Of all the outrageous aspects of this year's presidential campaign, nothing exceeds the Old Media's overt mission to defeat President Bush. They've always been biased, but this year, they barely tried to hide it.
Because of their bias, a large number of people remain in the dark about who John Kerry really is, which is alarming. I dare say that if they had not sheltered Kerry's past and his official record, if they hadn't conspired with Democrats to bring down President Bush, Kerry would be lucky to receive 40 percent of the popular vote.
Why do I say that? Simply because Kerry's left-wing beliefs are drastically out of step with a substantial majority of Americans. The only reason our elections have been so close in recent years is that the Old Media has helped to conceal that the liberal fringe has overtaken the Democratic Party. It is the party of Michael Moore, Howard Dean and, yes, John Kerry.
If the nation were truly divided along ideological lines, John Kerry wouldn't have to go to such lengths to conceal his support for gay marriage, his unabashed support of abortion, his discomfort with America's autonomy over its own national security, his aversion to national defense, his persistent opposition to the CIA, his consistent sympathy for Communist regimes and his commitment to punishing earned wealth and productivity.
Kerry's liberalism is not all the Old Media have hidden. They have shielded major portions of his past and sugarcoated others. They have deliberately ignored bona fide allegations against Kerry, some of which are substantiated by his own damning admissions. They've not only abrogated their duty to investigate Kerry's conduct, they've often refused to report it at all.
Credible claims have been made that John Kerry: cavorted with the North Vietnam enemy in Paris; was present at a meeting in Kansas City in 1971 where serious discussions occurred among his close anti-war confidantes about assassinating U.S. senators; perjuriously testified of alleged atrocities "routinely" committed by American troops in Vietnam; suborned other perjurious testimony in furtherance of his antiwar agenda; grossly exaggerated his own combat exploits and injuries and shamelessly lobbied for medals.
Kerry's own statements prove he committed war atrocities himself; that he wasn't in Cambodia during Christmas despite the experience being "seared" in his memory, and that he couldn't have been entitled to at least one of his Purple Hearts because no enemy fire was involved.
Any of these things alone would be sufficient to disqualify a Republican candidate for office. Taken together, they are devastating. But the Old Media remain uninterested.
Their response to a quarter of a thousand decorated Vietnam Swift Boat heroes decrying John Kerry's Vietnam record and anti-war activities has been to slander them and attack their credibility based on tenuous and unsubstantiated alleged connections between them and certain Republican groups. In stark contrast, they have pursued the non-story of President Bush's honorable National Guard service at least five separate times.
Even worse, the Old Media have been sordid coconspirators with Democrats throughout the campaign. Dan Rather and CBS participated with Democratic thugs in a forged documents scandal against President Bush and, when caught, unrepentantly stood by the "accuracy" of their fraudulent story.
ABC's political director Mark Halperin issued a memo directing his staff to be tougher on Bush than Kerry in their debate coverage. Newsweek's Evan Thomas boasted that the Old Media would deliver Kerry some 15 points in the popular vote. The New York Times and CBS did an October hit piece on the mythical missing explosives at al-Qaqaa. "Sixty Minutes" delivered another preposterous last-ditch hit on President Bush Sunday before the election alleging he hasn't properly equipped our troops in Iraq.
Worst of all, the Old Media have refused to insist that Kerry respond to any of the allegations about his Vietnam, antiwar or Senate records. They have participated with him in a cover up of Watergate proportions about these and his failure to sign Form 180 to release his military records.
They have exhibited a striking incuriosity concerning credible charges that there is something fishy about Kerry's medals. And now, as unfathomable as it may seem, they are ignoring potentially serious questions about the history and status of Kerry's discharge from the Navy.
Can you imagine the lengths to which these "objective pursuers of truth" would have gone had just a fraction of these credible charges surfaced against President Bush?
Only after the election will we learn the full truth about John Kerry, whether he wins or loses. And I suspect it's going to shock the daylights out of America.