Really? Most Certainly.

"How set back was the country by the media’s refusal to recognize that we were being ruled by a radical". So this writer's argument is that it's the media's fault for being too soft on President Bush, for not pointing out how much of a radical he was. Sheesh, what if what we witnessed over the last year or so was a Dan Rather, a New York Times in favor of our President. What would they be like if they "recognized"...

Exhibit six billion and twenty seven that certain people just don't get it. Some do though; "Republicans full of love, or at least affection, for George W. Bush turned out steadily later in the day or sent in their ballots days before. They have watched "old media" -- The New York Times, the broadcast networks CBS, ABC and NBC -- beat up on Bush for the past year, and they have listened to the sneers and slurs directed at him by coastal elites for a long time. Now they had their chance to speak. They did so loudly and clearly, giving Bush the first popular-vote majority for president in 16 years."