation package will be deferred until after the end of this current season when John is expected to retire from his playing career and move up to a position in the front office.  Despite his ineligibility for this year’s All-Star game, John had two strong appearances out of the bullpen going into the break.  As regular season play resumed today, John made his third consecutive strong appearance,  to up his record to three consecutive saves without yielding any earned runs.  John may have missed making the All-Star team this past week, but he may be on pace to become a serious contender for this year’s MVP Award.
 
This is only a scenario that could happen in the modern era of Major League Baseball or Major League Presidential Politics.  Of course I’m talking about John McCain, the darling of the early 2000 presidential primary season; the prodigal son that has rejoined his Republican team late in the season to perhaps make one of the most stunning comebacks, (or political reversals) in recent years. 
 
After several weeks of being courted by John Kerry to join the Democratic ticket, McCain in a series of highly public appearances has not only dashed the titillated excitement of Democratic dreamers, he has become a leading defender and spokesman for both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. 
 
Save #1 – June 19, 2004, appearing with Bush in Fort Lewis, WA, McClain delivered a highly energetic and partisan introduction speech where he spoke of the President in glowing terms. Among McCain’s praiseful remarks were, “He heard the call to action on that terrible morning in September and summoned the rest of us to this long and difficult task. He has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and with firm resolve to achieve unconditional victory." with the Senator concluding that it was, "a great privilege to introduce to you your commander-in-chief."  This is indeed high praise from a former presidential primary opponent and a Republican that hangs to the left of the party mainstream.  But it was with this strong outing that Senator McCain simultaneously ended the high hopes of a Democratic ‘Dream Ticket’ and prompted the rushed but predictable selection of John Edwards to be named as Kerry’s running mate. (For more on this topic, read my previous article “A Night at the Triple ‘L’: Kerry Picks Up a Mate”)
 
 
Save #2 – The use of McCain’s Fort Lewis speech in new Republican ads is not only a strong message to party faithful, it is also the ultimate shot across the bow at the Democrats.  It make’s it extremely difficult for the liberal talking heads to pick apart McCain’s remarks as partisan or pandering when he was their first choice just days before to shore up their ticket.
 
 
Save #3 – July 16, 2004.  McCain appeared with Dick Cheney in Lansing, MI today and delivered an introductory speech that rivaled a Kerry/Edwards love-fest.  In doing so, McCain not only continued to deliver high profile support of the Bush/Cheney team, but may also have finally squelched days of speculation that Cheney would soon be dumped from the ticket.  This has been an unnecessary distraction based on unfounded rumor, most of which has likely been instigated by the Democratic opposition.
 
So there’s the summary of Senator McCain’s extraordinary mid-season start.  If he continues to play team ball, play energetically and stays healthy, I believe John McCain may turn out to be the single greatest and unexpected factor in the race this year.  Also, I mentioned that we do not yet know the terms of any deal that must have been struck between McCain and the Bush/Cheney team.  If I were a betting man, my guess that the ex-Navy Pilot, Vietnam POW and war hero would become an obvious replacement for the aging and increasingly battle-weary Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.
 
Conventional wisdom may believe that no one will be thinking of John McCain as they enter the voting booth this November and that may be true.  However, I feel that McCain in just a few short weeks has severely disrupted Kerry’s momentum by so publicly spurning his attentions, while cutting short a ‘Dump Cheney’ movement before any real momentum could gather.  It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows.  I suggest George and Dick should plump up a few more pillows and move aside a bit. To the right, maybe? 
  
 

Thursday, July 15, 2004

All Edwards All the Time

All Edwards, All The Time

by The Gray Dog

Coinciding almost instantaneously with George W. Bush’s announcement of Dick Cheney for his Vice Presidential running mate in 2000, the liberal media and Democratic talking heads began their assault on the Republican ticket. Declaring Cheney would become the de facto president, and that Cheney gave the ticket gravitas, as if Bush were somehow lacking this trait. I’m sure that James Carville and Terry McAuliffe were sitting around one evening researching through dusty high school Latin books to come up with that one.

