On radio he speaks of himself as a nobody and has referred to his fans as “psychic vampires.” He has utterly compartmentalized his life, separating the personal and the public. Acquaintances describe very brief, formal encounters, and even friends of Drudge’s, if there is such a category, generally communicate with him by IM....Much more at the link -- including plenty of speculation about Drudge's sexuality.
Drudge enjoys the changing fashions in news, the plot shifts that he has a hand in engineering. As he’s entered middle age, something noir and futuristic has entered his sensibility, more Philip K. Dick (on his show, he often invokes Blade Runner) than Walter Winchell. The site is obsessed with global warming, with the dangers of cell phones and cloning, with all manner of tabloid horrors. He’s a storyteller, and the stories are dark....
The left hates Drudge for good reason; he has helped kill one Democratic presidential aspirant after another and has started in on John Edwards this season....
Republicans can’t count on Drudge. He praises Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore for their independence and fight, and seems to despise Giuliani and McCain....
Drudge has a sneaker for the woman he calls “the Senatress.” When Clinton started wheezing and coughing in a speech in New Orleans in May, Drudge expressed genuine concern for her. “Hillary, dear, take care of yourself. We need you. I need you personally … Take a few days off, what’s this frenetic pace?” He added admiringly, “She was professional. She kept going. She finished the speech.” After a left-wing listener IM’d Drudge to say he wanted Hillary to drop dead onstage, Drudge said, “I need Hillary Clinton. You don’t get it. I need to be part of her world. That’s my bank. Like Leo DiCaprio has the environment and Al Gore has the environment and Jimmy Carter has anti-Americanism … I have Hillary.”
August 26, 2007
"The more power Drudge has attained, the more reclusive he has become. Drudge seems to despise his own fame with a Kurt Cobain–like intensity."
Did you see this huge article in New York Magazine about Matt Drudge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
75 comments:
ahhh but only if accuracy counts for something. culling reports is one thing..purposeful editorial or "flash" reporting that is knowingly wrong but designed to grab a readership or honorable mention elsewhere is just plain bad news.
Frankly it is to my utter amazement that anyone reads him let alone chronicles his underachievements..
You're amazed that people read him? He's compulsively readable. The question is how anyone avoids reading him. I naturally, reflexively, check the Drudge Report many times a day, just to see how things look. I know I'm not looking at the actual world, and yet... it's an impression of the real world that I must see.
Ann...
I read the article, and I wasn't impressed. There wasn't a single new fact. There weren't even any new juicy rumors. Drudge the youthful misfit. Drudge the libertarian. Drudge and his ambiguous sexuality. Ho hum.
Yes, his site is influentual, but Drudge himself is not at all interesting. I too bring up the Drudge Report a few times a day to "see how things look," but that's the last article I'm ever going to read about Matt Drudge.
You can always count on Drudge to bring us the latest news about horror homes containing 935 cats.
You're amazed that people read him? He's compulsively readable. The question is how anyone avoids reading him. I naturally, reflexively, check the Drudge Report many times a day, just to see how things look. I know I'm not looking at the actual world, and yet... it's an impression of the real world that I must see.
That's very well stated by Althouse. There have been "go to" radio commentators and newspapers and for a brief period "Uncle Walter" - without which people thought they didn't get the part of the story, or stories out there that helped them in their lives or that they found interesting.
What Drudge does is quite amazing. He and his editors not only give the gist of major stories, but what may be the start of major news and events in the future. And offers up what they think are the most interesting of small stories culled from hundreds of such stories they go through - that creates such mass appeal that tens of millions go to Drudge everyday as a helpful habit.
He has made his work "must see" in the minds of more than just about any website, and done so for over 10 years running. That is pretty impressive. He has no more access than others - it what he does with it, how it is edited and summarized with Matt and his teams judgement, and what makes the final cut, that establishes Drudge's success.
"Drudge has a sneaker for" Hillary Clinton?
