Once that legislation passed, anyone who signs up can make the irritatingly persistent calls a thing of the past, with a couple of exceptions. Any for-profit violators who do call can be turned in to the federal do-not-call folks and/or the state level, if one’s state has such, as Mississippi does, and face stiff fines. Any, that is, except for the "exceptions," such as newspapers.

So why did newspapers get exempted from this legislation? Sounds like someone did some powerful lobbying. We can just hear it now: oh, newspapers can’t be prevented from bothering the public with unwanted and unrelenting phone calls, "it’s a matter of free speech." Really? The "free speech" of any other for-profit venture doesn’t merit the same consideration? And, it’s ok for liberal Democrats to try and revive the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would squelch conservative free speech as a result, but newspapers can call anyone they want to, multiple times, trying to sell subscriptions, in the name of the First Amendment?

The other exception to the "do not call" list are non-profits. Apparently, this extends not only to charitable organizations but also to political entities. Those include the four or more different Republican organizations that have called this author in the past few weeks, all asking for money via a scripted pitch that the caller persists in reciting even when told "no"– a word that no doubt is universally not recognized by telemarketers of every description.

Just who decided it was a great idea to pelt would-be supporters with numerous phone calls, all pining for still another contribution? Who in the GOP thought this one up? What an incredibly bad idea.

Here’s a memo to all those GOP organizations: you got your tail kicked in the last election, remember? People are tired of the "same old, same old" from the Republican Party. How about trying to learn from a thorough thumping all across the board–White House, Senate and House, and doing things differently? Virtually no one enjoys getting calls from telemarketers...that’s why we have a "do not call" list. That ain’t the way to get it done...

So to all those Republican entities of various descriptions, and you know who you are, enough already. Try listening to "the folks" instead of assaulting and insulting them with endless pitches for more money. What a crummy way to try and make a "comeback."

This author was part of an effort that produced two "parody" songs that also spoof the "bailouts" and today’s runaway federal power-grab, a/k/a socialism. The two songs, "Back in the USSA" and "Eight Billion A Week" can be heard in their entirety on youtube.com. A copy of the parodies was submitted to a certain party’s national committee, as well as to various other political groups [hint: postage wasn’t wasted sending them to left-leaning groups]. The author thought most people would rather listen to comedy parodies that have a point than to long sales-pitches via the telephone that do nothing to attract people to the Republican Party, but plenty to drive them away.

What response was received from that committee? After months of time passed, a form-letter email was finally received that nicely said thanks for the effort, but please move along. Ok, no one was compelling anyone to listen or utilize the creative effort, and we know just by mentioning this we could be accused of having "sour grapes." But it is preferable to pelt would-be supporters with irritating and repeated telemarketing calls? Yeah, that’s really building the Grand Ole Party.

Y’all keep this up and the tail-kicking may become an election tradition. Not what we were hoping to see or what this country needs. But what does that have to do with anything, when you can dial numbers ad nauseam and endlessly beg for money?

Ms. Helen Thomas, a seasoned veteran of the White House press corp, had quite an exchange on July 1 with Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary. Chip Reid of CBS (yes, CBS) had asked why the administration was picking the questions beforehand for the "town hall" meeting on health care. When Mr. Gibbs responded with "the old soft shoe" dance-around-the-question routine, Ms. Thomas spoke up and let it fly. We don’t know if Mr. Gibbs realized he had been "schooled" or not, but it sure looked that way to us. (We also mean absolutely no disrespect to Ms. Thomas with our parody above, and we substituted "ole’" as a term of endearment, rather than the original "old" in the Jan and Dean song of the 60s. As her questioning of presidents dates back to JFK, she is timeless).

Ms. Thomas was later quoted, in referring to the present administration, "What the hell do they think we are, puppets?....They ought to be hanging their heads in shame." Previously, the only reason we would have found to watch a White House press briefing would be to see if questions from Fox News’ reporters were dodged. We may have now found other reasons to watch as well.

Bravo, Ms. Thomas. Kudos to Mr. Reid, as well. We make no secret of our distaste for the groveling and admiration society played out by too many in Big Media. Therefore, when we see some of them stand up–like they are supposed to–after the shock wears off, we want to give them credit where it is due.

