No, Max, YOU have a liberal bias, and a very strong one. Therefore, the things you see as "facts" are filtered through a very left-leaning prism, and what comes out of that does in fact have a liberal bias.

You have posted any number of graphs and tables and quoted articles that were long on hyperbolic rants but short on solid analysis. One of your favorite tricks is to post a graph with no indication of exactly what it represents, or what methodology was followed and/or what assumptions were made in preparing it. There will often be some comment like, "This comes from IRS (or name your favorite agency) data." That doesn't mean that the graph accurately represents such source data. That doesn't mean that the underlying data are necessarily accurate, certainly not necessarily accurate for the purpose for which they are purported to stand. The answers to those questions need to be determined by analysis of the hard data itself and the trail from such data to the graph. You are also fond of saying things like, "This graph proves yadda, yadda, yadda." A graph cannot PROVE anything.

The analogy I'd make is to a lost wages case where you hire an expert to make your client's number look as big as possible and the other side hires an expert to make that number look as small as possible. Your expert's "truth" has a plaintiff's bias, and the other side's expert's "truth" has a defendant's bias. What you need to do to find the real truth is to analyze the methodology and assumptions used by both sides, and the real answer is very unlikely to be either what the plaintiff's expert or what the defendant's expert has calculated.

The truth has a truthful bias. Liberal talking points have a liberal bias, conservative talking points have a conservative bias. Each of them may be true as far as they go, but neither portrays the full picture. I think of many issues where the liberal talking heads and the conservative talking heads are each so busy trying to score points for their side that nobody ever addresses anything put forth by the other side. That's what you have to do to get truth. Look at both sides and figure out what parts of each are true. Or often, how they can both be true, but neither is complete.

How about the simplest answer that because the republicans have a primary, that super-pac donations have been spent republican against republican, much of it, by your own admission, from someone who supported someone other than Romney... Yet you attribute it all to Romney. Meanwhile, Obama has no primary... And clearly, ALL of the democratic super-PAC money from the left goes to support Obama.

In other words, While you claim that these are facts, and they may well be.... You have drawn conclusions that aren't supported by the facts. Mean, why would Romney be beholden to someone who gave $15mm to a superpac to support newt Gingrich? How about the tea party money to support bachman and others? Does that even make sense to YOU?