>>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Bob Klahn to Frank Scheidt <=-

 BK>>>  Here is more of what he had to say, what you didn't hear from  the
 BK>>> right wing media. When Cosby made similar comments I saw  posters
 BK>>> on the right gloating over it. Not this time.
 FS>
 RN>>> The media is anything but right-wing.  They are much too liberal.
 FS>
 FS>> Liberals will *always* deny the "news"media are liberal.
 
 BK>> Frank, unless you are denying that there is *ANY* right wing
 BK>> media, that is a non-sequitor.
 
 FS> There *is* a right-wing newspaper, The Washington Times,
 FS> but that is one among *hundreds of left-wing "news"papers

 BK> The Detroit News, the Boston Herald, The New York Post, The
 BK> Union Leader, The Orland Sentinel, The Glouscester Daily Times

OK, you've come up with a mere *six* big-city, low circulation 
conservative papers.  The New York Times, a notoriously left-wing 
rag, probably has circulation greater than all six combined!  And 
you fail to mention that The Detroit News and the Detroit 
Free-Press (very liberal) papers use the same printing facilities 
and the Free-Press easily *cancels* out the Detroit News.

 BK> and just about every small town newspaper I've ever seen, 

Ha!  Combine *all* of the little newspapers and they lack the 
clout of the notorious New York Times ...

 BK> well as every weekly newspaper I've seen. And, of course, the
 BK> Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Street Journal is conservative in the very best sense of 
the word -- it's as objective as is the Fox News Channel -- "fair 
and balanced" ... I subscribe to the WSJ and it always criticizes 
the Republican administration when it does something wrong, i.e., 
something not in the interest of the nation.

 BK> I would bet that small town and weekly newspapers actually have
 BK> more readers than the major city papers, and I'd give odds there
 BK> are more conservative papers than liberal. All we gotta do is
 BK> figure out how to find out.

Those little town newspapers have no influence whatsoever -- 
aside from local politics, "Adams Street must *not* be one-way!!" 
... [sigh] ... 
 
 FS>> However, recently I saw a NEWSWEEK magazine which had a
 FS>> dozen or so political cartoons, presumably typical ones
 FS>> during the past year. *Every* one of them was anti-Bush,
 
 BK>> Frank, now days that's more and more coming from the right. Bush
 BK>> has disappointed those who previously supported him.
 
 FS> Did you support him?  Has he disappointed you?

 BK> No. No.
 
See?!?

 BK>> I warned, before the election, if Bush won the right would be
 BK>> more disappointed than we would be. It's coming true.
 
 FS> Dream on, Bob ... [sigh] ...

 BK> Just read a that Editor and Publisher had a list of papers that
 BK> supported Bush in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Just read of how the
 BK> libertarians are abandoning Bush. The Cato Institute is turning
 BK> hard against Bush. Real conservatives, the small govt cut
 BK> spending group, are turning against Bush.
 
George W. Bush is now going out into the country explaining his 
position WRT Iraq, the economy, etc., and the tide is obviously 
returning ...

 FS>> with *none* of the funny anti-Democrat cartoons one would
 FS>> expect.
 
 BK>> Editorial cartoons make fun of those who hold power. Since this
 BK>> country is completely under Republican control, at the national
 BK>> level, all our problems can be laid at their doorstep.
 
 FS> Republicans may be the majority in the Congress and White
 FS> House but they are *hardly* in control.

 BK> They can pass any law they can get together on, and the can stop
 BK> any law they don't want. That's in control.
 
Not so!  To do that they have to have sixty solid votes in the 
U.S. Senate.  They lack that.

 FS>  Consider, for
 FS> example, the pests the Democrats made of themselves during
 FS> the Alito hearings.

 BK> Pests are not power. The Dems can make noise, perhaps get the
 BK> people to lean on the congress, but, if the republicans want it,
 BK> they can pass it.

 BK> Do you think, for one second, Alito will not be confirmed?

He's so *obviously* an excellent choice why *shouldn't* he??

 BK> The Democrats couldn't touch Harriet Meyers, it was the
 BK> right who torpedoed her.
 
She wasn't Supreme Court material ...

 FS> Kennedy, Biden, rather than asking
 FS> probing questions gave long, long harangues -- followed by
 FS> a question mark ... we were really disgusted by them --

 BK> Which has exactly zero to do with holding power. Other than the
 BK> power to annoy you, which is irrelevant.
 
Bob, *you* annoy me -- you annoy *most* of us, maybe *all* of us 
... well almost ... and you are *very* powerful ... [heh heh heh] 
...

 FS> "we" meaning the American voters in general and we will
 FS> remember this for next November's elections.

 BK> The fear of Bush may well override any problems with any
 BK> democrats.

Only the most committed Democrats and other criminals fear George 
W. Bush.
 
 FS>> They concluded with something Dan Rather had said
 FS>> as he closed his final news program, "Courage".
 
 BK>> Very appropriate. We will need it to get through the next few
 BK>> years.
 
 FS>> They somehow "forgot" why it was he was pushed out of that job
 FS>> -- because he had presented false anti-Bush documents as
 FS>> *true
 
 BK>> So far there is no proof, or even evidence, they were false. All
 BK>> that was ever shown is, it is possible they could be forged on a
 BK>> computer. By that standard, since money can be copied on a
 BK>> computer, you should not accept money anymore. Or send it to me
 BK>> for verification, at least.
 

 >>> Continued to next message...

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5