DRUDGE IS GOD.

Oh I can ignore The Drudge.

Any gay man who works to destroy the possibility of equality and justice for gay citizens does not deserve my attention.

I ignore him completely.

He doesn't exist.

Drudge is a liar and a right wing tool. I can and do ignore him.

It only takes the Daily Show with John Stewart a half hour to be more informative than 24 hours of FOX and it is much more intertaining.

L.Sterling,

I'd love it if Fox took a consistently Goldwateresque (AKA mild libertarian) editorial view. Again, though, they actually take a consistently pro-GOP/anti-Dem view, which is not the same thing. In fact, recently it hasn't been remotely close to the same thing.

don't you feel even the tiniest bit of embarrassment that Drudge rules your world, Chris?

does the 'established media' (I hate the use of MSM) have any original thoughts in their collective heads?? or do you all just listen to the guy who is making the most noise and assume he MUST be telling the truth? Other than Dana Priest, the rest of you just like to listen to yourselves talk.

Drudge was around back in '98, when the Washington Pundits all ridiculed Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" statement.

From Drudge directly to CNN and on to Chris Matthews, that's how the conspiracy operated then and operates now.

Washington journalism is a cesspool.

"Whether you love him or hate him, you can't ignore Drudge."

Of course you can't, because he saves you the trouble of actually working, doing the heavy lifting, like making phone calls.

If you know that Drudge is the primary outlet for disseminating "negative information" about "opponents," then isn't a good reason against using Drudge as a news "launching pad"? Why are you shrugging this off when you should be making a major-league fuss? You work for the Washington Post. What's Drudge going to do to you?

You're a lazy idiot, Chris.

"Whether you love him or hate him, you can't ignore Drudge."

Why not?

Drudge trivializes and demeans the whole notion of responsible journalism.

It is not surprising that journalists now rank with (or below) used-car salesmen in the opinion of the general public.

What is surprising is having media outlets like the Washington Post giving sludge like Drudge the time of the day.

Bush always wanted to be a dictator... and Cheney even more so. When I watch Cheney speak, it's like seeing Humphrey Bogard as Captain Queeg... he's clearly out of his mind.

Meuphys: yes, Bush Jr. has an outright disregard for diplomacy. Not surprisingly, it's hard to think of a more ineffective Secretary of State than Condie. So many missed opportunities, so much wasted time. Powell didn't have much more luck but at least he had a presence. Condie seems to have about as much impact as the typical high school class president has on the typical high school administration. All part and parcel of the collision between the neocon, top-down view of the world as an easily malleable object and cold, infinitely cruel, reality.

Why is this the power of Drudge and not the power of You Tube? I saw this on plenty of blogs.

No YouTube, no publicity. No Drudge and it still gets out.

judge, i heard zbigniew brzinski on npr yesterday - he gave foreign policy grades to the past 3 presidents. bush sr. got a b, clinton a c, and the dauphin got an f.

"...firing all 93 U.S. attorneys...."

More like the most politically-biased Administration in US history. Another piece of data supporting the "worst ever" nomination.

"Drudge is used as a news driver by the ... Democratic) campaigns" How often has this happened? My bet is that Drudge would be about as accepting of dirt from a Democratic source as he would a jar of anthrax.

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- The chief White House lawyer floated the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys at the start of President Bush's second term, but the Justice Department objected and eventually recommended the eight dismissals that have generated a political firestorm two years later.'

the queen of incompentent cronies...

Yes, thanks to anon poster. The YouTube video was all over the progressive sites way before Drudge got it... and the bigger sites are far more credible than Drudge could ever hope to be.

But CC and the rest of the DC hacks like him just loooove manly righwing studmuffins like Drudge and Jeff Guckert or Gannon or whatever his gay hooker name is. They just fawn all over them like swoony teenage girls with a crush. .. it's quite nauseating.

