Reg,

I’m curious…you claim that Kerry’s pretend war hero stories must be true because he’s got the (heavily embellished) paper work to back it up but you won’t concede that Bush also served honorably even though he too has the paper work to back up his record.  Why is that?  So tell me, what has shifted about the SBV story?  You’ve got hundreds of men coming forward to say that Kerry is a liar…that hasn’t changed.  One thing which has changed has been Kerry’s account of what happened when faced with some facts; Christmas in Cambodia for one.  Would you care to back up the claim that these guys have been hired to go after Kerry?  Don’t be throwing stuff like that around just because you heard it somewhere.  Who has George Soros been supporting with all his billions and are they saying anything negative about President Bush?

The SBV claims are newsworthy, certainly as newsworthy as the latest smear attempt by the Kerry campaign and Dan Rather against President Bush.  In case you haven’t done the research let me help you…Dan Rather does not have actual documents.  He’s never had them and he never will because actual legal documents for the latest smear he’s taking part in don’t exist.  So why is it news when Mr. Barns comes out and says he helped Bush get into the National Guard but it’s not news when hundreds of honorably discharged Vietnam vets come forward to dispute Kerry’s claims?  Your logic is on shaky ground at best.

Dan Rather becomes the focus of the story because he’s abusing his power and position.  Did I say power?  Yes, power.  This nice old man that middle America invites into their homes each night is there because people trust that he’s going to give them the news and not an editorialized version of it.  The editorialized version can be found on any of the cable channels.  Hopefully this latest incident will open people’s eyes to the motives of the man and they’ll begin to appreciate what he says from a different perspective and not one based on trust.

Do you think Dan Rather has an agenda?  I do.  His agenda is to get Kerry elected.  Can you honestly say that you don’t see the blatant partisanship of Rather?  It’s not a question of caring how Rather votes.  It’s a question of Rather’s continual support given to Kerry and the conflict of issue problems which that causes.  People across America don’t tune into the evening news to be fed propaganda in a subliminal and not so subliminal way.  They tune in to get an unbiased view of world events.  The only thing lacking from Rather’s news broadcast is a Kerry campaign button on his lapel.  

So, the story about the latest smear attempt at President Bush isn’t really about the documents at all but about the way they made their way to the headlines.  The documents aren’t important because they’re bogus.  The story itself is important because it helps to shine the light on the way Kerry’s campaign is being helped along by established liberals amongst the nation’s elite news organizations who abuse their position and power.  That’s sad and unacceptable. 

Your defense of 60 Minutes is also weak.  If it’s okay to have people opposed to President Bush on the program week after week then why shouldn’t 60 Minutes be expected to have people on their program who give unflattering glimpses of Kerry?  I haven’t seen any.   Why not have the SBV for Truth on 60 Minutes?  Had they been offered the opportunity, I’m sure they’d have accepted.  It’s been a well orchestrated effort by Rather and his producers to smear the President and for you not to concede that is ridiculous.  I hold 60 Minutes and the evening news broadcasts to a different standard than I do the political pundits on cable and the radio.  With them you know you’re getting a slanted view of the world through their eyes and they don’t attempt to pass themselves off as news organizations. 

Yes, I have voted outside party lines on occasion.  I voted for Wellstone in ’90.

Kevin g