Obviously, not everyone in the White House press corps is prepared to follow a script, be used to "plant" an expected question, or engage in hero-worship. Now, if they will just keep that up. Too much to hope for? We’ll see, we’ll see.

With all due respect to the President, and we sincerely mean that whether leftists believe us or not, we are thankful that at least one television network hasn’t adopted an Orwellian 1984 approach to news. There has been and will continue to be many things written about the liberal bias of the so-called "mainstream" media, or "Big Media." At least, those things will continue to be published and aired so long as "Big Brother" doesn’t do away with the First Amendment and shut these venues down.

Certain liberals like to claim that they are champions of "freedom of expression" and "freedom of the press," and with wagging fingers warn of oppressive governments that silence opposition. Unless, of course, those leftists are in charge of that oppressive government. Then, all of a sudden it becomes a great idea, and things like the [un]Fairness Doctrine and "localism" get revived by liberal Democrats intent on silencing any critics. Then, conservative talk radio gets equated with "pornography" by that bastion of fairness, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Witness also ABC’s broadcasts from the White House. No, this was not a satirical skit from those parody shows broadcast on Saturday nights on other networks. They were totally serious and did this PR-job with a completely straight face. We suggest that this network change its abbreviation from ABC to IFO, as in Infomercials For Obama.

Here’s another novel suggestion: the next time ABC wants to do a puff-piece, uh, "news" program, from the White House, instead get John Stossel to do the interviewing of the President, give Mr. Stossel no restrictions, and guarantee him he will still have his job after the program is over. Given Stossel’s journalistic integrity, independent mind and libertarian thinking–all of which seem to otherwise be in short supply at ABC–we imagine that program would much less resemble a campaign infomercial, and the President might find someone else to get steamed at, other than Sean Hannity and company.

Sadly, by his inaccurate comments about Fox News, the President is aligning himself with those leftists who would silence all who do not agree with them. This is the United States of America. We have a Bill of Rights and a constitution of no equal which, for now anyway, includes a First Amendment. When the Left grabs control and can claim the White House and both houses of Congress, not to mention most of the media, that rush of power begins to embody the old adage of "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That corruption has now been played out by ABC’s White House Telethon. There is no way on God’s green earth that this display of power-grabbing will ultimately prove beneficial to our country. Those in power apparently want to quash voices that, at a minimum, do not take part in the "cheerleading" public relations routine engaged in by Big Media. Maybe next they’ll be saying "if you can’t find anything good to say about us, don’t say anything at all," to turn another old adage on its head. Somehow, we don’t think bowing down to an earthly supreme commander is what Mom had in mind at all.

###

Now that the White House and both houses of Congress are in the hands of liberal Democrats, they will push even harder to make this suppression of free speech a reality. As with so many other issues, whether they get their way is largely up to you–if we sit on our hands and do nothing, then the Left may get its way, with an Orwellian control of the information that reaches us through the airwaves [see also our earlier column, "2008 is 1984" ].

For example, that stalwart of "fairness," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has compared conservative talk radio to pornography. Our reference to his sense of "fairness" is discussed more at length in our earlier column, What It Was, Was Slander. He and his colleagues didn’t seem too bothered by the lack of fairness they showed U. S. District Judge Charles Pickering when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush. But you can expect Sen. Schumer and colleagues to be leaders of the effort to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine and/or make other efforts to curtail free speech.

[go on w/ "Fairness Doctrine" and "localism" issue...the latter being the "backdoor" way of accomplishing what libs might have trouble doing through the "front door" of the Fairness Doctrine...so watch out for the "sleight of hand" routine...both of those are a tremendous danger to free speech...since either could kill conservative talk radio, if libs get their way].

So the first "attack" will be against conservative talk radio–limited to radio. But, if we are going to be consistent–and "fair"– then why have the "Fairness Doctrine" and the concept of "localism" restricted to just radio?

