“Clearly, PJ, you stumbled in here by mistake. The dumpster is out back, to your left. The gutter is just a little ways beyond… but then you knew that, didn’t you?”
TBone2, I don’t know you or your agenda but I do know you tried to sound witty in your posting. You failed.
Freedom2:“You sound FoxNews deprived”
Are you saying that FOX is biased toward conservatives?
You are taling about Fox as in the TV station?
Sorry but I have lived overseas for a while so I don’t know much about FOX.
I just know that ABC/NBC and even CBS lately are looking very liberal. All those morning shows with parents talking about suing game companies. Or women asking for rights to get back the children that they nglected. It’s pathetic.
Fox, huh?
I dunno, it was kinda witty… just inappropriately so. Like a Non Sequitor.
Oh, no, you see, as Elucidator already pointed out, “Fox News” is a contradiction in terms.
Uh… they are? What is “very liberal” in this case?
ahem.
Republican babe, checking in.
and I am going to have to second the nominations of Hillary and Chelsea. Although Paula Jones is probably a close second. Or maybe the Old Guard of the Democratic party.
Ann Coulter
Yes she is attractive. Yes she is smart. Yes she is Republican.
And about Foxnews…
It feels good to finally turn some of those frustrating liberal lines around…
Foxnews is not conservative, it is just fair. You guys are just so far to the left, that they SEEM unbalanced.
Seriously now:) FoxNews is a legitimate news network. It is certainly the highest rated all news network. (currently crushing CNN:)) They ask hard questions, I agree, but there were democrats in power. Now that Republicans are in power, we will get a chance to see if they maintain their diligence.
For those out of the country:
FoxNews is like CNBC. They are part of the network,(seperate channel though) but they are cable only and have a totally seperate program than the parent network. They are all news all the time, sort of like CNN.(but better)
:):)
That is my unbiased report.
How about Monica’s dad. Just imagine HIS reaction to Monica’s “position on the presidential staff.” 
Or how about the old boy’s reaction to someone offering him a cigar?
All the best.
Testy.
Fox News joined my cable lineup about six months back. I was looking forward to it, as I consider CNN to right-leaning and addicted to “experts”. I forgot Rupert Murdoch runs Fox.
I came in during an adbreak. It was for mutual funds or something else financial. The ad showed a naked toddler charging through an office building until he came to a potty and sat down. The slogan: Let us do your business for you.
It was downhill from there.
About the only thing I ever saw was O’Reilly reading letters congratulating him for exposing Jesse Jackson, over and over. Never anything else, not even an actual expose on Jackson. Just letters. Certainly not newsreaders, just this one guy giving you his own opinion second-hand. I lasted about a week and gave up. I haven’t watched the news in months.
Despite ratings gains, Fox News’s reputation is already suffering. They hired one of Bush’s cousins to help conduct the election night coverage. Most would agree the conflict of interest is NOT a good thing, but they went ahead with it. The last time a news outlet did anything that blatantly biased, pickups were blowing up. Anymore, if I want news, I go to the online wire services and skip the talking heads.
As to who hates Clinton most, I’m going to have to vote for Kenneth Starr. It seems to have been the major criterion for his getting to be special prosecutor.
I can’t believe you find the Clinton News Network to be right leaning.
I guess that pegs you on the political scale. O’Reilly does a good job of presenting letters that rip him apart as well as congratulate him. The letters are only a small segment of the show anyway.
(BTW…he has exposed Jesse many times. What’s he suppsed to do? Throw him in Foxjail:)?)
All in all I usually find O’Reilly just a tad below where I like my information. I think he does a good job of covering a story for the average joe who needs the basics rehashed everytime, but for me I get a little bored. Every once in awhile he does get a great interview in. You will never see politicians interviewed ANYWHERE else like on his show.
Hannity and Colmes is just too much of a slugfest. Every show is set-up for slams and “impact” effect. It just gets so old. (plus I can’t stand looking at Colmes)
Nah, Burton gets the “Hypocritical Conservative Moron of the Decade” award instead – he starts off condemning Clinton as a scumbag, and ends up belatedly admitting that he’s fathered a bastard son out of wedlock whom he has never visited or acknowledged in over fifteen years.
