Spotted this in my morning fish-wrapper. I now declare the L. A. Times completely & absolutely over. (Those of you who said as much when Jonah Goldberg became a regular columnist were a little early, first because no one could be a worse representative of the forces of Rabid Weaseldom than Jonah, & second because the Times only publishes letters to the editor that refute Goldberg's non-stop buffoonery. I've a suspicion they knew exactly what they were up to, what w/ being liberal tools & all.) But this? It's so over for them.
DUST-UPOh, & just in case you weren't convinced that Mlle. has a very high opinion of herself:
The end of the Clinton-Bush era?
Megan McArdle says the Democrats have moved on from the Clintons, and few Republicans will want to build their futures on the Bush legacy. Ezra Klein's response will appear below shortly.
Obamcainia [sic]My emphasis, & no, she cannot tell the difference between the L. A. & N. Y. cage-liners. At least she used "Ezra's" last name.
10 Jun 2008 03:23 pm
Ezra Klein and I are doing a dialogue this week at the New York Times on the campaign. The first installment, on McCain and Obama, is here.
I will leave this wide open to any co-contributor who wants it. I take no geographic precedence.
P. S.: Alright, just one. Megan says:
This election will see the same old fight: Republicans urging low taxes and Democrats urging more spending...No, dummy, Democrats don't just stand on their stump & say: "More spending! Yay!!" They have specific programs to help people. Programs might involve the spending of money, though there is usually an expected return, say, less poor people, less money wasted on prisons, emergency room health care, blah blah blah. Whereas the Republicans' "low taxes" blather applies only to people who can afford to pay taxes, or corporations that can donate to Republicans in their grand kickback scheme. Are the Republicans, by the way, going to advocate less "defense" spending?