[fightinJAG]

So what you are saying is if you disagree with the author’s analysis and conclusion, his analysis and conclusion is a cheap shot and throwing dirt.

Can’t it just be a difference of opinion?

All “benign facts” (a sort of LOL term in the world of politics, to be sure) are subject to the whole spectrum of interpretations.

If you disagree with an interpretation, say so. But if the facts are what the facts are, the author has done nothing wrong.

[Deb]

Okay, to be clear...ahem...I "disagree with the interpretation". Its slanted, dishonest, untruthful and written by someone who supports another candidate...who, if someone were to write the same kind of hit piece on them (except Obama), I would take downtown for a beating and hair-pull just as aggressively.

Every writer of every political "analysis" should be made to reveal their candidate at the top of every piece. That would cause them to be a tad more evenhanded, truthful and fair in their examination of the facts.

But then I don't care if Newt was paid to promote an issue he has promoted for years and I don't care if he consulted or lobbied or went on vacation or had a charge account at Tiffany.