It might be instructive to contrast how I view the relationship between the Press and the President, how someone from my political perspective sees it compared to your impressions. After all, we witnessed the same events, we should theoreticaly arrive at the same conclusions. We won't, but at least keep in mind that what you see so clearly is not necessarily obvious to another observer.

I barely remember the Truman Years, and the first president I recall was Eisenhower, who seemed to serve for an eternity. As a child, I could not evaluate any media bias, pro or con. Even the famous Sherman Adams Vicuna coat scandal barely seemed to touch him, although I was really too young to read between the lines. At the beginning of my teens, Kennedy was elected, and I couold see the press loved him. But it wasn't political, it was strictly show biz, Kennedy was young, a war hero, and attractive and articulate and witty. He had a pretty wife and neat kids, and national politics became a fashion show and celebrity romp. Space, civil rights, and the cold war were what was happening. The honeymoon didn't have a chance to end before he was assasinated.

LBJ's term was marked by the war, and although the news was bad, I don't recall the press being too hard on him, although we all know he felt very differently about that. Towards the end, he was obsessed by it, but my impression at the time was that it was the situation that was going south, not that the press was out to get him for it, and I was personally shocked when he publicly announced his decision not to run.

Richard Nixon was not a very likeable man, but again I do not feel the press was particularly out to destroy him during his early days. When Watergate broke out, everything seemed to change. The press took a very adversarial stance, but I noted it was tempered by very strict adherence to the rules, too. They were scared of him, and history has shown that there was every reason to be so. The paranoia of his reign is well documented, but I believe that the press was fair, in spite of constant whining by the Republicans. The attacks on the press and its bias were much more numerous and vocal and bitter than the presses' attacks on Nixon. This was the beginning of the "left wing media meme". In fact, the press went way out of their way to be fair, nothing like this had ever happened in America before and we all felt we were on new ground.

Gerald Ford was supposedly savaged by the media for pardoning Nixon, but I personally don't remember there being that much going on about that at the time. I personally liked the guy, and if we had to have a Republican, at least he seemed the best of the lot. Of course, I was wrapping up my college career at the time, and I was very busy and notriously apolitical, much to the disappointment of my hippy-dippy friends. Maybe I just missed it.

Jimmy Carter was next in line, and he had a long honeymoon, one that ended abruptly with the Iran hostage crisis. The press, apparently eager to make up for their assault on Nixon and prove how fair they were, made life miserable for him. The assault was not a personal one, but it manifested itself by a constant daily reminder, day after day, that the hostage's capitivity was still going on. It never stopped, even though it was obvious that short of bombing Iran and risking losing the hostages, there was nothing he could do about it. Regardless of how you may feel about Jimmy on other issues, I simply don't see what he could have done about Iran, except mount a rescue mission. When that failed, the press was merciless.

Then along came Ronnie, and every conservative dream was fulfilled. Mr Reagan wasn't much brighter than Mr Bush, but at least he had personal charisma, and somehow the people felt he had rescued the hostages from Iran single-handedly. I think the press sensed this, and they were afraid to go after him, in spite of the many problems during his Preisidency and astrologers in the White House. I think it was the first time the press really revealed their cowardice and let us down. They let Reagan get away with everything, not because of any threat from the White House, but simply because they were afraid to lose ratings. Reagan was a popular president so the press backed off. It wasn't political cowardice, it was corporate greed.

Reagan had a disatrous episode in Lebanon, and although that certainly can't be hung on him, it could have happened to a Democrat just as easily, he didn't get anywhere near the bad press Carter received for the loss of a handful of airmen in Iran. The convenient and distracting Grenada excursion helped him come out looking like a winner. But it was the obscenity of Iran-Contra, an impeachable offense if there ever was one, if not downright treason, and the press pretty much looked the other way. It was a disgrace. I could go on, but I'm sure the conservatives have already prepared their defense, years ago, and that's not what we're talking about. I think the press, besides realizing their audience by and large were willing to forgive anything from the Gipper, just backed down and let Ronnie, Ollie, and the rest of his sleazeball gang of Vegas houseboys just get away with giving aid and comfort to the enemy, negotiating with terrorists, and carrying on a war specifically forbidden by Congress.

George Bush Sr turned out to be a pretty good prez, overall, and the crowing achievemnet of his presidency, Desert Storm, was a masterpiece example of how to get things done in the mideast. He was attacked for not going on to Baghdad, but that was, at the time, the right thing not to do. He got a lot of skeptical press just prior to the war, but nothing succeeds like success, and he deserves the credit for a relatively successful presidency. In fact, he got more flak from conservatives for moving his lips and prudently welshing on his pledge to not raise taxes than he did from his political opponents.

Clinton, ah yes Bill J Clinton. Well, I have to confess he got a pretty much free ride from the press too, except for the breadcrumb sins of Monicagate. From that point on, the press demonstrated that it was not dominated by ideology, but by ratings. The left-wing liberal media showed that even progressive principles were no match for docmented viewer eyeball$.

The current presidency is still not over, and perhaps it cannot be properly evaluated without a little more historical perspective. Let us suffice to say that I concede the MSM has been a bit harder on Bush than any predecessor since Carter, or even Nixon, but Bush has had plenty to counterbalance the scales: a Congressional majority, his own tame right wing propaganda apparatus, the blogosphere, 50% of the electorate, and the cachet of wartime commander in chief. And unlike the Democratic opposition, the lockstep loyalty and unity of his party. At least, until now.

No doubt others with differing political prejudices may take issue with my remarks here, but I feel I had to go on record to explain why I don't see a concerted media campaign to undermine conservative politicians. There are problems a-plenty with the press, and perhaps some bias, but they are, in the long run, just as likely to be hostile to the left as the right. In fact, I think the MSM is precisely where it needs to be politically, about equidistant from the two poles of the blogosphere and the think tanks. Now, if they would only start reporting the news and give Britney, JLO, Bradgelina and TomKat a rest.