Left vs. Right: Political Discussion

[No-name]

Censport, I hope you can find this.

On another post, I was ranting about politics. This forum seemed more appropriate. So feel free to add your rant. It doesn't necessarily have to be a response.

Education is not a Conservative priority. No Child Left Behind does not provide one cent to education. The GOP has consistantly fought every bill that gives money to schools, that provides loans or grants to college students or that promotes better nutrition or health care for children. Reagan and Bush the 1st even tried to get rid of the Department of Education (because education is a state issue, not a federal one.)

Progressivism and liberals have fought for civil rights. For the end to segregation. For voting rights. For a minimum wage and social security and for safer foods and drugs. They have successfully put limits on businesses that protect consumers, the economy and the environment. They have integrated a regressive tax code which helps to redistribute the nations wealth. Programs such as head start, medicare, the GI bill, college grants and your local library are all liberal spending programs. Your parks, your fire department, your police department and the guys that are supposed to fix the pot holes out in the street are all liberal spending projects. Emergency rooms, trauma centers, paramedic ambulances would all lose every cent of funding if not for liberal support.

[No-name]

They may not have solve a single problem, but Liberals have done a lot to fight for equality, to fight the effects of poverty, to ease suffering.

Re: Taxing everyone but me. My check is tax money anyway. It seems kinda counterproductive to pay me and then to take it back.

Please (is the DNC listening?) No Dell, No Lieberman, No Hilary in 2008. It would be nice to WIN one. (and I don't see a single Democrat out there who leads and articulates a vision of our great land.) Can we trade you all three for one McCain?

[Censport]

Can we trade you all three for one McCain?

Joe, Zell, maybe. But NO Hillary! You guys created that monster and you're stuck with it!



For those coming to this party a little late, here's something from the previous discussion (it'll save me a lot typing):

I'm a teacher, so "conservative" is not a bad word, just bad policy.

A few reasons why I'm a liberal: Federal power over states rights. Social programs. Education. An activist policy that tries to solve problems. The environment. Human rights. Health care, nutrition, head start programs, after school programs...Much of this costs money so I want to tax you and spend it. I think this is more honest than borrow and spend.

At least you're honest about it. That's kinda refreshing, actually.

I'm more for states rights instead of a centralized federal government (what works in Maine won't necessarily work in Monatana). Remember the national 55-mph speed limit?

As for social programs, I agree that we have a moral obligation to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves. However, I believe that those who can take care of themselves have an equal moral obligation to do just that. Lacking a work ethic isn't a disability. Hang around any government benefits office and you will mostly see perfectly able-bodied people who know how to play 'the system'. I'm not against social programs, but I am against bloated vote-buying schemes masquerading as social programs.

But then you simply said "social programs". Perhaps you could add some context?

Do the same for "Education". After all, who isn't for educating kids and adults?

I've yet to see an activist policy that solved anything. Milked problems for everything they were worth (Araft, Jesse Jackson), but solved a problem?

Human rights? Again, you need to expand on that. You'll have a tough time finding anyone in the Republican party who isn't for human rights. We're the party of Linclon, remember? In 1964, it was 94% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats who passed Johnson's Civil Rights Act. But organizations like NOW aren't about equal rights, they're about revenge.

But at least you admitted that you want to tax ME but said nothing of taxing yourself. (reminds me of an old joke). Why does everything have to be forced charity by the federal government. Isn't that fasicism? Or have you not seen the reports of how "red" counties donate more to charity than "blue" counties?

And since you're a teacher, haven't you ever wondered why you have the most powerful labor union in the US, but you still make less than some guy working an assembly line building your Chrysler? Your union wouldn't be taking you and your money for a ride would they?

My voting block tends to be the "Democrats will take you for granted" block, because they know that for now, they don't have to do anything for our votes. The South used to belong, but started quitting it way back with Reagan. Anger can be healthy. Maybe my party will wake up?

You make a good point there. Will they? Sure, they need to listen, but you also have to speak up. If your party isn't listening to you, aren't you just wasting your vote? After Nader's run in 2000, you would think that would've done for the DNC what Perot did for the GOP in '92. But the only thing the DNC had going for them was how their voters felt about Bush. What were the survey results? 70% anti-Bush and only 30% were pro-Kerry? What the heck are you gonna do in '08? The GOP is fired up and Hillary will only strengthen them.

