Referring to me I believe, I thank you for the video Brad.

The video doesn't really do much for me to be honest, although I found it interesting. What Roger Ailes did in the past, in my opinion is something I agree with. How is it different than showing how liberal Ted Turner is, or another News Organization's top dog.

MoveOn.org may have shown only fact, but they only showed some of the facts. They aren't going to show anything Fox does that would be against Bush or the GOP.

I could go into some detail explaining how MoveOn.org has connections to Kerry. For instance, the Kerry/Edwards Internet Director, Zack Exley, formerly did the exact same job for MoveOn.org. I could talk about how Kerry's former campaign manager Jim Jordan is now a spokesman for "Media Fund," another Democrat 527.

The point is, within anything, there is always some sort of bias. The informed, who I consider us both to be part of, look at both sides.

You ask how I would feel if Carville or Begala opened up a news network...well, I do feel that way about the 527 groups such as MoveOn and Media Fund, with connections to Kerry.

I'll let others comment as they see fit on the bulk of your thoughts. But to draw some comparison between a 527 being partisan (which, by nature, they are) and a News Organization being partisan (which, by very definition, they are not supposed to be) is a spin worthy of Roger Ailes or Karl Rove themselves!

Ted Turner, to my knowledge, has never run Presidential Campaigns for three of the nations most Liberal public figures in our history. Roger Ailes has done precisely that for FOUR of the most Conservative Public Figures (he was the Executive Producer of The RUSH LIMBAUGH Show for crying out loud!) and now he runs a "News" network. The one seen by more Americans than any other.

If the conflict of interest isn't seen there, plus the 8 or so years of documented data that has shown them to be far Right in their Republican bent (their Chief Campaign Correspondent who covers Kerry, and who's wife worked for Bush, made up two stories within a week about Kerry last week, and he's still covering Kerry!) means nothing to you, or can be explained away, then indeed you have blinders on and they are firmly in place.

From that point you make Brad, with Fox's Chief Campaign Correspondent working for Bush, do you then discredit the Zogby polls because his brother is involved in an Anti-Bush group?

I leave what people have done in their past where it belongs - in the past.

I don't think you saw the point I was trying to make though - Its not that I feel Fox isn't biased - perhaps not as biased as you feel - but I feel that the entire media has a bias, as that is human nature. Its almost impossible to be seen with no bias.

For instance, look at ABC after the debate - Peter Jennings makes a comment about not being like other networks having the "spin guys" on, and then he goes to political correspondent "George Stephonopolas (sp?)"...

Ted Turner may not have run any presidential campaigns, but is without a doubt very liberal. As I've stated, what's in the past should stay there.

But "what's in the past" doesn't "stay there".

Any objective study of Fox News demonstrates that very plainly. As I've said, follow Media Matters for just some of the daily documentation.

In re: Zogby - he is NOT a news person, he's a pollster, and frequently identified as a Democratic Pollster at that. His track record speaks for his credibility, but again, he's not a news outfit, he's a pollster-for-hire.

As to your ABC thought, I'd be happy to point out two (or more) Pro-Republican spins from any "Liberal" Media outlet of your choice for any one Pro-Dem spin you think you can find. Let me know if you really want to take that challenge.

Including the purposefully misleading editing of Hillary Clinton video leading up to the impeachment on ABC!

As I've written frequently, the Mainstream Media tends to get things wrong on both sides of the equation. Too often, and too much favoring the Right (in my opinion). But the specific and purposeful (and well-documented!) attempt to be the voice of the Republican Party by an organization that calls themselves "news", much less "Fair and Balanced" crosses the line.

If they called themselves the Republican News Network, I would have no problem at all with Fox.