…And sanford has been covered here. And has the 60 republicans who did the right thing also been covered here? To give equal time to the republicans who do the right thing as well as the republicans who embarrass us by their bad behavior? …. Yes? No?

That’s my only question,love2rumba.

Your point is a valid consideration, Thomas.

MM has given positive space to Republicans like Coburn, Pence, and as of late Wilson etc. when they have gone out to challenge Obama since and during the election. The Repubs who are challenging Sanford has been covered-accurately-by other media, and since it already has been covered accurately and with the appropriate depth by others, should she also chime in with nothing different from what AOL, CNN etc. have already done? Would it not be smarter to cover things that CNN, Time etc. aren’t giving enough attention to?

If there has been one gripe I’ve had with journalism regardless of venue is how deliberately over-simplified and often redundant it has been on key issues-that sense that an article has been written by a time-clock puncher instead of someone who really wants to get to the bottom of what is going on and be able to communicate this to a reader who may not have the background immediate to make sense of what is going on such as the Financial Crisis of 2008, and this is why I am a voracious reader of internet blogs and other alternative news sites.

So far if the other media hasn’t covered a topic that might impact a conservative, MM ususally is on top of it.

Come back in six months,follow her columns, and I think you will see she has been fairly even-handed. If Michelle Malkin were not even-handed and thorough about what is happening at the moment, I would have left this site already and her credibility would be in tatters in my mind…This is the best way I can answer your question, Thomas.

On September 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, GladzKravtz said:
Deep down, they all want the bad boy.
With so many bad boys these days, a gal can/should be Pri T choosy.

No choosing! Soon the government will mandate a public option on that, you know, single player!

Deep down, they all want the bad boy.

With so many bad boys these days, a gal can/should be Pri T choosy.

On September 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, GladzKravtz said:
And he’s not attractive at all. Some women can be idiots ……

Deep down, they all want the bad boy.

She covered the censure vote as well as the letter that was sent.

It’s all in the Sanford thread.

All of this is a bit off topic. Michelle has rightly criticized Duvall.

On September 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, AlohaGuy said:
I know drummers with more scruples than that!
Liar!

Yeah, you’re right. My hyperbole pegged when I was trying to make a point. My bad. I shouldn’t have used one of the lowest forms of sexual deviates for a comparison.

And sanford has been covered here. And has the 60 republicans who did the right thing also been covered here? To give equal time to the republicans who do the right thing as well as the republicans who embarrass us by their bad behavior? …. Yes? No?

That’s my only question, love2rumba.

I know drummers with more scruples than that!

Liar!

And yet, 60 South Carolina House Republicans called for Gov. Mark Sanford to resign. Hmm. Didn’t heat about that. Oh well. Must not be newsworthy.

Sanford has been pretty well covred here, unless you enjoy eyerolling to the point of injury .

(I believe the term is ad nauseum )