[UCANSEE2]

When she told us we "must vote for Bush no matter what he does,"

This would be a very illogical statement for a conservative type person to make. If she said it to me, I would laugh in her face.

(Save where the Clinton's are concerned, maybe. I guess it remains to be seen. I know this news bothers me but I have sneaking suspicion it's gonna be a real snoozer, media-wise.)

BTW, it's OKAY to talk to yourself, it's even OK to answer. Just as long as you don't say, "HUH?", or post it on a thread.

[Askel5]

Well, you're right. I did have the Coulter quote wrong. Instead, it went like this:

She concluded her comments on candidates with a forceful move away from any flip and comedic language. In the context of her discussion of the Courts, she looked her audience in the eyes and forcefully cautioned, "No matter what Bush does, you have to vote for him."

But hey ... she's a hottie. If we can forgive her more comic comments (let's nuke North Korea! Christmas was so fun this year because saying "merry Christmas" is like saying "f... you"), we can forgive her thinking that election of Bush was vital for the effect he'd have on the Judiciary.

The media is all about hype and sensationalism for profit.

Oh please. If there were a "profit" motive left in the field of journalism, major cities (besides NY and LA) would have more than one daily paper left in circulation.

You might as well argue that the healthcare industry is all about helping people.

Both the news and healthcare industries are perfect examples of what can happen when the government is most interested in closing down all competition and removing the profit motive for purposes of ready regulation of content and services, respectively.

If there were anything like open competition using "hype and sensationalism" for profit, Americans might learn a fraction about the actions and quotes of their leadership that Europeans do. News of the United States is far more sensational, so to speak, abroad than here at home, IMHO. I got some of my best leads for interesting stories to follow by burning the candle at both ends while in Russia, especially, so as to devour their feeds before returning home to compare and contrast the same stories (if they existed at all) back home. Most interesting.

The media doesn't give a hoot about DEMS or REPUBS.

Weeelll ... yes and no. I think those who call the shots probably realize there's not a dime's bit of difference between the leadership of the two parties. But if you're arguing the press has done yeoman's work to convery or "educate" the US citizenry to "democratic" initiatives, then I suggest you start paying more attention to "republican" initiatives as set forth in no uncertain terms ... particularly where "education" of the public through the media (including million-dollar War on Drug/War on Terror commercials for the Super Bowl, even).

But the concept that BUSH stalled the JD to protect the Clintons, or help Bush win the election, IS THE UNFOUNDED, UNPROVEN, OPINION of "an undocumented source, which told the TIMES, which fed it to Carl L, which you read.

The one thing we know for sure is that it was stalled. Does the reason given sound somehow implausible to you? Can you think of an even better reason why it would be delayed?

If not, I see no reason to suspect the "sources" are lying. Assuming this story grows any legs, perhaps we'll find out otherwise. I doubt it. Who knows why this much made it into print at all.

I see no reason we all can't accept the fact at this stage of the game that the government need not disclose jack about anything. Why shouldn't the judiciary enjoy the same new veils of privacy the Executive branch does?

There's not a great deal we can do about any of that.

But what we can do is resist the urge to spin for OURSELVES whatever comforting reasons for inexplicable facts make us feel full of Republican Pride and love for the cleverness and sportsmanship of all things Bush.

I think all that's pretty lame, actually. Honestly ... where does this syndrome come from? Are we really still appalled by those who wore kneepads for Clinton when we repeatedly fail to hold our own accountable or question in the least what APPEAR to be truly odd, if not illegal or otherwise scandalous, decisions on their part?

But, sometimes planes just crash. Sometimes people do commit suicide.

And MOST of the time, you'll find that the lying liberal media does a bang-up job lying for the Republicans. I shall use your questions on ESCR as starting point for my first thoroughly PROOFREAD, carefully constructed and copiously footnoted article in the hopes that barebones facts will speak for themselves.

Regards.