I suppose that means a sneaking feeling of admiration, but it's never been phrased that way before.
Drudge is another performance artist, a la Althouse?
(I never pull up his site unless it's linked by someone else, and I've never read it in depth.)
Ann said
I know I'm not looking at the actual world, and yet... it's an impression of the real world that I must see.
This explains much. A world of fictitious gossip and spin on liberals that you compulsively check numerous times a day in search of.
Drudge was hilarious though last November frantically trying to keep pace with red blinking siren head-fakes like "Where's Nancy!?" when the Foley/Haggard debacles kept raining down down on Republicans. Exhausted, and out of diversions, he settles on a last minute "We're Doomed", lead story with a giant picture of 2 Muslims looking at a rocket launching. Good stuff.
and on a German train he wept listening to Kelly Clarkson’s new record.
And people still think they need to "speculate" on his sexuality???
The left hates Drudge for good reason; he has helped kill one Democratic presidential aspirant after another...
Me, I trace it to one thing: his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky story.
"And people still think they need to "speculate" on his sexuality???"
Beats me. Whats the stereotype for someone who does that?
Me, I trace it to one thing: his breaking of the Monica Lewinsky story.
You mean he took Michael Isikoff's story Isikoff gave him because Newsweek wouldn't publish it? Let's get real, Drudge is an internet news bottom feeder that eats rumor and gossip scraps that legitimate news sources throw away that inevitably turn out to be false. Not that there's anything wrong with gossip rags or say pro wrestling - there fun to read and watch I guess - but they shouldn't be consumed as something real.
Ann Althouse said..."You're amazed that people read him? He's compulsively readable."
Sure, for those with brains the size of a pea.
Drudge..."compulsively readable"...and this is posted by a tenured law professor???
You, a law professor! (1st)
You mean he took Michael Isikoff's story Isikoff gave him because Newsweek wouldn't publish it? Let's get real, Drudge is an internet news bottom feeder that eats rumor and gossip scraps that legitimate news sources throw away
I'm thinking that you just illustrated my point.
I check in at Drudge most days just to see what where his focus is. I actually listened in on his show last week and found it incredibly boring. Maybe it was just the August doldrums?
Drudge has always reminded me of the protagonist in a 1952 Heinlein short story, "The Year of the Jackpot." A middle aged bachelor who collects the silliest stories he can find from the newspapers.
Matt Drudge, a true intellectual:
Drudge "failed his Bar Mitzvah", and graduated 341st out of a class of 355 from Northwood High School in 1984.
Why would anyone find this slimeball..."compulsively readable?"
I didn't know there were adults who cared about the high school class rank of other adults.
cedarford says: "What Drudge does is quite amazing."
What's really "amazing" is that you would say something like that.
Why not try reading some mainstream newspapers, periodicals or...hey...maybe even a...BOOK?
Oh, freeman...pull your head out of Matt's ass.
We're discussing Drudge, as if he's some kind of journalistic guru.
I think the fact that the man is really nothing more than an illiterate gossip monger is relevant.
But, based on your inane comments, I can see why you revere the idiot. He's your kind of journalist.
I am compulsively fascinated by the hatred the left has for Drudge. When the left bemoans the loss of the aid and comfort they used to expect from the news media, the villains are always Rupert Murdoch and Matt Drudge. While I get the animus toward Murdoch, the Drudge-hatred seems just plain laughable. He's no "bottom-feeder!" But the example he set in 1998 has made it impossible for the mainstream media to bury stories on spurious grounds of "principle" that harm the politicians they root for.
Drudge's success led directly to the counternarratives of the 2004 election. Remember? That election was supposed to be about Kerry the war hero vs. Bush the draft-dodger. CBS had this incredible scoop and... Nobody was going to give any credibility to those "Swifties," and...
A whole industry has emerged from Drudge-rage and its aftermath; the "control the narrative" industry. Their latest idea is that Gore would have won the 2000 election if he had used the debates to hammer home the point that Bush was a drunk.