News Flash...it wasn't Drudge that discovered and posted the You Tube video of Rudy. He copied if off "liberal" site. The better question is why are so many republicans in love with a total dirt bag like Rudy. He's a legend in his own mind. In NYC, where is best known, they mostly can't stand him.

Now that CC has proven that he's a lazy, rightwing, incompetent and hopeless hack, here's something more weighty -- cartoons about that equally laughable sack of smelly sh*t, ann coulter:

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?topicid=88&image=0

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201299.html

Halliburton Chief's Move to Dubai Evokes Warnings on Hill

By Steven Mufson and Dana Hedgpeth
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A02

Ever since Erle P. Halliburton established the New Method Oil Well Cementing Co. in Oklahoma in 1919, his name has been associated with American corporate know-how in the oilfield services business.

But over the weekend, the company now known as Halliburton announced that its chief executive, Dave Lesar, would move to a new corporate headquarters in Dubai to focus on business in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia.

The announcement sparked warnings from members of Congress, who suspected that the company once run by Vice President Cheney was trying to trim its tax bill and remove itself from the limelight here, where it has come under fire about the way it obtained and executed government contracts, especially those connected to troubled reconstruction projects in Iraq.

"The CEO of Halliburton has decided to leave this country to move his offices to Dubai because he says it is 'a great business center.' That is a bizarre announcement," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Dorgan, who said he would seek hearings on the move, added: "I want to know, is Halliburton trying to run away from bad publicity on their contracts? Are they trying to run away from the obligation to pay U.S. taxes? Or are they trying to set up a corporate presence in Dubai so that they can avoid the restrictions that currently exist on doing business with prohibited countries like Iran?"

People familiar with investigations carried out by the Pentagon and special Iraq inspectors general said there were many aspects of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq that have not yet come under full scrutiny. With Democrats in control of Congress, further hearings on those contracts are likely. Last year, Halliburton received $6.1 billion of Defense Department contracts, the sixth-largest total of any company. In 2005, it received $5.8 billion.

Halliburton announced last month that it would spin off its 81 percent stake in KBR, its subsidiary that received more than 90 percent of its Pentagon contracts in 2006. Securities analysts said the move would aid Halliburton's stock price, which has languished at lower price-to-earnings ratios than other oilfield services companies.

"This is what informs the MSM and Democrat bias against the FOX network, Drudge, et al."

Wrong. Fox News admits that they are biased in favor of Republicans and against Democrats. (Or at least it's an open secret, known to most people that watch the network, and winked about by Fox News executives.) That's why Democrats don't like Fox News: Because Fox News broadcasts false stories against the Democrats. It's just that simple.

Don't compare YouTube to Drudge, either. YouTube posts videos. While it's possible to falsify a video, I've never heard of anyone doing that. And YouTube might even take down a slanderous false video. Drudge is the one that posts made-up stories without checking the facts or posting later corrections. Why do you think it's okay for a supposed news source to do that?

L. Sterling: I suspect you agree that "conservatism" as it exists today is actually conservative in the same sense that Faux News is unbiased: when it suits them. Both groups turn their raison d'etre on and off like a light bulb, rather than being truly motivated by it.

William: As to your original question; explain how left-wing media/outlook thinks.
In the 60s and early 70s, the Conventional Wisdom in the Universities was that "progressive" government largesse would evolve to support and accomodate every societal flaw, ala Eugene Debs. This is the context in and through which the now Democrat and MSM leadership was educated. With the emergence of Goldwater Republicansism, this leadership could not believe, (and still can't deal with)a competitive non-liberal/progressive frame of reference known as "conservatism" that doesn't "see" their logical governmental support and accomodation of every quirk in a messy democratic society. They can't imagine how anybody educated in the US, could develop another frame of reference or point of view. This is what informs the MSM and Democrat bias against the FOX network, Drudge, et al. I like Drudge. When he prints garbage, it is because the "medium" of blog/internet doesn't leave time to verify prior to posting. Source verification is a PRINT medium value that is lost in the instant of YOutube/Drudge, etc. Get used to it. By the time it's verified it's OVER, as a news event. I think Drudge serves a valuable purpose no matter what his bias or "leaning". (I also happen to like Zook, even though he's off the wall, and Drindl even though she's NUTS)

"Fox journalism" is an oxymoron.