If you're really passionate about your party, you have to become proactive within the party, or it will only continue to take you for granted and not represent you. God forbid you guys end up with your own Hitler. Of course, if you get the party on a cohesive message with a candidate that doesn't come off as an elitist hypocrite (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, H. Clinton) and you're still losing elections, you may have to consider that the voters are deciding that they don't need your agenda. But at least you could stop wondering "what if..."

[Censport]

They may not have solve a single problem, but Liberals have done a lot to fight for equality, to fight the effects of poverty, to ease suffering.

Isn't solving the problem the whole purpose? Granted, Liberals have done more to raise awareness of some problems, but then they have the tendency to keep the 'problem' alive for political leverage. Flogging oneself to demonstrate your sympathy doesn't help the people in need. I think there was a plaque on Reagan's desk that read: "You'll be amazed at what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit."

There's this old joke about a Republican and a Democrat walking down the street when they come upon a homeless man. After the homeless guy explains his situation, the Republican reaches into his pocket and gives the guy a $20. Then the Democrat reaches into the Republican's pocket and hands the man a $20.

Get it? It still gives me a chuckle....

Liberals are far from owning the civil rights debate. Not just because Sen. Byrd was once a Klansman, or because Al Gore Sr. was a segregationist, or Woodrow Wilson was a Klan sympathizer. As I said before, far more Republicans supported Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Emancipation Proclamation, anyone? The 1994 Welfare Reform Act? Sure, Liberals fight for such things, but it's the Republicans who end up winning it for you.

And yet, we only get 10% of the black vote and the NAACP runs campaign ads blaming a black man's dragging death on George W. Bush. As if prosecuting those men for a hate crime instead of for murder would've helped. But I digress...

It's interesting that you associate every single spending porgram to Liberals. What is your basis for that?

By the way, how's that Head Start program working?

As you can imagine, I don't consider redistribution of wealth to be very noble, and support the idea of a flat tax even though it would raise my taxes. After all, any tax based on jealousy or envy isn't going to be fair. Our system promotes the growth of economy, while wealth redistribution plans only stagnate economies. Just at Old Europe. People living below the poverty line in this country still enjoy a higher standard of living than the middle class in Europe.

Wealth doesn't just exist. It is created. So which works better, a level playing field to start from, or a system where everyone ends up at the same place, regardless of their effort? Which system do you think promotes a healthy work ethic?

At least you called it "regressive", instead of "progressive".

[Duo]

That's crap, socialism is not about not working, is about creating a minimal level of life conditions, so no one starves or that more people can actually enjoy the basic needs in life.

[Censport]

That's crap, socialism is not about not working, is about creating a minimal level of life conditions, so no one starves or that more people can actually enjoy the basic needs in life.

What is your definition of basic needs? To many of socialism's supporters, it's all about 'everyone having the same amount of stuff.' If that doesn't kill work ethic, what does? If a person doesn't run the risk of starving, what is going to motivate them to get off the sofa and into a job?

I'm not saying your intentions are bad. Nobody really wants anyone to starve. But your method isn't the right permanent solution.

[Fantt]

Does anyone have the "right permanent solution" that will prevent starvation and homelessness?

According to many of its opponents, Socialism destroys work ethics and will also destroy a country's economy. However, most of western Europe is socialist and they seem to be doing pretty darn well. I doubt that any country has for a "right permanent solution," but just because Socialism may not work in the US, it doesn't follow that it can't work anywhere else.

[Censport]

However, most of western Europe is socialist and they seem to be doing pretty darn well.

Is that so? Tried living over there? You should look at pre-Thatcher England, with its 95% tax ceiling and lack of reinvesting into businesses with how much better it thanks to Thatcher. Or heck, just look back at the Carter administration (which I remember well) and then Reagan.

[No-name]

Like Zell Miller, most politicians are opportunistic scavengers who tend to be where the meat is ripest. He swung around so fast on the Bush platform that Kerry was impressed. Southern democrats in the 20th century seemed to have reflected the majority of their constituency. Some like Ronald Reagan and former White Supremacist Strum Thurmond, just changed parties.

