| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Election 2008 Pt. II - Ch-ch-ch-changes Posted by: biliruben - [5610442715] Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 14:20 Old thread. Getting. Too. Heavy. Uuh! Where we at now?  Vs.  AND  Vs. Those GOPS were so hunky. But so was Anakin, I suppose. | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 148 | Perm Dude ID: 3711109 Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 17:03 | That's a really big strawman, Baldwin. With nothing to back it up except your own bias. | ||||||
| 149 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 22:57 | Sure PD. I really wonder if you aren't so blinded by wishful thinking that you actually believe that back when the Republican run congress was threatening to shut down the government over the budget impass, that they were the ones trying to raise the spending. | ||||||
| 150 | Perm Dude ID: 3711109 Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 23:05 |
Still fighting the 90s wars rather than face today's? Already you are an old man, happy to talk about the battles of your youth while content to shut your mind to a world gone past you. Really--your argument, in the end, is "Democrats would do much worse!!" when faced with the reality of helping to elect (and continuing to support) Republicans who have already surpased the very worst of what you claim Democrats would have done. Well, you're done. Without relevance, I might add. Good luck to you. | ||||||
| 151 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 04:36 | When do Dems ever ask for less spending than Republicans, even bad Republicans, even country club republicans, even neocons? When? | ||||||
| 152 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 04:40 | The Republican party certainly is irrelevent until they return to conservative principles. When faced with the choice of big spending Dems or big spending Dems lite, they will prolly pick real Dems. | ||||||
| 153 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 07:48 |
When do Dems ever ask for less spending than Republicans Here Congress amended the law in 1989 to allow for automatic cost of living increases every year unless there is a specific vote to cancel it. This marks the sixth straight year that Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) was defeated in his attempt to seek a separate up-or-down vote on the pay hike, which is an obscure part of the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation/Treasury/HUD/Judiciary/District of Columbia. Last year, Rep. Matheson introduced a bipartisan bill (H.R. 4494) that would eliminate the automatic pay increase. | ||||||
| 154 | walk ID: 281501210 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 14:27 | NY Times, David Brooks: Democratic Presidential Issues & Challenges | ||||||
| 155 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 17:25 |
Serious flaws in Brooks' logic. He is assuming that this "peace" we see in Iraq right now was caused by the "surge" and that it is here to stay. Both are wrong. I believe it was Pancho who mentioned in another thread that Al-Sadr had announced a cease-fire that I think ends soon. If all hell breaks loose again, everyone, including all of these non-partisan military officials will once again say, "it's time to go." There has been no real improvement in the effectiveness of the Iraqi national government to govern since the hostilities have lessened. Why should we think that anything would improve if given more time? | ||||||
| 156 | Building 7 ID: 471052128 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 17:36 | With Texas in play, I hope some of the candidates come to my town. I can ask them some questions about 9-11. I'll be the one saying "Don't taze me bro" I doubt you can ask any questions at these events anyways. Maybe I can get into one of those focus groups by pretending to be a liberal or something. We've been bypassed for years down here because Bush always had Texas wrapped up, so no one bothered to come here. Maybe this year. | ||||||
| 157 | Perm Dude ID: 451161213 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 19:19 | CNN already calling VA for Obama | ||||||
| 158 | walk ID: 221481011 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 19:40 | Obaaaaaaaaaaaama! | ||||||
| 159 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:32 |
I really have to insist on an answer to the question, 'What is Obama willing to offer when he reaches across the isle?' While you are at it, name anything concrete you know Obama plans on doing. Just for fun name anything he has accomplished in office. | ||||||
| 160 | Perm Dude ID: 141511220 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:37 |
Obama sweeps all three tonight. Clinton has a substantial lead in Ohio, but momentum is swinging Obama's way there. Clinton has to stop Obama cold in TX & OH (a week later comes MS which will go to Obama). | ||||||
| 161 | Tree ID: 411581219 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:38 |
I really have to insist on an answer to the question, 'What is Obama willing to offer when he reaches across the isle?' you won't even read his stance on the issues. you were linked to them, and couldn't be bothered. While you are at it, name anything concrete you know Obama plans on doing. see above. | ||||||
| 162 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:46 |
I skimmed thru the site but didn't download the PDF. Did you read anything at that site, Tree? Do you know anything about Obama? I don't think my questions are too much to ask of people who are trying to put him in power. | ||||||
| 163 | Perm Dude ID: 141511220 Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 22:53 |
So you believe Obama to be free of details, yet when presented with proposals on his web site you refuse even to look at it because the document is too big? *shakes head* *mutters* You can lead a Baldwin to the truth... | ||||||
| 164 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 00:10 |
You can back him without knowing a thing about him but my reading over his website is insufficient. *shakes head* Perhaps his new slogan should be 'Surprise Us, Barak'. | ||||||