How about television? Since the national networks, save Fox News, are all "in the tank" for the Left, then how about some "fairness" there, huh? Just hand over ABC and CBS to the Republican Party, and let them control what gets broadcast on those networks, since they and the others, except Fox, are basically the PR mouthpiece for liberal Democrats. Sorry, Charlie (Gibson). And, you, too, Katie. Move it on over, the conservatives are taking over your anchor chairs. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Newspapers? Gee, most of them lean left, too. A whole bunch of them, in fact. That means just loads of them will now relinquish control to the GOP, and conservative columnists will finally get the opportunity to be read in previously-unreachable avenues. No more Obama "puff pieces" in those papers. Magazines? Same deal.

We’re not sure what will happen to all of those out-of-work liberal "journalists," but, hey, "fairness" can have a heavy price, right? At least a few of them will be able to find jobs in liberal radio, since that market will have to increase as part of this "fairness" plan.

The internet? Hey, we can’t leave out the fastest-growing media communications method of all, can we? But, how do we do that? Make all the conservative sites list a bunch of liberal sites that the reader can go to for an "opposing view"? And make the liberals do vice versa? Who decides which are which? Which ones make the "lists"? Who decides that?

Gosh, we guess that means we’ll have to have–you guessed it, more federal regulation and a brand-spanking new federal agency to "oversee" all this, since the FCC won’t be big enough to handle all this new responsibility. How many billions a year will that cost? Doesn’t matter, not when we are talking about preserving "fairness." Besides, we are confident that our liberal friends in Congress will come up with a myriad of new taxing proposals to finance this huge new undertaking.

Then, of course, there will be the "bail-out." What bail-out, you say? C’mon, think it through. Since all those radio stations will have to drop much of their conservative talk lineup, to even it up with liberal talk shows, their ratings will take an absolute nosedive, which means their ad revenues will go flat. That’s ok, since Uncle Sam is bailing out so many others, we can just add WKRP in Cincy to the list, along with numerous other radio stations all across the country. Then, our government will own radio stations, along with the insurance companies, brokerage firms, banks and other entities it now owns.

Imagine that conservatives controlled the White House, both houses of Congress, and most of the "mainstream" media, but liberals predominated on talk radio. Those conservatives then decide it would be a good thing to institute the "Fairness Doctrine" and via "localism" require all those radio stations to give equal time to conservative sources.

Liberals would be screaming bloody murder, shouting protests from the rooftops, and rightfully so. "Censorship!" "An attack on free speech!" "Ruthlessly oppressive Big Brother government!" Yes, we would be hearing it–so long as the liberals had media outlets that would actually cover their protests, instead of ignoring them, or bashing them for speaking up.

So, why is it any different now? Its "OK" to suppress "conservative" free speech, but not "liberal" free speech? The U. S. Government is supposed to be allowed to dictate to privately-owned radio stations what they can and cannot broadcast–on partisan, political lines? Yet, National Public Radio, largely funded by our tax dollars, is free to roam as far to the left as they like, totally unfettered?

We have a feeling that will be one of a number of issues that "blue dog" Democrats (i.e., moderates and conservatives) will need to "break rank" with the powers that be in their party, in order to see that common sense–and what is best for our country–actually prevails. If the non-liberal Democrats, independents, and conservatives stand together on this issue, then Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and company will have to back off. Free speech will then reign, instead of government-dictated censorship.

That coalition of common sense will have to be active on other issues as well, if things like "drill, baby, drill" are to become reality.

Otherwise, let’s face it. There are a bunch of people out there that would rather have their impressionable children mindlessly singing "songs of praise" to Obama than listening to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck. They actually think that listening to Glenn, Sean and Rush is harmful, while chanting those mantras is beneficial. If we don’t wake up and stay focused, they may get their way.

"Free speech" isn’t free if one side of an issue is successful in suppressing the views of the other side–that is called oppression, censorship, tyranny, and other such words, but "free" is not among them.

We congratulate Senators Obama and Biden on their historic win. We are deeply disappointed that Senator McCain and Governor Palin were not elected, but that is what happened. We would not have gloated had our side won, and will not wish ill will to the side that did. We hope that President-elect Obama and his staff will do the right things and keep America’s, and Americans’, best interests at heart. We want our country to be safe and prosperous, and to always be a leader for the cause of freedom, liberty and justice.

We are saddened that a true American hero, John McCain, will not have the opportunity to serve this nation as president. In our estimation, he deserved that trust. We are also disappointed that Sarah Palin will not be serving as vice-president. She is refreshingly "one of us" and has been unmercifully and unfairly attacked by both Big Media and her political opponents.

