Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Your Favorite Political Weblogs?

Posted by Cliff on from the internet-style-political-wranglings dept.

worm eater would like to know: "As the mainstream media is coming under closer scrutiny from the 'blogosphere,' and is having to actually respond to these journalists in pajamas, I thought I'd ask Slashdot: what are your favorite political blogs? Lately I've been reading Talking Points Memo, a liberal weblog by Joshua Micah Marshall, and a blog by Andrew Sullivan, a conservative writer. Where do you go when you want to see the mainstream media dissected and poked at?"

101 of 785 comments (clear)

  1. Drudge Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Drudge Report

    1. Re:Drudge Report by Seoulstriker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is the Drudge Report really a blog? I see it more as a "new media" agent who tries to report raw news which major news outlets refuse to report on. Most recently it was Rathergate, but a few years ago it was the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

      --
      I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    2. Re:Drudge Report by casuist99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Beware getting actual "news" from this site - it can point you in the right direction, but Drudge has an agenda (just like nearly ALL other online news sources). Use it as a starting point, but try to verify something with several sources that you consider reputable before accepting something that you read online or at Drudge's website.

    3. Re:Drudge Report by BladesP9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like what? The New York Times? C... BS? No thanks. Drudge more times than not is nothing more than a page of links that lead you directly to these news items. The things that he breaks himself are usually things that the "source that you consider reputable" won't cover.

      As with anything, be critical of what you read, but Drudge has proven himself right more times than the elite media cares to admit.

    4. Re:Drudge Report by carcosa30 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unrelentless?

      You mean he relents?

      Or is this like "Disirregardless?"

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    5. Re:Drudge Report by weez75 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be "fair and balanced" I prefer Rogers Cadenhead's Drudge Retort.

      --
      Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
    6. Re:Drudge Report by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Funny

      That comment was not unmeaningless.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:Drudge Report by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: "He says things which are true but that I do not like."

      --

      I write in my journal
    8. Re:Drudge Report by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Translation: "He says things which are true but that I do not like."

      Actually, no. I don't waste my time with his site anymore. I get my news from outside the US, like a mirror I find it's a very revealing reflection of how others view us as well as exploring news topics commonly overlooked on home ground because we tend to be too fascinated with scandal and innuendo to pay attention to what's really happening. Learn to spot high profile political issues as the sucker bait that they really are.

      I'd rather read the Onion than Drudge.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    9. Re:Drudge Report by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
      Sure, 'cause why be informed when you can be an elitist asshole?

      Mr. Vice President, how you talk!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:Drudge Report by cb8100 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I get my news from outside the US

      But then you're getting your news from a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what's actually going on in the country.

      --
      My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
    11. Re:Drudge Report by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But then you're getting your news from a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what's actually going on in the country.

      Really? If you think that, then you must think that Fox News has no idea what is going on in the Middle East.

    12. Re:Drudge Report by casuist99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My point, then, is to be mindful of the weblog author's agenda. Selective reporting can be insidious and may lead readers to incorrect conclusions.

    13. Re:Drudge Report by jalefkowit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, you mean like that "bimbo eruption" he tried to pin on Kerry back in the primaries that turned out to be such a load of hooey he ended up apologizing to the woman he pointed the finger at?

      Yeah, he's a real Beacon of Truth, all right.

      --

      Read my blog.

    14. Re:Drudge Report by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I get my news from outside the US

      But then you're getting your news from a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what's actually going on in the country.
      You mean like the average citizen? If half of the population was half way educated on politics and the common talking points, politics wouldn't be in the wretched state it's in right now. Can anyone say, with a straight face, that Kerry and Bush are the best this country has to offer? A person is smart, but people are stupid and easily led. The same qualities that make a successful politician are the same qualities that make a successful con artist, or successful actor, or successful sexual predator, or successful salesman. Do any of these descriptions remind you of local, state, or federal representatives past or present? They should. For all the bitching that goes on here, and around the country, we the people deserve what we get. We elect bad leaders into office; their bad decisions are represented by our bad decisions, and we deserve whatever hell they create.

      For all the shit it's going to create, I will say that the American population is to blame for the terrorist attacks. We twice elected Clinton, who while not completely inept concerning terrorists, did make some bad calls. He decided to strike at training camps at the same time he had to sit in front of congress about Lewinsky. Whether or not his decision was based on that timing is still debated today, but nobody will say that hitting Al-Qaeda training camps was a bad decision. We weren't in the position to send in troops, so missiles and bombs were the only plausible action. The really bad decision was to give up when the press criticized him for trying to deflect attention away from the scandal. Again, the people were to blame for electing the man, and again for criticizing his decision to attack.

      Then we elected Bush, (many will still debate the election itself) who completely ignored all terrorist threats before the attacks, like the now famous memo that he received on August 6, 2001 titled Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US. Here is a scan of the original document. Here we are more than 3 years since that memo was written and the WTC attack; Bin Laden is still free, we're stuck in Iraq with the situation getting worse every day, and a whole new generation of Islamic extremists has even more reasons to hate us. We the people, not the president, have ensured that the vicious circle of hate, fear, and violence continues for another generation.

      We bring it all on ourselves as long as we value charisma over substance.
    15. Re:Drudge Report by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Maybe you shouldn't have only pointed the finger at FOX?

      You missed my point. The poster was questioning why certain slashdotters were using non-US media sources as their primary source of information. The poster said that journalists from non-US countries could not understand the US. From which, one could insinuate that we would be better off only listening to US sources for news on the US.

      Therefore, I pointed out that if we could only use US news media to understand US news, then how could we trust the US media to understand the middle east?

      I did only use Fox as an example, but that was because I was playing on the OPs sig on being part of the "right-wing conspiracy". However, I wasn't picking on Fox. I was picking on the OPs idea that only reporters that are from the US could possibly write good and valid articles on the US.

      In other words, you can't just limit your news sources to domestic (US) news sources. There are good journalists from other countries that do a great job of reporting on the news here in the United States. Just like the fact that there are good journalists here in the US that do a great job of reporting from other spots around the world.

    16. Re:Drudge Report by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Informative
      Where do you get this number? I tried to google its source, but couldn't find it. Though I did find a lot of claims that it was "well known".

      There have been a number of different surveys that support his point, although not in the exact terms he stated:

      http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how

      Keep in mind that the Media Research Center is a conservative organization, so they have their own axe to grind. But, this should give you enough references that you can find the data for yourself and decide if their spin is justified.

    17. Re:Drudge Report by Moofie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That presupposes that We the People get to make a meaningful choice of our leaders.

      As long as we are choosing between a Republican and a Democrat for every single office, we do not get such a meaningful choice.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    18. Re:Drudge Report by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well I don't believe that most people outside of the US are in a good position to understand US politics. The coverage the rest of the world get of the presidential candiates (to take an example) is slim.

      I would argue the exact opposite. People outside the U.S. are far more likely to understand the positions of the presidential candidates (to take an example) than are Americans who are only exposed to media from their own country. The BBC, for example, is one of the most credible sources for American politics. The Canadian papers are good too. In the U.S. the press went downhill after they ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now the sole objective of news programming is to make money, and you make money by telling people what they want to hear- and by telling them what you want them to hear so that you can make even more money. You can have it all. You can elect whoever you damn well please with no consequences. No matter how arrogant or incompetent he is, the world will still respect you and your country will still be #1 because you don't have to live with your decisions. People love to hear spin marketed as truth, especially if it avoids challenging their beliefs.

