Who said the media is liberal?

The Boston Globe has a piece on how Kerry lost. There are so many problems with it, it's hard to know where to start:

1. They claim that "almost all the prewar arguments for invading Iraq were wrong". Which is, of course, a lie. They only list two (out of about forty). Apparently two is "almost all" of forty. And even one of those two is wrong. The two they list are WMD's and "close links to al Qaeda". Leaving aside the fact that everyone (including Russia, France, the U.N., the Democrats, etc.) believed there were WMD's in Iraq and so it's hardly honest to brand it as a Bush "lie", the fact is that the media is now adding the word "close" before "links to al Qaeda". Bush never claimed any such thing. He claimed there were links. And, as the 9-11 Commission report made clear, there were.
2. The article keeps speaking of Republican efforts to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, as if it were a totally fabricated accusation. Ditto the suggestion that he is "weak and inconsistent". The fact is that he IS weak and inconsistent. That's not just a Republican smear ... it's the truth.
   
3. The article keeps maintaining (much as the left did for Gore) that Kerry was always principled and consistent. To the extent that he ever appeared otherwise it was simply a result of how smart, logical, deep, profound, etc. he is. "Sure his positions seem contradictory and unclear ... but that's just because he's a genius and you're all morons."
4. The article insists that Kerry is principled but it then explains that he voted to authorize war because that was politically expedient (for him) at the time, and then voted to oppose the $87 billion because that was politically expedient (for him) at the time.
5. Then they describe the Swift Vets as "conspiring" against Kerry and "plotting the downfall of John Kerry", the implication being that they were deceitful.
6. It also mentions that there were 10 Swift Vets "plotting" in a conference room in Dallas ... conveniently ignoring that these 10 were backed up by hundreds.
7. Blah, blah, blah. It's like Terry McAuliffe wrote this.
   

With friends like these

Hopefully Bush won't waste much time reaching out to "allies" that are on the wrong side of the war on terror.

Jacques Chirac, the formerly significant leader of a formerly significant country, intentionally snubbed Iyad Allawi, but made time to visit Yasser Arafat. That means he prefers the company of the father of modern terrorism to the first democratically elected leader of a country that had previously suffered for decades under the thumb of another psychopathic terrorist. Of course, Chirac fought tooth and nail to save said psychopathic terrorist, proving himself to be an eager supporter of terrorists in general. And, equally clear, all of Chirac's efforts were useless because both he and his country stopped being relevant to anyone but terrorists years ago.

No doubt Chirac's petulance through this whole affair is largely from the frustration of impotence.

Make that 15 percent, maybe 20

Yesterday I guessed that the MSM's biased reporting accounted for 10 of Kerrys' 48 percent showing. That was before I discovered that the assistant managing editor of Newsweek was estimating it at 15 percent. Which means that a more accurate estimate of the nation's leanings would be 66-33.

Except that, given the MSM's bias, Thomas's 15 percent may actually be 20. Giving conservatives a 71-28 lead.

This is HUGE! (2)

The last one was a bit long, but here's a quick list of some of the reasons this is huge:

1. Bush advanced in almost every conceivable way.
2. Bush ran on principle and the public supported him.
3. Bush overcame not only the normal obstacles, but also the united assault of the MSM.
4. Kerry tried every dirty trick imagineable, told every conceivable lie, and Bush still won.
5. The public voted on the basis of morals, showing that the American people are far more principled than the Dems ever dreamed. A nightmare for the Dems.
6. In the next four years Bush will make appointments to the Supreme Court.
7. In the next four years Bush will expand democracy in the Middle East.
8. Bush will support Israel - the PA is finished.
9. The UN, the French, the Germans, etc. are all irrelevant now.
10. The terrorists who were working so hard to prevent Bush's re-election have failed. And now they know he's coming after them with a vengeance. No need to worry about re-election.
11. Osama bin Moron gave his best shot and still couldn't get Kerry elected.
12. Mikey Moose's lies failed to steal the election for Kerry.
13. Alec Baldwin may leave the country.
14. Conservative values win elections. The electorate has spoken and this is a serious victory for conservatives in the culture war.
15. All of the cheap and foul tactics of the Dems failed to steal an election for them.
16. Lots more.
    

