Posted by Confession: I have never been much one for conspiracy. Oh, I am sure there must be some that run as deep and wide as anything I could imagine, but for the most part, I am the doubting Thomas.
However, if conspiracies are your thing, The Locust Fork Journal has one that involves Karl Rove, Gov. Bob Riley, a stolen election, rumors of a legislator murdering a lover’s husband, a compromised judge, and more.
After you read it, get back to me on why Governor Siegelman would be expected to concede an election because of photos of a Jackson County Democrat putting up Bob Riley signs at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Oh, and for those following this saga, Glynn already deleted my second response on his web site which I have had to repost. Journalism at its finest.
Will, my prophecy in comment #90 has been fulfilled. Its interesting for a man of his estimable journalistic credentials to have to respond to your initial post by, in part, labeling you as a Riley partisan. Ignoring the validity of that statement, what bearing does it have? Does it in any way lessen his duty to respond to your points? Are his loyal readers that he boasts about so mindless that he has to tell them, “Hey guys, ignore the previous comment. He hasn’t had the kool-aid.”?
Despite my desire to repeat everything I’ve already typed here on his little blog I thought better of giving him the satisfaction of the extra traffic that shifting this discussion to his site would generate. Plus, we would just have to go through the whole, “you’re a racist” (paraphrasing) routine again.
“I was talking about blogs where the comments are the content, which is what this site seems to be.”
First of all, I’m sure that Danny appreciates you continually besmirching his site. Maybe you’re new here, but I urge you to go through the archives. Yes, he posts links to articles daily (from actual reputable news outlets – you should give them a look). But he has “broken” quite a few news worthy nuggets using sources I only wish I had access to.
Furthermore, a highly skilled journalist such as yourself should know that people who read what you write can’t read your mind as well. Go back and read your comment #94. You said absolutely nothing about “blogs where comments are the content.” Maybe that is what you meant, but it isn’t what you typed.
“Sayonara”
How many ways can you say good bye before its true?
Brian, it’s worse than you think. Not only has he deleted my post, but an individual must now register before he is even allowed to comment on any story.
Glynn, for someone who claims to be a progressive, you sure have an interesting way of promoting free speech.
Wow… I’ll respond to a few things…
Thanks for some kind words about the Political Parlor from Brian more than once, ZM in comment 86…
1) Glynne wrote:
I was talking about blogs where the comments are the content, which is what this site seems to be. There’s a digest of news links from Alabama, then people comment on it. There’s no original content here.
“No original content?” Nothing is further from the truth. We broke the news that U.S. Attorney Alice Martin is currently being investigated for perjury. A post on the same day as this one reported on the five GOP candidates for the vacant state Senate seat; you weren’t seeing those names announced anywhere else but we had them. We first reported that Senators Charles Bishop and Zeb Little were separated by security on the floor of the Senate this session. We beat the B’ham News by days on that, and Bishop’s hometown newspaper used our account verbatim. We had the resignation of Renee Culverhouse before anyone. But analysis is more of our thing, for example, the Alabama Line (update on the way, btw) is a consensus of many insiders that you aren’t finding elsewhere.
I could go on and on back in time, but those are some of the more recent examples of original content.
As for “comments are the content, which is what this site seems to be,” I welcome comments. Glynn seems to welcome them also. But I wouldn’t say that at his site or this site that they “are the content.”
2) As for anonymous comments which Glynn does not like… Comments are valuable for their adherence to facts, to truth, and those things are verifiable. If someone puts a real name like “Ron Reynolds” or “Jane Johnson” as a name on a comment, well the reality is that doesn’t mean anything more to most of us than an anonymous comment. Some people are known enough that their names would generate some respect for their comments, but I don’t think many of us fit in that category. So we don’t disparage or praise comments based on who made them, but on the value of their content. Which doesn’t seem all bad.
3) There is an issue of civility. And I sometimes fear that anonymous comments contribute to a decline in the civility of discussion.
And so I encourage everyone to address the content of others’ comments without disparaging other commenters.
* * *
Perhaps there is more to respond to, but that’s what I have for now.
What you have allowed this guy Will to do is commit defamation and libel. I hope you know who he is, because when you get sued and your blog is shut down, you are the one who is going to pay.
That’s the problem with a non-journalist running a blog like this and allowing these kinds of comments without policing it is that you don’t understand what is allowed and what is not. That’s why I deleted his second BS comment and I require a valid e-mail address to post comments on my site.
Y’all feel all smug that you can skewer journalists and lawyers, but you don’t know how to play the game in a responsible way.
So either delete the libelous posts, or YOU will be on the wrong end of the consequences. I already have the entire thread saved and will not hesitate to testify against you in court. And you might warn your commenters that libel is not allowed in any kind of so-called civil discourse that is printed for people to see.
Maybe in the bar you can say these things, but not for publication…
Danny’s site is invaluable to those of us who follow Alabama politics. Danny has broken many original stories here and has done a great service to the people of Alabama by inviting a legislator from each party to make reports about the session that just ended.
I don’t always agree with Danny about what he thinks is important, but it’s his site. I respect that.
As for the anonymous posters, Glynn’s system isn’t any better at determining real people than this one. I could easily think up another name and set up a hotmail or gmail account and register using that name on Glynn’s site. I’d rather facus on the quality of the content anyway than on the person doing the positing. And that brings me back to where we started. I orginally responded to elements in the story that either didn’t match the facts or sounded suspicious. Others did the same. By and large our comments were met with responses that were more personal than substantive. Which is why I’m not going over to Locust Fork and posting comments there. Danny has provided a forum where all comments are welcome, not just the ones he agrees with, and I appreciate that.
Susan
Oh and Danny–let me know where I can contribute to the legal defense fund! LOL!
Glynn, welcome back – again.
I certainly hope that you saved the thread. Your case ought to be rock solid since, in the same thread, you implied that I support executing innocent blacks and proclaimed that all commenters here are illiterate (just to name a couple of your assertions).
“You’ve not successfully challenged any facts or conclusions.”
Well, you changed the text of one of your posts to reflect the $4 million campaign fundraiser Bush held for Riley. Although you didn’t document your change, the fact that you made the change is an admission that your original number was wrong. So, how is it that no one has successfully challenged any of your facts?
“So either delete the libelous posts, or YOU will be on the wrong end of the consequences. I already have the entire thread saved and will not hesitate to testify against you in court. And you might warn your commenters that libel is not allowed in any kind of so-called civil discourse that is printed for people to see.
Maybe in the bar you can say these things, but not for publication…”
I wonder who Glynn is going to get to file the defamation/libel suit? Oh, I know–Dana Jill Simpson!
Danny – 104, I apologize to you for disparaging Glynn by suggesting that he needs medication for his paranoia and grandiose delusions. Events seem to have shown however that I was right to suggest that he is not capable of participating in a reasoned discussion of issues. So, since it is your blog and that’s what you prefer, I’ll stop laughing at him like he’s a monkey at the zoo flinging poo.
Glynn, I’ve seen your website and while I like rivers and birds, IMO if your journalistic skills are the norm, it illustrates why newspapers are tanking. You seem to be a typical leftie in that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you: ‘don’t get it’, ‘don’t care’, or is from ‘Alabama’ and a ‘dumbass’ or a ‘non-journalist’ spouting ‘propaganda’ and ‘partisan spin’.
You appear to censor arguments that challenge your viewpoint (typical) and you don’t respect Danny’s freedom of speech (very typical of the left, especially the fascist left).
People who honestly (BTW, truth is a good defense) depict your actions are accused of ‘defamation and libel’.
You’ve earned any negative damage to your reputation.
Glynn, save the thread again and forward it to US Attorney Alice Martin – your civil rights are being violated… or is she ‘in on it’ too!!!
I’m curious about the fire at Ms. Simpson’s home. I tried to register at Locust Fork, but I couldn’t find a link to register.
You don’t have to register. Just enter a valid e-mail address.
An e-mail address and phone number are also provided on that site, while this site is done totally anonymously. Danny has even tried to hide his identity in the whois directory. From any journalistic perspective at all, that does not inspire trust.
I consider a blog to be nothing more or less than the new printing press. There are many areas of the law yet undefined as regards what I like to refer to as The Web Press. Who knows, maybe we’ll get to define some of this law right here in Alabama blog land, including libel law : )
Randi,
Someone who knows Ms. Simpson also told me a little about the fire. Either the person who told me or Locust Fork is off a bit on the timing, because the person who told me about it thought it happened before anyone knew about Simpson’s surprise affidavit. Could be that the person who told me about it was off on the details though. I tried searching the local paper online, Google, etc… but haven’t found any more info yet.
Glynn,
You wrote:
An e-mail address and phone number are also provided on that site [Locust Fork], while this site is done totally anonymously.
This site also provides for readers like you to reach me by email or phone.
Specifically which comments by Will do you consider to be defamatory and libelous that you would like removed?
Thank you.
I tried to post my question on Locust Fork using my name and email address and it told me I couldn’t post because I wasn’t registered.
Danny, you aren’t going to let this blowhard push you around are you? There is nothing on this discussion board that is actionable.
Randi: If you go to the Locust Fork News page and look under Telescope, the first story linked there was written by Dana Beyerle, the New York Times regional correspondent for the Florence, Tuscaloosa and Gadsden papers. His story today puts a more specific timeline on the fire and he obtained the police report. I was more vague on the timeline, because there is only so much a writer can do under time constraints to lay out all the timelines. It will all come out eventually, but I suspect, not in blog comment windows but in court and the national press.
Danny: Yes, you use a form where people can e-mail you, which is not a bad idea as a way to stop spammers. But I’m still left wondering: Who are you, where are you, what are your credentials?
Even the blogity blogs in New York and D.C. mostly adhere to some standard of accountability. At least you know who the lead author is, that is.
Every time Will accuses Jill Simpson of a crime, bribery, he has committed a libel. She is not yet a public figure according to the law. That may change, if she testifies before the House and Senate judiciary committees. But for now, that’s still the case.
I don’t really care what y’all say about me, since after spending a little time over here and trying to be available to comment on this story, it has become clear that there are people in this parlor who are not interested in good journalism or credible blogging. Only personal, political attacks, and the facts be damned.
People call each other idiots in blog comments all the time. It’s mostly harmless, although I suspect it really does drive a lot of people away who might otherwise be interested at least in reading your blog, if not commenting on it. Most people who read blogs never comment. They are what we “affectionately” refer to as “lurkers.”
I can’t count how many times a few of your more aggressive commenters talked about a “reasonable” discussion, and other words to that effect, but then proceeded to destroy the reasonableness of the discussion with innuendo and misdirection and attack, attack, attack, without really having an understanding of the potential consequences of their words.
This I suspect is a function of people in Alabama being new to blogland. The most recent iteration of this was the e-mail listserv, which to my frustration, has been the mode of communication of choice for Alabama Democrats to date.
So, now that I’ve shown that I can be “reasonable,” perhaps that will wear off on your readers and commenters and your blog can have a long life.
Susan: Exactly what law firm are you with? You act like you know something about the law, to the contrary considering you nutjob partisan posts.
Randi: As I said before, some people have trouble with the Moveable Type software in some Web browsers. Not much I can do about it. I’m not a programmer. You can e-mail me your question and I will post it and answer it.
From a recent lurker. There may well be something to all the smoke and blather. Glynn might be on to some parts of something. BUT…..when a journalist starts slinging threats about suing for libel because he gets roughed up after shouting out folks in their own neighborhood(blog)it gives one pause.
Journalists indeed, as Glynn says, should be more aware of lines that should not be crossed in what one writes about others.
But he just crossed another one by rattling that saber to try to shut down someone else’s speech. (He also knows that he is at a miniumum a limited purpose public figure in this blog comment section debate.)
From the Florence Times Daily that Glynn referenced in his post to Randi above:
“In the beginning of her activism this year, her and her mother’s home burned. The fire, which is still being investigated, may have been caused by an electrical surge, Rainsville Fire Chief Ronnie Helton said.
Simpson said she informed an attorney of the possible Fuller conflict Feb. 15. The house fire was reported Feb. 21.”
From Glynn’s write-up:
“Her house has already been burned down and one of her vehicles has been run off the road and totaled since she decided to seek justice and come out against the Bush and Riley political machines in the case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.”
Are you kidding me? Her affidavit was signed on May 21. She did not ‘come out” until after the affidavit went public. The fire was reported on Feb 21–likely electrical causes. Come on people this strains even the outerlimits of believability.
Everyone should know by now to ignore Susan. She leaves out the part of Dana’s story about her reporting it to a lawyer a week before. Besides, getting caught up in that issue ignores the real crime here. From a lawyer and journalist of national note:
“…the prosecution was corruptly conceived and pursued and that the court proceedings were corrupted, almost from the outset: that is already extremely clear. This is not a prosecution of a political figure for corruption. It is a political vendetta, conceived, developed and pursued for a corrupt purpose. ”
Scott Horton: Justice in Alabama
Scott Horton is apparently taking all his information from your website Glynn because he is either too lazy to do any investigating himself or he is so determined to get Karl Rove on anything he will say or do anything whether it has any relevance to the truth or not.
As for Simpson, telling a lawyer and “coming out against the Bush Riley political machine” imply two different things. Simpson hadn’t gone public yet.
I think everyone should know by now to ignore Glynn. Which is what I plan on doing from now on.
Susan is an Riley supporter who is trying her best to spin us all away from the real facts in this case, and wasting bandwidth as an anonymous nobody with no credibility. I hope you ignore Glynn from now on, because it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about…
I found the reporting over at the Locust Fork News and Journal to be exceptional, going way beyond the ham-handed coverage by the Republican-controlled newspapers in Alabama.
This blog comment thread is so tangled in false non-starters that I doubt any reasonable person trying to get the facts will be able to untangle it. If that is your purpose, so be it.
A blog can be a place to sift through and discuss a news story and perhaps even take the reader beyond the story to other hidden places. But when partisan players just try to shout everyone else down, you lose the value of that.
When anonymous bloggers pretend to know more than journalists or lawyers, any reasonable reader might view that with some skepticism.
“A blog can be a place to sift through and discuss a news story and perhaps even take the reader beyond the story to other hidden places. But when partisan players just try to shout everyone else down, you lose the value of that.
When anonymous bloggers pretend to know more than journalists or lawyers, any reasonable reader might view that with some skepticism.”
Comment by Scott — June 24, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
This is too arrogant for words!
Everybody can read the posts for themselves, Susan. You don’t have to keep copying and pasting everything in there again. It seems to me you are quite arrogant yourself, as is the judge in this case.
Glynn Wilson wrote:
Danny: Yes, you use a form where people can e-mail you, which is not a bad idea as a way to stop spammers. But I’m still left wondering: Who are you, where are you, what are your credentials?
I do not like the spammers. I am a blogger who has built whatever modest reputation I have brick by brick, post by post. The credentials are demonstrated in a year’s (plus) worth of posts that are to be held accountable to the standards of truthfulness and fairness. If you are new to the Parlor, then of course those credentials mean nothing to you, but if you stay with us perhaps they will in time. I don’t know anything else about me that would particularly add to your appreciation of what you would find here.
Scott wrote:
When anonymous bloggers pretend to know more than journalists or lawyers, any reasonable reader might view that with some skepticism.
I tend to agree. If you are referring to me, I don’t know when I have pretended to know more than journalists or lawyers.
Scott also wrote:
This blog comment thread is so tangled in false non-starters that I doubt any reasonable person trying to get the facts will be able to untangle it. If that is your purpose, so be it.
Yep, they’re comments on a blog. They can be helpful, misleading, educational, right on, or totally false. In blog comments, you can find great info and worthless info. I can hardly imagine any “reasonable person trying to get the facts” in comments on a blog, any more than I can imagine them going down to the bar for the same purpose. It can certainly be a good forum for discussion, but hardly the authoritative word.
It might be good at this point for everyone to pull back and consider this quote from, if I’m not mistaken, from Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: “I know you are, but what am I?”
A question for Scott:
In your blog on Harper’s you make the following cliam about Siegelman’s prosecution:
“Prosecutors initially brought the case before a judge in the Northern District of Alabama. He dismissed it with prejudice. The prosecutors then decided to go shopping for a new judge.”
Actually the charges brought in the Northern District were different (these were the charges about fixing a bid on a Medicaid contract for Philip Bobo). So “the case” in the Northern District was different than “the case” in the Middle District.
Also overlooked in your “reporting” is that all of these stories were broken by Mobile Register reporter Eddie Curan long before Riley decided to run for Governor.
Oops, but I’m just a civilian. Who am I to argue the facts with “real” journalists like Glynn and Scott?
That’s irrelevant, Susan, which may be why you don’t get better responses. They went shopping for a new judge on different charges. So?
Eddie Curan broke “A” story, not “all these stories,” and certainly not the one’s we are talking about here and now – because he kissed up to the Justice Department prosecutors and did some of their dirty work for them.
In journalism circles, that’s called “developing sources.” But when a reporter gets too close to his sources, and writes from their point of view to the detriment of other points of view and the truth, that becomes an ethical problem for the reporter. Not that any publisher in this state would care, unless of course he got too close to a Democrat. Then he would be fired for sure.
This is another example of what Scott was reporting on and nailed on the head. Different standards for Republicans and Democrats. Go back to the book review Wilson posted, if you are of a mind to get at some facts, and you will see that this kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It just so happens Bush-Rove are more evil at it than anyone in our history. And Rob and Bob Riley too.
I know it is hard to fathom that the president and governor you voted for are scumbags. But in fact, Ms. Simpson’s courageous stand against these evil forces is what is so inspirational about her story.
If you can’t at least appreciate that just a little bit, then I would never want to meet you, because you are just an unreasonably partian person who cares only about defending a lying politician and nothing about truth or justice.
Hey Susan: If you are an Alabama woman like me, perhaps you should take this opportunity to go back and re-read To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper Lee was a great southern writer and a great woman. Maybe it would soften your hard views a bit.
I too have voted for Republicans, including George W. Bush (the first time) and Riley. But I am now beginning to change my views due to everything that has gone wrong under their watch.
The Iraq war, Katrina, the bad economy. My husband doesn’t work for a car company, so he has not benefited from the so-called “booming economy” proclaimed by every newspaper in this state when they endorsed Riley for governor. We are barely able to get by in this economy.
I admire Jill Simpson for what she did. And she will be in our prayers every day for the trying time that lies ahead for her I am sure. Taking on powerful men is not an easy business.
[...] Danny at Doc’s Political Parlor linked to Glynn’s entries a couple of days ago in a post entitled “The Karl Rove/Bob Riley Conspiracy.” The entry touched off, shall we say, a fair amount of attention. As of now it has attracted some 128 comments, which is substantial for any site dealing in Alabama politics. Here’s Danny’s description of Glynn’s story: Confession: I have never been much one for conspiracy. Oh, I am sure there must be some that run as deep and wide as anything I could imagine, but for the most part, I am the doubting Thomas. [...]
[...] Discussion about possible political justice in the Siegelman/Scrushy trial is a hot topic at Doc’s Political Parlor. As this is being written, there are 131 comments over there. [...]
Glyn Wilson claims to be a “journalist”…that makes me laugh…
[...] Actually, what he was at today was the sentencing, not the trial (or I guess I should say “show sentencing”). Ordinarily I wouldn’t point out such things, but the most credentialed journalist in our state must be held to a slightly higher standard. [...]
The ludicrously silly and delusional assertion by the poster above who stated “I have more journalism credentials than anyone working in this state” just could not go unchallenged.
According to phone calls and a visit by one investigator to view the evidence gathered, what started as an informal investigation a month ago in response to the claim above, appears to be related to matters already of interest to authorities and tax investigators. Although not disclosed to me, by the line of questions, they appear to have additional information. I am assured such information will be “disclosed at an appropriate time.”
Regardless, I can debunk two public assertions made by the poster GW.
Although GW never finished his doctorate he holds himself out as “professor,” a rank he has never held. He has been a graduate student TA and for a brief period a course instructor at a small college in New Orleans. His contract was not renewed.
He would have you believe he is a journalistic icon, but he is really just a stringer (for reasons below no longer employable in mainstream journalism) He has, on a few occasions in the past has done background “stringer” work in support of stories or shared bylines that have appeared in major news publications. He has never been assigned by a major news organization cover a national or international story as the staff or lead reporter. Instead, GW operated at the shadowy fringe of journalism, working as a stringer, and doing freelance covering“Girls Gone Wild parties,
GW claims many false journalistic credentials and over inflates his modest experience. Four months spent in Washington working for States News Service (a service that distilled Congressional reports and press releases about labor bills, crop reports, etc. to local papers) is cited by GQ as his time in the “Washington Press Corps.”
Most seriously, GW tried to get in on post Katrina reporting by claiming to be the “former Bureau Chief” for the Dallas Morning News. GW posted notices and made representations to survivors looking for help or loved ones in an apparent attempt to gather stories to sell. (GW was, in fact, only a stringer or freelance writer who had a few articles published by the DMN)
The Dallas Morning News had no New Orleans Bureau and verifies that GW was never an employee and that his claim no be a “bureau chief” is absurd.
The Dallas Morning News is aware of GW’s claims just as the NYT is aware that GW passed himself off as a former NYT staff reporter in an article published by the Montgomery Advertiser) and this is why GW is finished with “mainstream journalism” not for the slef-serving reasons he would like you to believe.
When confronted, GW attempted to alter the record. Example: if you go to the archive of the New Orleans metrolinks page and you will now find that GW went in to cover his tracks by corrupting his entry.
http://neworleans.metblogs.com/archives/2005/08/french_quarter.phtml
What you see now is:
GW (unregistered) August 31st, 2005 10:46 pm
(and some altered or corrupted text)
What it used to say (and please do notice the (matching initials and timestamp) was:
Glynn Wilson — New Orleans refuge who got out early…last year. Former New Orleans bureau chief, The Dallas Morning News…get in touch.
POSTED BY: GW AT AUGUST 31, 2005 10:46 PM
That this is the text prior to being altered by GW can be verified by viewing the archived page found in the Internet Wayback Archives
http://web.archive.org/web/20050830-20051218re_/http:////neworleans.metblogs.com/archives/2005/08/french_quarter.phtml
GW claims to be a “ Professor Glynn Wilson ” and has run ads using the false claim that he is a professor, He has both solicited and accepted money while representing himself as a professor. This fraudulent claim can be viewed at his own site: http://www.locustfork.net/index2.html. s)
GW even used the title on a short lived radio show at local junior college station — and used the title again to solicit potential investors in his radio show scheme.
It now appears that GW’s sources of funding, journalism generated income, and success in funding his specious web site are of continuing investigative interest to others. Stay tuned.
Another anonymous idiot who doesn’t understand journalism or blogging.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/glynnwilson
Danny, are you going to continue to allow your anonymous site be be used in this way?
If so, there will be consequences.
What a hoot!!! GW does not address the charges but only links to a “linked in” site he created. In fact, if you look closely it proves the points above. Where is his professorship? or support for his claim to be the New Orleans Bureau Chief for the DMN
The guy is delusional.
Veritas protects everyone from his passive aggressive threats.
Hilarious that you expect anyone to believe your anonymous BS. Who are you and where are your credentials online?
Also funny you try to change the subject and make it about one of the real journalists exposing the cracks in the case, instead of about Karl Rove, the disgraced former Bush political aide and criminal who won’t testify under oath.
For any lurkers who want to see some real blogging by a journalist to identifies himself and puts his credentials online for anyone with half a brain to see, check out a real blog.
http://www.locustfork.net/
Danny, the fact that you allow post like the previous few proves that this blog is an excellent use of band width. Thank you for the quality blog you moderate.
Sorry, GW it’s a nice try but won’t turn the spotlight off you. My credibility and credentials are not at issue. I never advanced any.on purpose. I just advanced evidence you can’t deal with because it is true and proves what you are. Others are coming for you anyway, I need do nothing more.
GW’s arguments are classic fallacies of logic. He constantly appeals to authority (his own) and that’s why you constantly see him advancing his false credential claims. That is also why everyone else has to be “less credentialed,” an “idiot,” or too dumb to understand “real journalism” or “blogging.” In his fantasy world, only Glynn is the expert, only he has the credentials, only he knows the truth.
That, GW, is why you are delusional and are hereby dismissed (washed down the drain like dirty bathwater is probably a better visualization)
Enough now for this blog. The fight continues elsewhere. Veritas protects everyone!
Onward!
You really scare the shit of people with your anonymous rants, Auburn engineer. Of course your credentials are not at issue. You have none…
Why don’t you just tell people the truth, Veritas. You are just scared to death the black guy might be elected president.
Obama leads McCain nationally in AP-Ipsos poll
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080805/D92CAF8O0.html
And since the articles linked to here are exclusively from Alabama newspapers, not exactly a bastion of journalistic excellence, you must be really afraid of this from the New York Times.
Number of Registered Republicans Down in Many States
Well before Senators Barack Obama and John McCain rose to the top of their parties, a partisan shift was under way at the local and state level. For more than three years starting in 2005, there has been a reduction in the number of voters who register with the Republican Party and a rise among voters who affiliate with Democrats and no party at all. Voting experts say the registration numbers may signal the beginning of a move away from Republicans that could affect local, state and national politics over several election cycles.
Read all about it here:
http://www.locustfork.net/
Just as a cleaning operation for debunker #1 who has moved onward to other forums about GW.
GW, you have repeatedly advanced your credentials, using them as authority so that we should invest in your credibility. Accordingly, please respond specifically to the issues in #135
Answer the following bullets : (Show us how a pro works — no insults, just answers.)
1. What news organization(s) (other than your website) “credentials” you?
2. Name the schools at which you have held the rank of Professor (with years
3. Were you, as you claimed, the New Orleans Bureau Chief of the Dallas Morning News?
4. Were were ever credited in any byline as “New Orleans Bureau Chief” as done for other Bureau Chiefs at DMN.
5. Have you ever been a staff reporter (an employee) of the New York Times?
6. Have you ever been a staff reporter (an employee) for the Christian Science Monitor?
7. Have you ever been a staff reporter (an employee) for the Dallas Morning News?
8. Are you the same person who filed a lawsuit against kitty Kelly (claiming she stole your work). If yes, was the lawsuit dismissed “with prejudice?”
9. On or about May 14 2005, do you write that a dirty bomb going off in Mew York “would not be such a bad thing” and did you post stories and or links to stories that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America were a hoax.
10. Have you ever written: “There is little doubt that Bush and Rove are evildoers in their own right, hell-bent on world domination. And there is little doubt that there is SOMETHING to the notion that there is a symbiotic relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family.”
As a bonus for enduring your name calling, if you fail to answer we’ll send the above list (with additonal questions)and a packet of bio documentation (including web shots of material you have deleted) to a least one student in any class in which you guest lecture, and to every radio talk show host who schedules you
In fact, several hosts should be calling you very soon. They really want you back as a guest!
We’ll be watching for those “media alerts.” Good luck.
Blah, blah, blah, no one cares what you say, anonymous jealous dumbass. You don’t scare anybody, and certainly not GW. Blog on…
For the record (and for what it may be worth) I have not left any of the “anonymous” comments as Vita (possibly Glynn Wilson) claims. Unlike others, I only comment using my real name.
This comment has been removed for, among other things, what I will politely call a misrepresentation of the truth.
If anyone has any questions about this, I may be reached via the Contact Page in the sidebar.
This comment has been removed. Facts and things we know are more palatable than personal, ad hominem attacks.
This comment has been removed. Facts and things we know are more palatable than personal, ad hominem attacks.
This comment has been removed. Facts and things we know are more palatable than personal, ad hominem attacks.