I continue to laugh at how obviously the Republican powers-that-be sat down weeks ago and decided upon a unified set of talking points to rehash on TV & radio during this Dem convention. All I’ve heard is how this convention is a fraud, how it’s being so controlled, how the speakers are being told what to say (and not say), how they’re not allowing it to turn into the freak show they oh-so desire, etc. This is not surprising. What is a bit more surprising is the degree to which I’ve heard this kind of stuff from the more mainstream, and supposedly liberal, media.

I’ve always known that “liberal media” stuff was for the most part a big fat red herring. While admittedly the mainstream media on average leans more left than the average American, in no way would I say it’s extreme. However, what is extreme is the degree to which those right-wing media outlets are to the right. Using a 50/50 scale, I would say the NY Times leans to the left by say 60%, whereas FOX News and the Wall Street Journal lean to the right by 85+% -- far beyond a moderate 60%!

Anyway, as more anecdotal proof, last night I watched the convention coverage on CNN and Larry King had on former Sen. George Mitchell, David Gergen and Bob Dole as a fairly bipartisan panel (Dole a Republican, Mitchell a Dem, and Gergen has worked for many presidents in both parties). However, in terms of what we heard on the air, most of it was Dole’s cranky rantings of criticism, granted mild when compared to lunatics like Limbaugh or Hannity, but nonetheless Dole received far more air exposure than say Mitchell. And what Gergen had to offer leaned more to the right than left.

Then this morning on Imus, I hear Andrea Mitchell of NBC bring up one bit of criticism after another. (Isn’t NBC the mainstream media?). She poked satirical fun at Sharpton’s speech (which has become an immediate favorite subject of the right-wing), then went on to comment on how controlled everything is and how speeches are being doctored (another RNC talking point), and finally she stated that despite Edwards’ best efforts, there still remains a question on credibility concerning how Kerry/Edwards will protect this country from terrorist attack. Boy, that sounds like real lefty liberal commentary to me!

As for this ludicrous question surrounding the Kerry/Edwards ticket with regards to a lack of credibility when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists, I ask: what exactly would it take for them to close the supposed gap on this credibility issue? You never hear anything specific on this because they don’t have an answer to the question. What did GW offer in this regard prior to 9-11? Prior to 2000? Doesn’t he have perceived credibility on this issue simply because he happened to be president at the time when this tragedy happened and has for the most part, gained credibility just by acting (somewhat) presidential in the meantime? And what would be the most likely credential that people would say should be a requirement concerning this issue? I would venture to say prior wartime experience. In that case, Kerry has it, GW lacks it – end of story.