You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Laura Ingraham’ tag.

Economics Professor Dave Brat was stunned himself last night. In fact, it would be a draw as to who was more stunned, Brat in winning or Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va) for being defeated.

With the backing of grassroots organizing, and without the names of the national Tea Party groups, Dave Brat spent less than $200k to Cantor’s $5  million campaign. Brat was able to capitalize on the backing of radio talk hosts like Laura Ingraham.

So what does Cantor’s defeat mean? The DNC and their talking heads are spinning this as the GOP in turmoil. Or could this be the wake up call the GOP Establishment needed? The next few weeks will be very important for the GOP, for the midterms in November and for the 2016 Presidential race. Let’s hope they know how to handle this situation and make it a positive for the country.


     Refusing to give MSNBC’s Ed Schultz any ratings at all, I catch his show when it replays later in the evening.

     On his radio show earlier this week, the obnoxious pundit used a vile term when referring to conservative pundit Laura Ingraham. For her part, Ms. Ingraham basically brushed the comment off, stating that she would add a line or so to her upcoming book about the mysoginistic commentator.

       Yesterday, Schultz privately reached out to Ingraham to apologized, noting that he left her a message and would again try to speak with her personally. He then met with the management of MSNBC/NBC, and was apologetic for his actions, and the manner in which they reflect upon the network as a whole. Realizing he is not one who has avoided controversy, in his on-air apology, Schultz noted that he had truly crossed a line that was wrong, and accepted responsibility for his actions. His apology was extended to his wife, children and grandchildren as well. In fact, Schultz mentioned his wife more than once in his apology, so one has to believe that she was shocked at his comment on-air.

        For his part, it seems that this might be one of those more sincere statements.

For article and videos:

Note: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who is very derogatory about Sarah Palin and even moreso about Michele Bachmann must have received the “word from the powers that be”, and he stated that he would try to be a little kinder in his coverage of Rep. Bachmann!

     This is my personal account of my dealings with the New York Times today!

     During the course of this electoral process, I have sent numerous emails to the editors of the New York Times asking that they return to the true journalistic ethics of reporting the news, and providing insightful information that the public can use to make informed decisions. Of course, they fell on deaf ears.

     I have no issues with a newspaper making an endorsement of a candidate, but such an endorsement does not mean that they news should not be reported. For example, as Laura Ingraham mentioned on the O’Reilly Factor on Friday, the NBC crews camped out on the lawn of Joe the Plumber, but no one has even attempted to question the unrepentent terrorist friend of Obama, William Ayers.

     So, the tabloid journalistic trash piece in the NYT on Saturday about Cindy McCain, was the final straw in my subscription to NYT. Every item in the article was an “old” story whose only purpose would be to embarass the possible next First Lady. Dick Morris, on FOX’s Hannity and Colmes, as well as America’s Mayor Rudy Guiliani, have said that this article clearly opened the door for the questioning of possible felony acts that Sen. Obama may have committed in his cocaine usage, an issue that every fawning media outlet has chosen to ignore.

     In my phone conversation to cancel my subscription, the NYT rep asked why I wanted to cancel, to which  explained that I was angered by their lack of journalistic ethics, that the Cindy McCain article was beneath the journalism that founded the NYT, and that the complete bias in the reporting is not fair to the public that uses their information.

    The reply was priceless: “Well Mr. J.A.M.E.S., would you like to have the service begin again AFTER the ELECTION!!!” After the Election…..why after the election. I guess we are to assume that AFTER the ELECTION, if their candidate wins, they will no longer have a need to be biased anymore!

     So much for “All the News thats Fit to Print”!