Don't tell me the media sharks aren't picking on the president. Don't tell me those cultural elites aren't out to humiliate him. Why else would they keep reporting all those stories that way down in our subconscious undermine our respect for him? Why else would they keep reminding us that he doesn't always tell the truth?
Sure. I know what's going through your left-wing, Murphy-Brown-corrupted heads. You're thinking, "Why should we believe the wacko paranoid right? Where's the evidence?"
You want evidence? Well, listen up, Bucky, I've got evidence.
How about the entrepreneur from California who gave the Republicans $500,000 last spring, then got arrested a couple of weeks ago because he owes $124,000 in child support? On TV they showed a picture of him all palsy-walsy with the president, then they showed the president talking about deadbeat dads, then they showed the guy's ex-wife saying she wants the Republicans to cough up the child support he owes so she can buy shoes for the kids.
Is that stacked against the president or what? And it sure helps family values to show it on prime time TV, doesn't it?
AND TALKING ABOUT family values, how about that poll that shows Bush and Clinton about even with male voters, but Bush running way behind with females? You think that's not designed to make women's libbers fall all over themselves voting for Clinton? Or encourage them to ignore their husbands' leadership?
And you know what's really nasty? It might not look so bad until you start analyzing it the way I have, but what's really nasty is that Weekly Reader poll that says that fifth-grade and older kids favor Clinton, but the president is the first choice of kindergartners through fourth grade.
Think about it. See, what they want us to believe is that the only kids who like Bush are the little-bitty ones whose brains aren't developed yet, and when they wise up they'll go for Clinton. That's the Weekly Reader, for cryin' out loud. That's how far the cultural elites have infiltrated our system.
And how about the sneaky way they keep trying to make us think the president's word isn't always good?
How about the way they keep telling us that Cap Weinberger, George Schultz, Howard Teicher, John Poindexter and Richard Secord are saying the president wasn't out of the loop on the Iran-COntra deal? Left-wingers like those guys would say anything to make the president look bad.
IT'S BEEN GOING on a long time too. Like back when Bush was vice president and NBC ran a videotape of him talking about Reagan's "voodoo economics" on the same news show where he denied ever saying it. Is that supposed to be just a coincidence?
Or the president's old chief of staff, Admiral Dan Murphy, telling a Senate subcommittee that his boss knew that Noriega was dealing dope while he was working for the CIA. That was even after Bush said he had no idea Noriega was doing any such thing. I suppose the media types think it's patriotic to reveal security secrets like that.
|
The Truth, Mainly
And get this: Just before the president's acceptance speech at the Republican convention in August, one of those left-wing colwnnists, David Broder, told us what George Bush said about his campaign rhetoric right after the 1988 election: "That's history. That doesn't mean anything anymore." If that's not poisoning the well before you can drink, what is?
And then last week, the day after the last debate, the Associated Press — there's a hotbed of draft-dodgers for you — claimed that some of the things Bush said the night before just weren't true. They said Clinton isn't proposing a tax on the middle class, that there is evidence Saddam used our grain credits for guns, and that a U.N. inspector says some of our technology was used to help Saddam produce bomb-grade uranium.
And it's no accident that all of this comes just when the president is telling us that the main issue of the campaign is who you trust.
REAL AMERICANS know what he means by that. He means that he's the guy who's man enough to stand up to Saddam and say that being American means you don't have to say you're sorry for incontinent ordnance that does collateral damage to civilians. He means that Clinton and Perot don't have the stomach for that kind of stuff, so we shouldn't trust them.
There aren't many around nowadays you can trust. Not in the media for sure. Not even some people who call themselves Republicans. Danny's OK, though. He's a real comer. He'll be ready in another four years if we can just pull this out next week.
But listen: Don't pay any attention to those media elites. They're just out to confuse you with their damned facts. It's a plot is what it is.
Satterfield is a college professor and writes as a means of discovery.
|