We are even more disappointed to see that the media in this country apparently holds such sway over the average person. If our country is moving further into an "entitlement mentality," as echoed by the lady in Florida’s comment (to paraphrase, she said "I’ll never have to worry about filling my gas tank or paying my mortgage again, if I help [Obama], he’ll help me"), then our country is moving downward, not upward. If most people in this country do not think for themselves, and noddingly accept what they are spoon-fed by Big Media, that downward turn is even deeper and more sharp.

In our opinion, too many of the media in this country have been dishonest and without an ounce of shame in blatantly favoring Senator Obama and making its "Big Push" for him to reach the White House. We do hope that more and more of you will be more discerning in your viewing habits, and will not reward Big Media with more viewership or readership.

We also hope you will stay alert, though we are probably all a bit tired of politics at this point. With the advantage that Democrats have in both houses of Congress and now the White House, we expect a number of issues to come to the forefront, and we ask that you pay attention. For example, liberal Democrats will no doubt try to bring back the [un]Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to air an equal amount of differing viewpoints–if they carry four hours of "conservative talk," they will have to match that with four hours of "liberal talk." We think such a doctrine is unconstitutional and is a direct attack on free speech, which the media and liberals are supposed to be so concerned with protecting. Stay tuned.

Another area is "drill, baby, drill." Don’t be lulled to sleep by falling prices at the gas pump. We know those can go back up in a matter of days and weeks. With the same majority for Democrats just referenced, we are concerned that they will say "forget it, baby, forget it," regarding drilling, as we said in our most recent column. It will be up to the American people to not let Congress get away with that kind of [in]action.

We will also watch what happens in terms of national security, our fight against terrorism, and the stability of our military.

We plan to continue posting columns on our site, www.BoycottBigMedia.com and on this blog, though not as frequently. We said what we said without malice toward anyone, and we wish the best to both political friends and foes alike. Also, it’s not all about politics. If we ever get into publication the book from which several of these columns came, we will let you know. A lot of that book is not about politics. Thanks to all of those who have visited the site and this blog. We hope you will continue to do so, and will continue to forward links on our columns to your friends and contacts. We were heartened to see two of our columns selected as "Conservative Must Reads" by the editor of townhall.com, though both were credited to regularfolksunited.com rather than our site; those were "Who Are the Real Heroes?" and "...You Might Be a Leftist."

This election season also leaves us with questions, the answers to which we’ll never see. We would love to be proved wrong about that. Just off the cuff, here are a few:

1. How many fraudulent votes got cast, nationwide? How many people voted more than once, or voted in the name of a dead person or someone else?

2. Was the outcome in any particular state decided on the basis of fraudulent votes? If all those fraudulent votes were tossed out, what would the result of the political contests be, including ultimate outcome, electoral college numbers, and popular vote? For example, at last report, Obama won Ohio by about 200,000 votes. Some days ago we saw reports that claimed that of the some 600,000 new voter registrations in Ohio, over 200,000 or so of those were problematic, and/or fraudulent. Just a coincidence? We’d love to know.

3. What effect did Big Media’s biased polls have on the race; did that dim the turnout for McCain/Palin? A number of these polls had Obama/Biden with a double-digit percentage lead, or at least nine points, and the actual margin was about six to seven. Did these inaccurate polls, in Obama’s favor, "dull" some voters who would have voted for McCain into not showing up at all? We addressed that concern a number of times in our columns, but there still are too many people in this country that believe whatever they get told by TV and newspapers. We note that some 121 million votes were cast for Bush and Kerry in 2004 (Bush with 62 million, Kerry with 59 million), and even less votes–so far–have been counted for this race (about 120 million, 63.6 million for Obama, 56.2 million for McCain).

4. How much money, if any, did the Obama campaign receive from foreign sources, which is illegal? Who gave such, if such was given?

5. Who were the sources of donations to the Obama campaign of less than $200 apiece? The Obama campaign has thus far not identified those donors, though the McCain campaign identified all of their donors, regardless of amount. Did certain donors give much more than is legally allowed by doing so in a series of donations under $200, with those names either never being released, or the donations being made in fictitious names?