I would remind my historically clueless friends on the left that their side has had muckrakers, too -- some really great ones like I.F. Stone and Upton Sinclair. You guys just got complacent, and got used to the idea that the NY Times and CBS would take care of you, tuck you into bed every night with some warm milk and a cookie.
But we might be in a post-Drudge era already. If the '08 election ends up as Clinton vs. Guiliani, it will prove that, thanks to Drudge, the U.S. is now willing to vote for candidates who survive embarassing personal revelations rather than avoid them.
Here's the kind of "journalistic" integrity Matt Drudge provides:
Fox News prevented him from showing photos of surgery on the fetus of Samuel Armas. Drudge, who is pro-life, wanted to use a picture of a tiny hand reaching out from the womb to dramatize his argument against late-term abortion...
...but Fox's John Moody decided that that would be misleading because the tabloid photo dealt not with abortion but with an emergency operation on the fetus for spina bifida.
What a guy.
john stoddard,
Why is it, whenever anyone disagrees with Bush, Drudge, etc...YOU represent it as some kind of "hatred.??"
I don't "hate" Matt Drudge, I don't know the man.
I just think he's nothing more than a shock jock gossip monger in the same mold as Star Magazine or any of the other silly tabloids sold at grocery counters.
In the case of Bush, I think, along with about 70% of the American public, that he's inept.
A review by G. Beato of the "Drudge Manifesto."
*What a hoot!!
Indeed, while Drudge Manifesto runs 247 pages, it takes a lot of filler to reach that length:
...40 blank pages
...31 pages of fan mail
...24 pages of Drudge Report reruns
...13 pages of a Q & A that Drudge did at the National Press Club three years ago
...10 pages of titles and other book boilerplate
...6 pages of quotes from Drudge's favorite philosophers (Monica, Madonna, etc.)
...4 pages of a chat transcript
...3 pages that include nothing but a large zero;
...2 pages that include nothing but a large numeral 1
...1 page that includes nothing but a tiny zero
...1 page that includes Drudge's favorite Web sites.
Which leaves, in the end, 112 pages of new material, including nine pages of poetry.
john stoddard compares Matt Drudge to...Upton Sinclair?
Good Lord...
I.F. Stone campaigned against McCarthyism and racial discrimination in the United States.
One of his more famous quotes should resonate with Americans today: "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out."
Upton Sinclair, a prolific American author who wrote over 90 books in many genres is well-known for his principle:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Now...let's see some of Matt Drudge's quotes.
LOS,
You're moving the goalposts to make I'm not sure what point. Drudge certainly lacks the literary skills of Sinclair or Stone -- or for that matter, Seymour Hirsh -- but that's not how any of them influence politics. In his heyday, Drudge broke news. It wasn't bottom-feeding except to partisans. It was news. It was news that the mainstream media was either ignoring or suppressing. Any random story in the New York Times will be better-written, perhaps, than Drudge's stories were. But Drudge was an outsider who changed the rules of the game.
Now, I don't think he's so relevant. He's more of an aggregator of news that represents his eccentric concerns. Al Gore has no better friend on the global warming issue than Matt Drudge, in case you haven't noticed. But it's been awhile since Drudge really broke a story. There are 200 Drudges right now, if not more, and I'd wager they are pretty evenly distributed ideologically.
By the way, I didn't accuse you, personally of hating Drudge (and I didn't say a thing about Bush). When someone says "the left" on this site, they're talking about a group of people, not just you. I'm sure Drudge feels a lot better knowing you don't hate him. But there are others who do, and they say so a lot on this site.
I don't read drudge. I think the aesthetics of the site are horrid.
john,
I just feel the term; "hate" is overused and generally not relevant to debate.
