Obama vs McCain- The Real Debate

Socialism vs Capitalism

Fundamental Finance.com

Over the past few decades Western European countries have have passed laws and taken other steps towards socialism (or Marxism). This, combined with globalization, has lead to increased pressure on the United States to become more socialistic. Although the ideas of socialism seem appealing, it a fundamentally flawed system and it begins a slippery slope that falls into communism.

Wikipedia defines socialism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society. In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx predicts that the proletariats will overthrow the bourgeoisie (which seems to be happening to some degree). The bourgeoisie are upper management and upper class, the white collar workers, while the proletariats are the working class, the blue collar workers. Since the proletariats "do all the work", Marx and other socialists suggest that they should get an equal share of the wealth. A Marxist society would have no private property rights and goods produced in it would be distributed among the citizens--"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

On the other hand, capitalism utilizes the willpower of individuals, especially entrepreneurs, to foment economic activity. Capitalism is based on the assumption that individuals operate based on self interest; however, by doing so they not only help themselves, but also propel others towards economic success. As Adam Smith put it, "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

I was given an assignment by a teacher in high school to write a paper on whether capitalism or communism would be better in "a perfect world." On first glance, communism seems to be the obvious choice, but if it were a perfect world, then not only would people work hard to support their families and progress individually, but even capitalists would be willing to donate to charities, etc. I believe that in a perfect world, a very similar outcome would occur in either communism or capitalism.

The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

The US is taking baby steps towards socialism. We may not be as far as France, and we're definitely not as far as China, but unless we reverse the current trend we will suffer the consequences.

Partisan Legislative Panel Finds Palin Guilty Of Doing The Right Thing

You will see more on the news in the next few days about Sarah Palin doing the right thing as Governor in Alaska and getting slammed for it now, than you have seen altogether about Barack Obama's ties to terrorist Timothy McV errr I mean Bill Ayers and Obama's corrupt ties to ACORN.
Media bias?... hide and watch.

Anyone who didn't demand that that police officer be fired... should be fired. Poaching a moose was enough, but to use a police dept taser on his own son, BRAVO to Sarah and Todd Palin for doing the right thing.

Had she done what those bashing her now are suggesting... that is to have protected the officer that illegally killed a moose, drank beer on duty and used police dept taser on his own son... had she NOT demanded his firing, had she protected him (because of family ties) THEN people would have had something to crow about. As it is, this is nothing but shameless character assassination by Democrats on that panel who are connected to the Obama Campaign.

Remember my motto:
"No good deed goes unpunished"

Vote Obama-Biden or Elect McCain-Palin

Journalism is dead.
It's no secret that the news media is controlled by democrats. Major studies and polls have more than demonstrated that fact. No link required, use your brain.
In fact they don't even really bother to try and hide it anymore.
So, if you want to pick up the newspaper or turn on the news everyday for the next 4 years and hear about how great things are under President Obama and how no matter what goes wrong... it was Bush's fault, then vote for Obama-Biden.
If you want to increase taxes on those already paying over 95% of the taxes vote for Obama-Biden.
If you want to increase YOUR taxes vote Obama Biden.
If you think America is the problem and not the solution... vote Obama Biden.
If you want our military downgraded, degraded and put on the back burner... vote Obama-Biden. If you want more government in your life, more spending (over $1 trillion new programs proposed) out of your pocket... then vote Obama-biden.


If you want to piss-off the Democrat run news media, Hollywood and extreme leftists who are trying to socialize our country and in the process protect our country from terrorists (instead of meeting with them) restore our economy (by lowering taxes not raising them) stand up to our enemies and protect our friends,... then elect McCain-Palin. If you want to eliminate corruption in Washington you don't bring in a "community organizer" from Chicago to do it. You bring in a corruption fighting pit-bull from Alaska and a tough old maverick from Arizona. If you don't let the news media decide who you vote for, then elect McCain-Palin.
If you believe it is time for a woman to be Vice President... and save this country from socialism. then elect McCain-Palin.
If you really-truly want to vote for change, then elect McCain- Palin.
Besides, without Sarah Palin, Tina Fey will have to go back to being a cute SNL second tier bit player.

Democrat Party? Racist?

An AP -Yahoo News poll conducted with Stanford University found some very troubling news about Democrats.

"WASHINGTON - An AP-Yahoo News poll has found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks - many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles."

The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.

The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home - among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president - white, black or brown.

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama.
Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates.
More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America.
One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes _ including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.

Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective (when describing blacks), a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries - particularly whites with high school education or less - were motivated in part by racial attitudes.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

Casualties In Iraq: November 2007

It's time to check in on how that big 'ol civil war in Iraq is going since the Democrats and the Clinton News Network or the liberal blob-o-sphere sure won't talk about it.
Gee, I wonder why that is?

"History will record where the Democrats stood when Iraq was suffering through its darkest hour."

From Engram at Back Talk Blog:
Back in July, Wolf Blitzer interviewed left wing anti-war icon John Murtha. Here is some of what he had to say:

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Nice to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm going to play a little excerpt of what the president said earlier today and get your reaction. Listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion. But trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure as far as I'm concerned and we can't afford to fail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What do you say to the president?

MURTHA: Well it's delusional to say the least. As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war.
...
So, our troops are caught in a civil war. As I said over and over again, it can't be won militarily. There can only be a diplomatic effort. I think this surge is a perfect example where we aren't making any progress, and we've got to start to redeploy the troops as quickly as possible.
...
MURTHA: I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven't even been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there's no progress being made. And the way you measure it is, is the security itself.

Are the incidents decreased? No. Have the civilian deaths gone down? No. Have the American deaths increased? Yes. That's the way you measure whether we're making progress.

That's the way you measure progress? You don't say.

Other Democrats were equally prophetic:

"The surge was supposed to bring stability.... It hasn't and it won't," Ted Kennedy said on May 1. "The evidence is clear it is not happening and it will not happen," Dodd said May 15 of a potential American victory. Durbin said the day after: "This Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed." Senator Joseph Biden agreed. "The surge has not worked and will not work," he said on June 1. And in a joint letter to the president on June 13, Reid and Pelosi said, "As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."
...
As Harry Reid put it on July 9, "Democrats and military experts and the American people know the president's current strategy is not working and we cannot wait until September to act." As Dianne Feinstein put it, "Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working. ... Do we change course now or do we wait until September... I believe the answer is clear."

Hillary Clinton also weighed in and had this to say:

WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

Those are your liberal leaders characterizing the effectiveness of the troop surge -- the very people you think should be in charge of national security. And their point was not merely that the surge wasn't working. They wanted everyone to also know that, in their expert opinion, the surge would never work.

Were they right? Here is my monthly tally of civilian casualties in Iraq based on the data at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (with necessary corrections described here):


As always, the black bar shows when al Qaeda finally succeeded in provoking the Shiite militas to start killing Sunnis (in an effort to stop al Qaeda's suicide bombers). The dark purple bars show the months during which the surge began to unfold (in February) and then became operational (in June). As you can see, civilian casualties plummeted in September, then they dropped even further in October, and now they have dropped still further in November. In fact, casualties dropped even more than this chart suggests. In November, there were only 3 incidents involving more than 15 civilian casualties. Two of those involved 30 casualties each, and neither incident actually occurred in November. In both cases, mass graves of decomposed bodies were discovered. These people had been killed by al Qaeda savages in earlier months, so it would not be unreasonable to take another 60 deaths off the already low November total.

Month-to-month data can be noisy, so here is a similar chart with each bar now representing the average of the last 3 months:


As al Qaeda has been routed in Iraq, and as former Sunni enemies join our cause, U.S. military deaths from hostile fire have also plummeted:


Remember the words of liberal anti-war icon John Murtha:

"Are the incidents decreased? No. Have the civilian deaths gone down? No. Have the American deaths increased? Yes. That's the way you measure whether we're making progress."

Indeed, that is how you measure progress (not by "political benchmarks"), and that's why even he is now forced to admit that the troop surge is working:

WASHINGTON — No. 2 House Republican Roy Blunt challenged Democrats on Friday to pass a $50 billion war spending package, pouncing on new remarks by Democratic Rep. John Murtha who said, "I think the surge is working."

I'm frankly amazed that al Qaeda has not been able to pull off a single spectacular mass-casualty attack for 3 straight months. They are undoubtedly highly motivated to do so, in part because they know that Democrats in Washington are veritable puppets on a string. Does that sound harsh? It doesn't to me. Harry Reid's declaration of America's ignominious defeat in Iraq came in direct response to this attack by al Qaeda on innocent Shiite civilians in Baghdad:

Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in Baghdad

Wed Apr 18, 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday, including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Here is Harry Reid's response the very next day:

Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leader

Apr 19

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

In other words, al Qaeda commits an atrocity, and the Democrats immediately call for surrender -- right on cue and in exact accordance with al Qaeda's nefarious plan. While behaving in that manner, the Democrats also repeatedly and eerily denied that al Qaeda was a significant factor in Iraq. To them, it was all just a big ol' civil war based on ancient hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis. Here is Democratic Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd nicely summing up the creepy Democratic stance that has been in effect for the last several years:

Again, this is a civil war going on in Iraq. This is not the United States versus Al Qaida. It's Shia versus Sunnis tearing each other apart. It's gone on for centuries, but particularly here right now.

