R. Emmett Tyrell Jr: Wanker or just retarded?

[DarienComp]

So, you might have noticed that CNN.com has replaced Mark Shields and Robert Novack with Molly Ivins and some guy named R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. Does CNN think really think that this is a good match? That these two people are even remotely comparable to each other, in terms of smarts? Because from where I sit, it's not even close. Tyrell writes like a College Republican; no facts, just ridiculous assertions and unprovable anecdotes to support them. Take a look at his latest column about why the media is liberal. The media is liberal, you see, because Tyrell knows a few journalists himself, and they're all liberal, so there. The only verifiable fact in the piece is that, yes, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and George Stephanopolis, all worked for Democrats when they were in politics. I don't think I even need to explain why that proves absolutely nothing.


Here's a copy of the comment I sent to CNN.com:

Kudos to CNN.com for picking up Molly Ivins' column, but I must say that your choice of R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. to represent the conservative point of view is not a very good one. His writing style seems only one step above the monosyllabic gruntings of the members of FreeRepublic.com. His arguments are almost laughably weak; full of unsupported assertions, unprovable anecdotes, and ad hominem attacks on those who don't share his world view.

Frankly, I'd rather have Robert Novak, in all his sleazy glory, back on the opinion page. While he has propensity to leak damaging classified information, and although he will occasionally unleash a slew of profanities, at least he can write above the level of an 8th grader.

Here's a link to CNN's comment form, if anyone wants to do the same.

[Jane Austin]

1. "Democrats talk about issues. Republicans talk about Democrats."

And this is another example of that truth.

[progdonkey]

2. why?

Why do you want CNN.com to get rid of a conservative commentator who's completely in over his head? Do you actually want a Republican who can form an argument to get that kind of exposure? :evilgrin:

[acmavm]

3. Face it hon, the republican point of view is not represented by people

who are wankers suffering from severe mental problems. I won't say retarded because some of the gentlest kindest sweetest people I've ever met are what is commonly accepted as being 'retarded'. But they do suffer from mental problems up the gump stump for sure.

[Itchinjim]

4. "Retarded Wanker"

n/t

[calmblueocean]

5. This was truly a hilarious read.

Best laugh lines:

"I find that odd. Why are they so sensitive about their ethics?" -- Given the torrent of Republican ethics scandals lately, this is just too funny for words.

"Conservatives are divided on this issue, revealing again that there is variety of opinion among conservatives, a variety of opinion one rarely encounters among liberals." -- Yeah, if there's one thing we liberals are known for, it's marching in lockstep on every issue. LOL!

"As I say, there is often something smug and secretive about these journalists." -- Smug and secretive? You mean, like, say, Cheney? Rove? Bush? Libby?

I'm always amazed at the delusional world these right wingers live in. Always good for a laugh or three!

[11cents]

6. Had his moment of glory as a leading Scaife catamite

He was editor of American Spectator when Scaife was propping it up, during
"Troopergate" and its successors. David Brock no doubt has a lot to say about him. A notorious drug abuser and, of course, a twisted, pathetic half-man. Typical winger. Typical also of the caliber of person CNN is resorting to these days. He really went downhill after Scaife cut him off in the midst of a money allocation scandal.