Stodder
There are reasons why legitimate news outlets don't report a story. One reason can be that the story turns out to be not true. From the Bill Clinton illegitimate love child hoax, to the Kohn Kerry intern affair hoax, etc etc etc - Drudge has proven himself to be not credible. Sorry if this doesn't jive with your Drudge hating straw liberal you erected, but it's true. Or is there no threshold of erroneous exclusives to real exclusives you expect from a supposed news outlet to maintain?
The article kind of portrays Drudge as the full-on mentally ill Howard Hughes of internet gossips - or at least well on the way. Which is kind of the way I've always kind of pictured him. I also notice Drudge has been slowing down lately. Headlines don't move as quickly, especially on weekends and he's often scooped by Huffpo and Raw Story.
There are reasons why legitimate news outlets don't report a story.
I'm just stunned to read these defenses of the mainstream media. It almost seems out of phase. Hasn't the media also let down the left, especially with regard to the post-9/11 period, the run-up to the Iraq war, the revelations about the cozy dealings with Rove and other Administration officials surrounding the Plame story?
Drudge's historical contribution will be the demystification of the establishment media. That doesn't serve a right or a left agenda -- it's just a reality. The blogosphere is filling the vacuum that Drudge was the first to point out.
Stodder
As to the dozens of bogus stories or exclusives Drudge has "broken" - you say what.
"Hate" is the wrong word.
We should use the term Drudgephobic.
Drudgephobes need to let him tell the news as he sees fit.
Paddy O. said..."Drudgephobes need to let him tell the news as he sees fit."
Report the "news"...as "he sees fit??"
That's not "news"...that's opinion.
Drudge reports almost no real "news." He passes along stories or pure gossip or innuendo or just plain bullshit he gleans from other sources of gets via his sycophant providers...and always..."as he sees fit."
John Stodder,
You aren't really saying legitimate news outlets should report ALL stories...are you?
I am reminded about the story in Indian Territory (before Oklahoma) where two braves posed for a carving. One brave was known for telling the truth 100% of the time, never lied - even about the smallest thing. The other brave was the proverbial compulsive liar. Not only was what he said contrary to everthing you knew to be true he would just simply lie about things that made no difference. He would lie just to lie.
The carvings were done finally and a medicine man came by to inspect the figures. He asked the artist "which was which" and the artist said that he was so involved in finding the likeness that he, in fact forgot. The medicine man was given, previously in his life, a secret potion that would allow a man to speak if he indeed he was struck dumb. But there was only enough potion to sprinkle on one of the carvings.
The medicine man reasoned that he only needed one carving to be able to speak because in giving it the one allowable question it would be clear which was the perpetual liar and the completely honest man.
He picked one carving and sprinkled the magic potion on it and behold the eyes opened, the ears moved and the mouth drew breath. So the medicine man asked him "Brave, are you the honest man?" To which the brave immediately replied "yes".
Think of Drudge next time you are in Oklahoma.
MadisonMan hit the nail on the head; I can't read drudge due to the horrid aesthetics of his site.
Here's one of the VERY FIRST and obviously very important stories appearing today on the...DRUDGE REPORT:
"DUNKIN' DONUTS whole menu going zero grams trans fat by mid-October -- even the doughnuts!
Developing..."
Reporting the BIG, BIG stories..."as he sees fit!!"
ANN...quick!!!
Drudge has something you need to see!!!
It's..."compulsively readable."
"NYC TAXI DRIVERS SET TO STRIKE OVER SATELLITE TRACKING!"
AND
"Help Wanted Ads Go Unanswered in West..."
Luckyoldson, I don't think I've ever seen a 'hate-on' for somebody as deep and intense as your seeming 'hate-on' for Matt Drudge.
Given the 'hate sex' post from today, I have difficulty not imagining that you want to do a variety of grinding and rubbing of body parts to and with Matt Drudge.
Good luck with that, Luckyoldson, if that'd make you (and Drudge) happy, hope it happens for you.
