Liberal TKO

Blog Politics: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly . . . Let’s Make This One Different | May 31, 2010

Once in a while, as a writer, you get the opportunity to write passionately on behalf of something you love, something you believe in. I got that opportunity about a year and a half ago on a liberal website that I followed avidly. They agreed to try me out as a writer, and I wrote nearly daily, going from a guest blogger to a moderator to, finally, being able to post on my own. It was one of the most exciting days of my writing life when I got the green light to post independently. No more sending in the posts and waiting anxiously for feedback; no more asking permission to write on something. I embraced it. I felt I’d made it.

For something like a year and a half I couldn’t wait to get home from work to sit at the computer, and I spent my nights researching and writing my posts. The blog chief that I wrote for was exacting, and I was committed to doing it right.

The site I wrote for was well-regarded in the blogosphere. The theme of the site was one-dimensional, and a requirement was that the bloggers embrace the premise and focus on it to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. I was fine with that . . . at first. As with a new love, everything was perfect.

Our site had an opposition site, which I was advised, early on, was the Enemy. The opposition site did a weekly review, a pushback against our posts. Nobody was spared — we were all targets of the exacting detail this opposing site’s blogmaster paid to our writing. Initially, I embraced this Enemy as mine. But after a few times of being (most often legitimately) the subject of his critiques, I realized that some of what he wrote had merit — and I had to tighten up. There’s nothing like criticism to encourage perfection. I even posted a public comment at one time that his criticism made me more careful — and I meant it.

But you know, a funny thing happened: Like all love affairs, my passion began to wane. Like all, well, obsessions, my interest started to drift. Nothing that passionate can be sustained over a long period of time. I began to chafe at the lack of freedom to shed my “partisan gang colors.” Sometimes I wanted to write something different, something positive about our subject, but it wasn’t encouraged on the site. I found that my personal integrity — to be fair — was being challenged. And something else — I decided to explore this opposition site, this Enemy of ours, on my own. I sought contact, visited his site and started commenting, tried to get to know the “other side.” I found a different reality than what I was told by my blog-mates. My site and the Enemy site had a long-standing feud; I realized I really didn’t have a dog in that fight. I began to forge my own relationships, without the baggage — and, in the process, started to view my own blog site more objectively.

And so it was, the beginning of the end. As time went on, I first got too busy to blog, and then found myself unable to rekindle the passion. It was the death throes of the relationship.

As I began my drift away from the blog, my blog-chief noted my casual relationship with the Enemy site. I even announced the launching of this blog on the Enemy site. When I finally, officially, explained to her what my absence had been all about, and announced I was launching my own blog site, I was hit with accusations of disloyalty, of dishonesty, of being misleading. The relationships I formed at the Enemy site were used by my blog chief to bolster her accusation, made in so many words, that I was a “traitor.” (She apparently had never heard the quote that one should keep friends close, but enemies closer.)

Nevertheless, such was the price I paid for trying to maintain personal integrity. Admittedly, I fumbled with it. My goal wasn’t clear. But in the end I was, of course, immediately removed from the pub tool and insider Google group. And the ultimate disgrace . . . I was immediately un-friended by my blog chief on Facebook. Ouch.

As a liberal, I find myself wearing the colors of the liberal gang far too often, sometimes at the expense of what I consider integrity. I don’t always agree with sites I like, but my experience with this particular blog site taught me that, in certain tents, there’s no room for dissension. My experience also taught me that the Enemy doesn’t really have to be the enemy: People can disagree without hatred, without rancor, without making it personal.

So here I am, on my own blog, trying to create a tent big enough for everybody. The politics of this blog are liberal politics — everybody may not agree, but there’s room for dissension, there’s room for opposing opinion, there’s room for criticism.

One thing I’ll guarantee at this site: Hatred of the opposition isn’t a requirement.



  1. From a conservative reader to an uber-lib blogger who values integrity and wants to be nice: I HATE YOU!

    Now that I’ve dispensed with the opening niceties… enjoy writing your blog, Julie, and I truly hope the passion you have for this one lasts a long while.

