Right-wingers criticize New York Times!


Disappear past examples of brilliance: In her utterly brilliant way, Associate Professor Cottom has now published three (3) essays concerning the fiendish brilliance of Kyrsten Sinema's fiendish wardrobe selections.

Rather, the associate professor wrote the three (3) essays; the New York Times chose to publish them. The paper has also published a fourth analysis of Synema's wardrobe "strategy"—an analysis by Vanessa Friedman, the newspaper' "fashion director and chief fashion critic."

Forests fell to enable the publication of these four (4) insightful essays. Inevitably, three right-wingers have now written a letter to the Times, hoping to silence this journalism.

The three right-wingers are right-wing senators—Collins, Murkowski and Shaheen. It's true that Shaheen is a mainstream Democrat, but long ago, Rachel brilliantly mocked and exposed her as a New Hampshire "ConservaDem." 

(That was before Rachel learned not to pander to guests, right to their faces, before instantly mocking the guests when they're no longer physically present.).

Inevitably, the three right-wingers have attacked the Times' journalistic brilliance. As always, we had to chuckle at a claim in the opening paragraph of their letter:

To the Editor:

The Times has published four separate pieces analyzing the style and dress of our colleague Senator Kyrsten Sinema. We cannot imagine The Times printing similar pieces on the fashion choices of any of our male colleagues.

As Senator Sinema recently said about the commentary on her fashion: “I wear what I want because I like it. It’s not a news story, and it’s no one’s business.” We couldn’t agree more.

Senator Sinema is a serious, hardworking member of the Senate who contributes a great deal to the policy deliberations before us. Your repeated focus on how she dresses, rather than what she says and does, is demeaning, sexist and inappropriate.

Right-wingers, please! 

In 1999 and 2000, forests fell so the New York Times, and many others, could spend months on end attacking the fashion choices of Candidate Albert Gore, a male candidate for president. 

They attacked his boots, his suits, his polo shirts, the number of buttons observed on his suits, the height at which he hemmed his pants and the fact that he once wore earth tones. 

His boots were too shiny, some skillfully said. Also, why would he wear them at all?

The attacks were endless and visceral. The attacks were widely tied to the claims 1) that the offensive candidate had "hired a woman to teach him how to be a man" (everyone in the mainstream press corps), and 2) that the "un-American" hopeful was "today's man-woman" (Chris Matthews and Chris Matthews).

(Elsewhere, it got stupider, uglier, worse.)

In our usual dimwitted way, we liberals let that brilliant journalism go. People are dead all over the world because our utterly hapless tribe was so lazy, so stupid, so deferential—so mindless, so daft, so inept.

(People are dead all over the world! We're so old that we can remember when our tribe, such as it is, used to pretend that we cared  about things like that!)

Today, the right-wingers are pretending that the Times does this only to women. Their right-wing claim is false.

Meanwhile, if we know the New York Times, the New York Times isn't going to quit! More attacks on disfavored pols for their wardrobe selections, please! Within our ruthlessly stupid tribe, it's a long-standing tribal tradition!


  1. I doubt that "we liberals" wrote any of the clothing-based attacks on Al Gore. We weren't in charge of the New York Times then (or now). It isn't our job to protect anyone from having their clothing choices analyzed by anyone in the press.

    It is sweet that the only bipartisan cooperation in the Senate involves defending Sinema's clothing choices, but hey, it's a start.

    Why doesn't Somerby wonder what the motives of these letter writers might be. He himself has proved that the focus on the Times was not sexist, since the clothing of Gore was given equal scrutiny to that of Sinema.

    A broader question might be whether it is appropriate for a member of the senate to wear anything she wants. Would it be OK for a male member to eschew business suits and wear joggers to work? Is it then OK for Boebert to claim that her mask is fashion apparel and she can "wear whatever she wants" too? What would happen to her fines? Is individuality a desirable quality in a representative of the people whose job is to compromise with others to do the country's business? Or does she perhaps think she is a rock star? (David Byrne proved it was OK for them to wear suits.)

    I really don't see this as a feminist issue. Women have always been permitted to express their individuality via clothing choices. People who do so, generally want the attention the New York Times gave Sinema. It would be tragic to be an individual and have no one notice! Feminism has been against the rigid mandate of certain types of clothes for women (corsets, girdles, dresses) and would applaud whatever a woman decides to wear otherwise, if it is her choice. Did the New York Times question Sinema's right to dress however she chose, or did it analyze what her choices might mean? The latter is not a feminist issue.

