« Imus in the Morning | Main | The McLaughlin Group »

February 22, 2008



It's clear that Clinton will not be the candidate, but will continue to be a presence in the Senate.

You conservatives hate the New York Times, but it's still the best newspaper around. Should I start reading the Daily News or the New York Post, both better used for dogs to pee on inside when the weather is bad?


The Jayson Blair Times, printing all the Gossip,Innuendo and Rumors others won't print...oh except for the TNR, which apparently doesn't know how to fact check it's sources, re Franklin Foer's Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle. NYT being intimidated by the TNR, oh how the mighty have fallen.


What Jayson Blair did was horrible but was not ratified by the Times. As I recall, he lost his job, right? Deservedly so.

The Times is still strong and people in New York who actually which to be well informed about more than Britney Spears and the Republican talking points still read it.


Even the Seattle Intellegencer wouldn't run this story. That's bad most the time other papers wait to see what the NYT runs now they are being cautious and the SI is not a conservative paper.



Let's get this straight. The NY Times sat on this anti-McCain story for months. In the meantime, they endorsed John McCain for President.

CONCLUSION (1) The Obvious View: Dr. Kyle Rossiter will have to update his brilliant THE LIBERAL MIND. He's really got to include this hilarious example of psycho-pathology that still warms a liberal's capuccino.

(2) The Aw-shucks View. Under the regime of Trust Fund Baby progressive "Pinch" Sulzberger, himself a splendid 60's example of the condition known as "arested development," the NY Times is 'gettin' down.' That is, not even the NY Times takes the NY Times seriously anymore.

Now that could be real "progress."


Thanks to Glenn Beck who recommended this book. I CAN'T PUT IT DOWN. Turn off your television, cancel your subscription to your newspaper and discover the JOYS of reading a GREAT book.




It was the TNR itimidating the NYT. The New Republic has one of the worse reputations for poor sourcing and fact checking...so if it wasn't the TNR's coming critique of NYT not publishing innuendo, then what did cause this peice to go to print? Hillary Clinton's campaign is in trouble...and Mrs Obama hasn't been proud of her country her whole adult life, until now. The focus changed in the newscycle. They sacrificed the Republican, I think that was a really easy decision for the NYT to make. After all we are all talking about the NYT now.

The TNR had their own agenda, they said, this opens up their coverage of McCain and his history with lobbyist...really! Oh that is so sexy, they are going to print articles about McCain and his history with Lobbyist. This is the best the Left can come up with, what a yawn..the only reason people reacted to the NYT peice is because there was a pretty woman they could inject into their McCain's dealings with lobbyist IS BAD scenario. My take on this if this is what the Left is going to throw at McCain....well Mrs McCain can start picking out what china pattern, she wants to use once she moves into the White House...oh I am guessing the Clintons took the China too, when they moved out!


Gringoman --

If you read another book in addition to this Rossiter book, you might actually be able to contribute something to this blog. Reading is fundamental, you know.

Try "The Pet Goat". Your favorite president was hypnotized by it.

"The Ant"

Allah Schmallah

Fred Special K: FYI the Daily news is FAR from CONSERVATIVE. The NY POST has endorsed "our Senator" the carpet-bagger Hitlery for President.

We don't all hate the Times. We just know what it it.

Namely irrelevant.

Allah Schmallah

Furthermore.. I don't recall a whole lot of coverage coming from the Times about sandy Burglar breaking into the National archives and stealing important documents.

He got caught red-handed and the MSM certainly treated this vital event with enlightened disinterest.

Best guess: they were concerned that if they dug up the story it would end up hurting Hitlery. Rumor has it that Burglar was looking to remove documents which might potentially harm her presidential ambitions.


I remember reading plenty about the Sandy Berger story. I guess according to you all, a special section should have been dedicated to it?

Allah Schmallah

Fred SPECIAL K I speak only for myself. Pry tell about your reading about the Sandy Burglar story and why the hell he got no jailtime at all!

Most of all, why don't u tellme what was in the douments he stole.

Why do YOU think he stole them?

Inquiring NY POST-reading minds want to know..


I didn't realize I was playing Trivial Pursuit.

