Here's Exhibit A in liberal bias. Time magazine's December 29/January 5 edition offers profiles of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. But one party has a conservative, religious "grassroots id." The other party has a "populist wing."
Time Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer's article on Jeb Bush's let's-come-together pitch as he explores a presidential campaign: "That line of attack -- which moves the fight away from ideological differences -- could serve him well in what is certain to be a brutal primary against a pack of politicians far more conservative, religious, and attuned to the ever changing grassroots id."
GOP consultant Charlie Black makes Bush's strategy plain: "[Bush] is going to be a very effective candidate if he runs, because he is going to talk about the future without backing down or pandering to the Tea Party side."
But what about the "grassroots id" of the Democrats, that very liberal, very secular group of business nationalizers? Time explains their point of view as very respectable, very sound, with no crazy "id" to be located.
Time political correspondent Haley Sweetland Edwards calmly lets Bill Clinton claim his economic record is way better than Ronald Reagan's, even though it rankles both Republicans and "the contingent of liberal Democrats who would prefer to see a populist candidate like Elizabeth Warren snag the nomination."
These "Liberal Democrats are already busy discrediting the idea that Clinton, who is more closely associated with Wall Street than factory floors, should be cast as a warrior for the little guy at all....Clinton and her close circle are not oblivious to the problem. Aides patiently explain that Clinton donates her famously large speaking fees to her family's foundation and that the differences between her views and those of the populist wing of the party 'are more rhetorical than actual.'"
