Obama a Marxist? Seriously?

[Damien Evans]

Instead of a hypothetical, let's make a real comparison.

Pope Benedict, being a child in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's, was a member of the Hitler Youth. The press did note it and, except for a few crazies and conspiracy nuts, it was largely and rightly deemed irrelevant to the man Joseph Ratzinger grew up to be.

Our environment may influence us as we grow up, but it does not dictate us.

Well put.

 

[Random]

Ah, so this explains why they choose to publish hundreds of articles on ANY embarrassing Republican rumor but hardly mention *little* things like allegations by forensic pathologists (democrat ones at that) about mass murder peripheral to Chinagate or about credible (according to the FBI) rape allegations against a democrat President? Because they are smarter and more informed than the rest of us? If you could only listen to yourself. ROTFLOL!http://www.mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

The myth of liberal media bias holds up like a snowflake in a blast furnace when you look at the 2000 election coverage in the US. The media spent a year pounding away at Gore for anything they could think of and a bunch of stuff that was just made up.

“Invented the internet”, “earth tones”, the union label joke, the Love Canal quote, Love Story, etc. All of it garbage, and all of it was pushed relentlessly for over a year in order to make Gore look like a phony.

Meanwhile, Bush had the Harken energy story, the abortion story, the dodgy National Guard service, questionable land deals, etc. The result, nary a peep from the media. The closest thing we had to even remotely similar coverage was the cocaine allegations, and that got dropped when it became obvious that Bush wasn’t gonna fess up.

As for the Ron Brown allegations you seem to be pushing, give up. Seriously, give up. I have yet to hear even a coherent theory on that one besides ordinary plane crash, just a bunch of “suspicious” this and “mysterious” that. It’s been gone over here numerous times (although I’m not sure if the last round made it through the server upgrade) and the general quality of the CT theorists was about that of the 9/11 truthers.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Instead of a hypothetical, let's make a real comparison.

Pope Benedict, being a child in Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's, was a member of the Hitler Youth. The press did note it and, except for a few crazies and conspiracy nuts, it was largely and rightly deemed irrelevant to the man Joseph Ratzinger grew up to be.

Our environment may influence us as we grow up, but it does not dictate us.

Well put.

Indeed. It takes mad skillz to be able to reference the Hitler Youth without Godwin-ing a thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

The myth of liberal media bias holds up like a snowflake in a blast furnace when you look at the 2000 election coverage in the US. The media spent a year pounding away at Gore for anything they could think of and a bunch of stuff that was just made up.

Oh you mean the bias that kept the media in 2000 from mentioning Gore's famous line about there being "No Controlling Authority" or the circumstances under which it was uttered?

Yes indeed, let's look at media coverage of that election.

ABC does a special on religion amongst the candidates and never mentions that the quote of Gore's they use to show his deep religiosity came in response to a question about an alleged rape by Bill Clinton (his ex-boss) of a woman named Broaddrick. Never mentioned that the rest of Gore's unplayed response had him effectively saying that it was ok if Clinton raped a women because he made up for it by being the "greatest President ever". You mean that media bias against Gore?

You mean the bias election night where the networks called states more quickly for Al Gore than for George W. Bush? Congress later held hearings on this and of course the networks claimed to have no intentional bias in their election night reporting. But a study of the calls made on election night (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/4/1/6/1/p41615_index.html ) did indeed indicate a bias in favor of Gore. Here's another study that concluded the same thing: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w1325254419467q3/ .

Or do you mean this media bias?

http://newsbusters.org/node/7884

The incoming top editor of "Newsweek" magazine, Jon Meacham, cast aspersions on the legitimacy of President Bush ... snip ... . Meacham conjured up memories of the 2000 election, asserting that "Al Gore was elected by the American people, but not allowed to serve."

... snip ...

Meacham then proceeded to declare Al Gore the winner of the 2000 election:

"...you know there’s Al Gore, who by all accounts, you know he certainly won the popular vote and his whole life had been directed toward that. So he was elected by the American people but not allowed to serve because of various things."

Or how about this analysis:

http://www.caglepost.com/column/Linda+Chavez/3028/Media+Bias+Cuts+Gore+a+lot+of+Slack.html

So, what images of Al Gore and George W. Bush do the media project? Gore is given high marks for being well-informed, detail-oriented, and a populist. On the negative side, he's generally regarded as stiff, aloof (especially from the press corps itself, since he denies reporters free access even during campaign events), and as someone who stretches the truth a bit. Bush, on the other hand, is better liked by reporters (probably because he lets them ask him questions on the campaign trail), and is generally regarded as a genial fellow. Reporters early on gave Bush high marks for being a "different kind of Republican," by which they meant he wasn't necessarily anti-black and anti-woman. But the media has also portrayed Bush as an intellectual lightweight and his policy proposals as short on substance and generally tilted toward the rich. Hey, based only on this snapshot, I might vote for Gore, too."

