Hewitt Interviews Joe Rago — Plus John Kerry Mockery! (UPDATE: Spurious Mockery, As It Happens)
The interview with blog-hater Rago is here.
Two things jumped out at me: 1) he thinks that there was something original about his anti-blog piece (which was in fact the biggest collection of recycled complaints about blogs I’ve seen yet); and 2) he didn’t vote in the Bush-Gore election in 2000 . . . because he wasn’t 18 yet.
P.S. As part of the conservative blogosphere’s mission to pursue second-order distractions from the events in Iraq by posting irrelevant mockery of John Kerry, I direct your attention to this photo of Lonely John in Iraq. (H/t Malkin.)
UPDATE: Kerry was deliberately lonely, it now turns out. The implication that he was avoided by the troops in the photo was not true.
I had held some hope that the essay was a stealth stunt inteded to get attention and develop a readership. The use of the archaic term vastation certainly seemed like some sort of ironic warning flag to not take it all too seriously.
Alas, not. Poor kid, hopefully he’ll live it down one day.
ThomasD (21cdd1) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:03 amI loved how Rago kept saying, “Well I’m making a GENERAL argument”… but he couldn’t name any specific blog that his comments should apply to, nor any blog that should be an exception to his comments.
To recap: He was bloviating sophomorically. (Trying to imitate his style there.)
ellersburgwhoresonellis (603e94) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:26 amInteresting that Hewiit asks him only about the right-wing of Blogistan and not the left. Interesting too that the history of the Dartmouth Review is passed over.
To me the real question is why the Wall Street Journal published so superficial a piece. Obviously the mainstream (of which the WSJ is an important part) wants to “peg” the Blogisphere in some definitive way. Perhaps in order to dismiss it but more likely to keep it at bay. This won’t do at all.
Frankly the Blogs (whatever their “slant”) and the “mainsteram” are doing rather different things and aren’t really in “competition” with one another.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:39 amHewitt wanted to discuss common territory, i.e., the blogs Hewitt is familiar with. Moreover, Rago claims to be a conservative and his WSJ piece focused on conservative blogs.
ellersburgwhoresonellis (603e94) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:46 amfrom the transcript after HH went through a list of about 25 blogs that JR might be reading and that HH was also familiar with:
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:03 amI’m surprised by Hewitt’s “world that I know” remark. He’s discussed by the left quite frequently (albeit snarkily) and I’m sure he’s taken a peek at those posts.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:26 amMr Ehrenstein wrote:
It might be a valid point that the mainstream media and the blogs aren’t doing the same thing, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not in competition. Newspaper circulation is way down, the MSM newscasts are down in viewers, while the blogosphere is way up. It might be a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc argument, which is not always a valid one, but it seems that some of our friends in the MSM see it as valid in this case.
Dana (3e4784) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:01 pmWell I thought Rago made some good points in the article posted on Iowahawk, especially this one:
“Blogs must be timely if they are to influence politics. Instant response, with not even a day of delay, impairs rigor. It is also a coagulant for orthodoxies. And there is nothing that pisses me off like an orthodoxy coagulated by impaired rigor.”
Sean P (e57269) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:07 pmBaby Rago will find it hard to live this down:
HH: Well, since…I’ve just put forward Rathergate as an example of the new media’s power and ability to go out and find stuff. Would you give me something of comparable significance and truthfulness that’s come out the mainstream media in the last year?
JR: I mean, off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything besides the daily push of stories that the media covers.
Bradley J. Fikes (faf349) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:17 pmTrue, but their audiences are quite different. The Blogisphere is home to those who read great amounts of news in considerable detail. In other words, not the average “consumer” who’s satisfied with a few headlines, and maybe an “in depth” bit of nonsense on 60 Minutes or 20/20.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:18 pmPerhaps more to the point, is that the blogosphere is performing far more serious fact checking and analysis on the MSM than it does on itself. And the MSM is not coming of well under the spotlight.