| 165 | Perm Dude ID: 141511220 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 00:16 |
I know plenty about him. I simply refuse to spoonfeed you the information--mostly because when you are led to actual information, you whine about how much there is and refuse to read it. Besides, the information is easily obtainable. I cannot believe, at this point, that it is anything more than a bunch of foot stamping by you. | ||||||
| 166 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 02:19 |
All right Baldwin his positions in cliff note version and because I don't have time to babysit you I'll start with point 1, Ethics reform (Perhaps the biggest problem in Washington as lobbying leads to most problems we have.) Perhaps others will take up other points but this is a start. Also not to be considered an endorsement I am just trying to keep you from whining. âI am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists â and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.â ETHICS and the Lobbyist Problem In Washington...can you say Cheney Haliburton??? Close the Revolving Door Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obamaâs appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests. Increase Transparency Obama will increase transparency so that ordinary Americans can understand their government and trust that their money is well spent. End Wasteful No-Bid Contracts Obama will clean up government contracting and end the abuse of no-bid contracts. THE PROBLEM Lobbyists Write National Policies For example, Vice President Dick Cheneyâs Energy Task Force of oil and gas lobbyists met secretly to develop national energy policy. Secrecy Dominates Government Actions The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the âstate secretsâ privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court. Wasteful Spending is Out of Control The current administration has abused its power by handing out contracts without competition to its politically connected friends and supporters. These abuses cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year. ETHICS BARACK OBAMAâS PLAN Shine Light on Washington Lobbying Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format. Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules: Obama will use the power of the presidency to fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated. Support Campaign Finance Reform: 1) Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. 2) Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingoldâs (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system. Shine the Light on Federal Contracts, Tax Breaks and Earmarks Create a Public âContracts and Influenceâ Database: As president, Obama will create a âcontracts and influenceâ database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them. Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients â or tax earmarks â are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format. End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded. Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obamaâs Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate. Bring Americans Back into their Government Hold 21st Century Fireside Chats: Obama will bring democracy and policy directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies. Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch these debates in person or on the Internet. Release Presidential Records: Obama will nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult. Free the Executive Branch from Special Interest Influence Close the Revolving Door on Former and Future Employers: No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly andsubstantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration. Free Career Officials from the Influence of Politics: Obama will issue an executive order asking all new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution. Reform the Political Appointee Process: FEMA Director Michael Brown was not qualified to head the agency, and the result was a disaster for the people of the Gulf Coast. But in an Obama administration, every official will have to rise to the standard of proven excellence in the agencyâs mission. OBAMAâS RECORD Federal Ethics Reform Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the âgold standardâ for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyistsâ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, âThe final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.â Google for Government Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. Thatâs why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, âIt would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. Itâs a brilliant idea.â Illinois Reform In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations. A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obamaâs campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees. ****************** Sheez after reading this if he gets elected and actually does what he says...his days on earth are numbered...this won't be allowed to happen in America. The lobbyists are our version of Putin's Russia. Especially the war machine. | ||||||
| 167 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 08:03 | Does he get credit for these things even if he doesn't actually make any of this happen? | ||||||
| 168 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 08:56 |
You're more and more like the 5 yr old... Daddy, why is the sky blue? Because of the way light waves get broken up by the atmosphere and the reflected color we see is blue. Why? Because thats how our eyes work. Why? ad nauseum | ||||||
| 169 | Perm Dude ID: 25139138 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 10:43 | Never thought I'd back Al Sharpton over Julian Bond | ||||||
| 170 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 10:55 |