Drudge acts as a bellwether, he doesn't provide content, but he does a great job of pointing to content, and in a world full of useless facts, it's nice to have a place to go to point to the useless facts that are at least amusing.
On top of that, the useful stuff he highlights are the kind of things that the MSM used to try and ignore, so the fact that he also keeps the gatekeepers on their toes is a bonus.
But the heart of Drudge is the tabloid stuff, and only an insecure, preening, self-important, small-minded, snot-nosed slubberdegullion would pretend not to enjoy the tabloid crap on occasion.
(hat tip to Pastor Jeff for the word slubberdegullion).
XWL,
I suggest you get yourself a really good shrink.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.
I could care less if you or anyone else likes or reads Drudge.
*But please, for your own sake...get the shrink, you sound like someone right on the edge.
Naked lunch,
As to the dozens of bogus stories or exclusives Drudge has "broken" - you say what.
I'd have to see a list. My guess is this is not a statement you can support with anywhere near "dozens" of examples.
But his defenders aren't saying he's perfect either. Like the MSM, Drudge can be wrong. So? Did you stop watching CBS after the forged Nat'l Guard documents story?
I'm really not defending Drudge so much as I'm reacting to the tendency of left advocates to declare certain media off-limits to followers, rather than engaging the information presented directly. In certain circles, it is socially unacceptable to cite a story that Fox is reporting unless it's also being reported elsewhere. That's a weird kind of groupthink.
I don't care if you don't like Drudge, but don't paint a false picture of what his site's about. It is not a particularly right-wing site. Looking at it right now, the top story is about fires in Greece. The rest of the page is an assortment of political, celebrity and weather stories. Obama says this, Thompson says that. Where's the big bias?
XWL,
By the way...what the fuck is the 'hate sex' post you're referring to?
Are you posting from an asylum?
John,
You really believe the Drudge site isn't right wing?
C'mon...you're smarter than that.
john,
Here are Drudge's sidebars today:
Clinton Stumps With Celebs in Vineyard...
FRED THOMPSON: USA WILL BE 'WEAKER, LESS PROSPEROUS'...
Newt Advises Fred: Announce Run With Video...
Bush says new offensive in Iraq just beginning...
Indefinite vehicle curfew in Baghdad...
Iraqi Prime Minister Lashes Back At Critics...
BREAKING? Warner May Back Dems' Bill on Withdrawal...
You've just proved my point.
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the DRUDGE REPORT claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…”
It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
John,
You think the sidebars "prove" your point?
Clinton Stumps With Celebs in Vineyard...("CELEBS")
FRED THOMPSON: USA WILL BE 'WEAKER, LESS PROSPEROUS'...(And why do you suppose he says "weaker, etc.?")
Newt Advises Fred: Announce Run With Video...(Advice from NEWT?)
Bush says new offensive in Iraq just beginning...("NEW OFFENSIVE?")
Indefinite vehicle curfew in Baghdad...
Iraqi Prime Minister Lashes Back At Critics...(CRITICS being...DEMOCRATS)
BREAKING? Warner May Back Dems' Bill on Withdrawal...(TURNCOAT?)
john,
Maybe you're not that smart after all.
Posted in Althouse today is a post with the title, "Also, hate sex is especially hot... " . My mistake for assuming that you, Luckyoldson might actually read this website you occaisonally feel the need to so obsessively post comments at.
Clearly you just post your own random thoughts whenever there's some specific keywords that set you off.
Example, "DRUDGE"(must post a dozen times about how useless Drudge is . . .)
"GIULIANI"(must post a dozen times about how eeevil Giuliani is . . .)
"ROVE"(Rooooooooooooooooovvvvve, arrgggggghhhh, does not compute, does not compute, error, error, error, error)
Sorry, assumed you are a person with needs and wants beyond posting endlessly and repetitively when certain keywords come up at Althouse, but I may be mistaken.
