You know, P.J. O'Rourke and John Hughes wrote a manifesto for South Park Conservatives twenty years before South Park. They called it "The Pants-Down Republicans". Also known as "Republicans Who'd Like to &%$# Jane Fonda".

Why aren't liberals funny?

A more specific (and financially pressing) concern would be: Why isn't Al Franken funny anymore?

Even more urgently: How much "funnier" is Howard Dean going to get, before they have to have him gunned down like Howard Beal in Network?

I should RTFL (Read The Fine Links) but I'll throw in a hit and run comment anyway: There are a whole segment of young folks who are neither South Park conservatives nor MSM consumers - they believe the MSM is a corporate sellout war mongering racist reactionary shillfest. Don't forget them.

lewy14: They aren't funny either. But they are somewhat colorful.

Protecting the privacy of an alleged rape victim even when the accusation turns out to be false.

Protecting an accused rapist even when the accusation turns out to be true if the perp is a Democratic president most journalists voted for.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

Ann Coulter

Hey, Im a soon to be 48 Year old foggy, and I grok the show.

Or does Ann not qualify due to a lack of Penis Jokes? ... oow wait, She writes for the other side dont she.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we must all become tax slaves, trade our cars for bikes, live in earth huts and study Marx and Chomsky and submit to a 80% world population reduction famine, or the planet is doomed, is not that great a material for humor, unless the advocates of the preceeding are the subjects therof.

Look at the great humor targets people made themselves attempting to discredit Anns Books.

And frankly, when I saw the mustard splotched M Moore screaming "Tear it all Down" waving the twin hotdogs ....

There is a reason a Characture of socialist weasel Moore or Kim Jong is funny while A Ted Rauls comic is not.

Perhaps they could hire that Sinead O'Connor to tear up more pictures of the pope.

The left have a history of tearing at the good and the decent, and it isnt funny.

In your haste to segue into your one topic of conversation, Raymond, you missed the best quotes from Coulter's unusually sober (for her) article.

While I'd normally echo Wolff on Michael Moore and say:

"Ann Coulter" (but with lessening enthusiasm — more and more embarrassingly she mistakes herself for a serious commenter).

...if she can back up the following, it's serious commentary and damning as hell:

"When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

When Isikoff had a detailed account of Kathleen Willey's nasty sexual encounter with the president in the Oval Office, backed up with eyewitness and documentary evidence, Newsweek decided not to run it. Again, Matt Drudge got the story."

BTW, these stories are what made Matt Drudge the force he has become, with hundreds of thousands of readers per day. Fogies 0, wisecracking vulgarian 2.

"When Isikoff was the first with detailed reporting on Paula Jones' accusations against a sitting president, Isikoff's then-employer The Washington Post -- which owns Newsweek -- decided not to run it. The American Spectator got the story, followed by the Los Angeles Times.

So apparently it's possible for Michael Isikoff to have a story that actually is true, but for his editors not to run it."

Like I said, if this is true, the questions it raises are seismic.

Coulter has good ones every now and again. Heck, even lousy hitters can bat .200. And her off-the-scale snark (this article is actually very toned-down for her) might go over well with South Park Republican types, which would explain her draw on college campuses (OK, that and male hormones...)

Which may be a weakness in the South Park Conservative profile. Coulter is not the most careful source in the world, and there are lines that shouldn't be crossed without consequences. Throwing some boundaries out the window is an essenial survival skill in a politically correct culture. Throwing them all out the window is neither conservative nor a good idea.

Back up what ?

The story Drudge ran was that was #1 was directly about Newsweek spiking the story, it was Newsweek that had the story.

Wannita Broadrick, the woman that clinton raped while Atty General of arkansas, NBC Held the story untill after the impeachment, then it ran on Primetime, after that day the crickets chirped at the big three networks, not another thing was mentioned, it was if the entire presentation never took place.

Like I said, if this is true, the questions it raises are seismic.

If true ?

Coulter is not the most careful source in the world

Says who ? where is the error ?

Her books are better on the facts than school science textbooks.

It seems to me you accept the FAKE fraud LIE of the conventional wisdom that she is loose with the facts, (FALSE) without having any evidence.

Her detractors are as well supported as the BusHitlers are, in fact the source for both is the same, and deserve the same consideration.

Before you begin the "If True" crap, perhaps a single presentable instance of dishonesty could come first.

[Marshal "Smokin Joe" Katzman: Raymond, this added nothing except a massive digression from the topic - and the 4 posts in a row was excessive. 3 are gone. Your point remains, and I'll answer it.]

Raymond,

I'm not fond of Ann Coulter, and I do not trust her - to a point where I will not cite her as fact without backup. This is a gestalt impression over time, and no, I am not obliged to justify it or spend my time researching links to show you why.

I will say that the article you referenced was a cut above other stuff I've seen from her, with a tighter argument than usual.

Dan Okrent is fearless. I dont think he's gonna be hitting the cocktail circuit in his retirement.

I would contest that they are a tighter argument than usual.

I would also say that it even as a singular example of leftist media being the leftist media, that it examples why we rail agaist the leftist media.

And does it not explain far more, NewWeek whaile used for example isnt the only example, and example the rule rather than the exception.

Which taken in total, might explain Why Ann might not be so over the top after all

Since when is objective reality over the top ?

And that reality being what it is, just might bring with it some heated, but well deserved invective.

What do they say about Ann that they dont say about Fox News for that matter.

And the deleted posts exampled outright media Lies, recent ones caught like the Ken Star interview.

Is Ann even within a galaxy of bald face LIE to that extent ? dowdification of quotes ?

So which deserves your smear, caught red handed leftist media, or Ann who none can find shit against ?

The End of Newsweek:

"The Day America Died" they call this week's cover story in the Japanese edition. The cover? An American flag in a trash can.

For some of us, there's more of Truth in that flag than in the "holy" Koran. Will we riot, and call for the murder of journalists, as so many Muslims around the world allowed themselves to do toward America at Hizb-ut Tahrir-led rallies?

From Grim's hall

And the original Riding Sun post has some updates.

So the same rag trashes america overseas, showing an Arafat style double speak.

So, we are supposed to suspend our value judgments for how many years ?

And is it possible Ann got her belly full, and made her judgment a bit earlier than some of the rest of us?

As you might be able to tell, part of my ethos is, if your right, well then your right, if you want to find fault, point out the error first, otherwise the debate is limited to what might be the proper verdict of the facts.