Jane Pauley Sues New York Times

Drudge Report ^ | october 25, 2006 | smoking gun

[gotribe]

Black Butte Porter. Bend, OR.

[an amused spectator]

Media Schadenfreude ping.

This one's gonna leave a mark...

[WorkingClassFilth]

That explains her mental disorder.

[Cicero]

I alternate 12 packs. Long Trail, Otter Creek, and Sam Adams. And occasionally when I'm not in Vermont, St. Pauli Girl.

So, I'm with you on Sam Adams, all the way.

[Maeve]

Go Jane Go! See Jane sue! Sue, Jane, sue!

ROFL!!! LOL!!!

[grey_whiskers]

This,like Germany's attack against the USSR during WWII,is a battle that I hope *both* sides lose.

As Winston Churchill said in reference to the same...:

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Cheers!

[ntnychik]

From 1976 to 1989, she was the co-host of The Today Show

Jane's last show is the last time I watched The Today Show. They done her wrong.

[Brian Allen]

<< That's not fair. She may be married to a jerk but she has always been a very fair and unbiased reporter. >>

OK, you win. Actually enjoyed her a lot when she did Today. And was the last host I ever watched on that show. (The day she interviewed the Finn brother who is not Tim and the other irrepressable Kiwis who comprised: 'Crowded House')

[blake6900]

That's not fair. There are people who are married to shrieking leftists that aren't themselves. For example, Mary Matalin and Melanie Morgan are married to liberals. It doesn't help that Pauley is a large MSM figure of the '70s and '80s, but she's never displayed signs of BDS like many of her NBC colleagues. Guilt-by-association is not applicable here, IMHO.

Sure it's fair. With all due respect you can tell a lot about someone by the person they marry. Mary Matalin talks a great conservative line yet she married a snake like Carville. That tells me her "conservative" beliefs were secondary to a relationship with him. And that begs the question why? What could they have in common? Certainly not politics. But with political beliefs come certain moral beliefs. And if we are to believe what they tell us )conservative vs. liberal) they don't have the same moral beliefs. Methinks those kids are gonna grow up schizophrenic.

Melanie Morgan on the other hand has the same issues with her husband with an interesting twist. Although a liberal, her husband came up with the idea of a conservative talk station in San Francisco (it's right across the hall from KGO). Her husband hired her at KSFO. So, for the sake of business success, he was willing to turn his back on his beliefs and give voice to conservative beliefs in order to make a buck. Clearly his beliefs run deep [/sarcasm off]. And hers, quite frankly, are more about publicity than depth.

Which brings us to Jane Pauley. In my view a person can fall in love and marry anyone they want (provided that person is of the opposite sex). But if one person can accept or ignore the warped views and morals of another in order to have a personal relationship with that him, then that first person diminishes the depth and strength of their own beliefs as well and vice versa. In short both are willing to leave their principles, beliefs and moral values behind. To me, that means those principles, beliefs and moral values were never that deep to begin.

Perhaps I just don't get it. I simply cannot understand how two people who have so little in common can be in love. I just don't think liberals are capable of possessing the traits I looked for in a lifelong relationship. My wife had those traits and she wasn't a liberal.

[Criminal Number 18F]

May the lawsuit grow and prosper, and embitter and enfeeble them both unto death.

I ask this in Jesus's Name. Amen.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F