Not according to the man himself.

Genetically yes, culturally I think he
has correctly considered himself "black".

He clearly felt an identity crisis and did not
feel like he was as connected to this country
as others.

So I guess he is not "black" anymore based
on my foggy description.

Bush sending your tax dollars to Africa to pay for the AIDS
crisis and Malaria probably has you upset as well. GW probably
did more than any other president in our history in addressing
these problems outside of the US. Malaria no longer is the leading
cause of death for the first time in a very long time. Bush put
lots of American money into a disease that rarely affects Americans.

You probably wont hear a whole bunch about this though.
I guess conservatives dont consider it important and liberals
dont want to consider the possibility that GW could do anything
humane outside of this country.

I'm at least glad to see that you seem to agree that the media was basically a neo-con propaganda machine for two years. Your point seems to be that they are really a bunch of liberals at heart who only acted like neo-cons for awhile out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and losing their jobs. That is probably pretty accurate, but how much of a bias is that if they are all afraid of standing up for correct liberal principles when they matter most?

I agree with your point that the majority of individual members of the media are slightly center-left, but the television media as a whole (minus MSNBC and Fox) tries so hard to be "neutral" or simply "pro-America" that they end up being basically useless.
And I mean come on....it isn't exactly like they put left-wing wackos like me or GBBob on the air.

i think the media will beat whatever drum they feel will produce the best ratings....it's what drives their game, not truth-and that's a shame.

Well, welcome to being out of power. You think any of us against the waste of money n' lives in Iraq WANTED OUR MONEY TO GO FOR PAYING FOR THAT?

Probably most of the National stuff tilts a lil left. Other than MSNBC, most sure don't come even close to how far FOX NEWS tilts right. What is weird is that Fox always says they're fair n' balanced.

I'll be rich when the currency switches to bullets and bic lighters

You can play Maher and Bob can be Olberman

Slant doesn't simply mean rhetoric or making up stuff. It is about downplaying stories, burying them deep in the paper, under reporting, nitpicking, putting personal feelings in a news story, over emphasizing the negative/positive depending on the results. It can be subtle and cleverly designed.

After 9/11 it would have been suicide to be openly hostile towards Bush or his policies. We now have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. But what if they had been right? What if they found a nuke in storage under Saddam's bed? No editor or producer was going to stick their neck out too far with the country wanting blood and Bush's approval rating at 90%. I didn't say they were dumb. But if i quote the NY Post or Fox news or the Wall Street Journal about a subject the info is automatically discredited as conservatively biased yet some will deny that the NY Times or Washington Post or CNN is liberally biased.

The ironic part is that I am far from a party line conservative. I dont give a damn about abortion, I believe in stem cell research, could care less about any subject concerning gays (hey if they are crazy enough to want to join the army or worse get married, more power to them), dont give a **** about school vouchers or school prayer, believe in the separation between church and state (but think the zealots on both side need to give it a rest, Merry Christmas shouldn't be a dirty word), think there are benefits but also some issues with free trade, think taxes should be low but wasteful govt spending especially pork cut as well, think affirmative action should be eliminated, anti union, pro business, etc. I believe gun laws need more restrictions, think universal health care is impossible in this country, think the ACLU may harbor more anti-american terrorists than Al-Quida, have no issue with the death penalty, etc.

But I also have developed a healthy distrust and general disdain for politicians of both parties (including the extraordinary human who now leads us) but it seems to me that democrats are far easier to dislike. Pelosi is total scum, Schumer is a liar, Rangel is a crook, Harry Reid is dangerous, Ted Kennedy is a waste of oxygen, Gore is a moron, Hillary is a bad human, Blogo! But I also think Newt Gingrich is full of it, McCain is mixed up, Ed Whitfield is a dirtbag, Ernie Fletcher is a crook, Jon Kly is an *******, Jeb Bush rode the short bus, have disdain for Spector etc.

:baby: LOL....She's pretty much a styrofoam head. If ya want to say that one's pretty useless, then I would agree. She ain't much. She would be a better fit working at a funeral home(fake smiling,....and getting people to buy the most expensive caskets etc.)

which of course is bs. wonder why these outlets are so determined to tilt a certain way, yet not admit to it.

Okay, so the media's portrayal of your new president as Jesus Obama Christ can get a little tiring, but it's difficult to argue that, relative to his predecessor at least, and acknowledging limited evidence, he's not a force for good.

Its not like George Bush wanted to be the force for bad.
And we still have a great fondness for Tony Blair.
(by polling anyways)
So that shows how much we know.

Imo we are very concerned about the economy
and the fact that no one knows for sure how the
hell we are going to come out of this mess.
GW himself was caught off camera cussing out
all the investment banks with their fkn fancy financial
instruments and greed that really screwed us up
and started a big mess.

So its not like the guy is the devil. He had lost
all political clout and was helpless more than anything.
He could not have fixed anything given he had very
little power into his second term. And he is now relenting
on his foreign policy mistakes and dropping hints that
he may have relied too much on Cheney.

Bush was the president but it is clear now our
screwups in foreign policy were exacerbated a great
deal by our Vice President. From the beginning.

i don't watch a lot of news, getting most of my news from the paper and reading online...so any fawning doesn't get to me.
i do think expectations are a bit high, but how could they not be?

No it doesnt , Aids affects everyone , it doesnt discriminate and I am all for helping anyone that is affected by it. What I dont agree with is spending my tax money to go for abortions in any country , its bullsh it.
Where else in life do you get help for irresponsible behavior ? There are like 17 ways to keep from being pregnant why dont we support that ? No instead Im going to pay for something that is very easy to prevent , no one has ever paid for the mistakes Ive made so really I dont think its my job to pay for theirs. I have no problem helping people who are starving and sick because if we have the means we should , but to say that tax payers here in America should pay for the mistakes of people in other countries is just bogus.

Because the religious right was also against helping these countries with birth control and... can you imagine, safe sex! AIDS is a huge problem in Africa compared to the US. Not even close.

with the catholic church leading the way. don't use birth control, they say, because life is sacred...not the lives already being lived, just the ones to be born. so what if momma and daddy both die of aids, and junior's born with it. at least the parents won't go to hell for using a condom. they'll just live in it for months/years. sounds like a plan.

Its not so much the religious right as it the leaders of religion, Catholics are not allowed to use birth control. I dont really know about Muslims and what the tenents of their faith say about preventing pregnancy.
I just dont think it should be the role of taxpayers in America to pay for abortions in other countries , send them billions of condoms and birth control pills , help educate people as to the things that can happen when you have unprotected sex but to pay for abortions is just a bunch of crapola.
So I guess you could say that I agreed with us not sending money to clinics in other countries that perform abortions , but pretty much the writing is on the wall of how the next 4 years are going to be.

most do anyway.
also, regarding not paying for birth control-perhaps if populations in depressed areas weren't allowed to grow by leaps and bounds, we wouldn't have to send so much food/medical aid? you can educate all you want, but in many parts of the world, people can't afford the basic necessities of life, let alone a condom or birth control pills. but having sex is still free, and certainly enjoyable. abstinence doesn't work in our high schools, you think it'll work in third world countries?? :D

I say massive airdrops of condoms.

Latex, a weapon of mass reproduction destruction.