Rolling Stone Magazine
Still Relevant? I think not.
ROLLING STONE MAG:
WORST TABLOID/MAGAZINE/PROPAGANDA SHEET IN HISTORY
His gross negligence regarding the economy and his status as President were salvaged only by War.
Hey, at least he didn't attack half of the country.
I've never read it, and don't care.
With the exception of Washington and Jefferson, few contemporary views of Presidents hold up over time.
What anyone thinks of President Bush today has very little meaning in the overall scheme of things. History will judge him on factors we are not aware of today.
All of this "media hype" is for only one purpose, to weaken him and his agenda. The President has shown a remarkable ability to stay focus, and not get side tracked on things like do the editors of the Rolling Stone magazine like me.
Thanks to the Rolling Stone, I am now confident that Bush's place as at least a near-great president is assured.
Rolling Stone is the Dixie Chicks of publishing: sales are down, gotta pander to the aging hippies, the CSN&Y and SimonUNdGarfinckle crowd, since,once suspects, the younger crowd doesn't subscribe to music mags, preferring instead to get its kicks and info from the best living would-be-wanna-be president's invention, you know, the Internet.
The only thing that would be better than this would be allowing a Democratic impeachment charge to go through the House/Senate, and having a hearing that smacks them all down.
Rolling Stone Magazine is the worst magazine in history!
Here's an idea.
1. Round up all the liberals.
2. Give them a lovely little sun kissed Island in the South Pacific.
3. Let Rolling Stone be their National Newspaper.
4. And let Saddam be their benevolent President
"RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR......"
(oops....mind the meat grinder!!)
I was given a gift subscription to Rolling Stone mag a few years ago. I cancelled it after about 3 or 4 issues when it became obvious that it is nothing more than a never ending stream of extremist leftist blather.
Rolling stone is an indexed magazine. They are fabricating articles which will show up on computer nexis serches so they can falsify a history.
Rolling stone was a useless hippie magazine in the 60's and has not changed since. It is the ADVERTISERS WHO MUST PAY for this insanity.
(didn't they blow it with regards to woodstock and then tried to make it up at a latter concert where the Hells Angels were the "security")
This is also the same magazine that airbrushed Algores penis area to look bigger.
What the Bushes prove, father and son, is that money and social connections count far far more than intelligence and principle in the political arena. That's not so unusual, that is just the history of mankind.
W has given some wonderful speeches in support of the defense of this country, speeches which more than met the historical circumstances they addressed. It would have been nice if he had anything to do with their composition, but he is not that intelligent, unlike Reagan. One of the differences (besides innate intelligence, of which Reagan had far more), was that Reagan was a man of integrity, and W is not.
The attacks on W are ridiculous and overblown. But that does not mean he is anyone conservatives should admire.
The Bushes disdain Ronald Reagan precisely because he did not come from the moneyed preceincts which give us David Souter and Harriet Meirs. In the Bush's eyes, money equals entitlement equals governance.
W was better than the men he ran against, no doubt. He is just not near anything the man this country needs both in a time of peril and in a time when the moors are coming loose.
I need to avoid same, because my job requires clarity of thought...