I just can’t take anymore partisan mining of statistics to support their side of a debate. I know there must be other people out there who want an unbiased analysis of issues/events/debates judged against the seemingly forgotten litmus test of “reasonable person” A source whose judgement on issues like Kerry’s service record, issues brought up in the debates, Al Qaaqaa, etc., is just as likely to find in favor of Kerry, Bush, Neither, Both, or whatever else. Can anyone recommend websites that both parties respect that get past all the fallacies and get right to the point?
Another thread just gave me a typical for instance to use as an example. I’d like to know who made the decision on troop strength. Did Rumsfeld/Bush ignore the generals or did the generals agree with them on the amount of troops needed? I’m not posing this question here for debate, but for example.
Normally I keep my head below the parapet when I read these political threads, especially when they concern a foreign country.
I’m going to suggest the BBC as a possible source of opinion and facts. I know that in some people’s eyes the BBC is a left leaning organisation, but in others it’s a right leaning organisation, so they probably do tend to get it right more often than not (in my opinion anyway). It’s possible that a slightly more remote point of view will give a more balanced perspective. Whether you will glean the depth of reporting you require is another matter though.
You wonh’t find unbiased commentary anywhere. What you should do is take from multiple sources whose biases you know (e.g. Fox = pro Bush, Guardian = pro Kerry, BBC = middlingly pro Kerry, highly pro European, highly statist) and look at what they say given their biases and contrast between them and make up your own mind.
The bottom line is that you cannot find an unbiased source of information. You have to learn how to read biased sources. It helps if you read multiple sources as Quartz suggests. I have always found factcheck.org to be pretty useful. Not that they have a monopoly on the truth, but that they are willing to break political statements down into falsifiable parts.
What you have to do is try, when reading any source, to seperate the parts of the article which are the writers opinion from the parts which are at least observable facts. For instance, if you see an article wich contains one or 2 sentences quoted from some politician and then several paragraphs putting those sentences into context, you can effectively ignore all the context and simply look for the original statment. Notice I’m not saying that such context is wrong. Just that it is not necessarily believable. If on the otherhand, you have looked into several articles from this particular writer and found him to be scrupulously thourough, then by all means provisionally accept his writing. But, IMHO you should never do so unless you have a significant relationship with said writer which you have yourself verified over time.
Try thinking of it this way. Pick up any article in the paper which contains a quote from some politician. Ignore the majority of the article and just concentrate on the quote. Try to imagine scenarios in which that exact same quote could be used to mean more than one thing. You can elliminate the truly bizarre interpretations. But with a little imagination you will be left with at least 3 or 4 scenarios in which the quote could mean almost opposite things. More if the quote is short enough. Do yourself a favor and try and find the original and complete statement from the politician. If you have to make do with an article containing the same quote as close to the date of the quote as possible.
If you do this a couple times, you will begin to develop relationships with various writers, news organizations and even better techniques for reading news in general.
I hope this did not sound too soapboxy. It is only meant as a suggestion.
Finally, CSPAN is your friend. All other news agencies suck. Sorry for the language, but they are not even close. CSPAN is the only real news outlet left in America. 
Well I know how to do it. I was just hoping that there was someone out there who was already doing it.
Well, if you want issue positions, you can visit:
The founding board of directors of Vote Smart includes Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Geraldine Ferraro and John McCain.
Still, you wanted analysis. Personally, I think the issue of bias is vastly overrated: instead, I’d pursue fairmindedness. Proper analysis will lead one to certain conclusions. The best essays clearly set out the author’s conclusions, but leave give the reader with an idea of what a person of differing temperment might conclude.
In general, I think the Economist magazine is pretty good, though there reputation for conservatism in Europe is not undeserved, IMHO.
If you want an evaluation of the largely dubious claims made on the campaign trail, try:
www.factcheck.org (or www.factcheck.com , if you want the favored site of Dick Cheney, as reported in Vice Presidential debate. 
Hm. I see that they have stopped linking to the Soros site. ).
If you want a vapid analysis of the horserace, try any daily newspaper or your TV.
Here’s another option.
Find a collection of former Bush supporters who have now turned against our President.
Then find a collection of former Gore supporters who now support W.
Then compare.
The former Bush supporters (and others) can be found at the shrillblog, “The Offical Blog of the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill”.
I’m not sure where to find the experts or pundits who have switched to the Bush camp, as opposed to being merely resigned to it.
The Beeb’s ‘Statist’? Can you give any evidence of anti-Americanism (ie not simply valid criticism) to back that up?
I think he meant to say ‘satanist’.
Huh? Statist means anti-American? I thought it meant pro-government (admittedly simplified definition).
The Washington Post has been running a great series of editorials which lay out the choice between the candidates issue by issue.
Each editorial is well thought out, fact based and willing to criticize either candidate when it is warranted.
Because the thought process behind each comparison is layed out so thoroughly, if there is any bias it is transparent.
As the editorial page editor said in an onlie chat about their endorsement of Kerry, the important thing is to show the thought process behind coming to a decision. That gives you the information to make your own decision, rather than making it sound like “We like this guy, so you should just take our word for it.”
Unbiased is a pipe dream, but you can find thoughtful and non-shrill.
Ah, ok. Still, that also doesn’t apply to the BBC’s news coverage.
Well, as far as the BBC is concerned I honestly have no idea. I would point out though, that the differing political centers of America and Europe might make it seem statist from an American perspective. I don’t read/watch/listen to the BBC enough to form an opinion, though.
Statism has nothing to do with being pro or anti America: it means that they favour the state over the individual.
So youre basically asking where you can find someone who is/will do your thinking for you?
In europe another word for it (with slightly different conotations) is Nationalism.
More like research. I don’t have the time to look into the reality/context behind every statistic quoted by a bipartisan source.