Here's your GOP candidate, people. Here's your guy... the 'conservative' who think taxpayers should foot the bill for poor women's abortions. Doesn't that make you froth at the mouth? Doesn't that make you roll on the floor and thrash and moan and puke all over yourselves? Oh, I forgot... that's how you always act.

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the clear front-runner in the crowded GOP presidential field and has a substantial lead on the closest competition, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

Giuliani is the preferred candidate for 34 percent of likely Republican voters, according to the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corp.

Giuliani has a double-digit lead over his nearest rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is the choice candidate for 18 percent of potential Republican voters, according to the poll, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent.'

Laugh till you weep. There's an epidemic of food poisoning, but the joke that this 'government' is thinks if you just ask global corporation nicely to stop poisoning people, they will be good little boys and girls and behave. Why don't we just ask serial killers and theives and rapists to act nice, too? Why don't we all leave the keys in our cars and our doors unlocked? Because surely no one will hurt us...

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has new rules for preventing food poisoning in fresh-cut produce, but companies don't have to follow them.

Fruit and vegetable-related outbreaks of food poisoning are on the rise and in recent months have struck in spinach, tomatoes, lettuce and cantaloupes.

In the new, voluntary rules, announced Monday by the Food and Drug Administration, fruit and vegetable processors are urged to adopt food safety plans similar to those in the meat industry.'

Nearly a third of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who received care from Veterans Affairs between 2001 and 2005 were diagnosed with mental health or psychosocial ills, a new study concludes. Of nearly 104,000 veterans studied, more than half (56 percent) were diagnosed with two or more disorders.

Speaking of videos; here is Sen. Fred Thompson, in November 2006, speaking on the war, how his running for president "doesn't make sense," that if he was interested he would have started 2 years ago, that he supports the increase in troop buildup in Iraq and that he doesn't miss what he sees in politics one bit. Very interesting.

http://www.interfacemediagroup.tv/nathans/shows/Fred_Thompson/ft.html

like it or not drudge matters. Chris could take a stand against it and it wouldn't matter either. get real people.

Boy, is Zouk the last of the bigtime Kool-Aid drinkers or what? Our illegal war in Bosnia? You mean the halting of ethnic cleansing without losing a single soldier in combat? That war?

Yeah, that contrasts nicely with Bush getting close to 3300 Americans killed in Iraq, another 50,000 wounded with more traumatic brain injuries than ever seen in a war before.

An estimated 100,000 innocent Iraq civilians killed, with another 2 million having fled the country and turned into refugees.

Only Bush could make the Iraqis look back on Sadaam's rule as "the good old days".

Yeah, Bosnia and Iraq. I can see why you mention them in the same breath, you deranged Bush cultist.

I hate to be one of those off-topic posters, but why no report on Sharpton refusing to give Obama a free ride? Sure, it is Al Sharpton, but Obama has not really made clear what it is he stands for (aside from holding hands and singing Kumbaya). Maybe people really do vote based on issues rather than party affiliation or skin color...

I thought pulling out of the Fox debate was not the best decision on the Democrats' part. The only legitimate reason would be that holding such an event would be, ahah, legitimising Fox as a potentially valid news channel. The actual given reasons were not quite that good.

Ailes' quip was actually pretty funny. The perceived problem with it is the Obama == Osama connection. I personally think that it pretty well illustrated that only a complete idiot would make that connection--in effect disarming malicious attempts later on. Of course I may be egregiously misjudging the degree of stupidity of people.