    Comment by Al — June 9, 2010 @ 11:35 AM

    • Al – first of all thanks for the “opening niceties” . . . lol. Second, I hope that all conservative readers out there flock here to, I hope, see some liberal pushback without hatred, and engage in spirited debate with me and other uber-libs! Damn, it doesn’t have to be so personal! I’m weary of the battle, and hope we can find a place for debate without blood on the floor . . . .

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 8:03 AM

  2. I’ll give you credit for this one. It sure took courage to write this.

    Hopefully the blog chief you mention will be as open as you have been here and check into your site once in awhile to see how blogging should be done.

    You are correct about “obsessions”. One can only say “Fox News is bad” for so long before it becomes boring and repititious.

    Comment by Blackflon — June 9, 2010 @ 7:26 PM

    • Julie, it’s not a matter of anyone being “owned” by Newshounds or anyone expecting you to ask permission to start your own blog. It is simply a matter of common courtesy to tell someone you are going to sever an existing relationship or arrangment with them before you broadcast it elsewhere. That’s all there is to it.

      And to think that you should have access to the Newshounds publishing platform or email group when you have announced that you are no longer part of Newshounds is simply bizarre. That’s not “spin”, it’s SOP anywhere! It’s like when you quit a job you give back your swipe card and no longer have access to the building. (Am I REALLY having to explain this!?)

      Ellen keeps confidential emails confidential. I would not expect her to share your emails with me any more than I would expect her to share my emails with you. I respect that. She has not offerred to and I woudn’t dream of asking her. So since she is acting with integrity you get to say she’s hiding the truth! Neat trick!

      “Go into hiding”? “Retribution”? WTF are you talking about, woman!? I say what I think too, and I think this is all starting to sound too damn weird and paranoid for me to want to stick around here any longer. Hope you sort out whatever is bugging you, honey.


      Comment by Alex — June 10, 2010 @ 8:37 AM

      • Don’t know why this appeared here – it was, of course, meant to appear after Julie’s reply to my posts below. It’s not a reply to Blackflon.

        Comment by Alex — June 10, 2010 @ 8:39 AM

      • Alex, time for you to quit patronizing me. I did not announce I was no longer part of News Hounds or sever any relationship; to the contrary — I simply announced I had my own site. I did not quit News Hounds; I was summarily “relieved of duty” with no warning or announcement after an exchange of unpleasant e-mails. I really think that you, of all people (or anyone at News Hounds, for that matter) should be careful about calling anyone weird or paranoid — considering how you all do your whole anonymous bit. Not my style . . . honey. The e-mail exchange tells a tale, Alex — nothing tricky about it at all. And as for “go into hiding” and “retribution” . . . I think we’re already seeing the latter, eh?

        Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 8:54 AM

    • Blackflon, despite our many many many disagreements idealogically, I think there’s some grudging respect here. Thanks for visiting my site, commenting, and being “engaged” in whatever process is evolving here. “The Other JD”

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 8:40 AM

  3. Dear Ms. Driscoll,

    Are you familiar with fable of “The Scorpion and the Frog”?

    The “Enemy,” the snake in the grass Mark Koldys, is already misrepresenting the intention of your current entry and the purpose of your blog.

    I truly wish you could have exercised better judgment in publishing this entry, as now you’ve made yourself an easy target for those who will always regard you as an “enemy”

    I don’t know if any bridges have been burn and also sewing patches are never as the original cloth, but I can tell you this, Mark Koldys will NEVER admit to those instances when you were right on your critique of Fox News. One thing is sure, he will drag you and claim you as a defeated opponent of the Fox gNOpig Network detractors.

    However, there is still hope.
    Write on your own when you feel the passion to express yourself against the ignorance and partisanship of Fox News.

    I guarantee you. You won’t hear from Marky, except to mock you.

    Mucha suerte y que este bien, Sra. Driscoll.

