You're so right! What happened to these people?

Ha-ha!

Agree on "asshat!" Maggie wouldn't lead me astray anyhow! ;)

Awww, welcome to the NYTimes, dear OT. You might find this:

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/clunker-class-war/

More to your liking. I tend to agree that the repubs hate cash 4 clunkers because A.) It's not for the rich, and B.) it's working.

Just an FYI, as far as I know, asshat is a Dijamo creation. We all have to pay her 10¢ every time we use it. Just sayin'.

=D

the Wasington Post--such a sad old uninspired one-dimensional parade of beltway-blind opinion.

God forbid that a major news outlet feature both right and left-oriented commentary. I'm put off by Krauthammer too, but I don't think there's anything wrong with "featuring" him. The Washington Post is Center-Left, always has been.

Shows how far out of touch TPM really is that this post didn't get a negative comment before now.

There's right-oriented commentary and then there's whatever George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer think they're putting out. Will has been knowingly spreading disinformation, particularly on global climate change. And Krauthammer doesn't seem capable of doing anything other than saying no all the time now.

For what it's worth, I went to school with Krauthammer's son back in the late 90s. He seemed like a pretty reasonable man back then. Sure, I disagreed with him on some things, but he was still worth chatting with. He would come to the school and hold debates with a liberal newspaper columnist for us students to watch, and it was always very informative. And back then, he was very critical of neocons. I sometimes wonder if maybe 9/11 put him into a state of perpetual terror.

Mmm. Well, criticizing the Post for the activities of its ed. page is a bit silly. The WSJ editorial page has been a joke for ages, but it is still a great newspaper otherwise.

Forget the newspapers. Use the internet.

It took you this long to get fed up?

I'm surprised you left out the Dana Millbank/Chris Cilizza trainwreck masquerading as "comedy". . .

Hint about the Times: stay away from Alessandra Stanley when she's writing "reviews". Hell, stay away from her altogether.

And these excerpts from the Public Editor's column last Sunday are a bit disquieting:

The short answer is that a television critic with a history of errors wrote hastily and failed to double-check her work, and editors who should have been vigilant were not.

Critic in question was Ms. Stanley, writing an "evaluation" of Walter Cronkite's career. So she's described as having a history of errors. . .which makes this:

On June 19, Alessandra Stanley, a prolific writer much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television, wrote a sum-up of the Cronkite career, to be published after his death.

Stanley said she was writing another article on deadline at the same time and hurriedly produced the appraisal, sending it to her editor with the intention of fact-checking it later. She never did.

a bit perplexing. The "prolific writer" with a well-known history of making stuff up (er, errors) is admired for her intellectual heft? WTF?

So, forewarned, and all.

Totally agree. I was disappointed in the WP during the run up to the Iraq war and their very hawkish stance. Then I lost all faith in it as a responsible news organization during the Bushco years.

Sad to see such a great paper self-destruct. It takes years to build trust and integrity, and they threw it all away to maintain their "beltway insider" contacts. sad.

Don't get to hopeful about the NYT either. They too have been taking a nose dive on integrity.

I do not know what that leaves. I guess TPM and Huffingtonpost.

But damn, I miss poring through my paper in the morning.

I saw Krauthammer's name and I knew the comments here would be delicious and they are.

Wapo is done.

I don't buy the Chicago Tribune anymore because the new vulure owner Zell said Krauthammer was one of his favorite columnists. My family had a subscription to that paper since before I was born in 1956. Not anymore.