Let's be honest here. This entire line of questioning has nothing to do with Obama's positions on issues, proposals or origins of support. That morphed from the original Boldwin #81, National security will sure be an adventure under president Obama and people with the 'wisdom' of Tree. Someone prove to me Obama's second father wasn't the radical moslem I have heard he was. Please. When this malicious and fallacious statement was challenged, the tactic was to adroitly retreat to a more acceptable #162, Do you know anything about Obama? but the original intent remains. The right wing blogosphere remains full of referencing Obama by his middle name and pointing out that his last name rhymes with Osama. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, I expect this immature perpetuation of fear and ignorance to increase, which will further marginalize the relevance of the far right. Now that Romney, my first choice, has been eliminated due partly to religious discrimination, I find Obama to be the most palatable of the remaining three candidates, though not without reservations. If conservatives wish to remain in play as a viable political entity, they need to drop the B Hussein O foolishness and concentrate on core principles like the size of government and related spending, areas where Obama(and Hillary) is vulnerable. Conservatives need to cease calling proponents of global warming hysterical, while taking hysterical positions like all Muslims want to kill us, necessitating a state of perpetual war, and a fence needs to be built immediately on our Southern border as a solution to our immigration problems. | ||||||
| 171 | walk ID: 221481011 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 10:58 | Agreed, PD. Can't change the rules to suit the outcome. | ||||||
| 172 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 11:37 |
McCain - I will not talk to Iran John McCain declared that as president, he would refuse to talk with Iran as long as that nation continues its nuclear weapons program. In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, McCain said: I think we have to punish Iran to force them to abandon their current course. Asked if he would be willing to talk to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Republican candidate answered: As long as Iran continues to announce its dedication to making the state of Israel extinct and as long as the country continues to pursue the use of nuclear weapons, I will continue to say that is not an acceptable situation. I will work with other democracies in order to find incentives and punishments for the Iranians. Questioned about Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clintons call for the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq as soon as possible, McCain stated: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue. They will not recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions against our ally, Israel, and the entire region I intend to win the war. Uhhh, what war? This is why I could never vote for McCain. He has a completely distorted view of what constitutes dire threats to our security and promotes a continuance, if not expansion, of Bush's failed foreign policy. | ||||||
| 173 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Feb 13, 2008, 13:20 |
Questioned about Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clintons call for the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq as soon as possible, McCain stated: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue. They will not recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions against our ally, Israel, and the entire region I intend to win the war. And that part, constitutes the bitter, bitter pill I would have to swallow in order to vote for McCain. As it stands now, it is beginning to appear as if Obama may indeed pull off the upset and come away wth the Dem nomination. OH-TX are currently key plays in the Dem race and Obama has been making some progress in each. Hopefully, that trend will both, continue and be sufficient. | ||||||
| 174 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 00:15 | Will he get George Soros' undue moneyed influence out of politics? | ||||||
| 175 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 06:29 | They're thinking about The Great Leader right now Boldwin. They're so hypnotized by his speaking ability that they have no will of their own. Perhaps when the Two Minute Hate is over... | ||||||
| 176 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 07:33 | See this thread post#7 for eactly what Obama means to do for campaign finance "reform". | ||||||
| 177 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 08:04 |
#175 Who is "They?" | ||||||
| 178 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 08:12 |
They're so hypnotized by his speaking ability that they have no will of their own. Yes Obama supporters are completely blind to the fact that no one has proven that his stepfather isn't a radical Muslim which makes an Obama presidency a grave national security threat. Don't worry, Boxman, Baldwin sure managed to grab my attention on that one. | ||||||
| 179 | Tree ID: 3533298 Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 08:55 |
Who is "They?" pretty sure he's speaking of GW supporters. there's not much else that can explain his selection in 2000 and his election in 2004. | ||||||
| 180 | Perm Dude ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 09:33 |
Super delegate John Lewis switches from Clinton to Obama This could be an interesting development. I remember when Lewis announced for Clinton, that this was a body blow to Obama. Now, with the switch (advantage + 2 for Obama) this becomes an interesting turn. Andrew Sullivan's take. | ||||||
| 181 | Perm Dude ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 10:22 | Or maybe not | ||||||
| 182 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 12:13 | That Lewis is even contemplating a switch, is good news for Obama. Given that Lewis initially backed Hillary, that he is re-evaluating that position, shows that Obama's campaign is gaining vast amounts of momentum. | ||||||
| 183 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 12:28 |
That Lewis is even contemplating a switch, is good news for Obama Sure it is. What's bad news is that most of the Superdelegates publicly declare their loyalty before even one of their constituents has ever cast a ballot. | ||||||
