<< THE REVISIONIST HISTORY CHANNEL ~ MAIN ~ MONSTER DUCK ATTACKS FRANCE >>
LAMESTER AUDIENCE SOUGHT
Chicago’s Sun-Times veers left:
The tabloid that shifted toward political conservatism under the brief ownership of Rupert Murdoch more than two decades ago now says that it is “rethinking our stance on several issues, including the most pressing issue facing Americans today: Bush’s war in Iraq."
Air America’s success has changed the media landscape.
"Bush’s war” would have looked a bit silly considering the troops he personally had the power to deploy would have consisted of the White House orderlies from the Navy, the Secret Service, and some lawyers from the Justice Depatment.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2007 07 11 at 11:41 AM • permalinkWe are returning to our liberal, working-class roots, a position that pits us squarely opposite the Chicago Tribune—that Republican, George Bush-touting paper over on moneyed Michigan Avenue,” Reed wrote.
Are you f***** kidding me??? The Tribune all but fellates Barack Obama on a regular basis.
Oh, and good luck looking for “working class liberals.” The working class members of my extended Chicago family are still solid Reagan Republicans.
Posted by Percy Dovetonsils on 2007 07 11 at 02:12 PM • permalinkSo I guess they’re saying that Congressional votes don’t actually mean anything and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Sure, the Congress authorized military force but they didn’t really mean it so it’s “Bush’s war”. (By the way, does that mean it was “Roosevelt’s War” against Hitler?) In other words, unlike anyone else in life, Congress gets free do-overs. Does that mean we don’t have to take any of their other votes seriously either?
I don’t know Paco, us Southerners still refer to the War of Northern Agression as “Lincoln’s War”. Seems we have a history of doing this.
So was Vietnam “Kennedy’s War” or “Johnson’s War” or even “Partially Nixon’s War”?
They should start calling this one “Dubya’s War” or “Bush War II” otherwise folks will start confusing this one with Desert Storm.
Air America’s success? Is Tim redefining the word ‘success’?
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 07 11 at 05:25 PM • permalinkHaving lived in Chicago my whole life, I can assure you that the Sun - Times sucked after Murdoch bought it, it sucked after Black bought it (and looted it, apparently), and no doubt will continue to uphold it’s estimable suckitude well into the future.
Not to mention that its building is an eyesore on a river otherwise banked by absolutely stunning architecture.
If it’s Bush’s war, is it also Bush’s economy?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 07 11 at 09:12 PM • permalinkI subscribed to the Sun-Times for years. I cancelled in October 2004, when it trumpeted Billy Jeff’s return to the campaign with the heading “BILL’S BACK!” in type large enough to be read from across the street. The story, needless to say, all but did a Monica on Clinton. That was the last straw.
The editorial page was mildly conservative - that is, it occasionally considered that there might possibly be two sides to some issues, including the war. Well, it looks they’re returning to lockstep liberalism. How novel. How unique. As for the columnists, Mark Steyn is gone, and they’ve kept Jesse Jackson and Andrew Greeley. That pretty much sums it up.
So now we have two ultra-liberal papers, neither of which is worth reading.
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 07 12 at 07:36 AM • permalinkThey’re just trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the White Sox suck worse than the Cubs.
Posted by chunt31854 on 2007 07 12 at 04:05 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Having lived in Chicago my whole life, I can assure you that the Sun - Times sucked after Murdoch bought it, it sucked after Black bought it (and looted it, apparently), and no doubt will continue to uphold it’s estimable suckitude well into the future.