Replies

If you want to pretend that book sales are strong indicator of public opinion, then Hillary would be immensely popular with the American people.

Fat cat liberals buy liberal books. Have you ever seen tons of Hillary's books in the "inner city"? Nah, and when you take the "high school dropout union guys", and the inner city true believers out of the mix, there aren't a lot of book buyers left. No, IMHO when a liberal pol like Hillary sells lots of books, George Sorose and friends are buying in bulk and donating them for tax write-offs somewhere.

Why is it that whenever I read your stuff soccermom, you're putting down Rush, putting down Coulter, putting down conservatives -- defending Mapes, defending Rather etc... What conservatives do you like? ( Oh, I used to be a liberal - in case you were wondering)

Fat cat liberals buy liberal books. Have you ever seen tons of Hillary's books in the "inner city"? Oh come on! Like fat-cat conservatives don't buy up conservative books? I haven't taken any book polls in the inner city lately. Have you? I know conservative book clubs and conservative magazines are buying up Coulter's book and offering it as a freebie when you join. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is, getting a best seller isn't an indication of mass appeal -- it is an indication of one's popularity within a particular niche.

"Why is it that whenever I read your stuff soccermom, you're putting down Rush, putting down Coulter, putting down conservatives -- defending Mapes, defending Rather etc... What conservatives do you like? ( Oh, I used to be a liberal - in case you were wondering)" I don't "put down" Rush. I state the truth -- that he is successful by giving people what they want -- not by "converting" people. And I'm the one who credited him with being the first conservative pundit (since I've been paying attention anyway) to expose the exploitation of tragedy with his Ron Brown clip. I'll bet I've been listening to Rush longer than you have. I "put down" Coulter for making personal attacks, when she didn't have to. Do you deny what she did was mean? Is that a Christian way to act? And please, pray tell me, where I "defended" Rather and Mapes. I stated the fact that both of them remained strident in the face of an obviously faked news story. I pointed out that Rather has been employed for nearly 2 years after the document story was exposed and that Mapes is peddling books and still peddling a story that the documents were real. How is that "defending" them? The point, and I can't believe you seriously didn't grasp it the first time, is that it is business as usual for the dominant media and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. (The only positive change is that "business" for them is dwindling as people turn to alternative news sources.) Yes, I am glad Rather was humiliated, but it hasn't changed him or 60 Minutes, has it?

As far as conservative commentators go, I like Michael Medved and (before he was hired by the White House) Tony Snow. Both men have the ability to make an argument without acting like wrestlers trash-talking before a WWF show. I particularly like the way Medved will use words and logic to lead liberals to conservative conclusions. Name calling and mindless, trite rhetoric gets us nowhere. As irreverent people go, I like Glenn Beck. He may not be as polite as I'd like, but he's funny and doesn't have any "sacred cows". As for who I dislike, I'd have to say Michael Savage tops the list for obvious reasons. I used to like Hannity and I still consider him a likeable, attractive man on a personal level. But, as a conservative commentator, he is a weak debator. His rhetoric is hackneyed.