      All the world sees of Bush is his speeches on Iraq or from F/911. They rarely get to see him as a human being while he's compaigning or mingling.

      And irrelevant crap like that should influence your vote because...?

      What he says about Iraq (for example) is exactly the sort of thing any voter would rightfully need to hear. Anything else- like how he mingles as a human being, or hunts, or fishes- is noise. Although it's interesting how Americans have become heavily indoctrinated into thinking that they're electing a fishing buddy here. It's what they're told is important. Do a Google News search for "Kerry" and "wind surfing", and you'll see why a proven incompetent like George W. Bush is still even in the race. The entire press minus CBS is gunning for him, and CBS just handed him a free pass on his festering Guard issue.

      These are the people who think they should have a right to vote in the US elections.

      Americans would make a better electoral decision- and probably vote more in line with their own interests to boot- if each one of them were assigned a random foreigner to tell him how to vote. Americans simply don't know what is going on in their own country.

      I spoke to someone just back from the U.K. today at work. According to him, everyone across the political spectrum- practically without exception- is livid about this election. They believe it will affect their lives in the U.K. almost as much as it will affect Americans. But none of them can cast a vote against Bush. And until the campaign started, they had blithely assumed over there that Bush would surely lose the election because of Iraq.

    19. Re:Drudge Report by weez75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To bash something for being as partisan as yourself is quite a fantastic leap of judgment.

      As a matter of fact I do read the DrudgeReport and it is not unbiased. Few organizations really are unbiased--bias is what reporting is mostly about today. In the case of the DrudgeReport it was fueled primarily by leaks from the conservative movement and as such has right-leaning tendencies. Nothing wrong with that at all--just isn't my taste.

      My biases tend to make the DrudgeRETORT more entertaining and a better read. Your biases may push you toward the REPORT. So be it.

      Now if you want to talk about partisan politics look no further than your own labels. It's this kind of mean-spirited debate that has fueled this most-concerning divide in our country. If you want to really discuss flip-flopping we can talk about our candidates. You say it's indecision while I say I'd rather have someone who can admit when he's wrong and made a mistake. I prefer someone who can listen to arguments and perhaps even change his opinion after a reasonable debate. I do not like a course of action that considers only one point of view and leaves no room for dissent. One candidate would have you think that there is only one answer to every question when we each know there often are many. You boil this quite complicated matter down to simple labels and name-calling. Is this what our national debate has been reduced to?

      --
      Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
    20. Re:Drudge Report by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well I don't believe that most people outside of the US are in a good position to understand US politics.

      That is why the BBC and others have foreign correspondents to report back from the US.

      During Rove's 'mission accomplished' farce on the US Liberty the US media duly reported back the images with the approved Rove spin. The BBC reporters correctly saw the pantomime as more likely to be the embarassing liability it has become rather than the masterstroke the US media reported it as. As I and others predicted at the time the only use made of the pictures of Bush-in-flight-suit has been in anti-Bush attack ads.

      The coverage the rest of the world get of the presidential candiates (to take an example) is slim.

      It is considerably more comprehensive than the coverage you get from the US media. I have yet to see anything from the US media to compare with the coverage of the policy issues by the UK Economist.

      The US media spends its time on memogate and the Smearboat Liars for Bush, if you want to find out about the issues you have no choiuce but the non-US media.

      All the world sees of Bush is his speeches on Iraq or from F/911. They rarely get to see him as a human being while he's compaigning or mingling.

      Why on earth is this relevant coverage? The BBC does not spend very much time showing Tony Blair 'compaigning' or 'mingling'. They do cover campaign speeches by both the candidates. Orchestrated campaign fluff like Bush's loyalty pledge rallys where the secret service forbids the press from interviewing protesters are better ignored by the media altogether.

      The middle-east coverage is a bit different because the US military is actually *IN* the middle east at this very moment. The coverage is syndicated between various international networks.

      The middle east coverage by the US media is always careful to avoid criticism from constituencies such as CAMERA, a pro-Likud outfit that basically insists on biased reporting and organizes letter writing campaigns against any media outlet that criticizes Israel. You get a far less biased account from Israel's own press which is heavily censored by the military.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    21. Re:Drudge Report by Rayonic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I spoke to someone just back from the U.K. today at work. According to him, everyone across the political spectrum- practically without exception- is livid about this election. They believe it will affect their lives in the U.K. almost as much as it will affect Americans. But none of them can cast a vote against Bush.

      Cry me a river, why don't you.

      The very fact of the matter is that people outside the U.S. have little grasp of what America is like -- its politics or its people. All you see of our people is distorted through the lens of Hollywood, and all you see of our politics is distorted through the lens of biased news outlets (especially the spoiled government-funded ones.)

      Your negative views of Bush mostly stem from the excessively negative portrayal he gets.
      --
      [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
    22. Re:Drudge Report by dubl-u · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well I don't believe that most people outside of the US are in a good position to understand US politics.

      Yeah, that's nearly as crazy an idea as some Frenchman writing an enduring classic about American democracy. There's plenty of good foreign-press coverage of the US. A prime example is The Economist.

    23. Re:Drudge Report by ccmay · · Score: 2
      In the U.S. the press went downhill after they ditched the Fairness Doctrine.

      Would you mind explaining how the Fairness Doctrine (or lack thereof) affected newspapers or magazines?

      According to him, everyone across the political spectrum- practically without exception- is livid about this election.

      So? Tough shit.

      In fact, I would submit that he who pisses off the Europeans most is automatically the best choice as President.

      The French in particular can be guaranteed to be found on the wrong side of almost any question of importance, usually due to their own selfish financial interests, and projecting their own craven greed and bad faith onto the U.S. administration. Exhibit A, the Oil-for-Food program, the greatest swindle and humanitarian tragedy of our time.

      Whether bien-pensant American tourists feel at ease in the coffee houses of the Left Bank is something that concerns me not in the least.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
  2. michaelmoore.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A touch of reality

    1. Re:michaelmoore.com by ltwally · · Score: 4, Funny
      Michael Moore claiming to be in touch with reality...

      ...and who said he doesn't have a sense of humour!

      --



      /dev/random
    2. Re:michaelmoore.com by Locky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let the conservative original and funny 'Moore is fat' comments flow!

      They'd be even funnier if the aforementioned link contained Moore's opinion, rather, it is him linking to other news articles hosted by various news agencies.

    3. Re:michaelmoore.com by Chemical+Serenity · · Score: 2, Funny
      I prefer "Rush is a fat, hypocritical junkie who is despoiling a CNN anchorwoman by snorting powered oxycontin off her navel before impotently flailing her with his limp manhood and blaming liberals for his inability to perform."

      The devil is in the details. :D

      --
      "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
  3. Spinsanity - sheds light on the insanity by jhouserizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Spinsanity is a great site for articles that point out all of the spin from both parties.

    They seem to do a pretty good job of showing the foolishness of both sides - which is refreshing, since IMHO both parties suck bad, and I therefore get very annoyed at sights that are focused on making one party or the other look bad, while ignoring their own parties major issues.