Neither party has remained consistent in the last hundred years on any one issue. I don't think the current GOP platform would reflect the views of Lincoln or Roosevelt. (Or even Nixon) but I also don't think that the Democrat's platform would impress FDR or Kennedy.

The GOP began in part as a xenophobic anti-catholic party. Lincoln did a great thing as it's first national candidate in distancing it from the "Native American" and "No-Nothing" roots. Ending slavery was a liberal idea. Keeping things as they were would have been a conservative idea.

Welfare was effective in getting kids out of orphanages and supporting single mothers in raising their own children. Welfare reform pushed many of these marginal families out into the street. So much for that success.

Head Start was supposed to raise the IQ's of deprived inner city children. That goal failed. But kids attending head start graduated from high school in far high numbers, went on to college and generally got better paying jobs later on. I would count it a success.

I think the GI bill was a success. I like the Pell Grant program and GSL programs.

I don't think there is such a thing as a conservative spending program. "Government should stay out of our business." doesn't really cost anything.

The creation of wealth and income redistribution are issues best debated by economists. I have an opinion, but it is a HS social science teacher's opinion... so I'd have to work out the specifics: Minimum wage was a wealth redistribution. It created wealth by creating jobs that paid enough to buy with and created consumers. Labor creates wealth also. Rich people getting richer tends to create poverty.

Civil rights is and remains a liberal issue by definition. That so many (mostly northern) republicans supported it speaks for a party that even under Nixon supported liberal social policies. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. So I should thank the GOP for all the good liberal programs that have shaped our society and blame the democrats for all the bad liberal programs that create problems in our society?

[No-name]

How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?

[Duo]

Is that so? Tried living over there? You should look at pre-Thatcher England, with its 95% tax ceiling and lack of reinvesting into businesses with how much better it thanks to Thatcher. Or heck, just look back at the Carter administration (which I remember well) and then Reagan.

Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.

[Duo]

How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?

Maybe that could work, however i don't know from this last election and campaign i got the impression that logic don't work so well to get votes from the american public, so maybe if these guys can deliver feel good messages, and emotional appeal they could win.

[No-name]

Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.

I suppose there are trade offs to every situation. Sounds intersting. I need to visit Europe sometime. I have a sister that lives in Italy and my wife's uncle lives in Paris.

And not to disagree, but I was born in poverty in a Ghetto to a single mom with seven children. Six finished high school. Five finished college and got masters degrees. Four are teachers. So it is possibly here, but I had substantial help from the government all the way through my schooling.

And I think in the long run, the last election here was very healthy. People were interested and excited. They talked about issues and got involved and finally turned out in record numbers. I hope the trend continues.

[Censport]

Like Zell Miller, most politicians are opportunistic scavengers who tend to be where the meat is ripest. He swung around so fast on the Bush platform that Kerry was impressed. Southern democrats in the 20th century seemed to have reflected the majority of their constituency. Some like Ronald Reagan and former White Supremacist Strum Thurmond, just changed parties.

Since Zell Miller is not running for any politcal office (he could've been reelected easily, but decided to retire), how is he an opportunist? By definition, opportunists are looking to GAIN something, and Miller has gained nothing. And if he swung around, then where are the pictures of him taking part in anti-war rallies? No, he's always had the same position. You really need to read his book, "National Party No More". It echoes a lot of the same reasons that Reagan had felt the Democratic party had left him too.

Neither party has remained consistent in the last hundred years on any one issue. I don't think the current GOP platform would reflect the views of Lincoln or Roosevelt. (Or even Nixon) but I also don't think that the Democrat's platform would impress FDR or Kennedy.

Actually, G.W. Bush is more of a moderate (there, I said it), like Nixon, than he is a "Goldwater-Republican" like Reagan (like me).

The GOP began in part as a xenophobic anti-catholic party. Lincoln did a great thing as it's first national candidate in distancing it from the "Native American" and "No-Nothing" roots. Ending slavery was a liberal idea. Keeping things as they were would have been a conservative idea.

WOW! That's the first time I've ever heard that! Have any evidence? Because that sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Even if it was a Liberal idea, it was still the Republicans who go it done. Or was Licoln an opportunistic scavenger?