And the MSM’s response has not been “we need to do better”, but more of “How dare you question us”.
larry (feb78b) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:20 pmMr Ehrenstein wrote:
Now, today, perhaps. But as more and more homes are connected, who can say that what you wrote won’t become less and less the case?
When I hit Internet Explorer at work, I get MSN.com as the “home page.” It is exactly how you described newspapers: headlines as teasers, but better pictures than in The Philadelphia Inquirer. And the news sources that are set up that way are increasingly linking blogs. Add the common searches, and blogs come up — a lot.
Things are changing so rapidly in this field that anyone who makes a blanket statement of how things are going to be just a couple of years down the road might well hope that no one remembers what he wrote!
Dana (3e4784) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:36 pmI agree with part of David E.’s comment #3. Why did the WSJ publish Rago’s superficial article? Rago obviously has a large vocabulary and a polished writing style but the substance of his article was vague and shallow. It reminded me of a college term paper written the night before the due date. I was perplexed by this until a few days ago when I read how young Rago is. Now the tone of his article makes sense: It is the arrogance of youth.
Perhaps the WSJ editors view the blogosphere as journalism’s youthful frontier and Rago as their liaison with that brave new world. If so, I think the WSJ would be wise to hire a more thoughtful young journalist. Unless, of course, Rago wrote what his editors told him to write. If so, that says a lot about the WSJ editors … and Rago.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/27/2006 @ 12:48 pmIt reminded me of a college term paper written the night before the due date. I was perplexed by this until a few days ago when I read how young Rago is. Now the tone of his article makes sense: It is the arrogance of youth.
Let’s not blame everything on youth. Rago’s is the arrogance of uninformed youth. I detected the same tone you did in Rago’s pompous piece, and immediately thought he was a recent post-collegiate hire.
But Hewitt was wrong: One can be an expert at something at 23. Such prodigies are rare, but they do exist. Case in point: Blake Ross, one of the main architects of Firefox. He is 21, and was contributing to Netscape at 14. His sophistication and experience with the Internet, not to mention common sense, is far beyond Rago’s.
Bradley J. Fikes (faf349) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:01 pmAs for John Kerry, what did he expect? I can’t imagine why he went to Iraq after slandering the troops by (not) calling them morons.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:15 pmI recognize the hazards of anecdotal evidence, but in my case my abndonment of TV news and newspapers IS because of the blog alternative.
How likely is it that, as Ehrenstein suggests, former newpaper readers and TV news viewers have stopped consuming news altogether, as opposed to migrating to another medium?
SmokeVanThorn (97d6f6) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:16 pmHere’s a case of one blog fact-checking another blog. That’s the kind of fact-checking Rago doesn’t think exists in the blogosphere.
Bradley J. Fikes (faf349) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:31 pmjohn looks like he’s being shunned in that pic. wtf is he doing there? surely he doesn’t think he’s gonna be nominated again?? just a guess, he sees all the kerry stickers on peoples’ cars and thinks they’re for him in 2008 (instead of informing the world that we weren’t responsible for 2004).
assistant devil's advocate (71994d) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:16 pmPoor John F. Kerry,
If he were president, his handlers could order hundreds of troops to sit with him for every speech, meal and photo op so he could continue to believe he was popular…
New York Times circulation is up, btw:
http://tinyurl.com/y36a5b
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:28 pmWe also are discussing that Kerry photo on Cathy Seipp’s blog. As one commenter asked, what’s with the Union Jack? And I wonder, where’s the American flag?
Bradley J. Fikes (faf349) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:49 pmNew York Times circulation is up, btw:
Compared to what? According to the link you provide, the circulation average in September 2006 is about 4% lower than it was in March 2006, and 3.5% lower than it was in September 2005. How exactly does that qualify as “up”?
JVW (255a81) — 12/27/2006 @ 3:41 pmBy the way, that is for the daily circulation. The Sunday Times figures are -3.5% for March to September 2006 and the same for September 2005 to September 2006.