By the way, gdnp will like this part from the above link ...

The reporters who cover politics are generally not experts on policy. And few reporters, including those whose expertise stretches beyond politics, have even a modest understanding of how the U.S. economy works. So, when Al Gore promises to "create 10 million new high-tech, high-skill jobs," or "cut the pay gap between what men and women earn by 50 percent over the next decade," as he did recently, the media simply report it without questioning the basic premise. But if George W. Bush promises to cut taxes, reporters are all over the story, dissecting exactly how Bush is going to 'pay for' a tax cut -- a rather odd way to think about letting Americans keep more of the money they earn. The media swallow whole Gore's Master of the Universe explanation of his economic goals. But they treat with great skepticism Bush's proposals, which rely more on private sector solutions to social and economic problems -- like helping solve the Social Security crisis by allowing young workers today to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks to pay for their future retirement.

Or perhaps what random refers to is this bias from 2000 ... from Salon, no less:

http://www.suite101.com/external_li...m/news/col/horo/2000/09/18/miracle/index.html "

How biased is the nation's press corps? In the window since Labor Day, the period when presidential campaigns start to get deadly serious, the national media has literally inserted itself into the race. In a series of shabbily conceived stories, which have thrown George W. Bush's campaign temporarily off stride, the national media has acted as little more than a spin machine for the Democratic Party. And that's not even counting the Oprah-Conan-Letterman caucus.

In the past week, the media has reported Bush's "major league *******" remark about a New York Times reporter, labeled him a debate fumbler (he's afraid to show up, the articles have implied) and tried to brand him with a political scarlet letter by depicting him as a mean-spirited, hypocritical and negative campaigner for the now-infamous "rats" ad.

... snip ...

Lost amid the critical coverage of Bush was what would become a major political scandal if Gore didn't have his finger wrapped around the media. Imagine for a moment if four government prosecutors recommended, after reviewing the facts, that Bush be investigated for lying to government officials on more than one occasion when questioned about illegal campaign contributions. Then imagine that a memo had surfaced indicating a possible $100,000 campaign contribution as a quid pro quo for an executive veto of legislation affecting the donor. (Most would call it a bribe.) It would be a major story. Yet that's exactly the story that broke last week about the Clinton-Gore administration to big media ho-hum. In a less-biased media universe, this story would have buried all the others."

“Invented the internet”, “earth tones”, the union label joke, the Love Canal quote, Love Story, etc. All of it garbage, and all of it was pushed relentlessly for over a year in order to make Gore look like a phony.

Maybe because he is a phony. Remember in his 1996 speech to the Democratic convention when he described his sister's death from lung cancer, and his vow to "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the tobacco industry. Then just four years after supposedly making that vow, when campaigning in tobacco industry states, Gore told the tobacco industry "I've planted it, raised it, cut it, and dried it." and had no problems their campaign contributions.

Now it's true that Gore didn't mean he personally "invented the Internet" when he said he told Wolf Blitzer "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", and the GOP was very effective in ridiculing Gore over that. We're sorry.

But the story he told a crowd of union workers about his mother singing him to sleep at night using "Look for the Union Label" was a fraud. The song wasn't written until he was 27 years old. The next day, Gore aide Douglas Hattaway was asked about this. USA Today reported he said that "Gore had misstated the title of an older song, 'Don't Forget the Union Label.'" That was written in 1901. Now of course, Gore apologists (who are the same people for the most part as Hillary apologists) insist that Gore's comment was a joke. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe Hillary's claim that the bullets were flying by her when she landed in Croatia was a joke too.

And maybe what we should be concerned about are the illegal campaign contributions to the DNC and it's candidates by major union organizations. In the 1996 campaign they tossed money hand and foot into the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, and Ron Carey's re-election campaign. William Hamilton, the Teamster's political director, was prosecuted and convicted for this. At Hamilton's trial, there was testimony that Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer, "figured in a second scheme to make $50,000 in illegal donations to Mr. Carey." Trumka pleaded the Fifth and the Democrats gave him a speaking role at their LA convention. Brian Ross, an ABC reporter, asked Trumka about his role in the Teamster money-laundering scandal and asked him the status of the investigation. "Oh, come on, man," Trumka said. "There isn't any, as far as I'm concerned." Ross reported that his sources said the investigation was still ongoing. "But to the surprise of federal investigators," he added, "he [Trumka] has continued to play an active role in steering union money and support to the Gore campaign." All this is documented here: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-how-the-media-help-gore/ .