Welfare was effective in getting kids out of orphanages and supporting single mothers in raising their own children. Welfare reform pushed many of these marginal families out into the street. So much for that success.

Welfare ballooned into a program that paid women to get pregnant while staying single. Any effort to make legitimate income (job) or reporting any gifts of money from other sources were met with a severe reduction of benefits. In welfare neighborhoods, it was not uncommon to see women with eight kids by six different fathers. You think I'm making this up? You should hang out with some of the people whose business is looking after them. A friend of mine is a criminal defense attorney, and many of his clients are on welfare. It's scary that a part of society has their values. But they can afford to, because we're supporting them.

Welfare reform was planned to get people off of welfare and back into supporting themselves by working. If it had been such a failure, then where is the back-to-back coverage by CNN, CBS, NPR and others? Granted, it would work better if we reformed the INS and stopped the hemmoraging of our borders....

Head Start was supposed to raise the IQ's of deprived inner city children. That goal failed. But kids attending head start graduated from high school in far high numbers, went on to college and generally got better paying jobs later on. I would count it a success.

I think the GI bill was a success. I like the Pell Grant program and GSL programs.

The GI bill, Pell Grant program (which helped me last year) are working well. I'll give ye that one, laddie. I'm not familiar with the GSL program. What is that?

I don't think there is such a thing as a conservative spending program. "Government should stay out of our business." doesn't really cost anything.

*ahem* Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? Okay, we're not big on social programs. But we haven't ended any either. Believe me, the NEA (Nat'l Endowment of the Arts) and others would've been long gone.

The creation of wealth and income redistribution are issues best debated by economists. I have an opinion, but it is a HS social science teacher's opinion... so I'd have to work out the specifics: Minimum wage was a wealth redistribution. It created wealth by creating jobs that paid enough to buy with and created consumers. Labor creates wealth also. Rich people getting richer tends to create poverty.

Well I'm an engineer, not an economist. But if I may be so indulgent as to tell you a little story.... Remember the "Luxury Tax"? Any car, boat or airplane selling for more than $30,000 had an extra tax burden added for the buyer to pay. I was making my living as a factory Porsche technician. A mechanic at the dealership, in other words. Why Porsche instead of Ford? Mainly because of my racing background, and also my ability to work at a level expected by high-line dealerships and their customers. Porsches went for $45,000 to $100,00 in those days. So when the luxury tax (Envy Tax is what I called it) went into effect, guess what happened? People stopped buying Porsches. Sales plunged so drastically that it even hurt Porsche back in Germany. Mechanics lost their jobs, dealerships closed (which affected salesmen, secretaries and car washers) and as bad as it was, it was nothing compared to what the boat and aviation industry went through. They lost whole manufacturers. Rich people aren't self-sufficient; they support a lot of cooks, maids, mechanics, pilots and candlestick makers.

I would like to take a moment to point out that Porsche is a two-syllable word.

Keeping the minimum wage in line with inflation increases is one thing, but hiking the rate to get votes creates inflation and unemployment. [See: Carter administration.]

Civil rights is and remains a liberal issue by definition. That so many (mostly northern) republicans supported it speaks for a party that even under Nixon supported liberal social policies. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. So I should thank the GOP for all the good liberal programs that have shaped our society and blame the democrats for all the bad liberal programs that create problems in our society?

Yes, you should.

[Censport]

How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?

you'd have a lock on the 'chick vote' for sure.

Sorry, sometimes I can't help myself.

[Censport]

Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.

I think you're confusing the Republican party with the Libertarian party. We might have to start another thread for that.

In the meantime, hang around and keep reading. I think you've got a very narrow view of Republicans/conservatives, but considering the media and teachers in this country (no offense, sabro) it's to be expected.

[No-name]

The hodge podge of political organizations that became the GOP in a Wisconsin schoolhouse in 1854 and later in Michigan included Mugwhumps, No-nothings, Free-Democrats, Free-Soilers, Whigs, and abolitionists (including a few suffragettes). Some of these were heavily anti-immigrant, anti Catholic, and anti-Irish. They abandoned all these positions to unite under one issue: the spread of slavery. Before the Lincoln and Douglas debates, they probably would have just remained another one of many political factions- but Lincoln gave focus and voice to the Republican movement. Not only was his election successful, but his message convinced several slaves states to secceed.