Gravitas or not, President Bush has demonstrated quite effectively, that he has been in charge throughout his first term in office, and remains undeniably the top man on the Republican ticket in 2004. While the Vice President is a serious and capable leader in his own right, he continues to appropriately take the back seat, letting his boss be the face that appears in campaign advertisements.

Not so with the Kerry/Edwards ticket. In recent days since joining the ticket, Senator Edwards has become the face of the latest round of Democratic TV ads. And I do mean FACE. I’ve seen one ad that is so close up on his face, it would make even the most vain of Hollywood’s leading men blush with embarrassment. But, why not? Senator Edwards is many things that Kerry is not. Edwards is youthful and in possession of matinee idol good looks. He speaks eloquently with a master’s command of rhetoric. He can emotionally arouse his political followers utilizing the same skills honed by his many years of performing in front of juries. In recent television ads, Kerry by comparison is shown for the last few seconds of the ad espousing his approval. If the sound was down on your TV, you might think it’s an ‘Adams Family’ rerun with ‘Lurch’ growling, “You rang?”

The artisans of Madison Avenue have long known that Americans eagerly buy the ‘sizzle’ and not the ‘steak’. John Edwards is the sizzle on the Kerry/Edwards ticket and the Democrats are going to make the most of this. Senator Kerry seems amazingly comfortable with this. Again, why not? Kerry has amassed great personal wealth through his marriages to two wealthy heiresses. Why should he not be content to make a run at the White House, buoyed by the wealth of charisma and charm possessed by his newest mate?

The Democrats are smacking their lips with eager anticipation of this falls debates. Not so much between the two top candidates, but the one debate between the surrogates: Cheney vs. Edwards! They are longing to listen to Edwards as he poetically portrays himself as the voice for the ‘poor hungry children’ while extolling proudly that Senator Kerry will ‘leave no person behind’. Perhaps if Kerry’s other mate, Mrs. Heinz Kerry gave as freely to the starving children as she does to the notorious Tides Foundation (more on them in a coming article), fewer children would be going to bed hungry tonight. But, as usual, I digress.

Democrats, hungry to regain the White House, see this as a second round of Lloyd Bentsen vs. Dan Quayle, when the savvy Texas senator scored a knockout with his ‘You’re no John Kennedy’ line flush on the jaw of a reeling Quayle. One thing Democrats don’t realize is that Dick Cheney is no Dan Quayle. This Vice President is absolutely astonishing in his command of the facts and equally fleet of foot in not allowing his opponents to trap him in their corner. If there is anyone capable of spontaneously countering the rhetorical jabs of ‘Sugar’ John Edwards, with his own blistering combinations of facts and reality, it is Dick ‘Gravitas’ Cheney.

The other danger the Democrats are going to face, is that their new rush to have “All Edwards, All the Time” will serve to remind voters once again of the relationship between Lloyd Bentsen to that other Massachusetts Liberal, Michael Dukakis. Most Democrats lamented throughout the 1988 campaign that the wrong man was at the top of the Democratic ticket. Like Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu, all over again”.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the electorate always vote for the top of the ticket. It appears the Democratic strategy this year is to confuse that electorate by having Edwards become the face and voice of the ‘Darling Democratic Duo’. Will this strategy succeed? It shouldn’t!

I agree with President Bush who when asked to compare Edwards to Cheney, responded, “Dick Cheney can be president!” If there ever was a year when consideration of the Vice Presidential candidates should be more seriously weighed at the voting booth, this is it. Sizzle or Steak? Rhetoric or Gravitas?

Just remember that if all you take home for dinner tonight is the sizzle instead of the steak, your children too will be going to bed hungry.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Decidedly Un-decided About the Undecided!

Decidedly Un-decided About the Undecided!

by The Gray Dog

My new morning ritual of late is to fill up my ‘IHateJohnKerry.net’ coffee mug, sit down at my PC, read email, and scan the internet news sites to search for article ideas. I try to filter how I look at headlines by the mood I’m in. Do I feel hateful? No, I don’t want to write about Michael Moore again! Do I feel witty? No, I’m already tired of the Kerry/Edwards hair stories. No, this morning I’m just not quite sure how I feel, therefore with no small amount of indecision; I’ve decided to write about the ‘Undecided Voter’.