As for the Love Story saga, that legend was started by Maureen Dowd ... who I needn't remind you is a big time democrat supporter. And you know the news media ... they love to gossip about ANYTHING connected to Hollywood. Surely you don't think she was in league with Bush at the time?

Meanwhile, Bush had the Harken energy story, the abortion story, the dodgy National Guard service, questionable land deals, etc. The result, nary a peep from the media.

Where in the world were you?

Harken energy story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

http://www.nypress.com/15/29/news&columns/beans.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071202.asp

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/bush.stock.sale/index.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue0712.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2087558/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6D61230F932A25754C0A9649C8B63

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/politics/main516808.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/04/MN133497.DTL&type=printable

And that list was compiled from just the first five pages of over 23,000 pages of hits using google. Where do you get the silly notion that wasn't covered by the mainstream media?

The abortion story was started by none other than Larry Flynt. You know who he is, right? Now how much credibility do YOU give Flynt? Maybe his lack of credibility is why most of the mainstream media chose to ignore this slime. I say most because some sources ... like Amy Goodman's democracy now had no problem giving Flynt air time.

Here's an excerpt from an LAWeekly.com article in 2004 on this allegation:

The Texas Abortion Tango
The unproven scandal that could have sunk George W. Bush
by Howard Blume

... snip ...

Flynt got tantalizingly close to documenting such an episode, but never confirmed enough to justify a press conference. He would have loved to prove it. ... snip ... So what was Flynt to do on the eve of the 2000 presidential election? Lacking proof, Flynt instead dropped broad hints about the alleged abortion. He didn’t name names — other than Bush’s — because his lawyer told him he risked a libel suit from the woman in question. ... snip ... Flynt’s account finally gets told in the book Sex, Lies & Politics: The Naked Truth, scheduled to hit shelves late this month. Flynt avoids risk of libel by keeping the players anonymous and by avoiding flat-out claims. ... snip ... You get the sense that Flynt wanted the story out so desperately that his own remembering became a bit skewed. He did, however, ask his researchers to fact-check the details that actually appear in the book. And the allegation about the woman being paid off is not in there. ... snip ... Flynt hoped the national media would take the matter further, perhaps by launching their own probes, or even by just asking Bush a pointed question during a press conference. Flynt called Tim Russert of NBC News, which sent a reporter to Flynt’s office to look over his material. ... snip ... An NBC spokeswoman ... Barbara Levin ... (BAC - said) Flynt “contacted Mr. Russert, NBC News’ Washington Bureau Chief, and as is often the case, Russert simply passed the information on to a reporter to follow up. As you note, David Bloom did follow up and used his editorial judgment that the rumor was not solid enough to go with a story.” ... snip ... Then, on October 20, 2000, Flynt appeared on CNN’s Crossfire. The subject of the show concerned porn and the Internet, but Flynt took advantage of live TV to launch his spiel. Conservative host Robert Novak challenged Flynt as having “no proof.” “The hell we don’t have proof,” Flynt retorted. (Of course, Flynt didn’t have proof.) ... snip ... Flynt was shooting from the hip, without reviewing his own investigators’ files. The Weekly asked for documentation, but Flynt and his representative never provided it, though Flynt did discuss the matter at length in a late-April interview, after he reviewed his documentation.

The bottom line is that anyone can make unnamed and unsupported allegations. Even lowlifes like Larry Flynt.

Now you claim Bush's National Guard service wasn't covered by the media? Are you kidding? Mind you, most of what was written was either wrong, incomplete or a distorted hit piece but:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E3DD133BF93AA35754C0A9629C8B63

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123463&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2095256/

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

That's from just the first 2 pages of TEN MILLION google hits! Your claim that there was "nary a peep from the media" is just plain partisan delusion on your part, Random.

The closest thing we had to even remotely similar coverage was the cocaine allegations, and that got dropped when it became obvious that Bush wasn’t gonna fess up.