    1. Re:Spinsanity - sheds light on the insanity by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Spinsanity is a great site for articles that point out all of the spin from both parties.

      Like I need anyone to point that stuff out anymore. I'm often driving down the road, listening to some guy from some thinktank or shadowy advisory outfit spinning things beyond credibility, to which I'm shouting in the privacy of my pickup cab, "Spin! Spin! Spin that sucker! Spin!" It's often so bad I can't believe anyone actually buys those lines of BS, then I realize that they do and have. It can get a man down.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. My 'Favorites' by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Little Green Footballs
    IMAO
    RWN
    and musn't forget
    Drudge Report.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:My 'Favorites' by Bora+Horza+Gobuchol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a very real problem with Little Green Footballs (LGF) being listed as a "recommended favorite."

      It should be noted that I don't mind partisan blogs - but LGF goes way over the line. Before 9/11, Charles Johnson (the blogger in question) was a road cycling PHP hacker with moderate political views, able to share the occassional joke about Bush and poke fun at both political parties.

      Like many, 9/11 radicalized Charles Johnson - in his case, to hatred and fear of Muslims and a rabid defence of Israel and President Bush. The blog could now accurately described as a hate site. This is a place where:

      • A typical comment in response to Bush's reversal that "the War On Terror" will never be won is: "He's right - it won't be won until every Muslim is dead."
      • The site showcases photographs of "Palestinian Car Swarms" - bloody pictures of crowds surrounding the results of an Israeli missile attack, with taunting captions.
      • Any Muslim involvement in a Western community, from education in schools to the establishment of a mosque, is seen as part of a broader plot to subjugate the West.

      It is my feeling that Mr. Johnson deliberately incites his own community in several ways. First, comments in the blog are not threaded, and cannot be moderated - leaving the most extreme rascist comments on equal footing with every other. (It is important to note that the community rarely attempts to moderate extremist views through discussion or censure - and by failing to do so, condones it.)

      Second, Mr. Johnson will occassionally wade in himself. The most telling occassion, for me, was when he deleted the post of a commentator who suggested that the mother of Rachel Corrie (a Western activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer while blockading the destruction of Palestinain homes) be sent eMails telling her that her daughter was now providing oral sex to Palestians in hell. The mother's eMail address was supplied.

      Charles Johnson deleted the post - but then added that he was sure people could find Mrs. Corrie's eMail address by themselves, with a Google search.

  5. Annenberg FactCheck by linuxwrangler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't know if it qualifies as a "blog" but I regularly check FactCheck: http://www.factcheck.org/

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:Annenberg FactCheck by On+Lawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah I have to agree, Fact Check is pretty good.

      MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.

      Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.

      Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.

      But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.

      But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".

      For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.

  6. Blognarik!! by vanadium4761 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Michael Badnarik, the subject of the recent Q&A session, has his own blog. Check it out: http://www.badnarik.org/blog/

  7. Watching capitalism fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    from the sidelines
    http://oligopolywatch.com/

    there can be only one, then it is the end.

  8. Fafblog! by silvergoose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Definitely the fafblog.

    fafblog.blogspot.com

    Anyone else know of it?

  9. DailyKos by sg3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like DailyKos.

    politics.slashdot.org is rapidly turning into one of my least favorites because I've noticed that the moderation system is running amuck! Never before have I seen such a split in moderations where a single comment can be rated "informative" and "troll" numerous times in the same story. And many moderators with a chip on their shoulder start using "offtopic" and "overrated" to try to protect their own karma during metamoderation. Here's an example of where it happened to me recently. And it's not just the political posts (though I suspect it happens there most often), but in a Star Wars story. I still can't believe this post got called a "troll"! I'm sure many others can come up with their own examples.

    It seems that there may be too many people moderating these days, and little accountability, a single person doesn't have to have an agenda; you can have a group of likeminded people who want to squelch dissenting opinions pummel a relatively decent post down into the noise of hot grits posts.

    DailyKos has a better system where moderations aren't anonymous, so you can see how people are moderating. Then again, if DailyKos had the same traffic as Slashdot, maybe its moderation system would get corrupted too.

    Maybe the ultimate problem is that people don't respect others' views, or they prize too highly the views of people that they may agree with but use bad logic or specious reasoning. It's probably indicative of the growing polarization in our country. As people start migrating to sandboxes where only likeminded people congregate (which blogs, especially political ones, can lead to), they become less tolerant of opinions that challenge their own.

    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    1. Re:DailyKos by carlos_benj · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's probably indicative of the growing polarization in our country.

      Whaddaya mean, "polarization", you liberal twit! This country is full of unity and love and if you don't like it you can just get the heck outta Dodge and go to some terrorist haven like New Zealand or Omaha!

      Oh, wait....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:DailyKos by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I completely agree. There seems to be a number of rather reactionary slashdotters who are perfectly happy to bury a perfectly good post as "Flamebait" or "Troll" because it doesn't fit their perspective.

      And it happens from both directions - I've seen some perfectly rational discussion by some clearly right wing people get buried as Flamebait or Troll for no apparent reason. However, that said, I've noticed that the people who get the shortest end of the stick are Greens and Leftists, especially when they go poking holes in Republican and Libertarian balloons.

      The political spectrum on slashdot runs the gamut, but it has several nodes that are crueler in their moderation than others when criticised, mostly being Libertarian Capitalists and Neocon Republicans. Sometimes a Green gets a feather up his butt about a post, and I'll see something oddly moderated.

      What I have also noticed is that if someone posts "under their name", i.e., not as an Anonymous Coward, and it still has a positive number value but the condition is "Troll" or "Flamebait" it often indicates that the post is neither a Troll or Flamebait, but is simply the victim of some overzealous moderator with an ax to grind. And I don't see how metamoderation fixes that.

      I'll probably get moderated by some thinskinned overzealous moderator as Flamebait or Troll, but I hope not. I think this is a very important discussion that needs to be had.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    3. Re:DailyKos by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No offense, but your other post that you linked to WAS a troll post, and I'll even be glad to analyze why for you ;)

      sentence #1 It is completely ridiculous to suggest that the press has spent more time investigating Bush than they did giving free press to the lying SBVT group.On the other hand, Bush has gotten a free pass for

      a) Using political connections to get in to the National Guard, when he was far from the best candidate to get in
      b) Not fulfilling his duty once he was in there
      c) Lying about his service and claiming he flew with his unit for years

      a) You assume some political connections were used? What were they? Who alleges this? Did Bush himself do anything? Do Bush's FATHER do anything? Who is to blame for this. Unsubstantiated FUD. Troll.

      b) Not fulfilling his duty...who knows, I'll give you that one.

      c) "Lying about his service and claiming he flew with his unit for years" Show me that he didn't fly? Probable troll.

      Official National Guard records, including those released by the White House, contradict Bush's statements. Others in the National Guard corroborate the fact that Bush did not fulfill his duty. To this day, Bush has been incapable of naming a single person who saw him in Alabama when he was supposed to be training there. Bush claims he signed up for a unit up north (Connecticut, I think), but he never showed up to that at all.