    Comment by Average American Patriot — June 9, 2010 @ 7:26 PM

    • As I said in my post, and have said in the past, I don’t have a dog in the N/H-Dollar fight — though at first I thought I did. I was wrong. I am truly disappointed that I was forced to pick a side; I chose freedom of thought and action over all. I have had respect for Ellen and the N/H bloggers, have defended them on Dollar’s site, and have been loyal to News Hounds. I haven’t changed my tune about Fox News . . . just got tired of focusing on it to the exclusion of all else. News Hounds can say what they like about me, as can Dollar, if he chooses. However, Dollar and I have forged a relationship of sorts despite vastly different idealogies, as I hope I will with many people in the blogosphere with whom I disagree. Ellen knows that I have always had an independent nature, and the bloggers at News Hounds knew all along that I was attempting (futilely) to repair the unhealthy hostility between the two sites. Apparently, nobody was interested in that except me — but it made me aware of the limitations. Despite what N/H readers and bloggers feel about my post, it was written as an expression of disappointment, and as a way to get some closure. People will read what they want to read in it, but it was an honest expression, and I stand firmly behind it. I wish News Hounds the best, now and always.

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 8:00 AM

  4. Did someone turn the lights on?

    Comment by Blackflon — June 9, 2010 @ 8:18 PM

  5. Wow, Julie, you sure don’t do things half way!

    I’m sure that you were hurt deeply by the treatment you got from those who you considered friends. I’m also sure that you were not completely or mostly surprised either. How could you be based on their attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with or criticize them. Your protection from that aspect of them began to wither away the first time you expressed any disagreement and/or joined in at J$P as a legitimate participant rather than to disrupt and revile.

    To my mind, though, their abject pettiness and fear of you by not having you even mentioned in any way anywhere (as best as I can tell) at NH really damns them the most.

    A certain blogger would have served her own ends better if she had just not pushed you beyond your announcement much earlier that you were no longer officially associated with NH and had left on good terms. But as Patsy noted with his mixed up metaphors/fables it is the nature of the scorpion to be a snake in the grass.

    At any rate, good luck!

    Comment by Grammie — June 10, 2010 @ 1:00 AM

    • Grammie: Mr. Dollar started a firestorm, apparently, by linking my post to his site, but I wrote honestly and will stand behind my words. I am deeply disappointed that I was forced to pick sides, because when I first began to visit Dollar’s site I was hopeful that a truce could have been forged — neither side was willing, which is not surprising given the history. However, I refuse to be tethered to any one position, and I refuse to be forced to close my mind. I admitted in my post that I wasn’t particularly graceful about my exodus, but I noticed that the comments here against me didn’t note that admission. Nevertheless, I hope that you and the other Dollar readers will continue to visit my site and comment with spirit on the myriad of things you will find to disagree with!

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 7:49 AM

  6. Julie, from one “enemy” to another, it’s refreshing to see someone who escalated their status in a purportedly honest atmosphere only to discover a very dishonest machine in the inner workings and push back against that which you deem inappropriate.

    Independent thought is a sure sign of intelligence, and while we don’t agree on everything, your thoughts are always appreciated because they’re well-meant and coherent.

    AAP’s comment above is one example of the dishonesty of that band that unfriended you- J$ will not drag you down or mock you as he says. Your participation at his site has been mostly positive despite ideological differences.


    Comment by Fox Fan — June 10, 2010 @ 4:59 AM

  7. I have two comments to post. First, I would like to correct two of the many misrepresentations Julie has published here.

    (1) The so-called “insider Google group” to which Julie refers is, and always has been, an email group limited strictly to Newshounds moderators and writers. As Jule is well aware, its primary function is to allow us all to communicate with each other quickly, easily and en masse about confidential matters pertaining to Newshounds. When she quit Newshounds she automatically disqualified herself from the list.

    Julie’s attempt to portray herself as having been kicked out of some email clique is disingenuous to say the least. Ditto for access to the publishing platform. To the best of my knowledge she was removed from both after this appeared on Dollar’s site on May 26th:

    “I’ve for all intents and purposes left News Hounds (on good terms) — I no longer have the time, or inclination, to do it. I have, however — for anyone who’s interested — started my own blog, Liberal TKO”.