Topically, the problem with Drudge is the same that bothers Fox: pretending to be 'fair & balanced' while being anything but. I have a huge problem with that, specifically because some people do not have (for whatever reason) the capability or faculties to cross-reference the 'facts' they get from Fox or Drudge. Kos et al. are pretty unabashedly 'liberal.'

Why does Drudge matter? Because it was the first site of its kind and Drudge had good access to some puddle of mud. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy: it is important because everyone thinks it is important and continues building it up.

Hotspur is spot on. I too have noticed how lazy reporters have become and now just sit around and spout what's handed to them.MSM is a joke.

"the traditional news media is - until the advent of fox - more concerned with getting the facts right and serving as a source of information for everyone, left right + in between."

HUH???

Wow, that was a nieve comment.

You actually think the MSM was unbiased before FOX?

The NYT, etc have always been baised, though it seems lately, they are no longer content to simply report events with their own spin on things.

These days, they are actually trying to SHAPE the news instead of report it, by undermining national morale, etc.

That is dishonest, though the readers of the NYT don't care.

Fortunately, the MSM is dying, as more and more people get their news online.

Perhaps this drive by the old liberal MSM to attempt to shape events is just their last gasp of relevancy.

Che, your posts for the Scooter Libby scandal only tells you part of the story. Allow me to introduce the rest.

The Libby case is part of an on-going feud between Lewis Libby and prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald. What do I mean? Well, back in 1983, a financer + CEO of Marc Rich & Company International was indicted for tax evasion by then Reagan appointed US attorney Rudy Guiliani. At this time, Fitzgerald worked in NY as a prosecuter and ended up handling this case to a large degree. Lewis Libby, however, was also an attorney that defended Mr. Rich against the government...I know what your all thinking, Dick Cheney's chief of staff would defend a tax evader...no way! haha. Had to throw that in. Okay, back to the point. Rich fled the USA and went to Switzerland. The US, and Fitzgerald, fought to have him expidided back to the US. Since Switzerland is neutral, this never happened. This case went on for years, until President Clinton gave Mark Rich a Presidential pardon. Since that time, Fitzgerald has hated Libby and Libby has always hated Fitzgerald. What's ironic about this case is that Bush actually appointed Fitzgerald as a US attorney. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! But why do you think Rove, Cheney and the rest of folks who could have been charged were let off the hook by Fitzgerald, and Libby was the guy charged? All of the accussed had conflicting stories to the FBI, prosecutors, ect. Libby was the only one charged. Bush appointed Fitzgerald. This wasn't a political battle, this is a personal one-on-one battle between Libby and Fitzgerald. This will be pushed much futhur than it already has been. If Libby can't appeal anymore and is found guilty in the end then he, just like Mark Rich, will receive a Presidential pardon. If that happens, Fitzgerald will have to be talked down off the roof.

the traditional news media is - until the advent of fox - more concerned with getting the facts right and serving as a source of information for everyone, left right + in between. whether or not you see their interpretation of these as 'liberal' is beside the point - as someone else mentioned, many liberals feel that bush got off too easily for too long on these same stations.

fox news, on the other hand, is unapologetic about their partisan slant and advocacy of g.o.p. candidates / issues / plans. an unbiased side-by-side interpretation of traditional and fox coverage of any story will find that fox simplifies its reporting and often glosses over details in pursuit of an emotional connection, often accompanied by flashy graphics, while the traditional media (while by no means always clear on what they are saying) generally reports both sides.

William: Of course you are no moron. The thing you have been lacking is "common sense", and by information you have gained from us common folk, you are slowly but surely gaining this most important aspect that helps in the [your] thinking process.

My children all smell like old cheese, and they are all dumber than red brick. But at least they are not Libs!

Hey - does anybody out there want to play army with me? I will tell my wife to bring us some cheezits and warm soda.

I have three breasts.

I was watching O'Reilly the other day and eating spam when all of a sudden it hit me... I hadn't changed my underwear in three weeks!