    But Somerby's belated concern with feminism is noted. It is unfortunate that he only cares about such issues when it give him a chance to bash a female reporter and the NY Times, but otherwise doesn't give a damn about women's issues. Few women appreciate being used to further some man's agenda, including Somerby's.

    1. The NYT professor engaged in an idiotic analysis of the symbolic significance of the senator's clothing choices, that's the issue. Superficial to the extreme.

    2. You can call it irrelevant to politics, but matters of style and fashion and clothing are not superficial to social situations. That's why a professor is talking about them.

  2. If Al Gore couldn't defend himself against charges of being a man-woman, he didn't deserve to be president.

  3. "More attacks on disfavored pols for their wardrobe selections, please! "

    Gosh, I wonder what was said about Hillary's pantsuits! She made it into her trademark.

    1. Kamala needs better guidance too.

      Her blazers need to have two to three buttons, a medium to high stance, and a shorter hemline that is curved (not squared) in the front.

    2. So, you favor a dress code for politicians? How fascist of you.

    3. It’s not a dress code, it’s about how she can look even better in the sort of attire she seems to prefer.

    4. Kamala Harris. There's one hot mess.

    5. Yes, let's judge all politicians by their looks! It is clearly the best way to select the right people for the job. In the case of Kamala Harris, the right started with her skin color. Her jackets are just an after thought.

  4. May we suggest, dear Bob, that demented liberal bullshit has the opposite effect, of what you imagine?

    That is, people slandered by your demented dembots (including Demigod Algore) get sympathy from normal ordinary people.

    So, bring it on. And if your favorite Demigod failed to capitalize on that sympathy, that because he is a loser, we are sorry to say.

    Also, dear Bob, had he managed to win, there would've been, in all likelihood, many more dead people all over the world. Just check what your other Demigod's wife did to the most prosperous country in Africa, and one of the most world-famous anti-colonial leaders. Oh, well...

    1. But Mao, you understand that the invasion of Iraq, directed by George W Bush, was wrong. Yes? You do understand?

    2. Tsk. Okay, for the alternatively gifted: all the hypothetical invasions/bombings/coups 'directed by' hypothetical president Algore would've been just as 'wrong' (whatever that means).

      In other words, as we suggested: there would've been, in all likelihood, many more dead people all over the world. Comprende?

    3. 'Wrong' (whatever that means)? So you don't understand that the invasion of Iraq, directed by George W Bush, was wrong!

    4. Yes, dear dembot, we're not a child.

    5. You just play one on the internet.

    6. Mao, child or not, you know that Bush also withdrew from the ABM treaty.

    7. Mao is talking about Khaddafy (sp?) who he believes was "one of the most world-famous anti-colonial leaders," seemingly a "demi-god" and he loathes Secretary of State Clinton's role in Khaddafy's downfall and death. I'm not saying one way or the other that Mao is wrong about his own demi-god, just explaining where he is coming from, a place not really shared with the MAGA cohort, whose big objection to the dems is that they are commies. I believe it was a former Republican president who tried to assassinate Khaddafy, calling for the bombing of his tent, and killing one of his sons.

    8. Khaddafi was killed by his own people in the midst of a civil war. Clinton didn't kill Khaddafi. Mao is a right-wing troll, most likely from a Russian or Eastern European troll farm, given his language problems.

      You do know that MAGA doesn't represent the beliefs of all Republicans? MAGA refers to the smaller subset who support Trump. They are largely ignorant about foreign affairs, whereas other Republicans are not necessarily. Mao uses whatever handle he thinks will stir the pot. It is probably a mistake to attribute principled beliefs to a troll like him.

    9. We're not a politician-worshipping liberal like dear Bob, with his silly notions about Demigod Algore single-handedly (albeit hypothetically) saving masses of people all over the world.

      Kaddafi, dear dembot, wasn't anyone's Demigod, but merely one of the most world-famous anti-colonial leaders. And that, dear dembot, is a fact. And as a fact, it doesn't have anything to do with any MAGAs or your cult's MAGA-phobias.

  5. "Within our ruthlessly stupid tribe, it's a long-standing tribal tradition!"

    How did the New York Times become part of "our tribe"?

    I object to the way Somerby calls us "ruthlessly stupid" on the basis of non-tribe actions at the NY Times. Are we now responsible for the conservative opinion columnists there too? Are we responsible for the sports coverage? How did liberals become in charge of everything not explicitly "The Other"?