    That sure sounds like a quittin’ notice to me! How on earth could any rational being believe that Julie should still have access to the inner workings of the Newshounds blog after she’d quit!?

    (2) It is my understanding that Julie chose to make the above announcement without having the courtesy to inform Ellen, let alone the rest of us who had worked with her, first. How can she possibly call that “leaving on good terms” when none of us even knew she was leaving? The way she handled this was a serious breach of etiquette no matter what other site she chose to make her annnouncement – to say nothing of being entirely unprofessional. Ellen can hardly be blamed if she is unahppy with Julie when Julie handled her departure in a way that appears to have been consciously designed to provoke.


    Comment by Alex — June 10, 2010 @ 6:51 AM

  8. Now, I would like to address Julie directly:

    Julie, I am truly surprised and disappointed – shocked, even – at the way you have handled your change of heart and your departure from Newshounds. You were well aware before you ever started writing for Newshounds that our main function is to unspin the spin at Fox News – so to stamp your foot because Ellen preferred that you stick to your brief (if that is indeed what happened) is nothing short of disingenuous.

    Ellen and I have had our disagreements in the past, but as adults with a job to do we either agree to disagree, clear up any misunderstanding, or reach a compromise. I strongly suspect that you could have reached some sort of compromise with Ellen over the content of your posts if you were genuinely interested in doing so, and if not, the least you could have done was inform her personally that you were leaving. Instead she found out when someone else read your comment on Dollar’s site and told her. That is extremely poor form in anyone’s book.

    As far as the “feud”: to paint Mark Koldys as a misunderstood gentleman and Ellen as unreasonable is to ignore a history of which you are well aware. I seem to recall you did a fair bit of your own bun-throwing not so long ago, and that was only after a very short exposure to the Koldys and Proxies treatment. You are not the one who has been the target of endless personal insults for the past 6 years, so perhaps you might cut Ellen a little slack if she is battle-weary.

    I am very surprised that none of your fellow bloggers at NH ever heard anything from you about your misgivings or about your intention to depart, given that you had exchanged personal emails with a couple of us in the past. I can only assume that in your own head you had already dismissed us as the clique you clearly think we are, which does not only us, but yourself, a great disservice. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that you and I had a relationship of professional courtesy and respect.

    Speaking of professionalism, Ellen has maintained a dignified silence on this issue. There has been no general discussion on the Google group, or elsewhere, except to express bemusement when you chose to announce your departure at the Dollar site without telling any of us. Except for telling us that you had quit, Ellen has never initiated any discussion about your departure, when she could easily have used the opportunity to stick a knife into any relationship any of us might have with you outside of Newshounds. And she has never, to my knowledge, expressed anger – only bemusement and disappointment – at the way you left, and, btw, has never used the word “traitor” or suggested to us that you were one.

    Julie, you were a valued part of the Newshounds team until you decided to take your ball and go home without telling anyone. You’re a talented writer and your contributions will be missed. It’s a shame you didn’t handle this whole thing in an upfront and professional manner instead of playing games and then posting the above self-serving, supposed “tell-all”. By publishing this you’ve really let yourself – not Newshounds – down.

