I watched it over the weekend and thought it was pretty good, but as of last night I have an even greater fear for our country than HillBillary, and it is called John McCain.

I cannot believe what has happened to our party. We have been overthrown by the 'South of the border' wing. Prepare for 12-20 million new 'amnistied' citizens overnight with unknown millions more to follow, GITMO moving to Kansas with its 'residents' gaining the same rights as those Americans they have slaughtered in the name of Allah, Rush and Laura being forced from the air by the 'fairness doctrine', and taxes spiraling out of control.

Yes, my friends, we have nothing to fear but McCain itself.

Adios Amigos 

I realize Mr. Bozell is going to ride this pony as it is his book promotion, but could he or Mr. Graham hint at what the knights of truth are going to be doing when the rapier slays the dragon queen?

Hillary is very wobbly now and John Edwards getting out of the race means that posts here at Newsbusters is making the cartel change tactics as he was supposed to stay in the race to initiate Al Gore into the convention.
Gore moving public on this Gore TV is a sign the flapper is about to dump that station on the public and skim the profits off the stocks as candidates can not own media.

So what are the boys whetting their edges for as sticking Hillary is going to be about as interesting as poking a bloated tuna here in about 3 months.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

I thought that one of the most intriguing pieces of analysis from Brent and Tim was that in fact, the print media, LAT, NYT, WaPost, etc., often do cover these stories - but that the nightly news was silent.

As mentioned, in fact, the Norman Hsu story was well covered in the LA Times, although it was Brody at the WSJ who really broke the story, but it is not a nationally known story which is attached to Sen. Hillary Clinton. 

In reality, however, the print media generally only reports the news in these cases; they're not out deeply investigating Hillary Clinton's role in the story, and. It appears that the effort here, in fact, is to put it out, let it die, and if and when Hillary gets the nod, we'll never see it again. If Questioned about it, the newspaper will say, "oh we covered that a number of times." And no reporter will be seen on air asking her if if this is yet again more evidence of a re-run of illegal Asian fund raising scams for the Clinton's. 

There are interesting angles here; when and under what circumstances did Norman Hsu receive that official White House leather bomber jacket from Bill Clinton - was it Pres. or Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton that gave it to him? If it were Pres. Clinton, one would wonder if Hsu was in the White House within the same time frame and dozens of times like the convicted and federally sentenced old friends of Bill,  James Riady, Huang, Chung, Trie, etc.

Like the few scattered news stories of the crimes and scandals of the Clinton era,, while not only do they not make the evening network or cable TV news, they disappear later on - from the print media, and from the editorial pages as well. Watergate will always be there, Clinton's buddy James Riady is a goner from the media. They do not become a part of history.

Any good investigative story these days in covering a scandal (or perceived scandal), will often enough revisit historically popular scandals -- in Republican administrations; Savings & Loan, Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc. The Abramoff scandal will join the ranks, I suspect. It can be a current Democrat scandal, or a Republican scandal and the one constant is that during the course of the coverage, old Republican scandals will be brought up. Old Democrat scandals don't hang around. Would a story on a current scandal bring up a mention of the James Raidy in the Norman Hsu story, or any of the scandals that Brent mentioned? Not a chance. Will Republican candidates be confronted with past Republican scandals? Naturally. Will Democrat  candidates be confronted with past Democratic scandals? Of course not, they evaporate into thin air.

Most MSM journalists simply don't care -- that's what it really means; in fact, I actually believe that they either don't remember, or don't know. How could a national journalist not know about James Riady? Perhaps he was just a part of HRC's VRWC.

About a year ago, I was speaking with the national editor of a large west coast newspaper, oh, what the heck - the LA Times - Washington office -- in regards to the wall to wall coverage of the Abramoff story, and queried him on why when the paper links this scandal to past scandals, they seem to always go for Watergate or Iran/Contra, instead of more related and more  recent scandals like Clinton's old friend and frequent visitor to the white house, James Riady.

Here Indonesian Magnate and Clinton Talked Policy and here:  RIADY GUILTY WILL PAY LARGEST FINE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE HISTORY.

He responded with, "Who?" Not like it had not been reported -- just not widely reported and discussed (I doubt that any MSM journalist has ever asked Clinton about it since the sentencing). After much effort in reminding this editor of the story, he finally said, (and I paraphrase a bit), "Oh that. Gary, that was just a part of all of that right wing conspiracy stuff. There was never anything of substance in those allegations." With a little more coaxing, he agreed to dig a little and get back to me.

Still waiting.