We all have our moments of indecision. I have watched my wife stand motionless in front of her closet like a ‘doe frozen in headlights’ while deciding her uniform of the day. When my children were young, they could agonize for what seemed like hours while pondering which combination of Mountain Dew, Jolt Cola, M&Ms and DOTS, would induce the greatest ‘sugar high’ (or diabetic coma).

My wife actually thinks I am the most indecisive person she knows. Whenever she asks, “What would you like for dinner?” or “What movie should we rent tonight?” I will typically respond first with “I don’t know.” or when pressed, “Whatever you want dear. You decide.” Of course I don’t see my answers as indecisive at all. I’ve just decided that I want her to make the dinner after she goes to the video store. Caution: This strategy should only be attempted by men who truly love re-heated tuna casseroles while watching Hugh Grant Chick Flicks.

As to undecided voters, I’ve read several recent polls attempting to identify just who this very important bloc of voters is. Usually, you see categorizations such as ‘White Women’, ‘Hispanics’, ‘X-Genners’ or ‘Unemployed Buggy Whip Makers’. My problem is that all of the people I know in these categories have already decided whom they plan to vote for this year. So this morning I have decided to conduct my own poll to determine the essence of the undecided voter. I spent several minutes formulating questions using highly scientific methods. After just a few more minutes I finished answering them. Although some of the questions were tricky, and I think purposely confusing, I now am prepared to share with you my results:

42% - TRULY CLUELESS
These are the individuals when asked ‘Who are you most likely to vote for this year?’ answered ‘Fantasia’. When we pointed out to these individuals that we were talking about for President, one respondent actually replied in shock “Hey, Reagan died last month, don’t we got nobody else in there yet?”

21% - UNCONCERNED
These are the respondents that typically said, “Why bother? They’re all crooks anyway.” Respondents in this category were evenly divided between Hollywood actors currently house hunting in France and those crawling frantically around the floor of their closets, searching for a tie to wear to court this afternoon.

14% - LEANERS
This demographic group consisted mostly of women that weren’t paying attention before last week. Respondent Tiffany Charm of Yonkers can best sum up the consensus opinion from this group. Ms. Charm giggled, “I’m still not sure, but that John Edwards is just a dream. I could just eat him right up!”

13% - SMUG INTELLECTS (Independents)
These are the individuals who view themselves as ‘above the fray’. All respondents in this category proudly proclaimed to have no party affiliations and will reserve judgment until the very end. Only then will they look at the last polls and attempt to ‘pick the winner’. I’ve seen these same guys at the track.

Several other demographic groups that polled less than two percent each included surfer dudes, Prozac users, poets and Fantasia.

Of course my sampling group was smaller than many of the better-known polls. I had hoped to question a group of undecided voters known as the Just Kidding bloc. These are people who vote one way and then reverse directions and vote the other way. Unfortunately neither Senators Kerry nor Edwards would take my calls.


Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Friends, Family and Politics

Friends, Families and Politics

by The Gray Dog

I recently received an email from a gentleman that had just ended a very long friendship because of a political disagreement. It seems that his friend launched into a very familiar “I hate Bush” tirade that was the last of many straws piled upon this camel’s back. That seems to be just the way things are headed this year.

My first thought was perhaps this individual should choose his friends a little more wisely, but I realized what a foolish notion that is. The forming of friendships can occur almost instantaneously while the development of friendship is a much more complex and ongoing process. Who among us does not recall taking ‘an instant liking’ to someone? It may be nothing more than the way they look, something they said, a shared circumstance or some other deep innate sense that you are unable to verbalize without further contemplation.

If someone asked you five minutes after this occured, “What do you think of that guy (or gal)?” you probably would have said, “I like him/her.” But if the same questioner asked “Why?”, you might have been hard pressed to have an answer. You are not sure why, you just know that you like that new person!

The human mind being the marvelous instrument it is, will over time begin to attribute characteristics to this new ‘friend’ that you find to be admirable and positive. Likewise, it will often ignore this person’s traits that you normally find irksome in someone you don’t like. This is your logical mind at work, attempting to justify your initial emotional response.