No shit!! Oh, cite me, Rjung, I beg you! This one I just gotta have!
Didn’t Dan Burton (R.-Harper Valley) also get caught setting his (current) mistress up as his official campaign manager, using campaign funds to pay the rent on the house he got for her?
My favorite Peggy Noonan WSJ editorial (damn, I wish I’d saved a copy) was the morning after Elian Gonzalez’ flight to Washington to be reunited with his father. She claimed that Elian couldn’t possibly be happy about it, so the smile on his face in the photos meant he’d been shot up with joy juice, so there had to be Cuban psychiatrists on the USAF plane, so Clinton had to be conspiring with Castro, so Castro must have had something to blackmail Clinton with, so there had to be some audio tapes of Clinton and Monica in Castro’s possession, so the Cuban intelligence service must have infiltrated the White House, and of course this all had to be thoroughly investigated. No, I’m not making this up.
She actually asked “Is it irresponsible to raise these questions? It would be irresponsible not to.” She then went on about her saintly father figure, Ronald Reagan, would have actually seen the wings of the angels taking Elian’s raft to Florida, and would never think of sentencing him to a life under communism.
That may be a little extreme, but is it really all that unrepresentative of the intellectual and moral integrity of the anti-Clinton campaign?
PS I’d put the aforementioned Richard Mellon Scaife and Larry Klayman at the top of the list too, except for their own cowardice in not publicly defending or debating their actions. That makes them more objects of pity than of hate, but I can certainly understand those who disagree.
Here’s Jonah Goldberg’s entry in the I Hate Clinton Sweepstakes.
I looked up that editorial by Peggy Nooner. Lord love a duck, you weren’t making it up! When, exactly, did she go around the bend? Used to be, she wrote fairly sensible essays. Wrong, but sensible. I’m surprised she didnt manage to work in a Vince Foster angle on this.
Thanks for the cite on Danny Burton. Lets go pour some salt on him, see what happens. Just follow the slime trail…
Sapphire, I’ll take your word for that, as any gentleman must, of course. (I was raised right, I just went wrong). There are, those, of course, who would insist that a self-proclaimed “babe” should offer some proof, this being a debating forum, and all. This proof must offer some verifiable evidence that the aforesaid “babe” is female. A photograph, for instance. One that banishes all doubt as to the babe-itude and gender.
Of course, being a gentleman, I would not contenance such a suggestion.
Have any of you ever seen Christopher Hitchens? Why does he hate Clinton so much? Who in the hell is he anyway? I believe he is a British journalist (I’m not good with accents), so where does his anger toward Clinton come from. Every week I see him on TV somewhere, on C-SPAN, CNN, or Politically Incorrect calling CLinton a murder, rapist, fraud, a racist (for supposedly enjoying the execution of Blacks in Arkansans), and a drug addict.
I think we have to keep in mind that the jaw-flappers we see on the talk shows (when we bother to watch) don’t necessarily mean what they say. These shows, best considered entertainment rather than news IMHO, mostly have the same format of picking the subject of the day, then putting two people on stage to argue the “liberal” and “conservative” views of it, whatever they may be. They keep yelling at each other until time’s up. For a lot of them, it’s a pretty lucrative gig, too, undoubtedly.
But keeping that source of income coming, and keeping their faces on TV with all the ego-gratification and status in the Beltway pecking order that implies, requires following the script, doesn’t it? That also has to be reflected in their written efforts, lest they be too publicly exposed as intellectual whores. When did you ever hear a talk-show commentator say “Hmm, I hadn’t thought about that, you may be right”, or even take a nuanced, moderate view of anything? Nope, they have to fit their assigned “Left-wing” and “Right-wing” roles to keep the ratings up.
I suspect a lot of media people we’ve been used to seeing as “Clinton haters” or “Clinton apologists” are really neither; they’re folks like us who can see people and the world as complicated and nuanced, and would discuss it intelligently and reasonably in private.
So, when hearing or reading commentary, I try to get a feeling if the person is sincere and thoughtful, or a whore. The sincere haters are the ones we need to worry about. My feeling about O’Reilly, Hitchens, Coulter, and Bennett is that they’re whores. But I could be wrong.