ROTFLOL! Let's look at the coverage the media gave to Bush's ALLEGED cocaine use. How many articles did it get compared to the coverage given the Broaddrick rape allegation (which the FBI said was credible), cocaine use by Clinton (with multiple eyewitnesses), or the Ron Brown allegation (where named military forensic pathologists suggested possible foul play)?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dan.htm

O'Reilly then asked the CBS anchorman why his network carried seven reports on mere rumors that President Bush had once used cocaine, but when Arkansas businesswoman Juanita Broaddrick came forward to accuse Clinton of rape, it merited just two mentions on the "CBS Evening News."

And there are plenty more sources like that one as anyone who has followed my posts on the Broaddrick case knows.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/double-standard-on-bush-and-cocaine/

The media double standard has rarely been more obvious than it has been in the media reaction to George W. Bush’s handling of the question of whether or not he has ever used cocaine.

... snip ...

It is understandable that reporters are making this an issue, but it is disgraceful that they are doing so at the same time they refuse to apply the same standard to Bill Clinton. In the case of George Bush, no one has come forward to say they saw or heard that he snorted cocaine. The questions are inspired not by a rumor, but by suspicion.

In the case of Bill Clinton, there are at least three accusations that have been made public about his cocaine use, but these same reporters have shown no interest in demanding that Clinton tell us whether or not he used the drug. One accusation was made before a grand jury by Arkansan Sharlene Wilson. She testified that she saw Bill Clinton get so high on cocaine that he fell into a garbage can.

Clinton’s half-brother Roger, who spent time in jail after pleading guilty to cocaine distribution and conspiracy, is shown on a surveillance tape saying to a known cocaine dealer, “Got to get some for my brother. He’s got a nose like a Hoover,” referring to the vacuum cleaner. And Gennifer Flowers, whose claim that she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton is no longer disputed by anyone but Clinton himself, who admits to only one instance, recently said on the Fox News Channel that Clinton told her, (quote) “there were times he did so much cocaine at parties that his head would itch.”

The media have never insisted that Clinton respond to these charges, but on August 23, White House counsel’s office issued this blanket denial. “The president has never done cocaine. That applies to his entire life.” This is the same tactic that Clinton used to ward off media demands that he respond to Juanita Broaddrick’s very credible accusation that Clinton had raped her when he was attorney general of Arkansas. His lawyer issued a denial on behalf of the president, and that satisfied the media.

But in Bush’s case, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked if Bush should be “compelled” to answer the cocaine question. Compelled to answer? By whom, pray tell. Sam Donaldson was the only reporter who dared ask about the rape charge at a Clinton press conference. ABC was the only network to report the question and the non answer. The newshounds pursuing Bush were not interested in that.

As for coverage of the Ron Brown allegation, I challenge you to link a single mainstream source other than the Chicago Tribune that reported the Ron Brown allegation details ... for example, the statements of the forensic pathologists and military photographer on the matter. Go ahead. It should be easy to do IF WHAT YOU CLAIM IS TRUE.

As for the Ron Brown allegations you seem to be pushing, give up. Seriously, give up. I have yet to hear even a coherent theory on that one besides ordinary plane crash, just a bunch of “suspicious” this and “mysterious” that.

Random, if you REALLY believe that, let's see you over at this link where I've laid out the case (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 )and we'll discuss it. Bet you don't show up.

 

[Random]

Where in the world were you?

Harken energy story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm

http://www.nypress.com/15/29/news&columns/beans.cfm

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york071202.asp

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/bush.stock.sale/index.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue0712.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2087558/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E6D61230F932A25754C0A9649C8B63

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1992/09/bushboys.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/politics/main516808.shtml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/04/MN133497.DTL&type=printable

And that list was compiled from just the first five pages of over 23,000 pages of hits using google. Where do you get the silly notion that wasn't covered by the mainstream media?

Looked at your links. Of the ten you listed, only two were from before the 2000 election, and one of those dated back to 1992, and was mostly concerned with Bush Senior. The only one even close was the first one you listed which was from July of 1999. Hardly wall to wall coverage in the days leading up to the November 2000 election.

The abortion story was started by none other than Larry Flynt. You know who he is, right? Now how much credibility do YOU give Flynt? Maybe his lack of credibility is why most of the mainstream media chose to ignore this slime. I say most because some sources ... like Amy Goodman's democracy now had no problem giving Flynt air time.

The Bush abortion rumors predate Flynt, Flynt simply came closet to getting it national attention. But I don't give the media that much hassle over dropping it. In the end, no story can really go forward without the testimony of the doctor, the girl, or Bush. The doctor won't testify since he will lose his medical license, the girl won't testify since she has made a relatively lucrative career of not telling people she had an abortion, and Bush won't tell anyone since he is George W Bush.