Looking back over the record, I'm not entirely convinced that the entity known as Luckyoldson would pass a Turing test, so my apologies for using a bit of humor directed at that entity and expecting said entity to make an independent connection based on further reading within Althouse to get the joke.
(it was clever of the programmers to insert special 'ad hominem' insult code into the response matrix whenever it finds the name 'luckyoldson' mentioned in other comments, however, makes for a much more realistic comment-bot)
XWL,
I still have NO idea what the fuck you're blathering on about.
I suggest you get some help.
You sound like you need it.
Stodder
The big story involving the MSM is how they routinely fall for all Drudge's howlers. In the time it took you to type a response you could have found a list of Drudge debacles. But I doubt that's your intent here. People go to Drudge to find dirt on Democrats. In any form, real or fabricated. It's really that simple.
Jesus! I thought it was obvious, but just to end this:
Clinton Stumps With Celebs in Vineyard... (Is this false? The headline is identical to the WaPo's headline over the AP story.)
FRED THOMPSON: USA WILL BE 'WEAKER, LESS PROSPEROUS'... (Did he say this or not? It's a campaign quote. I'm not so sure the gloom & doom headline makes Thompson look good.)
Newt Advises Fred: Announce Run With Video... (And your problem with this is what? Some people find Newt a visionary. Others find him a right-wing geek. This headline doesn't take sides on that question.)
Bush says new offensive in Iraq just beginning... (Again, imagine people across the spectrum reading this. To the right: "You said it, W." But to the left: "Is he on crack?")
Indefinite vehicle curfew in Baghdad... (This helps the right how?)
Iraqi Prime Minister Lashes Back At Critics... (This helps the right how?)
BREAKING? Warner May Back Dems' Bill on Withdrawal... (This helps the left. They've been praying for a Reep to break ranks and join them, and here it is, maybe.)
These headlines are neither false nor biased one way or the other. They're different headlines than The Nation might use, but they are utterly mainstream for the rest of us.
Maybe you want your news headlines to say things like "Thompson, desperate and foolish, says USA will be weaker," or "Hillary Stumps with Sincere, Compassionate Activists." Drudge fails to do that. Is that what you mean?
XWL,
Well, I finally checked out your insane and rather hilarious blog sites and just wondered...
...why are YOU damn near the ONLY person who visits?
I could find only one comment from...anybody.
Could it be that you're not really the brilliant scribe you apparently think you are??
*I still think it's the meds or lack of.
JOhn,
Forget it.
If you actually think Drudge is NOT considered right wing...that's your opinion...but I think you'll have a hard time finding others who agree. (With the exception of other wingnuts of course.)
Okay?
In the time it took you to type a response you could have found a list of Drudge debacles. But I doubt that's your intent here.
Naked Lunch tries the "I don't have to prove my assertion -- it's up to you to prove 'em" gambit. Ha!
Nice try.
If you actually think Drudge is NOT considered right wing...that's your opinion...
I don't disagree that he's "considered" right wing. I don't disagree that, when asked to disgorge an opinion, some of Drudge's opinions are right wing. I'm just saying that you and others mischaracterize that site as some kind of right wing oasis, and it just isn't.
Michele Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs, National Review's Corner, Powerline -- those are right wing sites. Drudge's doesn't resemble them.
I'm a moderate Democrat, by the way.
MadisonMan hit the nail on the head; I can't read drudge due to the horrid aesthetics of his site.
Then you're in the minority, because the design of the Drudge Report is one of the keys to its success. A simple, functional web site that's easy to navigate (and loads quickly for dial-up users) is a site that will be more likely to keep people coming back every day (provided it has content they like, too).
I go to the Drudge Report at least once virtually every time I go online, and there's always a nice mix of stuff on there that's interesting or fun. All the more becuase I know millions of others are looking at and buzzing over those links, too.
LoafingOaf said..."I go to the Drudge Report at least once virtually every time I go online,"
There ya go, John...right wing all the way to the bank.