The so called "liberal media" is a mostly a creation of talk radio entertainers who managed to snag large audiences. They substituted entertaining discussion (read: found ways of making people angry) for intelligent discussion. Whatever bias exists in the MSM (read: Wash. Post, NY Times, ABC, CBS) is a product of the type of people who were attracted to journalism in 50's & 60's. The bulk of what constitutes the right wing media isn't even populated by people who are legitimate journalist. Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are real journalists need a reality transfusion. However htey have managed to sell themselves and their position to large segments of more conservative America that they are in fact conveyors of news instead of the self servering media personalities they actually are. The conservative right has always been adequetly represented by people like William Buckley and George Will. They are now considered passe by the new generation of conservatives who are interested in actually developing an intellectual basis for their opinions. They are now interested in insulting so called liberals and using propaganda techniques. This is the type of media represented by the likes of Ann Coulter and Marc Levin. This isn't true news and this is why this medium is vilified so much. We can only hope they eventually fade away and become the equivalent of news pornography. There is always a market for pornography but it isn't treated like serious literature. Consumed by millions, but not brought into the public spotlight.

What's a Drudge? Never read one, but if Tim Russert thinks he's important, then golly he must be. How else would the right people know what to talk about?

William,

I, for one, would love it if Fox took a consistently conservative editorial view. Unfortunately, instead they take a consistently pro-GOP/anti-Dems slant, and those are not the same thing.

Will and KOZ, you're right, we should have a fox news run debate for the democrats in Nevada. Just like we should a republican debate in new hampshire hosted by dailykos and MoveOn. What do you say? No?

I'm not surprised to see all the wingnuts on the board repeating their tired old "biased MSM" line. The fact that the truth is not always on the side of the republican party is not a bias. Why do you think the left constantly talks about the MSM as corporation dominated, right-slanting news that bends over for the right and relentlessly focuses on negative stories for the democrats in the name of "balance"?

Maybe... just maybe... they're actually in the middle somewhere.

In other words, Drudge matters because you, Chris, and journalists like you are too lazy to do your own fact-finding and reporting, and rely instead on the muck you see on his site while you're sitting around the office eating bagels and websurfing. Can't imagine why your industry is dying.

Zomg, 30000 people watched the video!

Seriously Chris, get a clue. Drudge is old news to everyone outside the washington establishment.

"It's obviously got a pro-Republican bias, but it claims not to. And that's the problem. Even Fox's news coverage is heavily biased, and its viewers admit and enjoy that fact. News outlets should strive towards being neutral; Fox broadcasts pro-Bush propaganda and then smirks about being fair."

And NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC don't have a liberal bias????

The poster who said that people who complain about FOX must have cheered when 4 bullies beat up a single kid in school is SPOT ON!

ALL the other networks, to varying degrees, have a blatant liberal bias, and basically function as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. At the same time, these liberal networks claim to be unbiased. Yet they quite obviously have a STRONG, BLATANT, leftwing bias.

But if there is ONE network that has a conservative bias and sides with the GOP, then that is somehow not OK?

Basically what you are saying is that it is OK for NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS to all have blatant liberal biases, but if ONE network has a conservative bias, that's not OK.

To me, that seems like the height of hypocrisy.

lylepink: That's not progress. Just proof of the Blind Squirrel effect.

I are not a moran.

William: I know I am making progress when you are coming around to my way of thinking. Your [borrowing] use of my much used words "envy and jealous" are getting through to the common sense part of your very good mind.

"Drudge will until reporters start doing a little more homework... and by the way, Hotline broke the story: http://www.solidpolitics.com"

You moron, stop posting under my name.

Drudge will until reporters start doing a little more homework... and by the way, Hotline broke the story: http://www.solidpolitics.com

It is easy to ignore Drudge--I certainly do. And if something actually worth paying attention to happens to start with a leak to Drudge, I am sure I will see it eventually.

