As opposed to your subjective and assumed scenario we see the evidence of biased "detective" work by judging the treatment of two real time candidates. The press is willing to purvey fake documents against Bush while ignoring real witnesses on Kerry. Anyone who doesn't see a gross miscarriage of objective reporting in this case is whacked.

The Democrats lost the mantle of idealists in my mind when they wanted only their votes recounted in the last election. I never expected better from the Republicans than trying to stand pat on a winning if qustionable hand, but that's more morally defensible than trying to change the rules midstride and rig the results in your favor. This campaign has convinced me the Democrats have gotten just as dirty as the Republicans if not more so when it comes to false accusations during a campaign. The more absolutely biased nonsense I hear from Democratic leaders and supporters like Chris and Bowser the more my disgust with the Democratic party grows. I just can't believe as faulty as Bush's administration has been that the Demcrats couldn't win on the facts rather than lies about being mislead on Iraq and constantly changing positions on Iraq to suit the pursued voters of the moment. I don't think much of people who cheat when they have already been dealt a strong hand.

Kerry scored well in the debates because he had real issues to beat on Bush with and he was a convincing liar about jobs paying 9,000 less, a disagreeing general being forced to retire, and "a steady stance on Iraq". The press caught both of the first two lies in earlier debates, but Kerry used them again in the final debate.

Regards,
Mark