This process is the same whether we are experiencing new friendships or new romances. While the initial emotions experienced when you first saw your wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend are decidedly different than the ones experienced when first meeting a friend (male or female), you still enter into the ‘honeymoon’ period. This wonderful new person can do no wrong. They are always fun to be with and your brain is working overtime reinforcing the emotional highs you experience when you are with them. Keep in mind that the same emotional/logical reactions are being experienced by your new friend toward you as well.

Then the honeymoon ends! It happens with your spouse and it happens with your friends. Sometimes it happens simultaneously due to some shared stressful event. More often it occurs at different times for each of you, for no particular reason at all. Of course your first thought is: Did something happen to make them change? Or, Why are they so different all of a sudden?

Usually, nothing has really changed about this person. It’s more likely your own brain experiencing ‘too much of a good thing’. It’s like that uncomfortable feeling you get after a third bowl of chocolate ice cream. You’re certain you still like ice cream but it’s not making you feel quite as good as when you began the first bowl.

After the honeymoon, you still like your spouse/friend but you’re not experiencing quite the same euphoria on a consistent basis. Their warts and flaws start to become visible. They’ve always been there; it’s just that you are now beginning to notice them.

Some marriages and friendships will endure this process. Hopefully through the passage of time the things you first loved, admired or liked about this friend or spouse will continue to outweigh the negatives that appear later. But when the scales tip in the wrong direction or when one tires of condoning or justifying the other’s negative traits, the relationship becomes flawed.

Some will attempt to maintain this friendship or marriage out of a sense of loyalty, convention or in the case of marriage for the sake of children or religious beliefs. But the heart and mind are working together now and there can be no happiness in being with this other person any longer.

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST ENDED A FRIENDSHIP OVER A POLITICAL ARGUMENT?

I’m not sure, other than it made me think about the way I feel toward my own family and friends. I’ve argued and debated with many of them over the years about topics ranging from politics and religion, to subjects so ridiculous and petty I would be embarrassed to list them here.

Many of my family and some of my friends are liberal. They will vote the democratic ticket this year as they always have. Some of them I can debate. We each put on the sponge rubber boxing gloves and attempt to score points while not hurting the other. I respect them for that. It can actually be fun and strengthen our respect for each other.

Others although, recognize as I do, that this is a topic best left alone. We have chosen to place the value of our relationship above our political beliefs and we conscientiously avoid unnecessary conflict. I also respect that.

But for all of us, there is that one friend, that one family member that just can’t recognize the way this game should be played. They want to goad you, provoke you and impugn your intelligence. They want to demonstrate their own brilliance and wisdom by showing you just how ignorant you truly are. Their aim is not to persuade or enlighten. It is to demonstrate some moral superiority that you somehow lack.

While I use politics as an example of divisive issues, it could in reality be any topic of your choosing. The point being that at times in your life, someone you once held close as a dear friend is going to betray you in an unforgivable way. I said earlier that to suggest someone should choose their friends wisely was a foolish sentiment, because it is our friendships that often choose us. But I do think it would be wise to regularly take inventory of our friendships, deciding to keep safe those we still hold dear, while clearing those with questionable value from the shelves, making room for new stock.


Monday, July 12, 2004

The Two Americas

The Two Americas

by The Gray Dog

"John Edwards based his campaign on the fact that there are two Americas, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. And after his speech, he thanked everyone else and went back to the America for the wealthy." —Jay Leno

"On the campaign trail today, John Edwards continued to talk about there being two Americas. Unfortunately, neither voted for him." —Conan O'Brien


The Kerry/Edwards ticket has resurrected John Edward’s primary campaign theme: “Two America’s.” Listening to either of the “Darling Democratic Duo” provide a self-portrayal as the next Average Joe, is as enlightening as receiving sex and marriage counseling from a catholic priest. But in fairness, I must admit that the wealthiest national ticket in history didn’t always have big bucks.

