Well the only qualitative difference I see is that historical revisionism is usually thought of as applying to history; Nixon qualifies, GWB doesn’t, yet.
Not to keep a hijack going, or anything; I’m just sayin’.
so it’s recent history.
And in two years he will be real history. Fly time, fly!
Really?
That’s just ludicrous. Obviously you’ve never actually dealt or read any state controlled media.
The fact that they will and do report bad things that happen in Iraq at all puts the lie to this one.
Remember, just because a media outlet isn’t saying what you think they should say, doesn’t mean they are being controlled by the monolithic government that you fear and hate so much.
Some of them will, some of them won’t until refusing to do so makes them look ridiculous ( if then ). Nor does criticizing Iraq require liberalism.
No, but you state that the American Media is a wing of the Republican party. Which may have a ring of truth in some capacities, but it’s glaringly and patently false in others.
See, what we’ve got here, is a Free Press. That means that anyone with the bucks and the desire can run a paper or magazine. And, as anyone with any knowledge of the laws of supply and demand can tell you, you will end up with media that caters to certain tastes.
Why yes, there are some rather Right Wing Talk Radio types. And, oddly enough, there are some AMAZINGLY leftist newspapers out there.
But I’m sure it’s all part of a government plot. Right? :rolleyes: 
Don’t hold back, man, tell us how you really feel!
Seriously, great sentiment; I agree with you whole-heartedly and I could not have said it better myself.
Now follow through and help me vote this asshole out of office for good in 2008!
Barak Obama for President!
Uh, I hate to break this to you, but no one on the face of the planet can vote Bush out of office in 2008 or any other year.
[nitpick]Yes, someone can. Won’t happen, but it is technically feasible. Hint - there’s a hundred of them.[/nitpick]
True. Guess I’m just too much of a strict constructionist. 
Of interest: A Tale of Two Covers.
Also of interest (though less surprising): Fox News Looking For Terrorists “Thrilled” With Democrats’ Victory
Lord knows we tried. *Some * of us weren’t much help. Not naming any names, or anything.
Forgive my possible ignorance, but isn’t there a Presidential election coming up in 2008? Not sure what you mean. Are my semantics a little off?
**Starving ** means that Bush cannot run for re-election. He has served his maximum time. What we can do in 2008 is ensure no one like Bush gets elected and the religious right loses more seats and influence.
Jim
I’m gonna regret this…
Dude, do you *really * think Bush is a good President? Do you *really * think he’s competent? Do you *really * think he made intelligent choices in the people he picked to run Federal agencies? Do you really *think * all this Homeland Security crap has truly made this country safer? Do you *really * think our economy is better since Bush was first elected?
'Cuz I just don’t see it, “liberal media” be damned. I can see what’s happening here with my own eyes.
My bad, my memory is short. Thanks Jim.
I can’t describe to you how I felt when Bush won in 2004. I thought “how can I be this disconnected with the rest of my country,” I was absolutely floored. It was exactly because of my faith in the system that I was so affected by the election in 2004. This year feels good, it is a form of validation to me and people like me who felt that they had lost touch with their fellow Americans after the 2004 election results.
I believe the members of congress and the senate can do precisely this. Of course that would make them only slightly better than the Republicans (better only because the Democrats would actually have a good reason to impeach).
Impeach maybe, but not so much for what he did yesterday, but for fear of what he may do tomorrow. Impulse control issues. Bigtime. Downtown.