The argument here is a series of blatently biased republishing of Politico hit-jobs and lies by MM. And her refusal to recant the lies and post the truth.

Accusing me of anything doesnt change that fact. Furthermore, I backed all my stuff up. MM posted innunendo and has not backed it up.

MM has been the one with “truth issues”. And she is the one with the public influence.

She still has not apologized for publishing the “Thompson Quits” BS.

So there you have it. Maybe you ought to cut the hero worship and see the MM is starting to show some very personal flaws in character when it comes to telling the truth about some presidential candidates.

The case has been made elsehwere, its not just me. For instance, I read a comment on “Rantburg” (a righty snarky news site, highly recommended) that called her a “stupid b*****” for her repeating the politico smear.

I would not go that far – but I do think its time Michelle apologized and starting thinking before she posts yet another Politico smear job, or unwarranted snide remarks about Thompson yet again.

Its the right thing to do. And all I see from MM is silence in all the cases. That in itself speaks volumes about her character and honesty, or lack thereof in this case.

MM – as a fellow Catholic, need I remind you that sins of omission are sins none the less? Bearing False Witness ring a bell?

Or do you only wear your Catholicism on your sleeve when convenient?

I’m sure you’re welcome to an opinion here, you just aren’t welcome to be nasty in your remarks to our host.

After accusing Michelle of purposeful fabrication and bias, I think you owe her an apology.

So back up there chum. I showed you the numbers. I showed Michelle’s errors. I asked her to do the right thing and correct herself or apologise for the “unintentional” error. She has, as of late, clearly been Anti-Thompson, look a the unthinkingly reposted smear jobs from Politico, and her constant negative takes (unspported at many times) of nearly everything Thompson says or does. I have yet to see her retract what turned out to be utterly incorrect statements, not have I seen her apologize for posting what have turned out to be hit pieces. Corrects and?o apologies are called for is she has a shred of personal integrity.

She has done neither. She perpetuaates the lies and smears of others, injects her bias without admitting it, and never correct herself or apologizes. So what does that make Michelle?

Some would say a liar, others a dupe. I say she’s unaware of her bias and needs to look at herself and admit it – then fix it!

MM – wake up, you’re damaging your rep and HotAir’s as well with your refusal to admit errors and bias and that you were taken in by Politico’s repeated hoaxes and dirty tricks.

Do you want to ecome the Right’s version of Dan Rather?

Hat games. Non-denial denial. Shame!

Wake up Michelle!

Ordinary Coloradan

Yo slick, be a little more brainy than to throw the lie word around so carelessly.

Michelle has hardly been anti Fred so get you panties untwisted.

Either your a troll or you don’t have the respect for Michelle you should have in either case you’ve shown no class whatsoever.

Duncan Hunter wins the group’s highest overall rating, and deservedly so. Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney earn the next-highest rating.

Since my Rep Tancredo left, Hunter has been the top rated on immigration. But Thompson has been relatively close. Romney, on the other hand, has come up but still trails in terms of being right on immigration – and he’s not even close, much less 3rd. He’s ***4th***.

You’re you’re dead wrong about the ratings.

Here are the Actual Ratings. Now they are rated on issues – lets assign them points – negatives for crappy immigration stances, positiives for acceptable ones, and 0 for being so-so.

Abysmal = -3, Bad = -2, Poor = -1, Fair = 0, Good = 1, and Excellent = 2.

Tanc = +32, Negatives = 0 (perfect score)
Hunter = +25, Negatives = 0
Thompson = +19, Negatives = 1

Huckabee +11, Negatives = 4
Romney = +8, Negatives = 5

OK MM, now you see why I claim you are being biased against Thompson?

Huckabee, as much as it pains me to admit it, is BETTER than Romney on Immigration. He has less negatives and a higher total score.

And Thompson is far better then either of them on total scores and on negatives. Not quite Hunter, but definitely far better then Huck or Mitt.

Its right there in front of your eyes. Do the math.

The more accurate assessment is “Hunter is rated best, followed by Thompson. Huckabee and Romney trail.”

Equating him and Romney at is at best a misleading call, and at worst (if deliberate) disingenuous and dishonest.

Michelle if you are going to continue to be anti-Thompson, at least have the decency and honesty to come out and do so openly. If this was unintnetional, then perhaps you should stop and think and check yourself for bias before posting.

MM – Do the right thing. Correct yourself.

p.s. for reference:

Giuliani -13, neg = 10
McCain -16, neg = 9
(D) Chris Dodd -20, neg = 11
(D) Hillary -21, neg = 12

I trusted Tancredo on Romney even though Mitts MTP interview was troubling and After reading Beck’s comment above I think thats right.

Any time a politician uses the same catch phrase over and over to describe their opponents you can bet that catch phrase applies the politician using it more than the those they’re spewing it at.

Usually its liberals who do it and this time is no exception other than he spouts scriptures in concert with his boomerang defamation.

Governor Huckabee, just because you carry a bible is no excuse for dishonesty nor for acting like a moonbat by playing every victim card Hillary ever did only more cowardly by hiding behind God all the despicable while you do it.

Can you imagine a President Ron Paul’s military boot camp? “Okay, people…the first thing we must learn, is to communicate to those foreign parties engaging in hostilities against us, that WE are not a threat. First, raise both your hands high over your heads, and keep them there. That’s it…we’re done! No one will hate us anymore, and they will leave us alone.”

I say start with the candidates who have proven records of solid leadership and accomplishment as leaders – with manifest, tangible results you can see and know to be illustrations of what they can really do, instead of who has the best speech writers. That eliminates all senators and leaves us with 2 Governors and one Mayor, which is really how it should it unless we want to walk through this process with one foot in reality and the other in the land of wishful thinking.

Talk is not just cheap, it’s too cheap for poiticians – and too expensive for us once they’ve conned their way into office.

Anything other than supporting candidates with proven manifest results while in office is rolling the dice on truthfulness and a determination to keep to their promises regardless of mainstream pressure once they’re in office. I can’t imagine anyone gambling on a senator with any other options. It may be good enough for already misdirected democrats, but it shouldn’t be for us.

So who has the best record of tangible accomplishment – the things you can see and look at and understand. And let that be your guide – and don’t be duped by nimble speechwriters.

gandolphxx said: And with this sellout so goes the GOP as far as I am concerned.

Ditto: Except with the whole “vote the name I recognize” mentality in this country, a 3rd party isn’t a viable option. You might as well vote demoncrat as vote 3rd party.

Not that I’ve seen any truly conservative 3rd party candidates either.

When the spending bill, which combines appropriations for a number of federal agencies, reached the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) attached S.Amdt. 2466 to the measure in order to silently gut the SFA’s spending requirement.

The Hutchison amendment reads, “Nothing in this paragraph shall require the secretary of homeland security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.” Thus, critics argue the amendment results in a de facto repeal of the SFA.

“The Hutchison amendment gives DHS virtually total discretion over how and where the fence is built,” commented Steve Elliott, president of Grassfire.org. “In fact, DHS would not be required to build fencing in any particular location – and the double-layer mandate is totally gone.”

And with this sellout so goes the GOP as far as I am concerned.

This is an issue that falls on the shoulder of the people. When the people have finally had enough (which will be too late) then we’ll see some legislation backed by action.