JVW (255a81) — 12/27/2006 @ 3:47 pmDaily New York Times Circulation:
1998 – 1,110,143
2006 – 1,142,464
Looks up to me, JVW.
Feel free to continue the “Dying MSM” meme, though…just don’t look at the numbers for blogs…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/27/2006 @ 4:42 pmWell at least I think I can see a bottle of Heinz ketchup near John–he’s a fellow who knows on which side the brioche is buttered.
Mike Myers (4d9a65) — 12/27/2006 @ 6:49 pmI haven’t followed the Rago Affair, but the Kerry smear is yet another example of issues that the blogosphere has. Rather than actually reporting the truth (that Kerry flubbed a joke), many bloggers simply act as loudmouths for their “side”. While some blogs have fact checked matters that will help their “side”, many of those blogs have also attempted to obfuscate matters that are embarassing for their “side”. The great majority of political bloggers are simply partisan hacks.
TLB (9163ab) — 12/27/2006 @ 7:30 pmNeville Chamberlain, you are using the March 2006 circulation figures. The September 2006 circulation figure is down to 1,086,798.
munsey (085be7) — 12/27/2006 @ 7:46 pmHow do wingnuts explain Kerry with the same shirt at what looks to be the same mess table with the same red cover, but surrounded by troops?
There’s a Union Jack on the wall in the first photo. The Reuters cutline has him dining at the joint U.S.-British Basrah Air Station in sounthern Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/061216/ids_photos_wl/r833501998.jpg
There are flags of Britain and Portugal in the background of the first photo. The countries that make up Multi-National Division Southeast in Iraq are Britain, Italy, Japan, Australia, Romania, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, and Lithuania. He was obviously NOT at the U.S. Embassy mess.
steve (93b2d6) — 12/27/2006 @ 8:37 pmSteve,
Wingnut DRJ, reporting for duty.
According to Scott Hennen’s friend in Iraq, the Malkin/Powerline link shows a lonely Sen. Kerry having breakfast at the US Embassy. Your link is to the “Ministry of Defence” (sounds British to me) at lunch. Note also that, in the first picture at the US Embassy, there are flowers on the table near Sen. Kerry but there aren’t any in the picture you linked.
Bottom line: Same Kerry, same shirt, different meals, different locations, and very different reactions by the troops.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/27/2006 @ 9:01 pmDRJ
Not only flowers on the table, but a flower pattern on Kerry’s drinking cup.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/27/2006 @ 9:06 pmfind a larger pic of the Lonely Kerry here
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/27/2006 @ 9:07 pmTouche’ Darleen. You have a fine eye for detail.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/27/2006 @ 9:08 pm#19
Pretty pathetic case of BDS you must have to even try and claim that the Times circulation is up. You need to call your therapist.
Sarah D. (f7e827) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:05 pmWhat an odd thing to say, Sarah.
Like an echo from 2002…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:00 pmNeville, regarding your reply (#23) to my comment: OK, the circulation numbers are up since 1998 but down since this time last year. If you buy a stock in September and it falls 5% by December, do you really care if it is still up 10% since January?
JVW (255a81) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:42 pmActually I’ve always thought the Kerry photo looked photo-shopped. The one Darleen links is the first one I’ve seen that I felt sure was a real pic.
What gets me though, is how dumb does he have to be to think the Dems would nominate him again? In the first place, a loser hasn’t been renominated by a party in over 40 years – nowadays you get one shot only. In the second place, he ran a gawd-awful campaign against a hated, vulnerable sitting president.
The chances of Kerry being renominated in 2008 are so small as to be effectively zero.
Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:45 amNeville,
Thank you for supplying the link. It is interesting to note a significant increase in the “Other” category for circulation, a category not defined on the webpage. I have noted the Sunday circulation without that category below.