John Edwards earned his money by shaking down hospitals, doctors and insurance companies. Quoting from an article titled “Did ‘Junk Science’ Make John Edwards Rich?” written by Marc Morano for CNSNews.com;

“ According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win "more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone”

Mr. Morano’s article goes on to state;

"John Edwards' spin is always ‘I am helping the little guy’. But he screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were going to make him richer," said the CNSNews.com source with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career

But enough about Senator Edward’s legal ethics. Morano’s article provides the following financial recap of this most average American citizen;

“The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms.”

Well John, I can certainly feel your pain. You must be exhausted. Having to mow three yards, paint three fences and clean the leaves out of three sets of gutters, how do you find the time to campaign? How will you be able to be an effective Vice President when you already have ‘Honey-do’ lists posted on your each of your three refrigerators? Do you really want to move into the Vice President’s (a fourth) residence? I hear it needs new wallpaper in the bathrooms and kitchen. I’d say you are the right man for the job.

John Kerry on the other hand, earned his money the old fashioned way: He married it! Twice! Hey guys, just think of the kicks you and your buddies would get if you saw your name in an engagement announcement that used the word ‘heiress’ next to your fiancés’ name? The fun might not last very long if she lays a prenuptial on you. But what the heck, if after a few years of wedded bliss you need a change, she wasn’t the only heiress in town. Right?

Is this a cheap shot? Probably. But Kerry himself opened Pandora’s box this campaign season.

Yes John, and you too John, there are two America’s! Perhaps you can just divvy them up and then you can each be president of one of them. But the fact is that neither one of you has lived in my neighborhood for a long time, so don’t come back slummin’, trying to promote your newest version of ‘Roots’.

While I may question your methods, I don’t begrudge you your wealth. I do however rail against your new found noblesse oblige’ attitude that compels you to ride to the rescue of us poor common folk.

You say you want to provide so much to us, yet it is clear you don’t have a clue as to how to go about it. Let’s examine your confusing contradictions:

· You say you want to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans, yet you pursue outrageous jury awards against doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Who really benefits? TRIAL ATTORNEYS?

· You say you want to provide affordable prescription drugs, yet you persecute and tax into oblivion the pharmaceutical companies. Who really benefits? NO ONE?

· You say you want better education for all students, yet you want Washington to control all of the education dollars and deny vouchers, forcing kids to stay in the same failed systems you decry. Who really benefits? The NEA?

· You want to impose gun control, yet you nominate liberal judges that keep criminals on the streets. Who really benefits? CRIMINALS?

· You say you will create jobs, yet you want to raise the minimum wage, raise corporate taxes, restrict trade, grant paid family leave and enforce costly mandates for employee benefits upon employers. Who really benefits? NO ONE?

· You propose energy independence, yet oppose oil exploration off our coasts and in ANWAR. Who really benefits? The CARIBOU?

· You claim to support family values, while in fact you want condoms in our children’s lunch boxes, support gay marriage and disallow nativity scene’s at Christmas. (Excuse me, ‘Winter Holiday’) Who really benefits? Promiscuous gay teen atheist?

· You state your support of our troops, but if you are elected, would they only be deployed at the discretion of the U.N., France and Russia? Who really benefits? Socialist/Dictatorial/ANTI-American leaders with real interests in Iraq’s oil?

· You decry the ‘attack ads’ of your opponents, while you bask in the vulgarities of supporters such as Whoopie Goldberg and Michael Moore. Who really benefits? HOLLYWOOD?

Go ahead and fill in your own answers. How many of their promises speak to you? How do you benefit with one handout extended to you, while the other one is reaching into your back pocket?

Yes, John/John, there are at least two Americas, and if you are elected we will need at least that many to sort out and implement your schizophrenic proposals that will go nowhere toward benefiting those of us that still reside in the original one.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

FOX NEWS ALERT: Fair and Balanced?

FOX NEWS ALERT: Fair and Balanced?

by The Gray Dog

I am the Gray Dog and I am a newsaholic! Fox Newsaholic to be precise. I eagerly begin each weekday inviting Steve, E.D. and Brian into my home for breakfast and go to bed each night with Greta Van Susteren. Did I really say that? Anyway, the point is that I am very political. Most of my friends consider me to be somewhere right of “Dirty Harry” and glad that I don’t own .357 Magnum. Actually I don’t own any guns so I can’t be that far over the edge. Yet!

