Hit piece

The National Enquirer, always the best source for fair and accurate reporting slanderous lies in the name of circulation, has a new hit piece out, in which "anonymous sources" claim that President Bush, who renounced alcohol almost 20 years ago, has been driven to drink by opinion polls.

One of my leftist professors cautioned that Republicans should be concerned, because more people read the Enquirer than any other "news" paper.

But then, I think it might be demoncRats that need to worry:

Most people turning to the Enquirer for news either don't vote, or vote demoncRat anyway.  Meanwhile, conservatives will recognize this for the partisan hack job that it is; moral backlashes tend to favor conservatives.  Plus, George W. Bush isn't running for President again.  Liberals seem to have forgotten this.

Comments

[Horrabin]

Who are we to question "anonymous sources"?
Everyone knows the Enquirer adheres to the most stringent requirements of fact-checking. They use only certified "anonymous sources" (not the ones Newsweek employs) in their research. They would never print something that wasn't iron-clad duly checked 9 ways from Sunday.
After all, they have a reputation to protect. Unlike the New York Times or Newsweek....

/*removes tinfoil hat and is now free to laugh like a hyena, and does*/

[Lornkanaga]

I read that someone on Kos' site is trying to tell protestors to tone it down. I also read on another democrat site someone trying to encourage his fellow democrats to stop bashing bush--I was amazed that all the commenters to that post just continued the bushisevil meme.

We have nothing to worry about from the democrats--they're not even listening to their more sane members.

[foxtrot13]

So the democrats cite the Enquirer. Its about the same as most of the "scientific" studies they usually cite anyways. I acutally would trust the Enquirer to do a better job of covering Portland politics than the Oregonian anyways. At least the Enquirer would have been on the look out for the Goldscmidt story.