Now you claim Bush's National Guard service wasn't covered by the media? Are you kidding? Mind you, most of what was written was either wrong, incomplete or a distorted hit piece but:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E3DD133BF93AA35754C0A9629C8B63

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123463&page=1

http://www.slate.com/id/2095256/

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

http://www.time.com/time/question/20040915.html

That's from just the first 2 pages of TEN MILLION google hits! Your claim that there was "nary a peep from the media" is just plain partisan delusion on your part, Random.

Again, check the dates of those stories. They are all from 2004, before discussion of W's military history got drowned out in minutia about 1960's typewriter fonts. Before the 2000 election, there was really nothing but one Boston Globe article, which was not picked up other major media outlets.

 

[BeAChooser]

Looked at your links. Of the ten you listed, only two were from before the 2000 election, and one of those dated back to 1992, and was mostly concerned with Bush Senior. The only one even close was the first one you listed which was from July of 1999. Hardly wall to wall coverage in the days leading up to the November 2000 election.

Ok, so a bunch of those links were from 2004. That proves he didn't get a free pass in the last election. But it looks like I found one mainstream article leading up to the 2000 election on the matter ... and that was after examining only 5 pages of 23,000 pages of google links. Do you think I wouldn't find more? Would you like me to demonstrate I can find some more ... pre-2000 ... mainstream articles on Bush and Harken? That's easily done. All I have to do is put the key words "bush harken 1999" into google.

Guess what? I get 40,000 hits.

Here's the second hit in the list from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/ "How the Texas governor made his millions, Brooks Jackson/CNN, May 13, 1999"

Here's a 1999 in the Washington Post (no friend of Bush):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushside073099.htm "The Harken-Bahrain Deal: A Baseless Suspicion"

Here's a second Washington Post article from 1999:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22316372.html "A Baseless Suspicion; But Harken-Bahrain Deal Raised Eyebrows"

All of that on the first page of 40,000 pages of hits.

Here are some more I found in the first few pages that mention Harken and Bush:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93BA35756C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=4 "George Bush the Son Finds That Oil and Blood Do Mix" from 1999.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,991286-7,00.html "How George Got His Groove" from 1999.

So who do you think you are kidding, Random, claiming that Bush's links to Harken weren't covered in the mainstream media before 2000?

The doctor won't testify since he will lose his medical license

Or perhaps there was no doctor.

the girl won't testify since she has made a relatively lucrative career of not telling people she had an abortion

Or perhaps there was no girl.

and Bush won't tell anyone since he is George W Bush.

Or perhaps the accusation had no merit.

Again, check the dates of those stories. They are all from 2004, before discussion of W's military history got drowned out in minutia about 1960's typewriter fonts.

You mean drowned out by the LIES of Dan Rather and CBS.

Before the 2000 election, there was really nothing but one Boston Globe article, which was not picked up other major media outlets.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Again, from a google search with the search criteria "bush national guard service 1999" that yields 1,570,000 hits:

FIRST ITEM LISTED:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/04/bush.02/ "Bush says he's 'proud' of Vietnam-era National Guard service, GOP contender disputes report of favorable treatment, July 4, 1999, AMHERST, New Hampshire (AllPolitics, July 4) -- GOP presidential candidate George W. Bush defended his military service record Sunday, after a report in the Los Angeles Times said he may gotten "highly favorable treatment" to win a place as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War era."

So you are clearly wrong in claiming there was nothing but one Boston Globe article. Obviously, both the LA Times and CNN covered it. Bet I could find many others. But I don't need to at this point, do I.

 

[gdnp]

Let's swithch the bolding:

The reporters who cover politics are generally not experts on policy. And few reporters, including those whose expertise stretches beyond politics, have even a modest understanding of how the U.S. economy works. So, when Al Gore promises to "create 10 million new high-tech, high-skill jobs," or "cut the pay gap between what men and women earn by 50 percent over the next decade," as he did recently, the media simply report it without questioning the basic premise. But if George W. Bush promises to cut taxes, reporters are all over the story, dissecting exactly how Bush is going to 'pay for' a tax cut -- a rather odd way to think about letting Americans keep more of the money they earn. The media swallow whole Gore's Master of the Universe explanation of his economic goals. But they treat with great skepticism Bush's proposals, which rely more on private sector solutions to social and economic problems -- like helping solve the Social Security crisis by allowing young workers today to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks to pay for their future retirement.

This is your idea of an objective analysis that shows the press is biased?

And then you will complain I did not spend the rest of the afternoon checking the rest of your references