By the way, probably the greatest part of the Fox News scam is not the claim they are "balanced", but rather the more subtle claim that they are just the conservative answer to CNN et al. For example, I once saw Fox News advertise that its weekend "business" show, Bulls & Bears, was going to feature a discussion of the question (and I am paraphrasing from memory, but I am sure this is quite close): "Are the Dems Against Stock Market Ownership?"

That isn't a conservative take on business news (which I am fine with--it is business, after all). That is just naked partisanship, and actually has little or nothing to do with being conservative.

Every major media outlet supported the Iraq war. Anti-war voices were totally shut out. Every major media outlet credulously reported the slurs against Gore in 2000 (He said he invented the Internet!) while ignoring Bush's record. Then they all ran with the Swift Boat story without making any effort to debunk it in 2004. And I don't remember any of the networks being as friendly to Clinton as to Bush.

There may be some bias in the news that's reported on the major networks and PBS. After all, nobody's perfect. But Fox News is on another level. Their bias isn't subtle or accidental. It's blatant, intentional, and well-known by Fox viewers.

I wouldn't exactly call NBC a major network anymore. and poor little couric is fading fast. Looks like the Lib worldview is just not selling. Ask Air amerika.
since the Klintons have made lying so mainstream, you would have thought the network news would be more popular. but the shift to fox is a phenomenon that is quite interesting, coouter to the lying trend. Maybe you bloggers should try to explain it instead of simply bashing it. It is a real trend and something to behold.

K of Z!! K of Z!! Back in full force!! How about that last election?? How about this coming election?? Predict baby, predict!! Oh and HOYA SAXA!!!

Someone has to say it. I'll get my umbrella ready for the rain of insults from the left. So, major networks NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS being liberal and pro Democratic Party against one conservative network, FOX, is not a fair fight? You must have all cheered when four bullies were beating up the one kid in grade school. Give us a break and quit whining about FOX. You've got four major networks in your pocket. Isn't that enough?!

if Fox News can't even say the correct name of the political party, why on earth should the Democratic Party have anything to do with a "news" organziation that normally treats them with disdain and contempt?

bob, I meant you, the historical definition of liberal had to do with open minds and accepting new ways of doing things. how the tables have tuned. Libs now won't tolerate dissension or contrary publications and they refuse to try anything new. "Let's surrender again - it worked so well in Vietnam".

I'm a liberal and I love drudge. He tars both sides. So stop making such sweeping generalizations. As for the dems bagging on fox news, this wasn't bipartisan, it was just FOXNEWS, and well, do you want an event hosted by a company who's boss compared one of your candidates to Osama Bin Laden the night before? Yeah, I don't think so either. You can't stop them from distorting statements and taking things maliciously out of context, but that doesn't mean you have to feed them the soundbites either.

when are our soldiers coming home from that illegal war, you know, the one in bosnia?

how very Liberal of you.

And now Haliburton is moving its headquarters to the Mideast. This is 13 years of Bush no-bid contracts starting with Bosnia in 1994. Billions and billions of taxpayers dollars. Wait, the multi-billion dollar Bosnia no-bid contract was from the Clinton administration. Never mind.

How many hits on the YouTube of Bush saying that anyone involved in leaking won't work for him? Why aren't the reporters asking him that at every press opportunity? Liberal press? They're lapdogs. Ignore the Dredged report? Yes! Ignore Fox News? Absolutely!!!

You silly Libs are always getting yourselves in a froth over fox news. are you so afraid of the truth getting out? Are you so nervous about equal time with the long history of Lib "news". so what if they transmit somewhat flavored news. who doesn't? Is your message so weak that it can't stand up to debate? cons have been putting up with this for a long time and still winning most elections. Let the people decide. Or is that what you fear most, that an educated population will vote you and your losers completely into history? how about we do your favorite little thing when confronted with scientific evidence you don't like - take a poll. Oh wait that won't work here, fox news is stomping the life out of all other liberal cable news show combined. resort back to argument number two - Repubs are too stupid to know anything. and they're evil.

