The stakes are high: George W. Bush or John Kerry.

One of these men will win an election that many are calling one of the most important in America’s history.

One candidate is the devil — an evil man following greed’s heart after oil and power. He hates minorities, jobs and the environment, but he loves war and has plans to put more Americans into danger.

The other candidate’s values transform with every varying crowd to whom he speaks — a flip-flopper, a “waffler,” a man with no principles to stand behind. He lied about his role in Vietnam and is unprepared to run America with his unrealistic “plans.”

At least that’s what America has been hearing.

And we believe every word of it — as long as it’s coming from a source on the side of the left-right spectrum we support.

Most Americans are getting their information from one of two extreme sides. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Franken and Bill O’Reilly. The irresponsible stars of America’s only noticeable franchises: The Conservatives and The Liberals, our nation’s best at spreading spin, propaganda and flat-out lies to help support their “side.”

And their followings are huge: Millions of Americans are getting all of their information from strictly one biased source.

How many liberals make a habit of watching O’Reilly or listening to Limbaugh? How many conservatives regularly tune into to Franken’s radio show? Does one side ever really think open-mindedly about the other side?

There is a massive lack of truth or objective analysis available to the average voter. There is no moderate voice and there certainly needs to be.

America shouldn’t have to choose one set of ideals over another. Every American should have their own sets of values, disobeying the common “stick behind the party line” beliefs.

Being far to the left or the right on everything usually just means you are often wrong. Extreme hate for the opposing party leads to plenty of misinformation and wasted time.

To watch Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” without watching Dick Morris’ “Farenhype 9/11” is irresponsible. Both movies are filled with inaccuracies and exaggerations, but an informed opinion can only be reached after watching both films.

Bill Maher and Dennis Miller show two sides, but separately. Since no one wants to hear the other side’s view, guests with opposing opinions are usually drowned out through the snappish and huffy remarks of the host.

Sadly, it turns in to, “our guy may be bad or may have done this, but your guy is even worse,” leaving voters a choice between the “lesser of two evils.”

Voters need to go to the polls voting for the candidate they want. Their vote is truthful as long as they can back it up with more than what they see on Fox News or hear on Air America Radio.

You have to be sharp and filter out the biases of the media. Conservatives claim a liberal bias in the media, while books like “The New Media Monopoly” spell out the corporate ownerships and conservative roles in radio, television and print media.

It goes both ways.

The Chicago Tribune, reputed as a “Republican newspaper,” supported Bush in its editorial endorsement. It shouldn’t mean much to its readers though, because the newspaper has endorsed every Republican since 1872.

Locally, the Sacramento Bee has a history of predictably choosing the Democratic candidate. It has been 84 years since the Bee endorsed a Republican.

The Philadelphia Weekly, in partisan fashion, made its endorsement: “Vote for Kerry or go to hell.”

You certainly cannot trust most obviously biased endorsements. Many of the top newspaper editorial boards already seem to know the platform they will inevitably choose; the only surprise becomes the manner in which they choose to rationalize their selection.

Maybe the newspapers that don’t give an endorsement are the only responsible ones.

The Tampa Tribune in Florida has given endorsements for Republicans in each election for the past 50 years, but won’t endorse either candidate this year. Believing neither candidate is suitable for the White House, the editorial board was responsible in not swaying a swing state toward its usual default pick. The Los Angeles Times hasn’t run endorsements since 1972, when it decided to steer away from its conservative roots.

The responsible voter will do his or her research this election, sifting through all the misinformation and discovering what pieces fit the most.

The real facts are out there, but it’s not as easy as tuning into your favorite talk radio station to get.