when the nyt booted modo off the sunday edition, (the only one i purchase to read offline), my thought was good! now i have an excellent reason to totally avoid her column.

i wonder out of all the nyt op-ed columnists, which one is in the most demand, (earns the most from online requests)

thank goodness they kept frank rich on sundays – his column i would pay to read if he wasn’t in the sunday edition.

Once every week or ten days, I’ll log on to lexis/nexis and catch up on the times editorialists. If you don’t have other access (e.g., via university library), you can probably get through via your public library.

i wonder out of all the nyt op-ed columnists, which one is in the most demand, (earns the most from online requests)

thank goodness they kept frank rich on sundays – his column i would pay to read if he wasn’t in the sunday edition.

MD didn’t make anything up. She coaxed something out of someone. David Geffen may have made conflicting statements, that doesn’t mean she made it up. His official statement said he was quoted accurately. I still don’t see the story here.

Sorry, I wasn’t referring specifically to the Geffen quote, but to one I mentioned up thread… about Kerry and Nascar. I could find others… but not right now.

Well… perhaps we will just have to disagree on this. ;0)

OK, kiddo! ;)

I don’t know if you know this, but MD is a columnist. It is her job to write her opinion and make news, not report it. She doesn’t like Hillary, part of the joy of being a columnist is that she gets to express her opinion. I don’t see what the problem is… Ohh except that Hillary had a bad response and looks like an idiot. How is that MD’s fault?

I know she’s an opinion columnist, and therefore entitled to her own opinion. However, she is still not entitled to her own facts. In particular, I object to the quotes she makes up and attributes to serious candidates… quotes that make them look small, although they are not true, and yet follow them throughout the MSM.

But if the president does it anyway, THEN says we need 300,000,000,000 USD for the soldiers to defend themselves with proper equipment, more people may feel inclined to say ‘yes, because our troops need ammunition to fight the enemy defend themselves.

It’s all about framing. I think the only reason we continually fund Iraq, is because Bush is the kind of president that would just keep our armed forces there, whether they have supplies to fight with or not. It could be a bluff. But how far will he go, how many soldiers would he allow sacrificed, before he finally caves?

Basically, I see it that cutting off funding is not necessarily the U.S. leaving. It could afterall be used as a ploy ‘The democrats starved our troops and voted on not stocking their ammunitions or repairing their tanks’ bullshit.

But I have a feeling that I am completely wrong. No one could be capable of this activity. Still the bluff can be used when the time comes.