I think, by now, that most anyone who has read my posts would identify me as a Liberal. My tendency to support liberal policy is admitted. As much as I try to keep an open mind on issues, I find myself lining up with the "Leftists" when it comes voting time.

I finally got around to reading the article cited above, and understand totally DougR's objection to calling it "historical perspective" and considering it unbiased reporting. It clearly has a liberal slant, which can be best illustrated in one phrase ". . .Ronald Reagan, perhaps the twentieth century's most effective hypocrite. . .". That opinion does nothing to forward the discussion and has no value, other than to warm the breast of those of us who fail to see Reagan as a great president.

That it has a bias, however, does not invalidate the statements made. Even the speculation about what might have happened to proposed legislation has some validity, based on the history, voting record and statements of position by George Bush & Bob Dole (who, if you think back, would have been president over the past eight years had Bill not been elected). Given the nature of politics, though, it is possible that there are Republicans in Congress who would never had let some of those bills get to the President's desk if they didn't know that they were going to be vetoed. That's the way the system works. But that is neither here nor there.

Unfortunately, the selection of our leaders is now, always has been and probably always will be a subjective process. That's why anyone micro-analyzing our little discussion (or the election coverage in general) would find more references to George Bush's lack of intelligence, than statements that illustrate or support this point of view. The guy has to have enough intelligence to have gotten elected governor and to stand this close to being elected president. And as viscerally pleasant as calling him "Dumbya" might be to liberals, it's not really working to convince the undecided voters that he ought not be our next leader. And you could say the same thing about conservatives who want Gore to take the stick out from his butt. And yet that's the kind of "analysis" we get, not only from the press - but from each other.

One last point and then I'll shut up (for a while at least). Doug, I really don't know what value there is in bringing up the "liberal bias" of the press thing. I'm from Chicago and I read the Tribune and a suburban paper the Daily Herald. I find political coverage by editorialists on both sides of the issues; they tend to balance each other out, pretty much. You can find magazines that lean either way, too. A free press is one "conservative" idea that I support totally. Probably more than most card-carrying conservatives would. There is a "liberal" bias in the entertainment industry, but this is natural in an industry aimed at the youth market. Maybe this skews the perception of the media, in general. Then again, maybe I'm just too liberal to see the truth.

At any rate, I look forward to continued rassling about these issues, and hope I haven't offended or just prattled on too long.

Hope ya'll have a wonderful weekend
Bart