Monday, December 22, 2003

Liberal Bias Is A Proven Fact

Since Mr. Finz “quoted” his grandmother in an earlier letter, I will “quote” mine: “You can lead a liberal to wisdom, but you can’t make him wise.” If I had known that the ICO would have allowed me more than 300 words for my letter, such as the over 400 words allowed Mr. Harry in his pointless “Hollow Argument” rebuttal, I would have included many more examples of studies documenting liberal bias in the media. Instead, I cited a web site, , that provides the results of many studies. I had hoped that open-minded truth seekers would go to the web site, there to learn for themselves the findings of liberal bias. Instead, Mr. Finz focused on just one of the findings I included, and didn’t even mention the others. Quoting myself:

“Also, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that members of the media were four times as likely to identify themselves as ‘liberal’ than as ‘conservative.’

Over a 16-year period, the Republican presidential candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.”

Another study found that 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.

I could go on and on, but the ICO will edit me for brevity at the 300-word point, so I trust interested readers will seek truth themselves. I did not make the findings up – the Los Angeles Times, Kaiser Family Foundation, Gallup Poll, Harris Poll, the American Association of Newspaper Editors, the U. S. New and World Report, the Freedom Forum, Editor & Publisher magazine, major colleges and universities, and many others are responsible.

As the studies found, most Americans (including liberals) believe there is a liberal bias in the media. Mr. Finz and Mr. Harry should challenge these studies with facts, rather than opinions.
My oldest son, Sgt Bruce Combs, arrived safely back from Iraq via Kuwait on December 5. Alice and I are very proud of him and all he served with, who are working hard to protect even the ignorant and ungrateful amongst us.

When Did Serbia Attack Us?


Since Mr. Finz determined not to waste any more time on an unworthy adversary such as myself, and unilaterally declared victory and an end to dead horse beating, I guess I will just have to find other simple amusements. Mr. Finz and Mr. Wasserman did not comment on any of the studies of liberal bias in the web site I referenced, and continued to write in their fact-free styles. They probably also will not read an excellent article, “War When we’re not attacked – Comparing Serbia with Iraq”, by Tom Campbell, who served five terms in Congress and was a member of the House International Relations Committee. Truth seekers can find the article in the Opinions section of the December 21, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle. Or go to and search for Campbell in Article - archive for December 21, 2003.

I will summarize the article: Serbia and Iraq are both instances of U.S. military action against a country that had not attacked us. Of the two, Iraq posed a greater threat to international peace, since Serbia had never attacked any of its neighbors, did not possess or use poison gas, and had not fired missiles into the territories of U. S. allies. Saddam Hussein gassed, shot, tortured and starved hundreds of thousands of his citizens, compared to the 2,000 killed by Milosevic in Kosovo. The occupation of Kosovo by NATO is in its fifth year. President Bush, contrary to Mr. Finz’s assertion that he directly defied the UN, had UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1991 for authority, whereas President Clinton had nothing like that authority when he dropped the first bomb on Belgrade. President Clinton said Serbia posed a threat to NATO's security. President Bush said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Campbell: “I can understand opposing (or supporting) U.S. action in both Iraq and Serbia. I can understand concluding that, on grounds of human rights, attacks on U.S. allies, international law and U.S. Constitutional law, the war in Iraq was a clearer case than the war in Serbia. To support the decision to attack Serbia, but not Iraq, however, is illogical.”

Mr. Campbell concludes: “It seems that it comes down to this: To some, President Bush can do no good, and President Clinton could do no wrong.”

Friday, December 19, 2003

California - Revenue Shortage, Spending Surplus


Your editorial, Junk Budget, December 12, 2003, was very amusing, since the ICO was not a critic of the Davis administration’s fiscal irresponsibility. When liberals bemoan reducing the regressive car tax just to criticize a Republican (a tax that hits the poor much harder than the rich, and then the rich take it as an itemized tax deduction, adding further salt to the wound!), it is true hypocrisy.

You are not alone in your liberal bias. The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, and other willing accomplices of the Democratic majority that gave California the worst fiscal management of all fifty states (for details of the study that awarded California last place, see USA Today, June 23, 2003, Bad Moves, Not Economy, Behind Busted State Budgets, by Paul Overberg), also never editorialized against the spending that created the problem, but have been all over Governor Schwarzenegger for honoring his campaign promise to throw out the car tax increase. Good thing too, because that was one of the main promises that got him elected!

The problem in California can be summed up neatly. We did not have a shortage of revenue; we had an excess of spending. The only revenue shortage we experienced was due to our inflated expectations of taxes from the rich as they exercised stock options. California budget statistics show: 26% - Increase in state revenue from 1998-99 to 2002-03; 45% - Increase in total state spending from 1998-99 to 2002-03; 37% - Increase in just the General Fund portion of state spending from 1998-99 to 2002-03; and 37,000 - The number of new workers hired as of March 2003 in state government since the Governor's "hiring freeze" was imposed March 2002 (that's 37,000 new hires in ONE year!). Any questions?

Facts, not opinions.