Obama--the grumblings
 

Blah blah blah:blah:

Bitch moan bitch moan.

Wahhhhhh.

Sour grapes sour grapes.

Your turn.

liberal socialist gramsciian ...

Now you're just getting me all hawt. ;)

:corn:

Were you doing all that?

One thing you're going to have to observe, Shawnee, is just how little the responsible rightwingers behave like the common run of the leftwingers. A good place to observe this is in conservative magazines, of which perhaps National Review and Commentary are the best. Tough to really pick, though. Christian Science Monitor and American Spectator ain't no slouches either. (No experience of The Weekly Standard.)

I was grinning like a fookin' idiot all the way to work today. Listening to NPR.
I almost forgot I could be this proud.

Uh Huh. Ok. Sure. ;)

I too heard today on NPR: today was National Pie Day. Congratulations.

I cannot believe I missed National Pie Day.

I'm sorry Pie. Hope you had a great day! :)

It would be interesting to see you define 'common run'. IMO, Slate, Salon and the New Republic match up well with National Review (I don't know Commentary) and I assume are 'responsible' examples under your definition. As for 'common run', the most watched/read conservatives of late are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I am having a hard time finding liberal examples who are both as popular and as damaging to the national psyche.

I find Christian Science Monitor to be an excellent source on politics. They were probably Bush's biggest critics on almost everything.

One of the biggest losers under the Bush Era were conservative intellectuals, who seem to have become disenfranchised under the Republican 'embrace stupidity' anti-'elitist' mantra. The only thing that Bush and Buckley had in common were the first two letters of their last names.

I have a hard time not lumping Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in there as well though.
What does it tell you when you cannot find their liberal equivalent/s? Is it that they do not exist? You agree with their views and therefore don't believe them "damaging"? Or is it something else. I'm seriously interested.
Disenfranchised is nowhere near a strong enough word.

Rich, what do you read on the right, for balance?

Actually, I read mostly local papers. I get my national news from Google/Yahoo sources, which can be anything from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times.

As I mentioned earlier, Christian Science Monitor did a lot of good foreign reporting.

Thanks to the Internet, I have read from almost all of the sources UG and I mentioned, except for Commentary. A long time ago, I subscribed to a magazine called Skeptic which presented two sides to every article.

As for broadcast, I tried listening to Air America, but couldn't get into it. I always see clips of Limbaugh and Coulter, but it's like watching a train wreck. I can stand Hannity in very short bursts. I take Maddow and Olbermann with a large grain of salt. They are both partisan, but generally do not have the pure vindictiveness of their conservative counterparts. To find the over-the-top liberals that match up with 'professionals' like Limbagh/Coulter, one would have to bring up amatuers like Garofalo. I will concede that Olbermann has added his 'structured rants', which begins to approach but does not match the level of vitriol of his conservative counterparts .

Don't forget, Pi day is March 14.

Can we not talk about obama on March 14?

Since when do you have a real reason -- not the dubious stuff that has apparently satisfied you until now -- to respond so? Can any one person be that unenlightened? Quite beyond belief, chum. Leftists remain leftists only through stubbornly maintained ignorance, while the conservatives stride from enlightenment to enlightenment. No doubts from you or, say, Bruce can change this progress. You might start to wonder what you're missing.:headshake