6. How many donations, if any, including total amounts, did the Obama campaign receive that violated the limits that one can give to a campaign? What happened to this money?

7. What would the tape that the LA Times refused to release, of the Rashid Khalidi gathering attended by Obama, have yielded, if anything?

8. Will the Obama campaign ever release the actual birth certificate of Senator Obama? If he was born in Hawaii, as previously reported, then what is the problem with releasing the actual certificate?

9. Will ACORN continue to be allowed to take your tax dollars and conduct partisan activities that favor one party, i.e., Democrats?

10. Will anything be done about ACORN’s practices of allegedly fraudulent voter registration, including registering people multiple times and under incorrect and/or fictitious names?

11. Will people such as Joe the Plumber who ask questions, and/or disagree with the new administration, get "investigated" by Big Media or the government in the Democrats’ new administration?

AND, to us, the biggest question of all:

Will the media bother to really investigate and genuinely attempt to answer these questions, and, if so, make as big a fuss over those as they do over the barrage of negatives they routinely hurl at Republicans?

We won’t be holding our breath.

We love the attention that "Joe the Plumber" has brought to the presidential race. Senator Obama was "out with the people" when he happened upon Joe, and that one backfired on him. We hope Joe the Plumber becomes a symbol of why regular folks everywhere need to realize what is at stake in this election, and that they will go vote for the straight-talking John McCain and his "one of us" running mate, Sarah Palin. To the chagrin of the smooth-talking Barack Obama and his running mate, the gaffe-prone Joe Biden.

Lost in all the attention given to the last debate and Joe the Plumber was another jewel from Joe the here-I-go-again-with-my-foot-in-my-mouth VP candidate. Senator Biden said, about Senator McCain’s economic plan, that it "does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S." Yes, that is a quote, emphasis added by us. Just when you think Joe Biden can’t top himself, "there he goes again." We don’t guess what he meant was that Senator Obama would also call "jobs" a three-letter word. But, hey, the latter did say something about our "57" states.

Just imagine the furor from Big Media had Sarah Palin said either of those remarks. We would be treated to story after story from the liberal media, once again questioning whether Gov. Palin is "ready" to be vice-president, or president. But when Joe says still another gaffe, it’s not even a story to most of Big Media. Same with Senator Obama. Sure, all four of these candidates are out every day, talking to many people, and mistakes can happen–to anyone. But if it is "big news" to Big Media when Republicans trip over their own two feet, it ought to be when Democrats do, as well. But not in the world according to Big Media and the Left.

Big Media is too busy fawning over its Anointed One to actually report the news. Big Media is too committed to carrying out its PR job and agenda of electing Obama to do much of anything to upset what it thinks is an unstoppable train.

However, you, the voters, can knock that train right off the tracks. Joe the Plumber gave you plenty of incentive to do so. Joe the Plumber recognizes that what Obama wants to bring to this country is a socialist/welfare state. Joe the running mate apparently hasn’t caught on to that, or has to keep silent in order to be a real "team" player. Either way, we think Joe the Plumber has a better grasp of the bill of goods Obama is trying to sell, and makes a lot more sense than Joe the running mate does, even on the latter’s good days.

In the debate, we were heartened to see Senator McCain tell Senator Obama that he should have run for president four years ago if he wanted to run against President Bush. We said as much in our earlier column, "EDIT THIS!..." In the VP debate, Senator Biden had harped on the Bush administration, once again, as Senator Obama continuously attempts to do. We said then: "Here’s a tip, senators: your opponent is named John McCain. You know, that fellow on the other side of the Senate aisle that you have so often wanted on yours. Your opponent is not George W. Bush, no matter how much you wish or will it to be so."

We’d love to know if it was a simple slip of the tongue when McCain called Obama "Senator Government"–whether intentional or not, that was a great way to put it. Senator Obama wants you, and Joe the Plumber, and everyone, to believe that "I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you." Apparently by taking more and more of your money and giving more and more handouts to others. What a great way to "build" the economy...