    Yours sincerely,

    Comment by Alex — June 10, 2010 @ 7:05 AM

    • Alex: First, let me address your charge of “unprofessional.” News Hounds never owned me — from the beginning, I wrote for the Examiner, and starting my own blog didn’t necessarily preclude my writing for News Hounds. As a matter of fact, when I started my site, it was with the intention of simply having a different forum that would take less time. Yes, I announced it on Dollar’s site — just as I have in the past promoted my Examiner site. Both sites have enjoyed spirited participation from the Dollar readers, and I’ve appreciated it. Second, from your comments, I presume that Ellen did not share with you and the other News Hounds writers the e-mails she and I exchanged, and the accusations she leveled, which I wrote of in my post here. I’ll allow those e-mails to remain private, but they weren’t pretty — and it was immediately after those e-mails were exchanged that I had access removed to the inside tools, despite Ellen’s assurances that I would always be welcome as a News Hounds writer. I told Ellen I had my own site out of courtesy, but frankly, I had no exclusive agreement with News Hounds and would never have made one, and it was certainly not an obligation that I obtained “permission” or gave notification to Ellen or anyone else for my outside work. Third, as for Johnny Dollar . . . well, as I said in my post, thought I adopted him as the “enemy” early on, I realized I really don’t have a dog in that fight. He’s been courteous and respectful to me, and I’ll judge my relationship with him and his readers in terms of that. Yes, he linked my post to his site, but I published it, meant it, and wrote it for myself. I intend to do something very different with my own site, in terms of the audience I attract. Alex, spin it however you want to, but upon my announcement on Dollar site, and the e-mail exchange, I was summarily “kicked out” of the insider e-mail group and removed from all News Hounds access. Ellen has remained publicly silent, yes, but as you, she and most people know, I say what I think, stand behind it, and will not go into hiding for fear of retribution. I wrote boldly, and believe that you don’t know the entire story. Might behoove you to get it.

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 7:44 AM

      • I doubt Newshounds has gotten this much publicity in a long time. I had pretty much forgotten about it, actually.

        Opening up the windows on a breezy day can really churn up a mess, Eh? Sometimes, though, it’s the only way anyone will ever get around to cleaning up the place.

        It’s a good thing!

        Comment by Al — June 10, 2010 @ 8:06 AM

      • Well, Al, yes — very well put! It wasn’t my intention to be “in your face” with News Hounds when I wrote the post, but on the other hand, I don’t generally shrink from controversy, so I didn’t rule out the shitstorm that has emerged. Ah, well, maybe we really can make this site different . . . .

        Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 8:30 AM

      • Julie, I have responded to your reply to me, but inavertently put it in as a reply to post 2 from Blackflon.

        Comment by Alex — June 10, 2010 @ 8:41 AM

      • Oh my. It looks like the News Hounds got caught with their pants down again.

        It’s unfortunate that Ellen could not come out of hiding and explain her side of the issue instead of sending allowing someone else to speak for her.

        But that is her usual MO.
        She lets her little pups do the attacking and smearing.

        p.s. I won’t post about News Hound here in the future.

        Comment by Blackflon — June 10, 2010 @ 6:56 PM

  9. tl;dr
    Alex wants to hurt your feelings. Good riddance to bad “friends”.

    Comment by Fox Fan — June 10, 2010 @ 7:36 AM

  10. As a friend of Julie’s and a fellow Lib blogger (she has appeared on our radio show AND I have linked to her Examiner & NH pieces on our site, The Stonecipher Report), I find the “inside-baseball,” head-shaking, faux-disappointed response from NH’s Alex to be distastefully disengenuous.

    First and foremost, outsiders and readers need to remember / know that such devoted, focus-limited reporting as seen on NH is – of course – done FREELY, as strenuous, near-daily volunteer work by the writers. I am a pro writer (supported my living at it for more than 25 years now), and those of us who use our skills and time in these ways are walking a fine line. Yes, NH set the expected rules and gave Julie a wider audience…and Julie gave them and their readers her passion, accuracy, detail, opinion, reliability, smarts, sharp sense of no-b.s. humor, and even her willingness to banter with the “enemy” (which surely increases attention, clicks, and back-and-forth comments).

    And, just as I am a pro who will sign ANY non-disclosure but NEVER a non-compete form, NOTHING Julie was doing (again – on her time, her dime) for NH was limiting or even making her have to OK her outside writing. That would be ridiculous. And, as noted, apparently things WERE said and then done that other NH writers / readers would have no clue about; Julie has no reason to make anything up – she can back up her timelines and exchanges easily enough. It just seems to be another case of “small kingdom, overly large self-percepted queen”…and, when it clearly became ONLY her way or the highway, the committed, yet free-thinking and indie-minded Julie hit the road. Fair enough.

