See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. New York Times ignores Gary Locke’s ethics/campaign finance scandals, and mentions he has a largely scandal-free résumé. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
2. Nightly Ramble: A quick ramble before dissecting the SOTU | BitsBlog
3. The Frog in Hot Water » Blogosphere Buzz
4. The Sundries Shack

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #632894
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am, FilmLadd said:

   “a largely scandal-free résumé.”

   Ooh, they used “é” instead of “e“.

   Very classy. Makes me forget that they are using the adjective “largely.”

2. #632895
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am, txvet2 said:

   Now there’s a surprise.

3. #632898
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:08 am, txvet2 said:

   He’s an expert on “China issues”, all right, especially as pertains to Clintonian fundraising.

4. #632904
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am, DBNinKY said:

   Don’t read the New York Times if you want to know the full truth about Commerce Secretary nominee Gary Locke.

   MM, here’s where you should have stopped that sentence:
   

   Don’t read the New York Times if you want to know the full truth… .

5. #632906
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:13 am, DBNinKY said:

   Better yet:
   

   Don’t read the New York Times… .

6. #632909
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am, ThatSamIAm said:

   Who reads the NY Times? Who reads any of these fossils called newspapers?

   If I want the opinions of a bunch of smug anti-American, anti-God rejects pretending to be a legitimate news agency I’d watch MSNBC.

   NY Times = no longer relevant
   MSNBC = complete joke

7. #632914
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am, flmom said:

   largely scandal-free résumé.

   What the heck does this statement mean? His resume is either scandal-free or it’s not. The ‘largely’ addition just gives them a pass on reporting the facts. They are directing the reader to ‘move along, there’s nothing to see here’.

8. #632917
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am, sonofdy said:

   They were too busy exposing secret US military operations in Pakistan to do the actual research on this, so they just went with it.

   largely scandal-free résumé.

   Is this like largely HIV free??

9. #632920
   On February 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am, Marc said:

   In the last few days, the NY Times Roger Cohen has written glowingly about Iran’s human rights record toward its Jewish population. The NY Times announced through Cohen that Iran’s talk about eliminating Israel and its denial of the holocaust was mere rhetoric for domestic comsumption, not to be taken seriously. Cohen wrote that in any event, any Iranian statements like that were an understandable reaction to Israeli conduct. So nobody should be surprised by one more Times whiewash.

10. #632931
    On February 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am, WisCon said:

    Who wants to go sledding!

11. #632945
    On February 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am, rbb said:

    If you think the ny times article is bad, you should see this piece of fluff from the Everett (Washington) Herald

12. #632947
    On February 25th, 2009 at 10:41 am, rbb said:

    The seattle times obviously forgot to go back into the archives and look at Michelle’s original reporting, because this article absolves locke of any blame for his shenanigans…

13. #633004
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am, JusDreamin said:

    Exactly what I have come to expect from much of the MSM. Someday they too will be called on it, but not before more Americans realize they NEED to be in the “Chattering Class”

    Look, nobody is perfect, ahem, I “get that”. But could we start with integrity and work from there please Mr. President?

14. #633003
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am, cabrerski said:

    On February 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am, flmom said:
    largely scandal-free résumé.
    What the heck does this statement mean?

    As you know, it means “relatively”, such as:

    The explosion at Hiroshima was largely a small energy release when comparing it to a supernova

15. #633020
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:18 am, nail49 said:

    Is this like largely HIV free??

    Or a little bit pregnant?

16. #633046
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:35 am, flmom said:

    Or a little bit pregnant?

    Or largely dead? [visions of a favorite Monty Python sketch]

17. #633066
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am, happyscrapper said:

    Well, Obama just officially named him. Here we go.

18. #633068
    On February 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am, Flyoverman said:

    You had to hit rock bottom and then dig to dredge Locke up.

19. #633141
    On February 25th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Troubled San Francisco paper in danger of closing
    San Francisco Chronicle to be sold or closed if owner can’t lower expenses dramatically

    Perhaps the Gray Lady will be next. Whitewash that Sulzberger family.

20. #633410
    On February 25th, 2009 at 2:52 pm, Member-VRWC said:

    What the NYT says:

    All the news that’s fit to print

    What the NYT actually does:

    All the news that fits our agenda we print

21. #633487
    On February 25th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, cabrerski said:

    or this NYT slogan:

    All the news that gives conservatives the fits we print

22. #633607
    On February 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    an expert on China issues

    Yeah, Capone was an expert on tax issues…

23. #638030
    On March 3rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm, cheapseat said:

    mr locke fits right in with the obambi party. can you say illegal campaign contributions. the chicago way!