March
1998 1,640,007
1999 1,677,717
2000 1,680,895
2001 1,681,441
2002 1,715,640
2003 1,652,993
2004 1,640,172
2005 1,621,166
2006 1,580,565
September
1998 1,616,850
1999 1,644,315
2000 1,671,731
2001 1,649,745
2002 1,651,334
2003 1,654,940
2004 1,627,770
2005 1,599,353
2006 1,540,483
It is even less flattering for the daily circulation, where “Other” comprises an even higher portion of the circulation. A significant percentage of “Other” is comprised of circulation at hotels, etc., but it would be nice if the website had a full description of the category on the circulation webpage. I cannot say whether or not the hotels pay a reduced rate or receive the newspapers gratis, but I would be most surprised if they paid full rate. Anyway, it is somewhat disingenuous to include that kind of distribution in an analysis of circulation because the hotel guests did not actively choose to receive the New York Times. Frankly I rarely pick up the courtesy copy in the hotel, especially if it is the New York Times or USA Today. They just are not worth the effort.
Also, consider the revenue streams for the corporation, http://www.nytco.com/excel-files/1106adrev/tot-co-rev.xls. Advertising revenues (excluding online) have been down compared to the previous year. Circulation revenues have lagged behind the previous year from July through November. I expect the 2006 financial report will state a drop in earnings per share for the third straight year. Note the five year revenue growth rate is negative (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-fundsnapshot). As an interesting aside, the online ad revenue through About.com has been doing well.
The New York Times is far from dead, but there are signs in the financials that it has passed its peak. In five years, the profit margin has dropped from 14.7% to 7.7%, and the stock price has dropped almost 50%, too.
So what say you?
Some Other Steve (SOS (649c9f) — 12/28/2006 @ 6:25 amLet us just discuss the so-called Kerry Smear. *Did he, or did he not, outright lie about atrocities supposedly committed by his fellow soldiers in Vietnam?
*Did he or did he not travel to Paris while still an ACTIVE member of the U.S. military and, in violation of the Logan Act (and common decency) meet with the North Vietnamese?
*Did he or did he not travel recently to the Middle East on some asinine, self-created “diplomatic” mission to people who are our sworn enemies, again, in direct violation of the Logan Act?
*Did he or did he not – on more than one occasion – insult the intelligence and character of our military – most of whom have far better education and intelligence than does he?
*Did he or did he not call the President of the United States “dumb” – despite the fact that the President’s college grades were HIGHER than those of John F. Kerry.
*Is John Kerry being defamed or is he being defined?
I know the answer to that one and anyone who disputes it is deluding themselves out of pathological denial!
Finally – who gives a rat’s eardrum about the lying p.o.s. New York Times? They stopped being relevant a long, long time ago.
Gayle Miller (1288b1) — 12/28/2006 @ 6:47 amHe’s being defined through defamation.
“Hey I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived!”
What’s with the Kerry-Hate, Gayle? His political career is over. He is no threat to your smug little neo-fascist self. Why don’t you go back to dumping on someone useful, like Al Gore?
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 7:36 amDavid, you’ve got to get some new material. The only people using “neo-fascist” anymore are on the faculty of the Columbia J school.
The Kerry “joke” is a useful test for hard lefties. Sort of like LIllian Hellman’s Watch on the Rhine during the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1940. If it was a joke on Bush, you are a leftie. Nobody else believes that. It was a joke as Kerry thinks of a joke but it was on the troops.
Mike K (416363) — 12/28/2006 @ 8:18 amThe Kerry “joke” is nothing more than a media meme, Mike. A very lazy form of shorthand.
Kerry’s problem was his unwillingness to stand up to the Swifties. He just didn’t have the cojones for it — and without them you don’t last in American Politics.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 8:32 amThis must be part of that “open debate” that David was calling for. You know, where you get to libel your opponents as “neo-fascist” b/c they disagree w/ you.
Free speech for me, but not for thee, eh?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 8:59 amYou can call me whatever you like, dear. And I’m sure you will.
After all, you’re a Republican.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:00 amThe Kerry photo is much ado about less than nothing. I’d like the Internet-savvy Patterico to look into the history of the “From a Marine’s Notes” Cliff May republished at NRO. That text has been circulating on the Internet for more than a year.