This is HUGE!

For some reason there hasn't been a lot of talk about just how big a win this has been for Bush in particular and conservatives in general.

As mentioned already Bush has made advances in every area. And there are a ton of other highlights and records concerning his consecutive victories in the House & Senate, etc.

But it goes far beyond this. On paper Bush won the popular vote by 3%, but in reality he won it by a lot more than that. Why? Because the MSM is responsible for at least 10% of Kerry's 48%. Consider the following examples of the staggeringly biased approach of the MSM:

• Kerry simply criticized everything Bush did and assured us that he had a better plan that Bush. And the MSM gave him a total pass. They never bothered to ask him what his "better plans" were. Any idiot can criticize the current approach and say he has a better plan. And, in this case, any idiot did. And the MSM let him away with it. Want an example? How about everything? Kerry kept assuring us that he had a better plan for Iraq, but was never required to spell it out. Or how about Yucca Mountain? Kerry opposed building a nuclear waste repository there (well, actually he supported it until he decided to run for prez ... "I actually voted for Yucca before I voted against it" kind of thing). But did the media ever ask him what he'd do with the nuclear waste? Was it just going to evaporate under a Kerry presidency?
• Every whacko Kerry accusation against Bush was given the full-court press by the MSM. "Bush is going to reinstate the draft!" A total lie. Not even a shred of evidence. In fact, the evidence was quite the opposite - it was Kerry who was insisting we need to increase the size of the military, and it was Democrats in the Senate who were proposing such legislation. And yet the MSM ran with it. Same with Kerry's social security lies. Every scare tactic Kerry could dream up the MSM latched on to and helped him propagate it.
• Kerry also got a pass on every one of his problems. Think about it. The media goes psycho and drools because one guy can produce fake memos to the effect that Bush missed a physical 30 years ago. And this is headline news for days and days and days. Even if it were true, it's a complete none issue. But 200 Swfit Vets come out to testify that Kerry is lying about his service in Vietnam and the MSM ignores them. In an unbiased world, the Swift Vets would have received 100 times the attention as the fake memos because a) their accusations were far more serious, b) their accusations had far more evidence to back them up (hundreds of eye witnesses as opposed to no evidence at all), and c) Kerry had chosen to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his candidacy, whereas George Bush never played down his TANG service. But instead the MSM everything on its head and gives 100 times the attention to the trivial and irrelevant lies than to the serious and factual truth. Or how about the fact that Kerry is a self-admitted war criminal? And no-one in the MSM ever took him to task on it?

For these and other reasons, the MSM contributed to at least 10% of Kerry's 48%. With an unbiased media the final vote would have 61-38 or even better.

The MSM pulled out all the stops to sink Bush and Bush still won.

Huge. This is huge.

And of course...

If Bush is such a moron, what does it say about the Democrats that he's cleaned their clock for the third election in four years?

The position of the Left is that Bush is an incompetent imbecile. And yet, this incompetent imbecile has managed to liberate two countries and defeat his domestic enemies three elections in a row. And all of that in spite of the fact that the MSM did everything it could do to defeat Bush.

I don't know about you, but I might feel a little sheepish if I kept losing to an imbecile.

The view so far

This could change, of course, but so far here's what this election has yielded:

• Bush has gained in the popular vote
• Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote
• Bush has the largest number of votes of any President in history
• Bush has increased his percentage in every state except 4
  
• Bush has gained in the Electoral College
• Republicans have gained 4 Senate seats
• Republicans have gained 4 House seats
• Republicans may gain one governorship
• Almost every conservative ballot measure passed - including all the ones opposing gay marriage
• Daschle - gone!
• Edwards - gone!

Republicans have won in every measurable way. So many people deserve credit: Rove, SwiftVets, etc. .... but especially Bush.