      Guess you haven't been watching the news recently when Staudt and others in the guard and of the guard went on TV. Troll.

      The national media ignored Bush's stint with a champaign unit in the National Guard during Vietnam, with small exceptions, during the 2000 campaign. I know many Bush supporters would like to believe otherwise, but it's fact.

      It hink the bigger point is "who cares at all?" and if anyone cares, is there any evidence to prove it? There is not, as the extremely poorly forged documents of this last month show, most recently. That's how fast the liberla media jumped on this story once they thought they had something they could run with--did no basic fact checking (re, Staudt) and couldn't even realize that the documents were CLEARLY forged on MS Word.

      Then I did a search for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and "John Kerry" and "Vietnam" in the past six months. How many hits? 248!

      I'll take this slow for you. How many times did Bush say that he should be president because of his experience in the guard? How many times did Bush campaign on ANYTHING he did in his youth? Never. Quite the contrary, Bush is a man reborn and he was not running on his record of 30 years ago. Kerry on the other hand "Reporting for duty!" (DNC) based his entire campaign on his Vietnam experience and rarely faield to mention Vietnam in his speeches. IT's only natural that he comes under attack for this stance.

      Is Bush's Vietnam record (or lack of it) relevant to today? To some extent, no. The war was more than 30 years ago. But for a president who calls himself the "war president", who insists he was for the Vietnam war, who started an elective war under false pretenses and shifting reasons, and who is dangerously stretching our military resources, it is important to know what that person was doing when it was their time to serve.

      He's a war president because the country went to war, not because he fought in some war 30 years ago. Were Eisenhower or Grant war presidents? No? Roosevelt? Who? Troll. False pretenses? THe pretenses were false only in that the CIA, British intelligence and others dropped the ball. Is there any evidence Bush himself knowingly lied? Troll. And you're absolutely right, it is important to know what did when they were called up to serve--thus the Swift Boat Vets. You can't say it's important and try to suppress them at the same time. Troll yet again.

      Does anyone else find it distasteful when a draft dodger calls into question the medals of a war hero?

      and that is why you were trolling (lies!) ;)

    4. Re:DailyKos by sg3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      > a) You assume some political connections were used? What
      > were they? Who alleges this? Did Bush himself do anything? Do
      > Bush's FATHER do anything? Who is to blame for this.
      > Unsubstantiated FUD. Troll.

      Ben Barnes, then Lt. Governor of Texas, admitted he got Bush into the National Guard:

      > "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas
      > National Guard when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not
      > necessarily proud of that. But I did it.

      Bush was son of a then senator and former ambassador. He served in what many called the "champagne" unit in the Texas National Guard. Bush admitted he had no experience to get him into the guard, and he scored in the bottom 25% on the pilots' test. Bush's records admit this.

      > Guess you haven't been watching the news recently when
      > Staudt and others in the guard and of the guard went on TV.

      > That's how fast the liberla media jumped on this story once
      > they thought they had something they could run with

      The questionable documents have done a lot to muddy the waters, but the fact remains that the crux of the question of Bush's service was not dependent on a single document. I agree that CBS News should have fact-checked better. However, it would be nice if the Bush supporters as charged up in determining the authenticity of a now-shown fraudulent document that lead us to war.

      But that doesn't absolve Bush from not finishing his duty, which has been corroborated in ways apart from the documents. For example, in Bush's records, Bush flew only 22 months of the 53 he owed. Salon has more details on the documents that Bush should have filed but did not when he decided to stop flying:

      --Quote--

      > Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering
      > the Guard, Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training
      > was complete, he owed 53 months of flying.

      > But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.

      > Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to
      > serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he > completed his pilot training.

      > But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two
      > years.

      > In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama.
      > According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to
      > obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new
      > Guard unit in Alabama.

      > But Bush failed to get the authorization.

      > In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in
      > Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an
      > acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.

      > But no such document exists.

      > He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory
      > participation from his unit.

      > But Bush did not.

      > On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the
      > 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in
      > Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit
      > would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was,
      > and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining
      > two years of flight obligation.

      > But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

      > Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by
      > the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he
      > was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a
      > month with his Texas unit in Houston.

      > But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July,
      > August and September. He also failed to request permission
      > to make up those days at the time.

      > According to Air Force regulations,

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  10. correction by ltwally · · Score: 3, Informative

    The link to Andrew Sullivan's site isn't right. It should be www.andrewsullivan.com

    --



    /dev/random
  11. Anyplace... by NoseBag · · Score: 2

    ...Conservative.

    Try going to DrudgeReport and then clicking on any of the columnists - they usually do a good job of ripping the mainstream (i.e. Liberal) media.

    But it doesn't matter - we're all gonna die anyway.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
    1. Re:Anyplace... by Sean80 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I guess the biggest problem I'd have with the drudge report would be the fact that it has been linked so often to the Republican smear machine.

      Don't get me wrong, I've recently seen the light and realized once again that -all- politicians suck after a brief fling with the belief that the Democrats were On My Side. But, Drudge just seems to be out for a slanderous story, and well, it doesn't even have to be true to generate some traffic now does it?

      Of course, this website is not the only one, nor is it a factor of it being right-leaning (Michael Moore anybody?) but there you go.

  12. Tom Tommorow's by Snagle · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.thismodernworld.com/ good bloggage and good cartoons too

  13. Wonkette by ellem · · Score: 3, Funny

    but I really like dick jokes... so maybe it's just me.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  14. Favorite political blogs by Six+Nines · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you've had enough of Drudge and MoveOn, and you're ready for dessert, it's time for http://wonkette.com/!

  15. News Hounds by b3d · · Score: 4, Interesting

    www.newshounds.us
    Their motto is "We watch FOX so you don't have to." They monitor the political slant of FOX News. The people that run this blog are the media monitors from the movie "Outfoxed" by Robert Greenwald.

  16. Buzzmachine.com by Jeff Jarvis by valmont · · Score: 3, Interesting

    BuzzMachine covers many topics from journalism, to every day life, to politics. Jeff started blogging after living through 9/11 first-hand. His political views tend to really be near the center. What I like about his political blogging is that he strives to stay away from the simplistic polarized political rants, and "gotcha" politics that plague so many other blogs i've seen, as well as mainstream media. He recently started spurring very intelligent and useful debate about various specific 2004 election issues. Jeff welcomes disagreement and all forms of thought-provoking debate, which is precisely what he has been yearning for, for years. To me, Jeff Jarvis' blog embodies that the Internet should be all about: less about mudslinging, more about exchange of thoughts. If he ever was to run for President, he'd get my vote.

    --
    Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
  17. Not exactly "favorite", but... by Scareduck · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some names I know from people who enjoy that kind of stuff, and/or things I read because of similar interests:
    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Not exactly "favorite", but... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Daily Kos (liberal, had a quick but unfortunately wrong analysis of the now-thoroughly-discredited Rather memos)

      Never retracted it, either. Which is a damn shame and more than a little ironic, if you think about it. I mean, even CBS has retracted their story now, but Markos Zuniga can't be bothered to retract a full-throated defense of something that turned out to be a massive lie.