The judge imposed a $50,000 fine, 2 years of probation, and 100 hours of community service. He also relinquished his license to practice law.

I guess the prosecutors or judge had their reasons for not pursuing jail time. Maybe it would have dragged out the proceedings. Maybe they thought the charge wouldn't stick. In any case, that was the result.

Why do I think he stole them? Gee, I wish I were a mind-reader. It would certainly help me figure out what Gringoman is trying to say and accomplish on this blog. If I were to guess, knowing human nature, I'd guess he was trying to get rid of information that would have exposed something he did or didn't do that could have been used to suggest that he made pre-9/11 errors.

And dude, if the info was classified, how could I possibly know what that info was? If you are going to be an a**hole, at least be a reasonable a**hole. I know that's hard for a rightwinger.



If you're going to suggest (1)that the Clintonista Burglar who violated National Security archives rated as more sensitive than Top Secret was "punished" fairly without tossing his rump in prison and (2) you do this while professing to bemoan the Nixon "third rate burglary" that had nothing to do with very highly classified material and (3) you profess to see no connection with this abject Clintonista's crime and the Presidential ambitions of his Two-Headed Master,

will you at least own up to 'terminal naivete?'

That's giving you a very generous benefit of a doubt. Next comes 'deviously disingenuous." (For your amour propre I'd suggest the former---and a decent French-English dictionary.)

If you are still having difficulty with the reading comprehension, here are two suggestions:

A. Try a good English dictionary, geared at least to high school level.
B. For self-knowledge, check out the list of symptoms in Dr. Rossiter's psychopathology of the liberal which you have instructed us you don't want mentioned here.

ps If you'll complete your assignment, I might be persuaded that you could understand half of my reading list. (That would be a good beginning for you. You could work on the other half later, when you take a break from "contributing" to this site with "Bush Lied, People Died" and "Monica is Dumb" and "Why aren't you right-wingers smart as a left-winger like me?"


Still so obsessed with Rossiter. Do yourself a favor and read another book. Is Rossiter your Jesus?

BTW -- I didn't suggest that Berger was punished fairly. Reread what I wrote. I was referring to the press coverage.

We haven't even discussed Watergate yet, so, again, don't put words in my mouth.

Everything else you write is drivel, and I don't have time for it right now. Maybe later.


I'll take a few minutes.

Anyone who knows anything about Watergate knows that that term does not just refer to one "third-rate" burglary. It refers to a series of activities, including burglaries, money laundering, dirty tricks, and, of course, the cover-up and lies by America's highest officials.

There's no comparison between Watergate and Sandy Berger. Nor is there any comparison between Watergate and Clinton's BJ.


Wait a minute how would we know if it compares to Watergate? You yourself stated we don't know what he stole from the NATIONAL ARCHIVES check what would happen to any other AMERICAN CITIZEN who stole classified documents from the NATIONAL ARCHIVE...no someone from Clinton and Bush's administration was in cahoots..because guess what both Administrations let the American People down, what happened as a result 9/11. You know your cheerleading for your brand is old - Dems are good, Reps are Bad. NO they are pretty much the same POWER GRABBERS. Not really interested in the American People, except to be able to wield our Power around the rest of the Globe. We have three globalist, running for the office of President right now. So Demd if we do and Demd if we don't.

Allah Schmallah

So you see Fred Special K.. I am not the nly one who is concerned about the Sandy Burglar affair. There is obviously something bigger involved.

Treason should be dealt with as.. well Treason.

And I agree with REE camparing Dems with Reps is like comparing Pepsi and Coke.

They're both bad for you.

So u internationalefitsts can be happy little Special Kampers.. islam is making inroads all over the place and Bush is bought and sold by SOWdi interests.

Obama is a moslem in sheep's clothing and he's schmoozing the American people and all we have is an old fuddywudd to oppose him.

said fuddywudd is a One Worlder himself.

Just when you thought the choices couldn't possibly get any worse..

Bush-Gore then Bush vs. Kerry.. groan.. and Now it's Hiltery vs. Hussein O vs. MexiCAIRn.

What's next? Chelsea vs. Jeb?