FrontPageMag published the text on Nov. 15, 2005, but May doesn’t credit them — or anyone else — as the source. He doesn’t even say how old it is. That’s just shoddy journalism.
Here’s some other examples of where the text has been published.
Ironically, May complained recently about being the victim of poor journalism at the Washington Post. Journalist, fact-check thyself.
[I don’t have a lot of time on the computer nowadays so connect the dots for me. What does that have to do with the Kerry photo? — P]
Bradley J. Fikes (19f52f) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:12 amWrong on two counts (not that that’s surprising). I’m no Republican, and I really do try to avoid name-calling.
I leave that to you.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:13 amGeez, Gayle asks direct questions and David hauls out “neo-fascist”
Telling non-sequitor, eh?
And it wasn’t that Kerry didn’t have the balls to confront the 200 Swiftboat vets…it’s that he had as much chance of winning a libel suit against them as he did of proving he was in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968 while listening to Nixon speech.
I forget, how many days now since he promised to release all his military records??
Typical Nev/Dav/sockpuppet schtick… when they don’t have facts, FLAME.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:15 amOh boy. The man who terms opponents “neo-fascist” now frets about name calling. Fish, meet barrel.
You know this already David, but people might be more receptive to your arguments if you didn’t anger them first with jargon like the above.
John Barrett Jr. (ea8aed) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:18 amWhat libel suit? Go darn your socks, puppet.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:19 amDavid
Why did Kerry let the statute of limitations run out on filing a libel suit against Unfit for Command?
I mean, Kerry and his attorneys were running around in 2004 threatening libel suits against anyone running the Swiftboat tv/radio ads…
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:51 amPeople threaten suits all the time. Do you know how hard they are to prosecute even if you’re in the right?
Hey Patterico, help me out here.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 10:24 amHere’s some background information.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 10:29 amMaybe we ought to be nice to Senator Kerry. After all, he wants the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, and after his sterling performance in 2004, I’d like to see him get it! 🙂
Dana (3e4784) — 12/28/2006 @ 12:04 pmI agree with Dana. John Kerry is the perfect Democratic candidate: Eurocentric, loves taxes, hails from Massachusetts, and has good hair.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 12/28/2006 @ 12:52 pmWhereas the perfect Republican candidate hates gay people who aren’t related to the Cheneys, abhors taxing anyone in the top 2 %, hails from Florida, and sports a combover.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:05 pmYes, David, that’s right. The top 2% paid no taxes, thanx to the efforts of the GOP-led Congress and White House.
[The top 5% paid 54.36%.]
See, that’s the top 1% paying out money, not David’s top 2%. Makes all the difference, right?
Or, maybe that’s not taxes being paid, it’s uhm, contributions?
Hey, maybe it’s not real money being paid, that’s all imaginary stuff, play money, fresh from a Monopoly set?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:16 pmHang them up by their heels and shake ’em until the last dime falls out.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:23 pmQuite a sensible policy, David. 100% top tax rates (or perhaps 105%, given that them rich folks probably have some other assets around).
So, I take it that, alongside throwing epithets around, you’re a trained economist, eh?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:26 pmNope, and I’m not a trained seal either. Just a citizen.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:33 pmDavid E. #55:
[the top 1-2% of taxpayers] up by their heels and shake ‘em until the last dime falls out.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:50 pmIt appears David E. wants to be the citizen of a socialist state.
Lurk.
AF (8f7ccc) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:15 pmHere is a chart using recent IRS numbers.
Here is the post that explains it all for you (and for D.E. too). It even links to the Sept.2006 report from Saxon’s committee. And its written by an economist.
Thanks AF.
So, after the tax cuts of 2001, the top 1% were paying the same share of taxes as they had been in 1996? And they were paying more after those tax cuts than they had been in 1992-1993 (the last years of a Democratic Congress and Presidency)? Damn those Republicans!
And since 2001, the share of the top 1% has been rising, so that they are now roughly comparable to 1998? Wow, that’s those Republicans, for you, just letting the top 1% stop paying any taxes at all!