      Whatever you do, don't go to Markos' site looking for things that are true.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Not exactly "favorite", but... by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a sort of small correction:

      You say Kos "had a quick but unfortunately wrong analysis of the now-thoroughly-discredited Rather memos."

      This isn't quite accurate. "Fortune" implies some sort of luck was involved. But in actuallity, Kos mounted a furious and quite deliberate defense of something that he passionately believed should have been true. He was sure that anyone who believes anything different from what *he* believes must be a lying scumbag, and that attitude caused him to insist that his version of reality was true, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

      This contrasts with the behavior I saw on most conservative blogs. Even those who doubted the memos seemed to take pains to mention that there was still a dwindling chance they *could* be real. (Of course, they also noted that even if the memos *did* turn out to be real, Rather and CBS still came out of the whole thing looking terrible).

      - Alaska Jack

    3. Re:Not exactly "favorite", but... by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bit about DailyKos is true, aside from the implication that it was Kos himself who posted that, as well as the implication that Hunter, who did post it, was actually wrong.

      He wasn't, because he never said that the documents were genuine; he simply pointed out that the people who were arguing that they were forgeries were, frankly, full of it. In the long run, they may have been right, but their arguments weren't -- their arguments involved a great number of claims about what was and wasn't possible with contemporary machines, and most of those claims were simply wrong.

      It may not seem like a big deal in retrospect, but there's a reason why we tell our students to show their work on word problems.

    4. Re:Not exactly "favorite", but... by n8_f · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You aren't understanding simple points here. 1. No such order was ever given. Therefore 2. it never could have been disobeyed. There exists absolutely no evidence that any such order was given; that was an invention of these memos. Expecting the president to publicly deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up about him is just silly.

      Exactly. You seem to have misunderstood what I meant and read it as an equivalent to "when did you stop beating your wife". I meant that if the order had never been given, and I don't believe any such order was (it would have been redundant; it was already a requirement of pilots), shouldn't Bush have been able to say "that never happened"? I don't expect the president to deny every crazy allegation that gets cooked up, but I also don't expect him to hand them out to everybody in the press core, either. My point was that they knew it wasn't true, but didn't mind helping to further muddy the waters (which is what I think). But that is just speculation. And perhaps based on a false assumption, if you can provide a source for your "press corps policy." That would be new to me.

      Actually, yeah, it is. If you want to be cleared to fly, you have to take a physical. If you aren't going to be required to fly (as Bush wasn't) and you don't want to hang on to your status for some other reason, you just don't take the physical. Common practice.

      Look, just because you say it over and over doesn't make it true. It was a mandatory requirement and if a pilot failed to take it, a commander had to conduct an investigation and either convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward a detailed report up the chain of command. See this document, page 18. If you can actually site a source that is more credible, please do. Also, "common practice" isn't a defense. It may be common practice to cheat on your taxes, but you are still cheating on your taxes.

      He didn't. When Bush requested a transfer to Alabama, he was told that he would be welcome but that due to a surplus of pilots who had rotated back home, there would be no place on the flightline for him. More pilots than aircraft, you see. More pegs than holes. Ergo, he would not be flying in Alabama. Ergo, no need to maintain flight status.

      Here, read this. Bush first tried to transfer to a standby reserve unit, one that wasn't required to meet or train. He had signed up for ready reserve, so this was of course rejected in July (after he had already "transferred" himself to Alabama). He missed his physical in May. Also, although you present the most recent story, Bush has told many over the years.

      In his "autobiography," he doesn't even mention the physical and instead says "I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I had trained in was being replaced by a different fighter."

      Then, it was that he had missed his physical because he was going to get examined by his personal physician.

      Now, it is because Alabama units weren't using the F-102.
      As for the transfer itself, he didn't apply again until September.

      Yet another untruth spread by you for purposes unknown. We have service and pay records indicating that not only did Bush show up for duty in Alabama, he fulfilled all of his requirements for service. In both 1972 and 1973, Bush earned 56 points, more than the required 50 points. You don't get points if you don't show up.

      Whether or not he earned the required 48 points in a year has no bearing on whether or not he missed five months. The payroll records are for the last weekend in October. Look, the facts as released by the Whitehouse are that he missed five months, from the end of May to the end of October. The question is whether he ever showed up in Alabama as the payroll records show or not, because a bunch of ot

  18. Sullivan by zaxios · · Score: 2, Informative

    Andrew Sullivan is a conservative journalist who often writes for TIME. His gay rights stance is also notable (he's a homosexual himself). Here is the correct link to his site.

  19. The Daily Show by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Where do you go when you want to see the mainstream media dissected and poked at?"

    The Daily Show with John Stewart. Its not a blog, its a comedy show on Comedy Central. But it seems to be one of the few places where politicians and the media have their stupid blunders pointed out. Plus its pretty entertaining.

    --
    I welcome our new 99% overlords.
  20. Re:You telling me that... by pjt33 · · Score: 2

    That's right. Not a single person reads it. And if you claim you do I shall ensure that the previous statement stands by defining you not to be a person ;p

  21. Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess it hasn't hit you yet that his Fahrenheit 9/11 movie is textboot propganda. Go look at the definition of propaganda and look at Michael Moore quotes where he adamantly agrees that his films are purposely meant to change the minds of voters. He is a kook that wants to push his "man of the people" image off on the viewing audience. Everything he said has been debunked by independant think tanks and individuals.

    1. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Debunking

      This is a good debunking of the "facts" in F911, even includes links to Moores rebuttle.

  22. Jerry Pournelle by chroma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The mail section of Jerry Pournelle's website is great. He takes on many topics including computers, technology, and education, not just politics. Yes, it's Jerry Pournelle of Byte's Chaos Manor and SF authordom.

    Web site:
    http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/currentm ail.htm l

    --

    Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
    1. Re:Jerry Pournelle by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Seconded. Dr. Pournelle gathers information and does commentary and periodic essays on what is going on in the United States. His Republic versus Empire essays are very insightful and I've pointed many people to them. He is also an excellent example of the classic conservative as opposed to the neo-con religious right that now holds office.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  23. Jesus' General Of Course! by manyoso · · Score: 4, Funny

    No self-respecting, heterosexual, republican male, should go without a visit every couple days to General JC Christian, patriot. The general provides a welcome tonic for all the inner frenchmen leaking out of the mainstream press.

  24. Noam Chomsky by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/ Love Chomksy or hate him, you have to admit he incluences political thought in the US and the world and is therefor worth paying attention to.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  25. "let us think for you" by ChipMonk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Their motto is "We watch FOX so you don't have to."

    The same kind of thinking that just got CBS into deep, deep doodoo.

  26. Re:I like... by Principal+Skinner · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "Convince any Republican" link in the above sig is extremely NSFW and will take control of your browser. Turn off JavaScript or disable popups before clicking!

    I think IHBT.

    --
    one hundred twenty
    is just enough characters
    to write a haiku
  27. My favorite political weblog? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll have to go with "None".