It is because of my political beliefs that I found a haven of truth and righteousness in FOX News some six years ago. In fact when I moved to my new home four years ago, I was so distraught to learn that the local cable provider did not in fact provide FNC that I went right out and purchased a satellite dish with multiple receivers so that I could keep my favorite friends trumpeting throughout the house 24/7. Of course my liberal leaning, ex-Peace Corps wife thinks this is very unfair and that I am unbalanced. I’m not quite sure that she is convinced that my viewing is always politically motivated. My Kiran Chetry screensaver might have tipped her off. So what if FOX News is loaded up with hot babes? It’s like reading PLAYBOY. They really do publish interesting articles, don’t they?

So now comes the hard part. I really hate to criticize the people that have become like extended family to me, but the FOX News slogan “Fair and Balanced” is way off base. Just because I like FNC and agree with their particular way of reporting the news, are they really fair? Even if I believe that they make a sincere attempt to be accurate, thorough and honest, are they really balanced?

If CNN can fairly be referred to as the “Clinton News Network” then FNC must mean “For Newsaholic Conservatives”. FOX takes a point of view and it is definitely right of center. That’s great! Hell, that’s why I and millions of others are watching. But I cringe every time I hear “Fair and Balanced”, and shudder when Bill O’Reilly protests too often that he is an Independent. C’mon Bill, who’s spinning whom?

Why not “Honest and Accurate” or “Conservative and Right”?

Of course FOX does have their token liberals, but talk about stacking the deck. Have you ever watched a panel discussion when liberal NPR correspondent Juan Williams starts blabbering inanely, only to have Brit Hume chop him off in mid sentence? Brit then gives him a look like some village is missing its idiot, while poor Juan sits cowering like a chastised puppy about to be whacked by the newspaper again. Is this fair?

Then there is Alan Colmes, co-host of Hannity and Colmes. Colmes sits mute through most of the show while Sean Hannity filibusters. Poor Alan, he doesn’t say much, but when he does, he doesn’t say much! Hannity on the other hand is the energetic, animated co-host that manages to iterate his conservative talking points several times each broadcast, while challenging liberal guest with simple direct questions and gushing over conservative babe Ann Coulter all at the very same time. My wife likes this program. She thinks Hannity is hot. I guess maybe she and I have achieved some balance with FOX, but Hannity and Colmes still need to work on it.

Yes, there are more liberals. Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellis Henican, Jane Skinner, etc., etc. These are the liberals known as “Fox News Contributors”. They get to appear on shows hosted by conservatives such as John Gibson, David Asman and Bill O’Reilly (No Bill!, You are not independent!) strictly for the purpose of providing easy targets. They are window dressing. Like ducks in a row at the shooting gallery, easily knocked down and then a new group is set up. Personally I often find this great entertainment but not necessarily fair or balanced.

So, how is FOX News ‘Fair and Balanced’?

Truth challenged liberals will disagree with what has been well documented over the past several decades: Network news programming is skewed heavily to the left. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings lean so far to the left, it’s a wonder they’re able to stay seated in their anchor chairs. The countries largest newspapers, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have historically been considered bastions of liberal thought.

One telling example of how a network dishonestly slants left, is the fact that several times this past year, when a CBS Presidential Poll had Bush leading Kerry, CBS didn’t report it. But let Kerry slide to the top and it becomes Dan Rather’s lead story for nightly news.

That conservatives at long last have a fresh new source of news reporting that provides a positive, uplifting and yes, conservative point of view, seems very ‘fair’ to me. The fact that they continue to gain audience share at the expense of CNN and the other networks, gives hope that they may obtain a ‘balance’ to the bilge being spewed by their competition.

Yes, indeed FOX News is earning the right to say ‘Fair and Balanced’. Keep it up gang. I plan to be more fair and balanced myself. I’m going to add Martha MacCallum to my screensaver.