    Wanna read JUST about how FOX sux? (And, gawd knows they DO…) You know where to go. But…want more widely varied Lib topics, links to other voices, and even potential debate? Well, wind up a swinging armload of potential TKO…and watch the rhetorical punches start to land. (BTW – curious that the encouraging, playfully welcoming comments came from the J$ crowd of raving anti-Libs…and the “tsk-tsk” b.s. came from “our” own side…sigh – it’s no easy world out there, is it?)

    Comment by Michael Sweeney — June 10, 2010 @ 9:08 AM

    • Michael, thank you for your supportive comments. Being committed and free-thinking shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, should they? I don’t believe I ever sacrificed any quality at N/H by being willing to be open-minded and free-thinking elsewhere . . . unfortunately, others don’t agree. This “for us or against us” routine is getting old.

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 9:14 AM

      • Yep – and, hey!, wasn’t that GWB’s line? Shame on fellow Libs for taking such a closed-mind attitude…

        Comment by Michael Sweeney — June 10, 2010 @ 9:18 AM

      • Amen to that . . . .

        Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 9:23 AM

      • “Nevertheless, such was the price I paid for trying to maintain personal integrity.”

        Interesting line. First if you had integrity and wrote for a site that claims to watch FOX then you would have watched FOX before putting finger’s to keyboard. Second, amazing you are just now realizing the HATE of the RADICAL LEFT-WING LIBERAL’S you love now that their hate is directed at you. You may have $ idiot’s praising you and your butt sniffing sociopathic former mutts hating on you but the fact remain’s that you’re still one of those HATE FILLED LIB’s against anyone that doesn’t bow to you and fact’s are something that mean nothing as long as it advances the RADICAL LEFT-WING agenda you have sold your soul to. You do deserve GREAT CREDIT though for going up against some of the nastiest waste of mutt flesh known to mankind. But, only you and your action’s will determine if this so-called awakening you had is real or not.

        Comment by Destroy LIBS — June 11, 2010 @ 12:28 AM

      • You’re right, DL — only time will tell. Keep in mind that at heart, and in my soul, I’m a true liberal, but am going to strive for a position that both allows me to maintain my integrity and allows me to maintain healthy debate with the opposition. My only rule is that I will not engage with anybody (from either side of the aisle) who just wants to be angry. Thanks for your comment.

        Comment by Liberal TKO — June 11, 2010 @ 9:58 AM

  11. “But you know, a funny thing happened: Like all love affairs, my passion began to wane. Like all, well, obsessions, my interest started to drift. Nothing that passionate can be sustained over a long period of time.”

    “And so it was, the beginning of the end…..and then found myself unable to rekindle the passion. It was the death throes of the relationship.”

    JD, my Love. Say it isn’t so. I know I haven’t been as attentive as I should have, but you were always on my mind.

    Comment by ramjet — June 10, 2010 @ 9:59 AM

  12. Say you’ll forgive, that you’ll give me another chance. I didn’t abandon you, my passion never waned. I was doing 1 to 5 in the big house.

    Comment by ramjet — June 10, 2010 @ 10:46 AM

    • Ramjet – allow me: “Honest…I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!”

      Comment by Michael Sweeney — June 10, 2010 @ 10:56 AM

      • Now, if you’d said there was a huge oil spill you were trapped in, I might believe you . . . I don’t know whether forgiveness is in the cards . . . “It was the death throes of the relationship.”

        Comment by Liberal TKO — June 10, 2010 @ 11:11 AM

      • and no one ever said that better than the late, great, John Belushi.

        Comment by yesimright — June 11, 2010 @ 8:46 AM

  13. Destroy LIBS’s response is that axiomatic (that’s OK, DL -we’ll wait while you go look that up) type of moronic pro-FAUX reaction. His sputtering, stooooopid rhetoric just proves us right.

    Watch and enjoy FAUX all ya want – we’re not trying to stop ya! But DON’T try to pass off made up “facts” and out-and-out lies as “news” to us more seasoned, educated (apparently), and open observers…If your “infallible” Pope of news tells you your sky is green now, don’t expect us to agree with you deluded, nutjobs.

