Kudlow leads the charge - your attitude is confirmed by how you get your news

Great stuff here. Seems people select their media to get their views supported, but these also support and compound the attitude they have toward things. People who read newspapers are anti-Bush, anti-war, bitter. People who view TV, less so; people who listen to talk radio can be positively optimistic about the world at large.

Since destruction brings on more destruction, this might be a reason why the newspapers are a dying breed (well, at least in metropolitan areas...). People who want to live have to be more optimistic, more hopeful. People who want to die just keep filling their lives with hatred and despondency.

But tie in the flight to the suburbs to raise families, you get the Sowell redneck blacks left there along with their Welfare slavers. People who commute in cars (yes, I come from a red county, not a blue city who uses the metroliner commuting train) listen to more radio and so would get more optimistic news. Also, they are involved in the optimistic creation of a new family and so are looking for solutions - like better schools, home ownership in safe neighborhoods, etc.

What does this predict? Democrats are going to dissolve as a party and have high instances of suicides and car-wrecks, etc. They are already dying off because they don't have as many children as red county types (the old abortion argument). You can count on mostly bitter talk coming out of their mouths.

Still another reason may be the way the media deliver the message. Is public confidence, in other words, affected by the spin (let's be blunt about it) that news outlets put on the information they disseminate?

To see if there might a link, we added a question to the IBD/TIPP Poll, a monthly survey in which we ask 900 to 1,000 Americans how they feel about the economy, the president, the direction of the country, U.S. standing in the world, quality of life, and morals and ethics.

The added question was: "Which of the following is a major source of your political and government news: Newspapers, news magazines, network television, cable TV, talk radio, non-talk radio and the Internet." Respondents could name more than one.

We then calculated an optimism index for each category of news consumer. The results are shown in the table above. Over 50 indicates optimism, below 50 pessimism.

Not surprisingly, listeners to talk radio were by far the most positive, especially about the leadership that President Bush is providing and the direction in which he's taking the country. But then, talk radio is a haven for conservatives who have fled "mainstream" media they view as too liberal and too negative.

In fact, when we combined the six categories to determine an overall "National Outlook" index, and then broke that down by demographic group, Republicans registered a very upbeat 63.5 this month while Democrats came in at a dismal 35.7.

Also not surprisingly, those who depend most on two bastions of the mainstream media — newspapers and news magazines — had the most bearish readings.

Most of the country's major metropolitan newspapers, including The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, are considered liberal. So are the two leading news magazines, Time and Newsweek.

Viewers of cable TV were more positive than those who rely on network news. This probably reflects the influence of the top-rated Fox News Channel, another destination for conservatives put off by the left-leaning sameness of CBS, NBC and ABC.

So, yes, there appears to be a connection between where people get their information and how they feel about it.

The question we'll leave to media scholars is, "What kind of connection?" In other words, are people's views influenced by the sources they tap into? Or do they tap into sources where they know they can get their views reinforced?

Now, if you've gotten this far, here's a treat: The Dems will splinter into minor parties, none of which are able to capture the center demographics of the voting American public. The Republicans will take on more and more areas (except the shrinking blue cities, which are becoming more extreme and shrill, with less people who vote and more voter fraud) and ultimately take over the bulk of the governmental positions. Now the Republicans themselves will then splinter, giving some minor seats to these splintered Dems (like Jefford's Senate seat), but will continue to grow and perhaps will merge with the former centrist Dems and so form the true three parties which elect people in this country - the center, the rightist extremists, and the leftist extremists.

Right now, the Right is ignoring its extremists and has taken over the Center. The left is listening to its extremists and abandoning the Center. So the Dems will split into Left and Far Left. Sensible ones will become Republicans in the center. Those Republicans who feel they can't get their voice heard will join/form extreme right parties.

So we are (hopefully) moving to a three party system in this country.

This would at least make our voting more accurate.