Allah Schmallah

"Today, the enemy isn't just still standing. He's thriving."

Amen to that. We're driving out the devil with Beelszebub.

We may one day come to regret having that smooth-talking moslem snake-oil salesman in the White House with no congress o=r Senate to rein him in..

It's a wet dream cum true for the likes of Fred SPECIAL K.. the West is getting hollowed out and undermined from within.. the UN is chomping at the bit to impose global taxes and other One-World hog manure.

The best candidate for the White House imho is Michael Bolton.

Now there's a Patriot who's NOT afraid to say he's proud of his country.


We know that what Sandy Berger did was one incident. Watergate was an umbrella term for many incidents, with a sitting President willing to manipulate the FBI to cover them up.

You can attack me, but the two incidents are not comparable.

If we are going to obsess about all politicians' bad behavior, ok, let's NOT limit it to Dems or Reps. You want to obsess about Sandy Berger? Ok. But then let's talk some more about Larry Craig.


Um, Allah Schmallah. Obama is not a Muslim.

Michael Bolton? The singer? I assume you mean John Bolton?

Wow, you really are stupid, huh?

Allah Schmallah

Michael .. John.. and so I got the name wrong. If that is what you need to validate ur puny self then hey, by all means.

As far as u calling other people stupid.. I may have gotten a *name* wrong but I see the big picture which you quite clearly do NOT.

Unless of course u r an ismaist wingnut and are trying to uddle up the discussion becuase u know the facts clearly speak against islam.

So if Obama is not a moslem WHY does he have the support of EVERY moslem group in the country and Keith HAKIM Ellison, the moslem from Minnesotastan also is on his side?

I can't wait to see if anyone will ever do an investiagation into Madrassagate re. Mr. Hussein Obama.

No matter what candidate does get in.. the SOWds and their ilk will lose no sleep..

Which is why I hink the machine moved MexiCAIRn into position so they wouldn't have to deal with someone who not only understands [thats GROK to you K] islam but is also willing to do something about it.

I am tired of the present sycopahnt in the White House talking about the "Religion of Peace" when all the evidence is so clearly to the contrary.

That profet they idolize was a pedophile caravan raider and a Jew killer - nothing more and certainly nothing less.


While you are listening to your Michael Bolton records, you might want to consider that the whole "madrassa" thing about Obama ended up being a non-story. That time it was FOX NEWS that jumped to a conclusion without checking out the facts. (So much for "Madrassagate" -- wow, you really are a total idiot, Allah Schmallah.)

Did you all subject FOX to the same lashing that you subject the New York Times?

Allah Schmallah

special K.. allow me the last word here.. Why don't YOU listen to your RATM records and maybe a little Snoop Dog thrown in..

Since we are in "guess the music the other commentators listen to" - mode.

Laughable how far off the mark you are re. mine. You are really clueless.

Earlier you equivocated between Sandy Burglargate and {afraid to use the worng first name} Craig. Which demonstrates a. your gutter instincts of a true Clintonista-gone-Osamabaa and b. your willful denial by trivialization how serious the crimes of Sandy Burglar are.

Most likely u really believe the propanda u hear spewed on Radio Airhead.

Allah Schmallah

Oh and one more thing, K.. you get to comment freely on Monica's blog.. and you insult her and her commentators most of the time.

I don't see such largesse lavished upon us non-liEberals in ur bastions such as Raio Airhead and npr.. which may I remind you - is TAXPAYER-funded.

Why is it that liEberals get a taxpayer-funded commercial-free station all of their own.. while liEberals are busy trying to censor us via the "fairness doctrine"?

Will the "fairness doctrine" also apply to Radio Airhead and npr?

And what about the MSM-at-large.. the Alpabet networks and the print media?

Will all of them be subject to the "fairness doctrine" should it ever come to pass?

Memo to Monica.. If you ever get Juan M. onto your show please try and nail him down firmly re. the "fairness doctrine".

Failure to nail him down may result in future liberal agenda-oriented legislation regardless of who holds office in the White House.

That is the reason why many non-LiEberals have given up in this particular race.

The opposition keeps moving further and further to the left and our side simply seems to follow them blindly..

The comments to this entry are closed.