[Miss Marple]

Have you read the report? It is obvious the New York Times has and has put their spin on it, which is wrong, if not outright lying. In addition, Drudge and Rush are both depending on the New York Times interpretation, which is WRONG!!

[Dales]

I've read several portions of it, but not the whole thing. I find that it proposes us to do nothing different than we have been doing (good) but it basically stipulates that the "problem" exists (bad) and that human productivity causes or exasperbates the "problem" (bad).

You know me, MM, and you know that I get frustrated at times, but if a good argument can be made for why I should be patient I will gladly accept it. Can you give me a good reason why that should be the position of the administration? That global warming exists and is caused by man? I don't see any credible science to back it, and it needlessly validates the positions of the enviornmental extremists.

If one wants to say this is not a marked shift by the adminstration, I may be convinced but not mollified. I don't really care if this is a shift or not. It shouldn't be our position, regardless of if it is close to what our position has been or not.

[Belial]

It is obvious the New York Times has and has put their spin on it, which is wrong, if not outright lying.

How is Drudge's interpretation wrong?

[fightinJAG]

Yeah, Rush went off half-loaded on this subject, just as he did on the FBI reorganization. Had no clue what the facts were before he started pontificating on how bad/stupid/the-Republic-will-fall the changes were.

It's one thing to read the NYT to Rush's 13M (and falling?) listeners. It's another thing to present it as Gospel, rather than as an interpretation, possibly--no, likely---flawed, of the underlying report.

This knee-jerk whining is getting to me. I am sorry to see so many conservative media (Rush, Drudge, Newsmax, WND) go hyper in the face of falling ratings.

[dawn53]

Drudge and Rush are both depending on the New York Times interpretation, which is WRONG!!

Miss Marple, this is my main complaint about Rush and other conservative radio personalities lately.

They act like what they read in the Washington Post or the NYTimes is gospel when it comes to Bush.

But for years they ridiculed what the NYTimes and Washington Post had to say about Clinton, they put no credence whatsoever in these newspapers.

So why all of a sudden are these newspapers trustworthy, and not guilty of spin?

The way I see it is because it serves their purposes now to use these papers as sources, and I think it is extremely hypocritical.

[Hattie]

And this is the same Rush who has nothing good to say about NYT previously. Now suddenly they are quoted every day and we are supposed to believe it is gospel. And this is the same Rush who used to turn off the seminar callers with their Bush bashing. Now he is excited and agreeing with them. And this is the same Rush who turned the base against Bush 41. Nuf said.