La Craig was originally outed by The White House to distract from the embarrassment of Gonzalez's departure.

--L--I---N--K--> REALITY

La Craig was originally outed by The White House to distract from the embarrassment of Gonzalez's departure

Oh..............alrighty then.

The WH must have used that same right wing media, the one that keeps suppressing a real investigation on how the WTC "really" came down.

Bastards!!!

"But Marvin L. "Doc" Cheatham, president of the NAACP's Baltimore chapter, said the fact that such an incident could occur shows that pervasive racial problems persist in the department." - But it didn't occur. Anything 'could' occur. The 'fact' that child pornography 'could' occur in the firehouse means we have a problem with it? the 'fact' that Martians 'could' invade the firefighters mean we have a problem with it? The only problem is the NAACP in believing that everybody is a racist.

"It really saddens us to hear that evidently things have reached a stage that even an African-American does an injustice to himself and his own people as a result of a negative culture in that department," Cheatham said when asked to respond to the unions. - Don't blame the guy we did it, blame the culture.

Henry Burris, president of the Vulcan Blazers, when informed that the incident was a hoax, said, "I'm extremely upset, as well as hurt. I believed the person who told me [that the incident was legitimate] was telling the truth." - You wanted it to be true to push your view of bigotry.

I am personally tired of the arrogance and hypocrisy of Larry Craig and the congress in general. He was caught in a sting (and we can all argue at length of the propriety of that action), BUT he said he was going to resign, and he should have resigned.

Larry Craig Is it just me or is everyone else getting tired of the 'didn't want to give their names people' who want to point fingers and get a (preferably republican) political figure in trouble types?

Well, then I guess you were relieved that there were four men who were willing to be identified in the Statesman article. Funny you didn't mention those.

Are you serious? Neither the NRO fake reporter story nor Guiliani's shag fund made the weekend recap!?!

Kapow:

"Are you serious? Neither the NRO fake reporter story nor Guiliani's shag fund made the weekend recap!?!"

Bet if you had your own blog you could have noted those two stories... vice attempting to be a pseudo-editor-in-chief of Wizbang.

If it's embarrassing for Republicans, it's not news.

"If it's embarrassing for Republicans, it's not news."

Now see, it's when you offer commentary like this, Mantis, that I am justifed in mostly skimming past your posts these days because of your increasing tendency to be so petty. This is basically a conservative blog intended to promote and discuss conservative issues. Sometimes that means highlighting liberal foibles and inconsistencies in an attempt to compare and contrast the two. There are numerous instances here where conservative politicians and commentators are called out for what they are; hacks, perverts and idiots. So your generalization here is uncalled for and untrue. It was intended for smug self-gratification on your part and serves no purpose otherwise.

Well, not pointing out the NRO fabrications I can see, but how is the Giuliani scandal not a "conservative issue"? Are we not in the runup to the primaries right now, and does that news not affect those?

When Melissa introduced herself she said she would be "doing a daily blogosphere round up." Based on her first few posts it seems that she will be studiously avoiding anything that might be embarrassing to Republicans in that blogosphere roundup (and based on the Craig bit, ignoring any inconvenient details in her commentary).

It's not at all self-gratifying for me to point this out, it's illuminating. But hey, it's ok with me if you guys want to ignore the huge problems with Giuliani as a candidate. It will make him that much easier to defeat if he gets the nomination (and if the Democrats figure out the problems with Clinton, we might just get a decent person in the White House next year. Maybe.).

And btw, my pettiness is not increasing. I've always been this petty. Carry on skimming, and good day. ;)

Sometimes that means highlighting liberal foibles and inconsistencies in an attempt to compare and contrast the two.

You mean like jumping all over the fake TNR reporter, but ignoring the the fake NRO reporter?

My contribution to this blog is simply to do a round up of blogosphere stories. There are times that I work shifts that conflict with my ability to do a little digging around, so you get every other day round ups. I tend to side step the 'big' stories in favor of ones that get overlooked. Though I do put in my two cents on the 'big' ones when I have something to say about them.

That said, I'm not ignoring Guiliani. Everyone else in the blogosphere is covering him. I dont' like repetition especially on blog after blog after blog. Same for the NRO fake reporter. Also, Guiliani is not my favorite candidate. Never has been. Never will be. I like Fred Thompson. If you even look at my personal blog, then you would know that.

I simply find it interesting that Larry Craig suddenly reappears about the time Hillary Clinton starts getting into trouble in her campaign. And also at the same time the democrats are going into showdown mode for funding our troops overseas. Again.

Hilarious how the trolls have infested the blogosphere with that lame talking-point about NRO - deliberately ignoring that in fact, there is nothing equivalent between the TNR and NRO situations.

"It's not at all self-gratifying for me to point this out, it's illuminating."

Your simple statement was also false. But go ahead and avoid addressing that. My point (and you know of what I speak) is that you're implying that if every author (or any author) here doesn't richly condemn a particular republican scandal then they're "avoiding it" because it's "embarrassing".

"But hey, it's ok with me if you guys want to ignore the huge problems with Giuliani as a candidate."

Oh my God! We're ignoring Giuliani!

Conversely, as you merrily trot out your bits of snidery, as above, and don't richly condemn certain liberal actions, your past excuse when called on it was that "it goes without saying".

And you know what? Sometimes that's true, Mantis. Did I retort by claiming you ignored the above links as "news" because it embarrassed you? No. That would be presumptuous of me, wouldn't it?