One thing we’ve grown weary of hearing from the media pundits is that Senator McCain "didn’t score a knockout," or words to that effect. Guess what? That wasn’t going to happen. Senator Obama is much too smooth to completely fall apart in a debate setting, even outside the "comfort zone" of a stadium-sized pep rally. Even though we think Senator McCain did win this debate, we won’t be voting on the basis of how pundits or pollsters grade the candidates after a ninety-minute encounter. In our opinion, that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with answering the crisis calls at three a.m., or leading this country in a way that makes the best use of common sense.

There’s about as much truth in Senator Biden’s description of "jobs" as being a three-letter word as there is in his and Senator Obama’s promise of a "tax cut" for "95%" of all of us, to "help" the middle class. The more accurate way to put it would be to say that the "95%" claim is 100% false. Once again, as simply as we can state it: if the Bush tax cuts end, then anyone who pays taxes now will pay more then. That, and the litany of other tax increases Obama has planned, will torpedo the middle class, not "help" it.

Obama wants to end those tax cuts. His priority is hand-outs to those who don’t pay taxes and an increased tax burden on those who do. That’s what his "share the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber was really about.

"Jobs" isn’t a three-letter word. Even if Barack Obama says it is, too. "Joe" is a three-letter word, and we’ll take Joe the Plumber over Joe the running mate, and his running mate, anytime.

To Big Media, almost without exception, the only "good" Republican is a dead one. The extreme hatred and vitriol shown by them to current President Bush...think that is new? Nope. Sure, it probably surpasses any dislike ever expressed by the media toward previous Republican high office holders. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is alive and well, and will continue beyond his time in office. Everything bad that happens, hey, it’s his fault. Ok? Got it? And while we are at it, it is now John McCain and Sarah Palin’s fault, too.

That is what leftists, Big Media, and the majority of celebrities expressing political opinions would have you believe. But is this the first time they’ve acted this way? Not hardly.

Ronald Reagan is now generally acknowledged, even by a number of Democrats, some liberals among them, as one of the best presidents of our collective lifetime. When he died, we were initially amazed that Big Media treated his passing as a huge media event, with hour-after-hour coverage, and mostly favorable reminiscings about his life and times. What, actual respect being shown toward a Republican, even a conservative one?

Then, it dawned on us. The only good Republican, in Big Media’s omnipotent eye, is a dead one. After he/she is gone, then and only then can they sing some praises. By doing this, Big Media (1) can come off as genteel, respectful, and above-board toward the departed and those who admired him/her, and (2) can use the collective praising as a subtle dig at the current Republicans whom Big Media cannot stand and wishes it could spew out of its sight (see Bush, George W., above, and for this election’s purposes, John McCain and Sarah Palin).

Come on, if you are old enough, can’t you remember how Big Media and the entertainment world treated President Reagan when he was in office? You think current President Bush is the first Republican president to be called "stupid" by the media and Hollywood, and treated as if he didn’t have a clue? Happened all the time when Reagan was in office. The subtle and not so subtle barbs made about his age, his intellect, his hearing, and so on. Saturday night TV shows that regularly presented him in spoofs that made him out to be a dumbo, a puppet whose strings were constantly pulled by others.

What a farce. Big Media failed to recognize one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders of our time. Much of liberal Hollywood did the same, and Hollywood was where Ronald Reagan had come from. He was a Republican, and a conservative. Before either of those, he was an American. And, even before that, he was a Christian, and he loved his wife and family. So popular was he that even Democrats voted for him in droves. Yet, his was not a "messianic" type of popularity. He reached the real things, knew of what he spoke (despite the above portrayal of the opposite by the media), and was genuine through and through.

Several observers have drawn comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. You won’t find Big Media pundits on the Left among those. To them, Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue, and has no business "intruding" into "their" world. Sound familiar? Don’t worry, Sarah, they treated the Great Communicator the same way. Ronald Reagan is John McCain’s hero. We understand. Like Reagan, John McCain is a grounded individual who knows what he believes, and who knows how to lead. He also reminds us of Reagan, as does Sarah. There’s not anyone on the Left we can say that about–not that they would want to be caught dead reminding anyone of "the Gipper."

Big Media admitted at President Reagan’s death what it furiously fought to deny during his public lifetime. Only when he died did Big Media, and some portion of the Left, acknowledge him for who he truly was. No, to them, the only good Republican is...