On that scale that I posted on the last thread, I always think of Liberal (left) as moving forward and embracing change, and Conservative as resisting change and protecting the current social order. Republicans began on the left.

Servicemen need to keep track of which party always resists raising their pay, and cutting benefits to fund tax cuts for wealthy yacht owners.

By the way I teach in a poor neighboorhood. I talk to people on welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing every day. I don't see people actually planning on being on welfare (or poor, pregnant or hooked on drugs) and I realized that people aren't always stupid just to annoy me. I've met the woman you mentioned. She wouldn't be any smarter, employable or any less pregnant without welfare. Welfare definitely needed reform and the 1994 bill was not a failure. But one consequence is that along with all the "bad" lazy poor people who got kick off the public rolls, were many "good" unfortunate people (especially single moms) who felt the crunch. It's hard to give away money or even soup without someone taking advantage and without encouraging them to get in line for money or soup again. It is hard to legislate against dishonesty, laziness, stupidity, or a set of values that run counter to society. We try, we try...

Light a fire and you keep a man warm for a day...light him on fire and he will stay warm for the rest of his life.

Does buying a Porshe create more jobs than buying two Hondas?

GSL: Guaranteed Student Loan. Also Perkins and NDSL programs. Title 1 money is good. I also like the FHA thing. I keep hoping that regulatory agencies like the FDA and NTSB are doing their jobs. Although this may not be liberal in the strictest sense, it is a big expense.

Democrats are not anti-Military. Someone should however speak up against Pork-barrel big ticket military programs that the pentagon didn't even ask for like the Crusader and the Reagan Naval strike group, while wasting billions in conspicous cost overruns and corporate dishonesty (which I know is not a conservative thing), and neglecting basic tools needed by guys on the line. We hire guys from these companies to negotiate with defense contractors and then they later get jobs back with these companies and we are supposed to act surprised?

[Censport]

The hodge podge of political organizations that became the GOP in a Wisconsin schoolhouse in 1854 and later in Michigan included Mugwhumps, No-nothings, Free-Democrats, Free-Soilers, Whigs, and abolitionists (including a few suffragettes). Some of these were heavily anti-immigrant, anti Catholic, and anti-Irish. They abandoned all these positions to unite under one issue: the spread of slavery. Before the Lincoln and Douglas debates, they probably would have just remained another one of many political factions- but Lincoln gave focus and voice to the Republican movement. Not only was his election successful, but his message convinced several slaves states to secceed.

So the Republicans were pro-slavery, and that caused slave states to secceed? (Hint: poor Southern farmers didn't go to war so rich plantation owners could own slaves)

On that scale that I posted on the last thread, I always think of Liberal (left) as moving forward and embracing change, and Conservative as resisting change and protecting the current social order. Republicans began on the left.

Most people do. But when Republicans want to reform (update) welfare, social security or other programs, who's moving forward then?

Servicemen need to keep track of which party always resists raising their pay, and cutting benefits to fund tax cuts for wealthy yacht owners.

Gee, every soldier I've talked to (I'm not far from Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne) has gotten a nice raise. Maybe you should update your sources. Also, servicemen are well aware of who cuts their budgets and forces them to strip outherwise serviceable aircraft just to get parts.

Does buying a Porshe create more jobs than buying two Hondas?

Not more, just different. Hondas don't need much maintenance and their owners aren't as demanding.

Democrats are not anti-Military.

Ah, so it was Republicans who were spitting on and throwing bags of urine and feces at our soldiers returning from Vietnam? Okaaaay....

[No-name]

So the Republicans were pro-slavery, and that caused slave states to secceed? (Hint: poor Southern farmers didn't go to war so rich plantation owners could own slaves)


Most people do. But when Republicans want to reform (update) welfare, social security or other programs, who's moving forward then?


Gee, every soldier I've talked to (I'm not far from Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne) has gotten a nice raise. Maybe you should update your sources. Also, servicemen are well aware of who cuts their budgets and forces them to strip outherwise serviceable aircraft just to get parts.


Not more, just different. Hondas don't need much maintenance and their owners aren't as demanding.