| 184 | walk ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:25 |
Public Financing So, I am not sure if the request from McCain means that if Obama were the nominee and McCain the nominee, then they both have to use public financing and only public financing, or just use public financing in addition to private financing but abide by the rules that go with public financing. Interesting. And, what about Clinton? | ||||||
| 185 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:30 | Did he really make that commitment? If so, he's not as smart as I thought. | ||||||
| 186 | walk ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:36 | I know, I cannot tell, bili. It seems like McCain says it's very clear that Obama made that commitment. I think maybe at that time, when he was a huge underdog to Hillary, he could very well have played it that way. Now that he's a money machine and slightly ahead, it could potentially be giving away his hudge $ advantage. I dunno. I think either way, he trashes McCain in a landslide. I really do. | ||||||
| 187 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:42 | I hope so. I was much more confident when it was looking like Romney or Huckleberry. | ||||||
| 188 | walk ID: 381351512 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 18:50 | Yeah, I can see how folks would think McCain has more of a chance cos he can sway the indie/moderate votes like he used, but I don't think he will have it both ways -- convincing the base and maintaining moderates. I think Obama will get the mods, all of the young vote, and all of the Dem base. If Obama is the nominee, against McCain, I just see a real big turnout consistent with the primaries and just a wave of a support for a sorta new guard. This is partly based on what I see in the primaries, partly in terms of his turnout at speeches, and the reaction against the last 8 years, mostly not so good. Just a "gut feeling" (Bush pun intended). | ||||||
| 189 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 19:26 |
I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. Hillary is not out of this by a long shot. It would be a big mistake to underestimate her obsession to set up shop in the White House again. There are lots of delegates left in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Given that the majority of superdelegates are a part of the Dem machine that Hillary has courted and nurtured, Obama will need to win at least one of those states and be competitive in the others. His ace in the hole are polls that show him matching up better against McCain, which could sway a lot of those superdelegates his way. But the Clintons are war-tested and not ready to be put out to pasture quite yet. | ||||||
| 190 | Perm Dude ID: 10136157 Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 22:06 |
List of superdelegates and their committments. One thing I didn't realize is that, as of right now, even the superdelagates from Michigan & Florida don't count. I used to know why superdelagates exist (kind of a moderating force? To act in a tie?) but pretty clearly the use of them will change in the Democratic Party in the future. | ||||||
| 191 | walk ID: 381351512 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 10:32 |
Sunday NY Times Opinions: Frank Rich: Obama and Grand Old White Party Kristoff: McCain, World's Worst Panderer Dowd: False Hopes? | ||||||
| 192 | walk ID: 381351512 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 10:42 | I like Kristoff's op cos he's largely complimentary of McCain saying what he does best as a leader is stand behind his principles, in the face of in-party opposition. However, in those instances where he has backtracked, it really looks bad. | ||||||
| 193 | Perm Dude ID: 581331621 Sun, Feb 17, 2008, 18:01 | Obama might pick up a couple more delagates, as New York is recounting some places. Original tallies had zero votes for Obama in some areas, including Harlem. | ||||||
| 194 | Perm Dude ID: 017218 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 14:09 |
NYT story on McCain is tearing up the blogosphere McCain's respose is strong, but has a couple of holes. His original statement didn't take on the allegations head on--seemed like a non-response to be. One of those "strong non-responses" favored by politicians trying to get their bearings (or hiding something): U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today issued the following statement by Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker: "It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election. "Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career." The story reads like there is more there, but the lawyers sliced out a bunch. I have to think, as it, this is either a complete fabrication or there is a lot more there. McCain has gotten off with relatively few Keating Five references this election. Maybe this will bring them back, for good or ill. pd | ||||||
| 195 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 14:43 |
a hit and run smear campaign. I love poorly designed cliches. So, where did the NY Times run after this story? There are still just off Times Square, they haven't gone anywhere. | ||||||
| 196 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 16:40 |
Josh Marshal This is an odd story for a couple reasons. We know that the McCain Camp went to the mattresses to get this story spiked back in December. And some heavy legal muscle was apparently brought to bear. When a story has to go through that much lawyering it often comes out pretty stilted and with some obvious lacunae. And this one definitely qualifies. Reading the Times piece it struck me as a bit of a jumble. The reference to a possible affair is there in the lede. But then most of the piece is a rehash of a lot of older material about McCain's record before getting back to the relationship with Iseman. | ||||||
| 197 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 16:50 |
The New Republic With its Theory The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||