All Democrats and most Americans actually believed this nonsense. And, of course, the mainstream media (especially, New York Times, of course) bent over backwards to explain how simplistic Bush was being for emphasizing the indisputable fact that we were at war with al Qaeda in Iraq:

July 13, 2007
Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

And that wasn't all. The Times also weighed in with this:

Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner

By CLARK HOYT
Published: July 8, 2007

AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.
...
“Nobody knows how many different Islamist extremist groups make up the insurgency” in Iraq, said Anthony H. Cordesman of the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Even when you talk about Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the idea of somehow it is the center of the insurgency is almost absurd.”

You see, it's all much more complicated than that cowboy in the White House can appreciate with his alcohol-addled brain, and that's precisely why the troop surge is destined to fail. Liberals, whose brains are uniquely able to appreciate complexity and nuance, fully understood that failure was the only possible outcome. And they were only too happy to tell you all about it.

How quickly things can change. The entire left (i.e., virtually all Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media) are mystified by the dramatic reduction in violence that we've seen in Iraq over the last 3 months. If al Qaeda was not a factor -- that is, if it really was just a big ol' civil war -- how it could it be that turning the Sunni tribes against al Qaeda coupled with a troop surge offensive directed at al Qaeda achieved such spectacular success? It's incomprehensible. And make no mistake about it: offensive operations associated with the troop surge were directed at al Qaeda according to this interview with the man himself (i.e., with General Petraeus):

What is your priority in the surge operation?

"It is to disrupt al-Qaeda and its ability to conduct sensational attacks and to try to continue the cycle of violence, which they have been trying to do all along. In addition, they are attempting try establish a real al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq, a caliphate."

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq."

Democrats who denied all of this are now bewildered by the dramatic turnaround in Iraq. Despite being wrong about everything, you can be sure that they will now knowingly explain how the incredible improvement in Iraq has nothing at all to do with (a) the troop surge, (b) George Bush or (c) our apparent victory over al Qaeda. Instead, the remarkable progress was achieved because [INSERT LIBERAL FANTASY HERE].

Had the Democrats gotten their way, we'd undoubtedly be witnessing more than 1000 extra civilian deaths per month. It's ironic that people who think of themselves as being especially "decent" progressives were openly advocating that we simply stand back and permit genocide of innocent Iraqis. In effect, that's what they angrily demanded, but I doubt they will be able to assimilate that painful reality into their self image. Instead, they'll concoct a fantasy according to which the reduction in casualties would have happened in the absence of the troop surge (despite the fact that they explicitly predicted the exact opposite, as documented above), or they'll express absolute certainty that this is merely a temporary break in the action (even though they have already proven their inability to predict what will happen in Iraq). But the painful and inescapable truth is that they openly supported a plan to stand back and allow genocide to unfold before the horrified eyes of the world, and they knew exactly what they were doing. Being the decent people they are, they felt OK about it because they knew the blame would be placed on Bush. They were right about that, of course, but that doesn't excuse them for what they did. The American public may never awaken to all of this (because of the media we have), but if the success continues -- and no one can say for sure that it will -- history will record where the Democrats stood when Iraq was suffering through its darkest hour.

Posted by Engram at 12/01/2007 07:25:00 AM

-Lifted and reposted in it's entirety with glee by red s tater 12/02/07

Demand Separation of State and News

You may have already glanced at the post below this one and thought... 'liberal bias in the news', ...so what... what difference does it really make?
I've tiptoed around this in other posts, but I'm gonna come right out and say what others are either afraid to say or haven't thought through... or I've missed.

The news media isn't just biased to the left... it has become nothing more than a Socialist Government propaganda tool combined with some pretty pictures, clever ads and lots of sports candy to keep us coming back for more. (Americans LOVE sports !!!)

If you're thinking "Bush controls the media", quite the contrary, if he did... the reports from Iraq would have a much different look to them as well as everything else in the news I assure you.
No, our Democrat/Socialist controlled government controls the Socialist/Democrat controlled media. The Government IS the media right now and the media IS the government (the majority Democrat part only).

We hear a lot these days about the separation of state and church... well I'm calling for the IMMEDIATE Separation of STATE and NEWS.

How can I say such a thing?

