Why do we give props to reports,articles,& polls discrediting our nominee

[bigtree]

when they come from a media most here agree is biased against our nominee?

More importantly, why do we discount the effect of the responses, articles, and statements that thoroughly discredit the swiftliars and bushliars? Why do we believe these sources that dump on John Kerry and disregard the defenses?

[DemNoir]

1. Simple

DU loves Republican spin, cant get enough. We water,fertilize, nurture it.

I guess its some type of self-hatred issue.

[andino]

5. Hehe

"We water,fertilize, nurture it."

Most of it IS the fertilizer...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Stupidity?

It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[Guaranteed]

3. LOL I see things working in just the opposite

manner.

[bigtree]

4. Many here have cited polls from those same biased sources

that furthered these attacks as proof of the negative effect of the smears. In addition, many here seem satisfied to represent the bushco's attacks as devastating, and disregard the efforts of the Kerry campaign as weak and ineffective. I have doubts that these same folks have ant idea at all just what our candidate has actually done in the same time the attacks were mushrooming.

Then there is the contradictory advice to respond hard and often and at the same time set his own agenda. Bush has stepped all over any message he may have had on the issues that most concern Americans. Why do we disregard our candidate's ability to stay disciplined, and on message? Isn't the main aim of the smear campaign to throw Kerry off course and make him spend as much time as possible defending his service in Vietnam? Didn't Kerry outwit that plan?