A fanciful allusion which a certain kind of person can’t quite resist.
. . . to offset the real one, whose competence is top-rate, as are his left-wing creds.
He’s good, no doubt. But what if there were a counter point to, ah, spark debate?
Sun-Times is heading for new ownership with the promise (right?) of independence. The new owners would be fools not to respect that, of course. So why not a bit of seasoning to the daily mix that has provided the place to go for local reporting, namely a non-Mark Brown who lays as heavily as he but into issues dear to the right?
Chi Trib’s editorial page has long provided that for its readers, not to mention the Royko successor John Kass, appearing regularly on its Page Two, its sole columnist to provide the ah-so experience for those on the right.
There could be one of those in S-T, yes. The conservative and libertarian woods are full of them. Somebody Chicago, of course, with not a Coastal bone in his or her body. Like Mark Brown, except different. The right man or woman for the right-wing job, yes.
Larry Kudlow to the ramparts in a piece that is optimistic about passage of tax reform:
All this talk of impeachment based on obstruction of justice is just Democratic political pap. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is no partisan, calls it “an awfully thin soup.”
Former federal prosecutor and NR contributor Andrew McCarthy says “the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there.”
Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe told Congress there’s been no interference in the FBI’s investigations and no request for additional funding.
If James Comey wrote a memo about obstruction of justice, he is legally obligated to report it to the highest levels of the Justice Department. Failure to do so could invoke criminal charges.
Why did he wait until he was fired to have his leakers put this out?
Yet behind all this mess, Speaker Paul Ryan keeps telling people that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. He’s right.
Let’s hear it for optimism, all you right-thinkers.
according to U.S. officials,
according to the officials,
According to one U.S. official,
The Wall Street Journal agreed not to identify the ally because another U.S. official said it could jeopardize the source.
The ally? Nice of the Journal to keep that out of the paper. But why did the Journal agree not to identify the helpful officials who gave it the story?
Instant reaction: We know whoever they are, they are out to get him. We know it’s take-a-leak time at the White House. We know Trump is not their kind of POTUS.
Question of day: WHO ARE these nameless leakers? Is there a reporter around who can arrange a meeting in a basement garage and discover this? Woodward-Bernstein of our day, where art thou, Brother?
Seems like a solution here — assuming S-T keeps its identity.