Thoughtful post there.

Question: Is MSM reporting inherently "liberal" or have conservatives (whatever the hell "conservative" means anymore) simply talked themselves into believing that every report that reveals information that appears to counter or be inconveient to some facet of conservative ideology is a deliberate attack on conservatism. That is; have conservatives become so rigid in their support of a specific definition of conservatism that conservatives are no longer able to effectively apply critical thought and analysis to their positions?

If objective news reporting reveals flaws in conservative ideology or positions on given issues, conservatives today attack the news outlet as biased because it ran counter to a stated conservative position. What they don't do is consider that a news item that is a negative for the conservative movement might be a sign to conservatives that perhaps a given postion should be modified. (See Iraq "war.")

I would argue that the MSM news reporting isn't liberal at all. It just isn't radically conservative, which to today's conservatives means it is liberal.

I bet Caribou Barbie checked it out and used it as a playbook.

It isn't that the Palins are un-American, it's that they're more than American. America declared itself independent from Britain, and now they just want to take the next logical step and do exactly what America did in 1776, only to America. Clearly, the other 49 states are spineless wimps for staying in the Union.

While I fully support Corsi's right to make complete assholes out of himself and the Right in print, that's not a right that is automatically granted around the world. Kenya is not America. Maybe they have laws agianst writing slanderous shit (?). Maybe, since Corsi isn't Kenyan, he isn't afforded whatever rights Kenyans have (isn't this a core argument in favor of detaining people at Gitmo - that since they're not American, they aren't entitled to Americans' rights?).

How many Right-wingers would support an African coming to America to do research for a book that aims to defame Ronald Reagan?

(Seems like I heard that recently...)

"I didn't realize stating a position is signs of foreign policy?!?"

What the hell do you call it? Okay, strictly speaking, neither candidate can have a foreign policy while still a candidate, but their stated positions tell us what we can expect from them if they are elected. Obama has been clear with his positions and so has McCain. Caribou Barbie has told us that she thinks McCain's positions are great, but she can't tell us what those positions are or what her positions would be if she became president, other than that she won't blink. She's an intellectual lightweight and, unfortunately, that's a plus for many 'mericans.

"What is Obama's foreign policy experience . . . hello? . . .hello? No fear though, they won't be asking that question."

Where the hell have you been for the last 18 months??? Obama has repeatedly stated his positions regarding Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Perhaps you're not aware of this, but he answered those questions during one of the longest and most hotly contested primaries in US History.

Obama has positions on these problems because he has studied them and GIVEN THOUGHT TO THEM. That is the main problem with Caribou Barbie - up until GOP operatives chose her for McCain's VP (McCain didn't make that decision himself, thus he ducked out on his first major presedentail decision) she hadn't formed any real opinions on such issues above and beyond whatever the GOP talking point du jour was. "Terrorists are bad," isn't foreign policy. This is to say that, regarding foreign policy, she is an empty pantsuit - she's never had any real interest, thus she can't possibly have any advice worth seeking.

then what the hell would she do in the face of a real threat? Is she gonna answer that 3am phone call with, "I'll get back to you on that...?"

That half of these right-wing pundits don't believe a word they write/say. But they know there is a bullshit hungry audience that will eat it up in exchange for money.

"Many of the economic problems we're facing now are the direct result of the Democrat party's vision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a bottomless cash pit to support "houses for all," no matter how unqualified."

Let's say this is true. Can you explain, then, why the Republicans under W urged lenders to participate in a program called The Great Home Ownership Challenge? Take a few minutes and Google that. This was about the time that the Ownership Society was a big buzzword bandied about by Republicans. The idea was that if more people could own their homes, then the masses would see the light of Republicanism via the Owenrship Society. Risky loans were encouraged because the goal was to make as many Americans (voters) as possible homeowners. This was designed to help create the mythical Permanent Republican Majority. Couple that with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late '90's and you have, well, a Home Ownership Challenge...

Your biases seem to have led you to believe that this crisis is 100% the Democrats' making. The Republicans held Congress from '94 to '06 - plenty of time to make necessary adjustments. There's a lot more blame to go around.