    --
    Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
  28. blogs to read by mycal · · Score: 3, Informative


    http://www.instapundit.com/ - the king of all blogs
    http://andrewsullivan.com/ - gone way down hill but still readable
    http://www.allahpundit.com/ - good mix of political fun
    http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html - guns and fun
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/ - more right slant fun.

    http://www.iraqthemodel.com/ - differnt view inside Iraq
    http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ - more good insight in iraq
    http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ - and again

    http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ - used to be one of the best blogs in Iraq until the man cracked down on him. But MUST READ THE ARCHIVES!

    mycal

  29. Kos, WaMo... by js7a · · Score: 2, Informative
    For those of us who believe that Kerry spins a lot less than the convicted drunk drivers' outright lies, I recommend:

    The Daily Kos (Scoop software)

    The Washington Monthly (Movable Type)

    Chomsky's Turning the Tide (pay to play: ironic? no, he's just to busy to respond to anonymous comments)

    The Washington Note (MT; by a good friend of Josh Marshall)

    Ed Fitzgerald's Unfutz (MT maybe; has the best poll aggregations)

    1. Re:Kos, WaMo... by On+Lawn · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Kos suffered from a case of "Baghdad-Bobia", a rare condition where their shear willingness to believe blinds them to facts that are evident to everyone else. To the Kos, the CBS forged memos were real and still are. During the debate over typesetting, it was enough to show a typewriter with proportional spacing while everyone else was performing technical analysis on different spacing technologies.

      The Washington Monthy seems alright though. Chomsky suffers from being Chomsky. And no one suffers from it more than him ;) His analysis never raises above the complexity of answering the question, "How are we going to pin this on the USA?" And if it doesn't answer that question he ignores it. Which, unfortunately, means he ignores much of what is going on in the world.

    2. Re:Kos, WaMo... by On+Lawn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      such as Hunter, put in a tremendous amount of effort in looking at the documents and, mostly, at the arguments against the documents.

      Indeed. Allow me to quote Hunter in the article you linked to...

      As I have said before, this "Typewriter" series was founded on one simple premise. The right-wing are liars. They have been liars. They will continue to be liars. It is part and parcel of modern "movement" conservatism. And, indeed, they were lying in this case as well, and continue to do so, and will probably continue until the day the Rapture, space aliens, or tainted Big Macs finally come to take them away.


      That "one simple premise", in my book, does not show very rigorous research. I remember Baghdad Bob complaining, when people were questioning him about reports of US Soldiers in Baghdad, how the US were liars. And that is why we should believe him over the pictures of tanks rolling down the Baghdad highway.

      Well I looked further. Poor soul is (just as I said) still stuck on whether or not there was proportional spacing when everyone else is talking about typesetting technologies.

      Well you decide. For all their sophmoric hijinks, here is an article linked to from LGF. Compare that to the Kos article which had the following as the only points of technical merit. You tell me if the Kos article shot down all of the points like it says it does...

      Did proportional type exist back in the dark ages of 1972? Yes.

      Did "Times New Roman" and similar fonts exist? Yes.

      Did superscript "th" characters exist? Yes.

      Could "centering" be accurately achieved on a typewriter? Sigh. Yes.

      Could typists correctly determine where to wrap words so that they would not run over the margins of the page? (What, are you stupid?) Yes.

      And so on, and so on, as each argument was shot down, and new ones arose to assert themselves. That's it. That was the crux of the argument. Then we went from typeface to signatures, to what slang terms were or were not common during the Vietnam era, etc. etc. And still, they were shot down.


      It is a real travesty that this is what you call collecting and analyzing at great length. And this is someone you point to as an intellectual at Kos?
  30. Five I find insightful by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative
    Daily Kos


    Washington Monthly (by Kevin Drum)


    Talking Points Memo (Josh Marshall)


    Atrios


    Matthew Yglesias


    Digby's Blog

  31. My favorites by TTop · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, it's hard to narrow it down to a small list.

    The previously mentioned Talking Points Memo is quite good.

    Also see:

    Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit)
    Altercation (what liberal media?)
    Daily Howler
    Columbia Journalism Review de-spins the media.
    Juan Cole (very insightful Iraq commentary from this professor of history)
    White House Briefing (political round-up)

    1. Re:My favorites by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2, Informative
      Altercation (what liberal media?)
      There's another blog called Oh, That Liberal Media.

      Here are some blogs I like that are often political, but not stupidly partisan, such as:

      In case you haven't heard, BlogLines is a great way to read blogs online.

  32. Split Post Moderations & Ratio of Friends to F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep, the rightwingers/libertarians are real fond of modding down those with leftist viewpoints.

    Is it just my imagination, but with my political awakening triggered by the Iraq war/9-11, etc, it seems to me that the RightWingers are vindictive, spiteful, hypocritical, liars. And I used to be one!

    Here is an interesting project for a leftist/liberal with a good scriptwriting touch: write a script to spider through a bunch of Slashdot posters personal info pages, starting with one obviously Liberal/leftwing poster, and one obviously conservative/rightwing/libertarian poster. Record each of their friends, each of their foes, each of their fans, each of their freaks.

    For example, I have about 17 freaks (people who hate me, denoted me as a foe), 21 fans (people who have denoted me as a friend), about 6 friends (people I like), and about 4 foes (People I do not like).

    When I browse through the personal slashdot info pages of my fans, freaks, friends, etc., I notice something. My friends and fans are liberal--I can see that from their posts. And that is not surprising. I pick them that way, deliberately.

    And my freaks and foes are conservative; I can see that from their posts. Again, not a surprise.

    But here is something interesting: the liberal slashdot posters have fewer FOES than FRIENDS. And the conservative posters have more FOES than friends. And you know what, that is not surprising to me, judging from what I see as a principal characteristic of conservatism in America, in general--it is a meanspirited, hypocritical politics. Most importantly, it makes a DELIBERATE appeal to the worst in people. It asks you to mistrust your fellow citizens. And this is an advancement for man? No, it is not....I am just glad I was finally able to see through the media manipulation that led me to being a conservative in the first place.

    As for the split moderation, YES, I have many such posts: modded both interesting/insightful AND Troll/flamebait. Very bad....But I do not see a lot of work being done on slashcode, so I doubt the problem will be solved.

  33. Some of my picks: by Masker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    All are liberal, of course.

    1. Ugga Bugga has good charts/info compression and researching.
    2. Wonkette for shear entertainment value. She's great, and she has "scooped" the mainstream press, too.
    3. Majority Report Radio has a blog that can be a good news source.
    4. News Hounds, the anti-Fox. "We watch Fox so you don't have to."
    5. Greg Palast has a very informative and well-researched blog.
    6. Salon's War Room '04 is awesome, even if you have to watch a 30-second ad to read the whole thing. Not really a "blog" per-se, but sort of blog flavored...


    I tend not to read conservative blogs because I like my blood-pressure where it is. And, really, I read enough conservative BS when I read the stories that are run in the normal "liberally biased" press. In their zeal to be "balanced", news outlets feel they need to print a bunch of lies & distortions from the right in order to balance anything not from the right.
    --

    ---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    1. Re:Some of my picks: by russellh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try Juan Cole's Informed Comment. His September 11 post was brilliant.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
  34. Andrew Sullivan != Conservative, but here are some by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There was a time when Andrew Sullivan could have conceivably been labeled a conservative, but it's passed. Sullivan's analysis of the war on terror used to be interesting, but since he become a single interest voter over the issue of gay marriage, it's colored the rest of his thinking and writing. These days he's probably best described as an "angry moderate."