*I always wondered where Oaf got his bullshit.
Michele Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Little Green Footballs, National Review's Corner, Powerline -- those are right wing sites.
I don't consider Little Green Footballs a "right wing" site, even though most of its readership is probably on the right, and even though LGF hates - and frequently mocks - the Nutroots Hard Left. LGF is a site that focuses on Islamic Fascism. His site's contempt for the Hard Left is related to their attitude about Islamic Fascism, not their views on health care or whatever. I really don't know what the politics of Charles at LGF are beyond his hatred of Islamic Fascism and Islamic terrorism.
I always wondered where Oaf got his bullshit.
So you don't look at the Drudge Report with regularity?
I haven't tuned in to his radio program in a few weeks, so I'm gonna ready a warm bath now and enjoy. Try and calm down about Drudge, Lucky. There are web sites out there for every taste.
Well, then I guess I'm as guilty as LOS for stereotyping LGF.
A principle is on display here in LOS and NL's posts. The left judges you not on the merit of your arguments, but on "where you got" them. A liberal would sooner admit public defecation than admit he or she learned something on Fox News or Drudge.
john, oaf:
Blah, blah, blah...
There was story about Maxine's house on Drudge...dammit I miss everything..I was traveling today.
The lefty response to Drudge reminds me of the lefty response to Althouse: looking for heretics, and creating them if they don't exist.
The smarter Democratic operatives feed Drudge stories that fit his frame, just as the smarter newspapers feed him early release teasers to build traffic for their stories. There's plenty of common ground Democrats could find with Drudge if they wanted to, but it's much more satisfying to be in a spittle-flecked rage.
Ernst Blofeld said...
"The smarter Democratic operatives feed Drudge stories ....smarter newspapers feed him early release teasers to build traffic ... Democrats.. to be in a spittle-flecked rage."
For the life of me I can't figure out this GOP projection. I really can't. We tell you that we think Drudge is nonsense and not worth a second and then "we feed Drudge stories...newspapers send him "teasers" to what? build that day's circulation? to drive to site?..when Drudge is rarely if ever cited other than in monkey-see, monkey-do terms.
We "rage with spittle" (nice picture there ha!) because part of our population no longer sees the difference between entertainment and news, fiction and fact, spin and truth.
To even remotely suggest that Drudge doesn't have an agenda, that he simply distorts or spins "stories" to further whatever agenda he has is nonsensical.
Early on, I said, to the effect "who reads it?" and Ann replied that she didn't know anyone who didn't (paraphrasing).. I found that disturbing because what I had hoped she would say or add was "with a grain of salt and purely as entertainment". Ok that I'll buy as I sometimes listen to Sean Hannity not only for the laughs but to get some sort of picture as to what the white house faxed out to him to talk about each day. Drudge seems to be piloting his own ship of fools, the defense of which seems to be as spun as the stories he posts.
It's like someone once said about the comic strip "Nancy." It's easier to read it than to try not to read it.
I dare you to go sit in the corner and NOT think about the big white bear.
There's not much to speculate about; Matt Drudge is gay. This is widely known in Washington, D.C.
But then, so was Mary Cheney's sexuality, far moreso than Drudge's, and that didn't prevent Althouse from criticizing John Edwards and John Kerry for "outing" her.
Wade,
The Queen will be angry.
Which queen?
anyone who reads drudge "every day" has severe problems
Drudge is a "dinge queen"-look it up if you don't know what it means.
He cries listening to Kelly Clarkson and he his "friends" with older strong woman-no definitely not gay.
That article is boring. I heard he is a bossy bottom. But again, who would ever do him? He is butt ugly.
I don't read his site because it is not pretty-you think being a mo he would have some fabulous looking graphics but no
Ho-hum.
People check Drudge because it's like a train wreck with links. And most folks just can't resist a train wreck.
And sometimes you can loot scrap metal from the carnage.
Post a Comment