Drudge is important? Yeah, on about the same level as what comes out of my dog's butt is important.

I don't mind Rush Limbaugh. His show is conservative infotainment. Sure, I hate everything he says, and I'd rather slam my head into a brick wall than listen to 5 minutes of his show. But if people want to listen to him, I don't have a problem with that. Same with O'Reilly.

Fox News is a different story. Despite what William said, Fox isn't "unashamedly conservative". It's obviously got a pro-Republican bias, but it claims not to. And that's the problem. Even Fox's news coverage is heavily biased, and its viewers admit and enjoy that fact. News outlets should strive towards being neutral; Fox broadcasts pro-Bush propaganda and then smirks about being fair.

Drudge falls somewhere in between. A lot of the "news" stories they promote are just made up. It claims to be news, and that's the problem, just like Fox. Sites like Huffington and Kos are opinion sites; they're more like Limbaugh, and should be judged accordingly.

It's actually quite simple.

When the Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group plays William's silly little game of smearing Obama, under the guise of a joke; then it isn't unreasonable for the Nevada Democrats to say, "Sorry, we're not going to be a party to this."

Remember this comes after Fox's Insight magazine's fabrication of a story on Obama and his education.

Why were Nevada Democrats in bed with Fox to begin with? There are other actually credible news organizations there who could sponsor their debate.

It's difficult for William to understand a lot of things when it comes to facts and Truth.

Criminy, Chris, you're starting to sound like Mark Halperin with your Valentine to Drudge.

It IS possible to ignore Drudge. Millions of sane people do it every day.

And if Drudge's trumpeting of a story results in a mere 30,000 views at YouTube, that's peanuts. George Allen's Macaca video drew 50,000 views per hour.

30,000 views at YouTube is as measley as 30,000 votes on American Idol. The guy's lost his mojo, except for panting Limbaugh-like sycophants and the MSM journalists like Halperin, and now our dear own Cillizza who, inexplicably, give him copy.

'which, unlike Drudge, don't even attempt to abide by journalistic standards of professionalism.'

Drudge abiding by 'journalistic standards' LOL. Oh my god, LOL. How tragically stupid. Making making sh*t up? Is that a 'journaistic standard'?

And the fact that CC and other so-called 'journalists' pay attentiion, and therefore legitimize his drool, foaming and drivel, is the mark of just how low, how gutter cheap, wh*rish and sleazy the MSM has become.

CC-- you just sunk to the bottom of my lowest possible expectations. I keep thinking you DC insiders couldn't sink any lower but you continually prove me wrong.

Get real! Why does Drudge matter? Why does FOX News matter? Both cater to the right wing fanatic crowd, providing pre-digested slants on the "news" so as not to offend the tender opinions of the unwashed who visit them. Neither has anything of value or interest to say to any with brains or thought. So, they "matter" only insofar as an example of what a dangerous bunch of clodhoppers we harbor in this country on the far right.

And what power does Gannon still wield?

"Can someone explain how this train of thought works?????"

There's no explaining it william.

even Juan Williams went after the liberal blogosphere yesterday re: their decision to attack Democrats for attending a debate hosted by Fox News and the Nevada Democratic party, a move that
will earn the NPR correspondent no love from Markos Moulitsas and his acolytes.

Said Williams,

You don't like the kind of broadcasting that FOX does, although it's quite successful and has a legitimate audience, people are listening and being informed on the basis of Fox journalism, and then you say 'we're not going to play ball with them.' To my mind, that is contrary to the principles that should be advocated by anyone who is liberal or progressive, or whatever kind of language they want.

You want open and full fledged, full throated debate, that's what you want. And nobody has said that this wasn't going to be a legitimate debate with real questions that would put candidates in position to offer real answers."

Econ 101: 1) The deficit is down. You're still In the Red.

2) The deficit is down. The Debt is still increasing.

