Reply #16: Excellent post! But while I don't question that the MSM has had corp/thug

[PurpleChez]

sympathies for some time, I do feel that their treatment of the chimp has been exceptional. Their idolization of * in 2000 was worlds away from 1992, when they did very little to stop Poppy's slide from Gulf War Caesar into irrelevancy. Perhaps more dramatic (IMO) -- born in 1966, the first presidency that I remember well from candidacy onward is that of Ronnie Reagan. I remember back then, even as a kid, wondering how someone who misspoke so often and so dramatically could earn the nickname "the great communicator," and that did a lit to convince me, at that tender age, that the notion of the liberal media was a myth. BUT...even though people absolutely adored Reagan they still seemed capable of acknowledging that the man could make mistakes. His stance on apartheid was openly vilifies, and repudiated by Congress; SDI was widely ridiculed, etc. Be ye congressman or citizen, you could openly disagree with the man and not necessarily risk being labeled a traitor. I'm no scholar, but it seems to me that there is little precedent to the present day alliance of politicians, reporters, media figures, infotainment personalities, and every-day men and women whose purpose in life seems to be to promote the idea that 1) the chimp has never, EVER made a mistake, 2) disagreement with said chimp must be crushed and criminalized, 3) said chimp must be shielded from all dissent, etc., etc. No matter how much folks loved Reagan, they seemed to understand the reality that others would disagree with him. The idea that * is to be credited with papal infallibility goes beyond that, in my opinion. But I just don't know...I look forward to reading what anybody else thinks.