Ah, so it was Republicans who were spitting on and throwing bags of urine and feces at our soldiers returning from Vietnam? Okaaaay....

1. Republicans were anti-slavery. If I said differently, It was an error. The South seceeded to protect the institution of Slavery. My own classroom textbook says otherwise, that it was about states' rights, but my thinking is states' rights to what? Remember that the Republicans and Lincoln did not want a war, just to stop the spread of that glorious and God-given institution.

2. If by "reform" you mean gut to its core, then I agree.

3. I'm glad they got the pay raise Democrats fought for for years. Maybe now the cost of living adjustment will keep up with inflation. I also hope they get the HMMV armor they are asking for. And that their families will continue to benefit from the reserve job protection laws, free public education, and food stamp programs that they have more than earned.

4. I never spit on or threw urine or feces at anyone. Especially a vet. Both of my parents and each of my uncles served this country during WWII. But are you implying that being anti-war is unpatriotic? Incidents like you described happened, but I doubt the Democratic party had anything to do with it. (Can you imagine LBJ hurling a sack of...?) I doubt that most of even the die hard vietnam protesters would not stoop to the kind of behavior you described. (Remember peace, love, staggering around in a pot stupor?...oh, wait, no one "remembers" that.) People that insulted and assaulted our troops were idiots whose actions ran counter to their own cause. Idiots happen. They do stupid things. It's like their job.

[Duo]

And not to disagree, but I was born in poverty in a Ghetto to a single mom with seven children. Six finished high school. Five finished college and got masters degrees. Four are teachers. So it is possibly here, but I had substantial help from the government all the way through my schooling.

Well, that's actually very admirable, but consider how many others went the other direction. Few are the ones that actually choose the path you took, well i guess i could always be wrong.

[Duo]

I think you're confusing the Republican party with the Libertarian party. We might have to start another thread for that.

In the meantime, hang around and keep reading. I think you've got a very narrow view of Republicans/conservatives, but considering the media and teachers in this country (no offense, sabro) it's to be expected.

I wasn't talkin about conservatives/reublicans, but america in general. Why do you blame the media, what is this myth that in the US there is a liberal media, that's just pure fantasy, there are way more conservatives in the US media and are way better organized and louder than their liberal counterpart.

[Censport]

I wasn't talkin about conservatives/reublicans, but america in general. Why do you blame the media, what is this myth that in the US there is a liberal media, that's just pure fantasy, there are way more conservatives in the US media and are way better organized and louder than their liberal counterpart.

Myth? In 1992, 1996 and 2000, surveys were taken of journalists, networks news anchors, news editors, reporters, etc. The result? 93% voted Democrat. I can find the article if you'll give me some time to look.

In the meantime, here is a non-profit group that breaks down and explains the media bias:
Media Research Center

If you think the media is conservatively biased, what is your basis? My opinion is what few conservatives that are in the media aren't any louder, but they do draw a bigger audience. People can their news now, you know. (unlike Canada)

[No-name]

Darn liberal media:
"You know, I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."
George W. Bush, 1989

[No-name]

I don't know who did your surveys, and who they talked to (how many reporters and editors would even answer such a question?) but...

A survey by David Croteau from Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology published in June 1998 found that:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
* Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
* The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
* Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

and what about the Weekly Standard, New York Post and Fox? Right-wing media magnate Murdoch owns the conservative Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the national cable network Fox News, which heÕs staffed with prominent conservative journalists, such as Brit Hume and Tony Snow, and star commentators, such as Bill OÕReilly and Sean Hannity.

"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."
Noan Chomsky, in FSTV's documentation The Myth Of The Liberal Media

Liberal Media: Tony Snow, The Beltway boys, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Tim Russert, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

Media outlets are owned by big businesses with big business interests. They don't care which party wins because they own large chunks of both. If there is a bias, it is a pro-big business bias. (As well as an urban, bang-bang, event centered bias). I think we can lay that whole liberal media thing to rest.

[No-name]

Q: Which pinko liberal president was responsible for: Nuclear weapons control, The Clean Air Act, the Department of the Environment, Title IX, affirmative action, protecting women's rights, welfare reform, and the EPA?

A: Richard Nixon. and he opened dialogue with China, too.

Bring back the liberal GOP of Nixon.