The reasons for this are to be found in the very nature of a majority of these pontificators' ideology - a strong tendency to the left, the far left in many cases. While there were many right wing press representatives as culpable, inarguably the preponderance of today's media persons are liberal minded to the extreme as revealed in surveys of their voting patterns as well as closely monitoring their reporting.

Media bias toward the Democrats and their nominee became clear and obvious by early spring, 2008. Blatantly so in many cases. Instead of observers of the political process, as is their responsibility and function in a democracy, they errantly became participants - participants with a clear choice of candidates as they cast their vote early and often for Barack Obama.

Their obvious disdain for anyone or anything Republican was evident from day one of this campaign season. They dislike President Bush with a fervor seldom witnessed and they were not at all abashed to say so in no uncertain terms. The vileness of this dislike - verging on hatred by some - determined their current positions as they searched for an alternative - any alternative - to the Republicans, both Presidential and Congressional, and landed squarely on the side of the Democrats where they felt welcomed and at home, cuddled by their own established and comforting liberalism.

The mainstream press has overwhelmingly lacked objectivity in assessing the two Presidential candidates and - at times so gleefully and so unprofessionally as to be distracting - developed a love-fest relationship with Barack Obama. Such overt and frequent on-air statements as “we will make history in this election” were common in cable news reporting - "code words" for their blatant support of the first black Presidential nominee.

Their discussions of the conventions and debates, as well as perceived and press accentuated gaffs by the McCain-Palin pair, were so exceedingly biased towards Democrats that one could not avoid becoming concerned with the lack of any truly fair assessment of the election process in their coverage. The San Diego Union-Tribune on the editorial page of Saturday, October 25th, nailed it when they so stated in an editorial entitled “Media bias? Some journalists have already voted”. In it the editor astutely observed “We usually don't put much stock in claims of media bias …But there are times when the partisanship and favoritism are so apparent that they cannot be denied. This presidential election is such an occasion….the media aren't fooling anyone with their pretense of objectivity. Little wonder that Americans have such a low opinion of the journalism profession when they perceive reporters and editors as something less than honest brokers….too many supposedly objective journalists have made their first choice perfectly clear.”

This was followed by another commentary on the editorial page of October 28th entitled “Noxious analogy, Comparing GOP, Nazi rallies reflects on media” wherein they observe “Decades from now …the first entry is sure to be the Barack Obama - national media coupling of 2008. What is going on now is simply stunning….Consider the readiness of journalists to liken McCain-Palin rallies to Nazi rallies in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s….In the Oct. 28 New Yorker, Steve Coll …became the latest….Steve Coll should be ashamed. But, then, so should many others in the national media….”

Precisely, although you will not see such an honest assessment on the editorial pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post nor hear a forthright discussion of this topic on television networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or the obviously extreme leftist MSNBC!

Americans should be very troubled when the fourth estate, inherently responsible for conveying political news fairly and with at the very least a modicum of objectivity, takes obvious sides so blatantly in an election. That should never happen, but it has.

. . . the election of a president in November.

Did we miss anything during “March Madness?” Well, yes and no, depending on how you look at it. While our attention was focused on the large round ball being fed through a hoop by large angular college boys, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who strongly backs the current U.S. war strategy in Iraq, attempted to assure American voters that “I detest war.” He's hoping Reagan Democrats and those pesky “Undecided voters” will not get the impression that his views are otherwise on the subject.

Did anyone believe that Mr. McCain actually likes war? A career navy pilot, his jet fighter was shot down over North Vietnam during the Vietnam war, and he was captured and interred in a Viet Cong prison camp for several years. He is, therefore, well aware of the evils of war, and not eager to get us involved in conflicts if elected president at the end of 2008.

However, to his credit, almost from 9/11/, he has recognized, as most statesmen have, that we are at war with Islamic fundamentalists; extremists who hate the West, especially the United States, and seek to destroy us. This is in strong contrast to many liberal Democrats, who refuse to believe that anyone could be serious about that sort of thing, and continue to bleat that if we withdraw our troops from Iraq and just “make nice” with the Arab world, all will be well.

In a recent televised debate, one Democrat presidential contender, Barack Hussein Obama, stated his position; if elected he would immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq even if he were strongly advised against this by our nation's top military commanders. He also said he would hold direct talks with Iran, a regime which refuses to recognize Israel, is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and has called for Israel to be “wiped off the face of the earth.”

Obama justifies his calls for troop withdrawal by claiming that the war is lost, our strategy is a failure, and the cost to us in loss of life is simply not worth it. Almost every evening, NBC, ABC, CNN and other major news outlets, parade the casualty figures before the Nation, with stories about grieving families of soldiers killed by enemy fire. This is a tactic calculated to sap the will of Americans to do what is so obviously seen as the right thing by most of us. The Media wants us to believe that the casualty figures are extremely high. Well, of course, the death of even one American soldier is a terribly sad event. But given the type and intensity of this war, is the annual casualty rate really that high? What is it in comparison to prior years? Let's examine some figures, going back to 1992, and the beginning of Mr. Clinton's presidency:

Year..........Number of Deaths:

1992 …………. 1,293

1993 …………. 1,213

1994 …………. 1,075

1995 …………. 2,465

1996 …………. 2,318

1997 …………. 817

1998 ………... 2,252

1999 ………… 1,984

Thus we can see that during the eight years a Democrat was in the White House, 13,417 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen were killed, either in battle or in accidents. Those figures include Bosnia and Somalia, both minor in scope compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. During those years, no major war was in progress.

So how many American troops have been killed, either in combat operations or otherwise during the years Mr. Bush has been in office? The answer will surprise you - 9,453. Here's the breakdown:

Year: Number of Deaths

2000: 1,983

2001 : 980

2002 : 1,007

2003 : 1,410

2004: 1,187

2005: 919

2006: 920

2007 : 901

2008 to date 146 (Including April)

Did you know that? Rather eye-opening, wouldn't you say? Now I understand that these figures, taken from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, may not be totally accurate. But they are certainly close to accurate, and they tend to show that our major Media and liberal politicians are very selective in what they present to the public. In fact, since the so-called surge, American military deaths have actually decreased on a monthly basis. OK, so even this lower figure is tragic. No one denies that the sacrifice has been enormous. But putting it in perspective, Afghanistan and Iraq have been serious and central battles in the War on Terror. Our engagement in Afghanistan has resulted in removal of the Taliban from power and depriving Al Qaeda of bases from which to launch terrorist operations. Likewise, Iraq has taken center stage, and our effort there has toppled a brutal dictator, freed his people from tyranny, and begun the slow, tedious task of building a Democracy in that nation of 50 million people.

But for Democrats, eager to take the White House after 8 years, this is not good enough. They continue to promise a way out of Iraq: withdraw our troops and bring them home. Talk about “peace with [dis]honor.”

However, now that the troop increase sought by President Bush and Mr. McCain - the so-called surge - has produced favorable results, reducing the number of enemy attacks and resultant casualties, the Republican presidential nominee told reporters on his campaign bus recently, “A significant number of Americans believe we should come home with honor, not with disgrace and genocide. We must stay in Iraq [and finish the job we started] to help Democracy take hold in the Middle East.”

I agree.