    If you really want to read a high-quality conservative blog, here are two from National Review Online:

    • The Corner, a braided-blog with constributions by many of NR's writers, run by Kathryn Jean Lopez, and
    • The Kerry Spot, penned by Jim Geraghty, whichs follows Kerry and his campaign closely, as well as related subjects. (The Kerry Spot was one of the best sites to follow for updates on Rathergate.
    Speaking of Rathergate, a seminal blogsphere watershed that Slashdot has not chosen to feature on its front page, here are some of the key blogs which helped break open the Rathergate story:

    Well, that should get you started. in truth, except for the NR blogs, I was only an occasional readers of the others before the Rathergate story broke, but now I'm much more of a regular reader, much to the detriment of my productivity...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  35. Good Liberal blogs by KaiserSoze · · Score: 2, Informative
    In no particular order:As mentioned in the post itself, Talking Points Memo is also excellent. Sorry I don't have any conservative blogs listed; I don't have a fondness for lies and general evilness.
    --

    "What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris

  36. Instapundit hands down by Syncdata · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instapundit is hands down my go-to political weblog.

    It offers a nice round-up of links from the blogosphere, along with the his own commentary.

    It's run by Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, and social liberal, everything else conservative.

    The beauty of blogs is that Bias is readily apparent, and seldom denied, unlike oh, say, some cats in the mainream media.

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
    1. Re:Instapundit hands down by SQL+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Glenn Reynolds is an editor, not a writer, for the most part. He picks the items he thinks are important or interesting, and posts them, with links for more details. What makes Instapundit worthwhile is not his commentary (such as it is) but the fact that he is very good at filtering out the significant news that the mainstream media has missed.

  37. Neal Boortz.... As he says, don't believe him ... by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

    He always comes out and says it, do not believe a thing on his page or what he says unless you know it to be the truth.

    Boortz is responsible for switching me to the Libertarian platform in most respects. I will even give him credit for my quitting smoking as he pointed out very correctly that it is for losers.

    While I don't care for his show very much his written articles are hard hitting and even fairly accurate at times.

    He leans right but that is a Libertarian trait. We have to be responsible for ourselves first and should not use the Government to exploit others for our own benefit.

    He always posts a good selection of daily stories.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  38. Swingstates. by MoNickels · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really like Swing State Project. Even-handed, even-toned, and factual.

    --

    Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

  39. The short list.... by TardBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read TPM, DailyKos, Political Animal, and Atrios (atrios.blogspot.com)/ Eschaton. Anything else interesting anywhere, you'll find a link from one of these guys. I also read Jesus' General (patriotboy.blogspot.com) and Fafblog (fafblog.blogspot.com) for extreme laughs. I also read Salon and Slate, but any more than that, and I'd have no time left to look for pr0n :), so that's the whole list.

  40. Re:My favorites, more blogs like Juan Cole's blog by sien · · Score: 2, Informative

    Juan Cole's blog is great, as is his friend Laura Rozen's blog War and Piece . Laura Rozen was a journo in the Balkan's in the nineties and has really seen ethnic conflict. She's great on the Middle East and security issues.

  41. belmont club by mre5565 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

    The prose from the moderator is beautifully crafted, informative, and without the sarcasm and cynicism that might turn off would be readers of other conservative blogs. The blog is heavily linked from the other conservative blogs.

    And no, Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative blogger.

  42. No reference to Andrew Sullivan... by TheRealSlimShady · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...is complete without a link to SullyWatch. It keeps an eye on some of the more obvious inconsistencies in Mr Sullivan's writing - of which there are many.

  43. Re:Andrew Sullivan != Conservative, but here are s by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Informative
    There was a time when Andrew Sullivan could have conceivably been labeled a conservative, but it's passed.

    I disagree. Sullivan does focus heavily on gay rights (goshIwonderwhy,) but he's still very much a 'classic' conservative. While gay rights may be his biggest cause, he continues to make a lot of noise over things like fiscal responsibility, smaller government, keeping government out of private spheres, and accountability. He's decidedly gone out of step with Bush's neoconservatism, but frankly, I'd say that Bush is the one who left conservatism--not Sullivan.

    For example, his current front-page articles include:

    • 18 posts about the Iraq war, from a variety of angles
    • 4 posts about gay rights and marriage
    • 4 posts castigating Dan Rather and the forged memos
    • 2 posts regarding unbecoming political conduct in the GOP
    • a smattering of random stuff

    While it's fair to say that he's big on gay rights, it's disingenuous to dismiss him as single-minded and 'no longer conservative'. Andrew Sullivan is decidedly conservative, even if a lot of other conservatives out there would rather not count him among their numbers...

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  44. Note to moderators: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Troll does not mean "I don't agree with this." That comment was neither trolling nor asking for trouble. It was the fairest representation of the truth that I think you can get. All it said was this: DON'T GET ALL YOUR NEWS FROM ONE PLACE, AND DON'T TAKE ANY ONE SOUCE AT IT'S WORD WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.

  45. Eric S. Raymond ... by Etcetera · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... has his own blog. While not restricted only to polictics (few blogs are), he has a lot of insight into worldly things... I'm especially fond of this piece on the Mainstream Media's waning influence in swinging elections:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/#154

    Other blogs worth checking out:
    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
  46. Best Poli-Blogs by Devlin-du-GEnie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Polling: Daily Kos Wonderful poll analysis, great community, lots of smart commenters

    Economics: Brad DeLong He's a PhD economist and a former economic advisor to the Clinton administration

    Social Policy: Body and Soul She blogs the uncomfortable places where others won't go.

    Politics: Atrios The man reads everything. This site is especially good for U.S. politics.

    Snark: Sisyphus Shrugged This woman has it. Her recent posts on Nader are vicious and painfully accurate.

    Satire: Fafblog!!! The world's only source of Fafblog. Do not drink while reading. Your keyboard will thank you.

  47. You're mistaken, Fox DID say the photo was fake by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Perhaps it would be better if you actually knew what you were talking about before posting to Slashdot.

    Meanwhile, numerous Fox figures referred to the second photo as fake. On Feb. 17, Mara Liasson referred to "doctored photographs of John Kerry and Jane Fonda." (She said nearly the same phrase on March 11). On Feb. 24, Alan Colmes spoke of "phonied up pictures of Fonda and Kerry together." On March 10, Carl Cameron referred to "doctored photos of Kerry with Jane Fonda on the Internet." Indeed, Brit Hume explicitly told Fox viewers that the first photo was "fake" in a Feb. 23 broadcast


    Merely repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Fox has said several times the photo was false, as did National Review and several other conservative sources.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  48. Newbies: The major conservative/libertarian blogs by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. Instapundit. Written by a Glenn Reynolds, a libertarian law professor at the University of Tennessee whose expertise is in second amendment issues, technology and communication. Perhaps the most influential and widely read blog.

    2. The Corner. National Review's group weblog. Lots of contributors, who vary widely in tone (after you read it a while you come to recognize who the various authors are, and what points of view they hold). If you're not a conservative, you should check it out -- you won't agree with most of the stuff, but after a while you might learn that the folks on the "other side" aren't a bunch of moronic power-mad nazis: They actually have coherent reasons for believing what they believe, and can ably articulate those views. Understanding their arguments will help you sharpen your own.