Consider what's been 'going down' between the "new media" and the "old media" and the Democrat majority controlled government.
You have leftist blogs like moveon.org and the daily kos etc. feeding phoney news stories to the leftist print and main stream news media which presents the stories as fact to the public (without retraction when stories have been refuted) combined with a leftist leaning slant to the entire news report in the first place. Real news with a slant combined with outright lies and propaganda. For the purpose of this discussion the terms Leftist, Socialist, Democrat and Government are interchangeable.

Leftist blog-o-sphere + Leftist media =Leftist propaganda.

The next component to the equation is leftist control of the government. It's no secret that the Democrat party agenda and the Socialist Democratic agenda and the Socialist agenda and the American Communist party agenda are all pretty much xerox's of each other with minor marketing and cosmetic differences. Let's just say Democrats LEAN left. Way left. Socialist left at the least. Democrats are by and large... socialist and one look at their plans for healthcare, the economy, taxes etc. will confirm this in just a few seconds.

Leftist Democrat control of government + Leftist Democrat control of media = Leftist government controlled media.

"No I'm not,...YOU are..." And all the while, Democrats spend a good deal of marketing energy making sure they go on the leftist blogs who feed it to the leftist media where they all accuse the rest of the media of being in George Bush's pocket. Media Matters was created and is serving just this purpose as we speak, it filters out the rightwing lies from the truth of the left. This doesn't happen by accident but by design. It's called "covering your tracks".
If you ever watched pro wrestling for entertainment as a kid... you always saw the bad guy claiming he was the victim as he 'cheated' behind the ref's back... great theater, but the audience could see what was going on that the ref couldn't... in the case of the analogy with our media we never get to see what is going on ...because the ref, the cameraman, the producer and the network are all pretty much in the tank for the "socialist guy/gal". (wrasslin' fan? soonerthought used the phrase - "worked the ref" in his recent Globalgore post to make the lame case against liberal bias existence with a link several years old thus avoiding any new evidence to the contrary-lol)

Yes, I realize that our media is not forced by the government in this case but is a willing compliant component in the blatant movement to take our country from us, even WHILE WE *ARE AT WAR with a very real and dangerous enemy on a different front which this same media refuses to report on properly. (shocking! ...film at...never o'clock)
From wiki on State Controlled Media...

"The state controlled media in Belarus deny that there is any bias or censoring of freedom of expression in Belarus. They point to the Belarusian people's overwhelming re-election of Lukashenko on September 9, 2001 claiming that this shows that the anti-democracy sentiment in Belarus is genuine and that the Belarusian people and media do have the right to free speech - they simply do not want to criticize their government because they believe it to be running the country well."

*See "Will 12th Imam, Please stand up" below if you haven't heard about the war yet. I can however, understand why you may have not heard anything about the war (except that war is bad).

Now, I'm not big on yelling the sky is falling and stuff like that.... but we (as Americans) need to put down the remote control for about second, forget about drag racing and football and baseball and how much you hate your job and all the other things that are distracting us from putting a stop to this immediately.

Combine all of the above with the fact that the left and the leftist controlled media attempt to SUPPRESS all forms of opposition like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and any newspaper that dares report negative stories on Democrats are discredited, attacked and as in the case of the Daily Oklahoman Newspaper... local leftist blogger Okie Funk author and college professor will not allow college students to even use the largest paper in the state as a credible source as I have documented earlier.
Investigations need to be launched and conducted to find out just how deep this problem goes, root it out and clean up the news media (Ministry of Information) and call for an Immediate Separation of News and State.

One suggestion I have made in the past is to simply require every political reporter to provide his/her leanings statement along with each story.
Example:
Name: David Podvin and Jamil Hussein
Occupation: Phoney Journalist, blogger , often quoted ...never found.
Political leaning: Democrat, Bush hater.

Britt Hume
News, opinion.
Conservative leaning journalist.

Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, Dan Rather (oops "retired" lol), ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, AP, and 99% of the news media
Occupation: Getting Democrats elected to office under the guise of journalism.
Political leaning: ...lol..., what, are you kidding me?

Rush Limbaugh
Rush doesn't give us the news (he disassembles it and looks at it) and is already UP FRONT with everyone on where he is coming from. He is a conservative... and in fact is probably "THE" conservative.. and proudly (but humbly) while accurate 98% of the time, proclaims it so.
The rest of the media could learn a valuable lesson from Rush on this. But then they'd have to give up on their dirty little secret.

Then they might miss out on their planned tri-fecta in 2008... that being the Senate, the House and the White House.
Democratic Socialist rule, are you really ready for that folks?