    Comment by Michael Sweeney — June 11, 2010 @ 2:06 AM

    • I’m not convinced that DL is, as you seem to think, a Fox “deluded, nutjob(s)”

      This goes against type “You may have $ idiot’s praising” for such “nut Jobs”, IMO. I think you may have been had MS.

      To be honest there is a difference without a distinction from DL’s comment and your response. If I were trying to demonstrate my overwhelming intellectual, rhetorical and civil superiority to DL I hope I would have avoided such phrases as:

      “(that’s OK, DL -we’ll wait while you go look that up)”

      “moronic pro-FAUX”

      “sputtering, stooooopid rhetoric” Nice touch with “stupid”.


      “to us more seasoned, educated ”

      “your “infallible” Pope of news”

      “you deluded, nutjobs.”

      Take all that highly charged emotional rhetoric away and you said nothing other than FOX BAD, FOX VIEWERS MORE BAD that I can see. I must admit that I was disappointed by this. I thought the goal that Julie had set for her blog was for rational civil debate between ideological opponents and my perception of you from your earlier comments as one who shared her vision has been shattered by that comment from you.

      Comment by Grammie — June 11, 2010 @ 2:35 AM

      • Well done, Grammie – you set up a classic “straw man” – your perception of me – and then neatly knocked it right down! Ouchie! In fact, I may have been a little snidely hard on DL, but that was my call because he was spewing hateful blather about a friend of mine AND spreading pointless, proofless bunco about my “type” and beliefs. And NOWHERE did I say (ANYTHING like) “FOX bad” – I merely derided its repeated, proven tendency to adapt “facts” as flexible things when it comes time to best continue to support their chosen narrative approach.

        “Had,” schmad, bub – DL seemed about ready to bust a cranial valve, a la Zell Miller, when it came to decrying Libs (as opposed to “merely” those over at NH…and what should I give a flying eff if he luvs OR hates the J$ crowd?)…and all I was reminding the anonymous him (while, for example, Julie and I publish EVERYTHING under our own REAL names) was that perhaps a more balanced diet of information – rather than solely sucking up the brittle, philosophically-pure pronouncements from the top of Mt. Ailes – might be a better way to form and feed a fully informed opinion.

        …Otherwise, I’m sure he will enjoy that glowing green sky above him in his “real” America…

        (Plus – sure, tear down my sneering and insults all you want, but…hey, at least they WERE clever, well-written, and nicely top-o’-the-head / tip-o’-the-pen dealt out…LOL!! And, BTW, Al, didja just forget how to type “ditto”?)

        Comment by Michael Sweeney — June 11, 2010 @ 9:25 AM

  14. You’re the smart one, Grammie. Good post.

    Comment by Al — June 11, 2010 @ 5:30 AM

  15. Julie, good luck with the new blog.

    I am sorry to see the attacks on you for the choices you’ve made, but your attitude is inspirational and I wish you only the best.

    Comment by yesimright — June 11, 2010 @ 8:45 AM

    • yesimright: Thank you for your supportive words . . . and I’m hoping that you, and others who have (more or less lol) welcomed me at JD’s site, will stop by from time to time and say “hi.” JD and I have a healthy respect for one another . . . I hope we can cross-link our readers.

      Comment by Liberal TKO — June 11, 2010 @ 10:00 AM

  16. Thou sur’st be cursed
    By purist and jurist

    When first thou durst pen
    Thine lost cranium’s worst

    Punctuation required
    Even well written snide

    Cranial valves cannot burst
    Exist must they first

    Comment by ramjet — June 11, 2010 @ 10:29 AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

    Share this blog

    Bookmark and Share

    Julie Driscoll & Bryian Revoner

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 20 other followers

    Meet Liberal TKO’s Authors, Julie Driscoll & Bryian Revoner

    Hello! Facebook political activist Bryian Revoner and I are glad to have you join us here at Liberal TKO, where we strive to knock out right-wing nonsense. We don't define ourselves as simply "progressives" or "Democrats" . . . we're proud ultra-liberals, and we're taking the gloves off . . . .

    Julie Driscoll’s TKOs

%d bloggers like this: