US News and World Report for 2007 ranks Messiah College on its list of "top schools" for comprehensive colleges in the North (it ranks 4th in that category)-no, it's not Harvard, but it's also far cry from fourth-tier Regent.

but complaints that it's factually inaccurate or crosses the political correctness line might be a tad misplaced, in my opinion

It's the irony that a piece complaining about mediocrity and incompetence is itself so poorly researched and reliant on stereotypes that I find so amusing!

Huh? I didn't dispute Regent's pathetic ranking. I disputed Maher's ridiculing of Messiah and implication that it was also a bottom-tier school.

I'm sorry, but if you don't recognize the "Fighting Christies" as a disparaging remark, I can't help you! I found Maher's piece to be very funny and very true, but if he's going to go off on someone else's mediocrity, he just ought to have his shit in order first.....

Namely that the surge proponents do not recognize the difference between strategy and tactics. Kagan says: "One could be excused for thinking that in the fall of 2006, when sectarian violence seemed to be cycling out of control against the backdrop of a wrong-headed U.S. strategy. But President Bush has adopted a new strategy".

The surge is a tactic, not a strategy, that is being pursued by this administration in the complete absence of a broader middle east strategy and which is therefore destined to fail whether we have 170,000 troops in Iraq or 0.

I'm not ignoring any of those quotes-Zinni thinks we need to stay, I never denied it. My point was that both he and Sheehan agreed on the much larger point that there must be a broader strategy, without which tactical discussions (ie, how many troops we should have and where) are meaningless.

The only discussion worth having now is whether in the absence of a new strategy, which we won't have until Jan 2009, we ought to delay withdrawal until a coherent one can be implemented (accepting the inevitable deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis in the interim) or demand a pullout immediately and risk the bloodbath you and the neocons scare us into believing is inevitable.

I think Tim Russert is a really interesting example, specifically because as a regular MTP viewer, Tim has always struck me as someone who loves polling data, both analyzing it in the roundtable and using it to question his guests. My impression, however, is that recently, with the exception of discussing the 2008 presidential race, he has quoted poll numbers far less-I don't have time to do more than a quick look back at some transcripts but on March 4, he used poll numbers to very aggressively question Lindsey Graham on Iraq, but since then, really nothing (in fact on his March 18 Iraq discussion, it's one of his guests who quotes poll numbers). Seems to me like they're going out of their way to minimize the use of poll data altogether.

I'm still not convinced that this is as simple as right-wing gossips v. Dem candidates. Too many instances of the shit falling on both sides:

The many wives of Rudy stories

The Rudy in drag with Donald Trump video

Romney's great-great grandfather being a polygamist

Gingrich having an affair during the Clinton impeachment

I'm sure there are more examples-they tear down their own just as much, IMO.

The Rudy in Drag, Romney's polygamist grandfather, and Gingrich's affair during the Clinton Impeachment are what we call TRUE stories.

Is the reported cost of Edwards' haircut not true? Google "mitt Romney polygamy"-you get stories in lots of MSM venues. What does his great-great grandfather have to do with anything? Aren't my examples (with the possible exception of Gingrich because it clearly is meant to show his hypocrisy in pursuing Clinton) just as irrelevant to the political discourse?

None of these are media inventions. When writing or talking about them, the media is dealing with genuine political concerns. Do they do so in a totally trivial and gossipy manner? Much more often than not, sure, absolutely. They're gossips, after all. But they are not simply invented by the media. And that's a major difference.

But aren't there also genuine political concerns that the media is tapping into with Edwards expensive haircut (class issues-he's a very rich trial lawyer who is selling himself as a populist)[I don't dispute that they're trying to feminize him as well] and with Obama's supposed lack of substance (only 2 years national political experience)?

The reason the attention paid to Giuliani and Gingrich's sins don't negate the premise of the post is because their behavior is consistent with the implied gender roles of Republicans.

Really, drag is Republican?

I didn't say at all that the premise of the post is negated. I think Glenn's work is brilliant as usual. But, he picked 2 Dem targets and described some of the media as "right-wing". I think Glenn's post would be even stronger if he acknowledged that there are lots of cheap shots taken at Rep candidates too and then discuss how and why those are distinct from the attacks against the Dems.

thanks both for your responses, btw.

To some extent I agree, but no words are necessary for the image of Rudy in a dress to tear down the Hero of 9/11 storyline.