Careful, Tom, we're maneuvering in your blind spot now. You're making a whole bunch of assertions as if they're statements of fact, thereby establishing your credentials as a partisan in the process of denying your partisanship.

Your basic argument seems to be that the American people (by which you mean non-Rightists) can't form an opinion of George Bush on their own, and it must be supplied by the media. Your second premise is that that media is biased against Bush. Your third premise is that the entertainment industry is a wiling partner with the journalism industry in a conspiracy against Bush. Fourth, Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Prize as a reward for opposing Bush--the Swedish Nobel Committee is in on the conspiracy too.

Fifth: "I defend Bush when the attacks are wrong." Not exactly--you assume that all attacks are wrong and defend Bush in all cases.

Sixth: "I've blown that stupid poll out of the water." Not exactly--saying something something loudly enough and often enough doesn't make it true.

Premise the seventh:

If I wasn't here, who the hell would do it?

You got one! Thank you Tom, without your constant rebuttal and cautionary example, the LeftistZone would have developed an echo chamber much like the Right's.

A note on Orwellian language: negative news about Bush is not the same as "anti-Bush news". Unless you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or somebody who's been inoculated by the Right's antimemetic meme that only White House press releases are to be trusted. Sorry, I'm being redundant, that's a paranoid conspiracy theory too.

Recreational procedural wrangling out of the way, this statement fascinated me:

What's going on right now in Washington and associated areas is a level of irrational hostility I haven't seen since the Left laid into Nixon.

Tom, you're not trying to argue for a parallel between Bush and Nixon, are you? Since you're arguing Bush is being framed, are you also arguing that Nixon was framed??!!! Are you one of them?? Say it ain't so! Next you'll be denying the Moon Landing!

But yet, you did call it "irrational hostility" That can only mean you think that people didn't have a reason to consider Nixon to be the scum of the Earth. You're either saying that Watergate didn't happen, or if it did, it was perfectly OK with you. Either Nixon didn't really accept a $100,000 bribe from the Milk Producer's Board...or it's OK with you if a President accepts a bribe. In a related vein, do you think Spiggy Agnew was framed too? Or was it simply OK for a governor to accept bribes?

It's funny how all you remember is the belief that "the Left laid into Nixon". If you try a little harder, you might remember that the Republican leadership, to its credit, eventually acknowledged the huge and still-growing pile of evidence of wrongdoing, and first urged Nixon to resign, then participated in the votes against him that convinced him to resign. Nixon lost the support of almost everybody, regardless of party...except, I'm now fascinated to see, you.

Thanks for that bit of revelation, Tom.