Recently a friend of mine said she was not interested in political news because when it got right down to it, there was a not a dime's worth of difference between these people...they all had more in common with each other than with us.
It is hard to argue with that these days.
In the midst of the Miers cat fight I have to wonder who these "critics" are.
George Will was the man who called Bush 1 a lap dog and through sheer disdain helped make Bill Clinton president.
Krauthammer and Kristol were [not so long ago] McCain supporters. That would be the McCain of the McCain Feingold Act and the infamous Gang of 14.
Bob Novak helped create the whole Plame/Flame/Wilson debacle.
I am old enough to remember when the pundits loved Souter and had "grave doubts" about Thomas. So much for consistency.
Has the internet with its political blogs made the pundits more important and how many people really care what they say?
In other words when we hear the words "fury and tempest" from pundits..who are these people and who elected them to anything? Where exactly does their influence come from?
I know right now I think that maybe my friend was a lot more right than I gave her credit for at the time.
I think George Will and Maureen Dowd...Charles Krauthammer and Paul Krugman have a lot more in common with each other than they do the rest of us. In fact I would say their most enduring quality is ego.
And I think the internet, this medium right here has a lot to do with giving them an authority and a power they really do not deserve.
Cornell’s kangaroo court for accused men
1 hour ago