I presume, by your link, that Max Sawicky stands for a 100% top tax rate? Otherwise, he’d probably represent a Republican POV, at least from David’s suggested policy.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:22 pmSorry dude, the chart shows “the top 1% shares of Adjusted Gross Income, before and after income tax.”
AF (8f7ccc) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:47 pmThe rich are doing fine. As Max says
This Just In!
[Read Malkin on this before you get too triumphal. I think it’s a funny picture regardless of the date, but the evidence is also pretty strong that the picture is recent. — P]
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 7:34 pmDavid E.,
It seems your “This Just In!” update is disputed. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/28/2006 @ 7:50 pmLove [Malkin’s] coverage of the photo. Obviously that mess hall is a crime scene. Where’s the body? Who has Kerry killed or raped or both?
Michelle’s falling down on the job.
[David: I will not tolerate mocking of Michelle Malkin by referring to her as “Malangalang” as you have done here. That is neither her name nor even her accurate maiden name. I have seen too many lefties call her Maglalagalagalalagang and Maglalaladingdong and stupid juvenile stuff like that. The next step is making references to ping pong balls and such. You haven’t done that, but I’m just not tolerating any step towards that kind of crap. In the future, anything like that gets the comment nuked, not just edited. — P]
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/29/2006 @ 7:08 amMore “open debate” from the premier non-name caller.
Lurking Observer (9f6eea) — 12/29/2006 @ 7:54 amWhat’s being “debated” here? The Kerry photo is a fetish of some sort to you people. Why this is so I have yet to figure out.
Kerry’s political roadkill. He was a poor candidate who didn’t know how to fight back when attacked. Obviously he’s going to make a attempt to score on the next Presidential go-round, but he’s not going to get very far.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/29/2006 @ 8:00 amI have no particular interest in defending Kerry. He’s a putz. But he’s a putz who went to war and came back with medals for bravery, not for bein’ jus’ plain folk or one of the boys. The man can’t act, and bush can. Not a very good way to choose a president.
TPM Muckraker:”From Iraq, Warblogger Vouches for “Lonely Kerry” Photo
AF (8f7ccc) — 12/29/2006 @ 9:35 amBush can’t act either. But as he’s got the press in his pocket you’ll nary hear a discouraging word about it. We’re all supposed to just love him cause he’s an “ordinary guy” of the sort we’d “go have a beer with.”
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/29/2006 @ 9:58 amThere were several questions in the 70’s about Kerry’s medals: he wrote the citations that got him the medals; he “threw them away” in one of the VVAW demonstrations, then supposedly he only threw away the ribbons, etc.etc.etc.
Not just a putz, a lying scumbag putz.
Dubya (c16726) — 12/29/2006 @ 6:31 pmHonestly, I lean conservative and supported Bush on war. But it was offensive when this site posted a link to a photo of Nancy Pelosi, supposedly to highlight her frightful and deficient looks. (I believe the topic was something relevant, but also included the fact that she looks good for her age.)
Please be consistent and treat all people (women) with respect, not just those you happen to favor.
[Well. I hardly think it’s the same thing, as the Maglallallang thing is borderline racist. And I wasn’t the one who brought up Pelosi’s looks. If someone else does, on the very same day I see a hideous picture of her . . . I can’t be blamed for the result! — P]
Vermont Neighbor (cd4d85) — 12/30/2006 @ 12:02 pmIsn’t that Nancy Hussein Pelosi?
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/30/2006 @ 1:06 pmWelcome to the Joe Rago Pro Journalist Institute…
I’m Joseph Rago and I’d like to personally thank you for choosing the Joseph Rago Pro Journalist Institute……
Doug Ross @ Journal (59ce3a) — 1/2/2007 @ 3:11 amJust another example of the fact-free zones that right-wing blogs have come to represent.
For those interested in actual fact, not wingnut fantasies, there’s this statement by a Kerry staffer.
passing by (6c55f0) — 1/2/2007 @ 6:48 am