    3. The Volokh Conspiracy. A group weblog of libertarian and conservative law professors. The lead conspirator, Eugene Volokh, is a computer programmer-turned UCLA law professor; he is an expert in free speech issues, with some expertise in the second amendment as well. A lot of bloggers could learn from the civil tone of this blog -- i.e., no yelling, taunting or name-calling. Volokh believes writers should try to persuade others, not alienate them with overheated rhetoric.

    Note that Volokh, like Reynolds, is a true libertarian: Conservatives are unlikely to agree with either of them on things like abortion and homosexuality.

    4. Andrew Sullivan. An influential writer for Time, The New Republic and other print outlets. Perhaps the best-known openly gay conservative.

    5. Kausfiles. A moderate-to-conservative Democrat, Mickey Kaus is utterly unsparing (and occasionally downright brutal) in his criticism of liberal excess, fellow democrats and the media. Doesn't write a lot, but is witty and sometimes offers extraordinary insights you won't get anywhere else.

    6. Best of the Web. The Wall Street Journal's blog, written by James Taranto. A once-a-day read, it sums up a lot of current issues from a conservatives' point of view.


    Yes, there are many many many many others. But if the conservative/libertarian blogosphere is like a tree, these are the trunk.

    - Alaska Jack

  49. I wouldn't call them original by Sleetan · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't think that the conservatives 'originated' the Fat comments.

    It wasn't nice then, it isn't nice now. I bet there weren't any liberals complaining about it in '99 though.

  50. Bush acts like recovered alcoholics usually act. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful


    "... Bush is now alarmingly clean and sober..."

    In my opinion, Bush acts exactly like recovered alcoholics usually act: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration.. See points 1 through 13.

    My guess is that you don't recognize the symptoms because you are not an alcoholic and don't know any. I'm not an alcoholic, but I had a friend who is. He taught me a lot, and then I asked numerous other alcoholics.

    There's a saying at AA meetings: "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic". But, of course, not always a problem drinker. A person's personality does not change just because he or she stopped drinking.

  51. Re:Andrew Sullivan != Conservative, but here are s by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative
    To be lying they would have had to have known in advance the documents were forged. They did not. When they came to that realization they admitted as much, which means that they have standards and should be praised for having the courage to admit it. Instead, partisans like yourself seek to rub salt in the wounds in order to serve your own narrow agenda.

    Further, what the documents said was true, even if the documents themsevles were not actually the originals.

  52. Re:Andrew Sullivan != Conservative, but here are s by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because the woman who wrote the real documents stands by them, as does everyone else from that time. No one has contradicted the contents, not even the White House, and if you had watched the 60 Minutes in question you would have known this.

  53. Billmon by ttfkam · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Whiskey Bar is absolutely wonderful. Well written. Great op-ed. Fact checking up the wazoo -- something sorely missing from most blogs. The guy definitely knows what true journalism is. Unfortunately, the site's been silent for the last month.

    Check the archives though. It's worth it. It'll take weeks just to read through it all and each one is as good as the last.

    --

    - I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
  54. Re:The most arrested President and VP in history. by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A fair and even-handed post. But let me add a couple of thoughts.

    1. "For the most part no one wants to know about the exploits of anyone else's penis unless they're scripted and in a porno movie"

    Or they involve a man in a position of power taking advantage of a subordinate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Lewinsky was some sort of naive ingenue. But it is precisely these sort of relationships that were of great concern to a large segment of the feminist establishment -- at least, until one involved a president they liked.

    As a side note, if Clinton had dallied with ML and then just come clean about it, it would have been disgraceful, but he wouldn't have been impeached. It's an important point that seems to be glossed over a lot these days. Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with an intern; he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice and tampering with witnesses. Of those things he was certainly guilty -- he survived the Senate vote not because he was innocent, but simply because Senate Democrats didn't feel it would be good for the party if one of their presidents were removed (and yes, tragically, I'm sure most Senate Republicans would have done the same thing if it had been their man).

    2. No one is suggesting we "pat [Bush] on the back."

    3. There is, of course, a major difference between these two patterns of behavior: Bush stopped, and pretty much reformed his whole life; Clinton never stopped. (Until, of course, he was caught, and even then he denied it and had his surrogates paint Lewinsky as a demented stalker. Just think: If Lewinsky had just washed that blue dress, this would still be the official story, and a lot of people would be energetically defending it and insisting that nutcase Lewinsky made the whole thing up.)

    4. 'He doesn't seem to be a good president but we're just okay with that?"

    To the contrary, you are welcome to think he is the worst president in history, and try to make that case to others. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My point was simply that I believe it was and is a mistake to try to persuade others that Bush is a bad president simply by pointing to what he did or didn't do 30 years ago. It's not that people haven't listened; it's that they HAVE listened, digested the input, and decided it doesn't matter.

    5. "the Republicans are willing to use any point of contention to decry the value of a president ..."

    I don't follow you here. I'm not trying to be snotty -- I really don't understand what you mean.

    6. We agree that the WoD is a pretty stupid use of our resources.

    Cheers,

    - Alaska Jack

  55. Re:The most arrested President and VP in history. by elwinc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I mostly agree. I don't care about Bush's actions in his youth; he's given up booze, and in my mind that's huge.

    BUT. If Bush has lied in the present about his past; if he used his powers as governor of Texas to cover up embarrassing details of his TXANG service and "scrub" his record, Then I do care about it.

    The misleading statements about TXANG aren't big lies Bush has told, but they're lies. And the coverup is a bigger deal. Both the coverup and the lies speak about Bush's character. Since Bush has made his character such an issue in the campaign, the lies and coverup matter.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  56. Re:Newbies: The major conservative/libertarian blo by Jo_2521 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "2. The Corner [nationalreview.com]. National Review's group weblog. Lots of contributors, who vary widely in tone (after you read it a while you come to recognize who the various authors are, and what points of view they hold). If you're not a conservative, you should check it out -- you won't agree with most of the stuff, but after a while you might learn that the folks on the "other side" aren't a bunch of moronic power-mad nazis: They actually have coherent reasons for believing what they believe, and can ably articulate those views. Understanding their arguments will help you sharpen your own."

    I skimped through the page, picking up this gem:
    OR MAYBE IT IS AN INDIAN FIGHT [Jonah Goldberg]

    Last word on this non-debate, from another military guy:

    Jonah,

    From a military point of view, the WoT is an indian fight. And this idiot is a keen example of why the left is incapable of winning it. There is no room for PC on the modern asymmetrical battlefield. Any talk about worrying what the islamicist will think is horse crap (cavalry term). This country is in very real danger and if we do not succeed in ensuring that the war is fought on ground we choose then the fanatics will bring the war to us. I'd rather look for WMDs in Iraq than find them the hard way in the US. These people are savages and we must steel ourselves as a nation if we hope to survive. The time for wishy-washy, touchy-feely hand wringing has long since passed. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. It's war."


    This should convince me of the "other side" not being moronic how? This is fascism, pure and simple.
    Just being interested and morally high-horsed at the moment :): is that the generally accepted level of political speech over in the US?