KOZ (if its really you and not and imposter) and others...it would be nice to keep these threads at least relatively on topic.

The treasury deficit, the war in iraq, socialist "uncensored" views, and other widly off topic posts are basically spam. They only detract from the intellectual discourse on the site.

This blog is about the 2008 election, so lets keep these threads on topic, shall we?

Re: Drudge...

It's interesting how liberals looove to hate sites like Drudge, but express no such contempt for sites like Kos and Huffingtonpost, which, unlike Drudge, don't even attempt to abide by journalistic standards of professionalism.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

One minute you are angry the MSM is supposedly promoting Hillary, and you are lauding "alternative media" like blogs, and how they are replacing the MSM.

The next minute, you are complaining about how conservatives have their own online news sites.

How dare they???? The temerity of those conservatives, daring to have their own website!

The people whining about Drudge are just as stupid, brainless and immature as those who whine about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

You are simply jealous and frustrated that Drudge and Fox and Rush are much more popular than say, MSNBC, Kos, and Al Franken.

According to the twisted logic of liberals, conservatives are not entitled to have a news outlet that has a rightwing bias.

Can someone explain how this train of thought works?????

Liberal news media is OK, but conservative news media is not OK???

I honestly don't understand how the liberal mind works.

And unlike MSNBC or CNN, FOX isn't trying to attract liberal viewers. They are unashamedly conservative, but are still wildly successful.

Unlike MSNBC, which has extremely low Neilsen ratings.

The only explanation I can think of for liberal hostility to the conservative media is that liberals are jealous and envious at how popular and successful the right wing media is, without even trying to appeal to liberals.

Meanwhile, liberal media venues like MSNBC are doing poorly, despite trying to appeal to conservatives with programs like Joe Scarborough.

Zouk, that post is inane. We actually had SURPLUSES under Clinton. We didn't have to worry about the level of deficits since they didn't exist. Even more relevant is the debt--China's got so many dollars in the form of debt, they can send our economy crashing in a week if they so choose. Swallow this, Zouk, Bush has racked up more debt than his 42 predecessors COMBINED. How's that for fiscal conservatism?

As for Drudge, he's an interesting character. Everyone in DC knows he's gay, and yet, he continues to support the right wingers (I guess Rudy isn't conservative enough).

I try to get information from a number of different views. Drudge is a prime example of the "Liberal Media" and how the word "Liberal", is attached to anyone, it is in the negative sense. The repubs have Fox News as an unpaid [technical] advocate. I would, or, could not even begin to estimate the cost of a paid political add would be when the time Fox uses to promote the GOP.

A you tube video makes a Drudge posting unusually factual though.

Drudge matters because the MSM makes him matter, and the MSM is diminished because of it.

There's a bit of a when did you stop beating your wife quality to KOZ's post.

When the deficits were high, the Republicans said that deficits didn't matter. Now that the deficits are dropping, they take credit for it.

Drudge is only relevant if the MSM makes it relevant. CC and others could easily take a stand against sleazy politics by not reporting any of Drudge's sh*t.

But in this media world where content and substantive reporting too often takes a backseat to ratings and circulation, we're stuck with Drudgew and his cr*p. If anyone is to blame, it's you, Chris.

King of Zouk,

It's a good thing that we're running a budget deficit of $150 billion every four months? How is that a good thing? So Bush reduced a deficit he created so that it only totals $350 billion a year?

Blame it on Bush!

The deficit for the first five months of the budget year is down sharply from a year ago as the growth in government tax collections continues to outpace growth in spending. The Treasury Department reported that the deficit from October through February totaled $162.2 billion, down 25.5 percent from the same period last year

blame it on bush!

"Watch how Drudge is used as a news driver by the various Republican (and Democratic) campaigns as they seek to disseminate negative information about their opponents throughout the primary process"

And you articulate the exact reason why I will never read the Drudge report. Campaigns should have to own up to going negative everytime they do it.