    I think it is ruthlessly stupid and tiresome for Somerby to keep insisting that the NY Times is a liberal political outlet in the way Fox News and certain conservative newspapers are explicitly linked to the right. Mother Jones, maybe, but not the NY Times.

    Maureen Dowd was as bad about attacking liberal candidates as Chris Matthews, and she writes for the NY Times, our supposedly liberal tribes official paper (according to Somerby). He has stopped making sense, and this appears to just be another embarrassing complaint about Al Gore's treatment by the press, as if the man cared today and couldn't defend himself. He probably wishes Somerby would shut up about this stuff, almost as much as we do, since we are emphatically not to blame for Gore's choice of Naomi Wolff to help him attract female voters.

    Gore's biggest mistake was thinking that clothing matters to female voters, more than his dubious support for Choice:

    "His record on abortion rights under continuous assault, Vice President Al Gore acknowledged Saturday that he has changed his views on the polarizing subject since the 1980s, when he described abortion as “arguably the taking of a human life” and favored limits on federal payments to cover the costs of abortions for poor women.
    The admission came as Democratic candidate Bill Bradley, behind in the polls in the final weekend before the New Hampshire primary, challenged Gore’s abortion record for the fourth day and tried to extend the assault to the larger issue of Gore’s trustworthiness." (Los Angeles Times, 1/30/2000)

  6. Where have these right-winger ladies been? The media mocked Trump over his attire too. Not that they weren’t correct in their objective fashion assessments.

    What’s nauseating with these fashion pieces, is the way the media invariably justifies its prompt descent into personal potshots by saying that they do it because fashion is a of kind of Rorschach test.

    Then they move on to proving that assertion by revealing all their own neuroses.

    1. A far better use of the media’s time would be to engage in psychoanalysis of obvious nutcases like Trump, Gosar, and even Sinema.

      I’m just taking a cue from our host here.

  7. If Maine had not reelected Collins, the most loathsome betrayer of women's "choice," then Sinema would only be a mentally ill footnote.

    The Times articles should have been published by The Onion.

  8. Paul Campos at LGM says:

    "The ingredients for fascism in American culture have always been there: indeed the original KKK in the post-Reconstruction South was arguably the world’s first proto-fascist movement. These include:

    (1) Worship of violence for its own sake.

    (2) Gun fetishism (obviously closely connected to the first point).

    (3) Religious traditions featuring violent eschatological fantasies at their core.

    (4) Paranoid fear of the contamination of the national spirit by the Other/Outsider.

    (5) Virulent anti-intellectualism, which is a necessary defense mechanism, given the world views that need to be protected from any kind of rational examination or critique.

    The Rittenhouse verdict matters because it is a symbolic representation of what the American right wing and its avatar the Republican party have become: A movement of heavily armed religious and quasi-religious fanatics, who wish to purify and thereby restore the traditional greatness of the Real America through the cleansing power of violence."

    This is what the Rittenhouse verdict is about. Via its embrace of Rittenhouse, the Republican party has allied itself with these fascist impulses in our society. This is what we need to be opposing.

    Note that Somerby's function here has been to promote #5, the anti-intellectualism needed to sustain an uncritical belief in what ever shit is shoveled over at Fox News.

    1. Anonymouse7:48pm, is Exhibit A for the eternal Kabuki Theater of the Left.

      https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/20/kyle-rittenhouse-and-the-hysteria-of-the-elites/ Anonymouse7:48pm, is Exhibit A for this

    2. This is how Cecelia's source thinks about what Rittenhouse did:

      "That night Rittenhouse was guarding local businesses, armed with a rifle, along with a few others. Kenosha had descended into chaos after police lost control of the streets. This painfully naive teenager seemed to fancy himself as some plucky keeper of the peace. Footage shows him wandering around offering medical assistance and trying to put out fires. Tensions flared and two people ended up dead."

      Note the passive tense about the shooting. Those two people weren't shot by Rittenhouse -- they ended up dead.

      Talk about Kabuki!

    3. You can move down and read till the end of the article, Corby.

      It’s called scrolling.

    4. If this is how they characterize what happened, the end of the article isn't going to be any more valid.

      If you have some point to make about the end, quote it and tell us your point. Otherwise, you aren't in any position to tell me or anyone else what to read.

    5. Here is the end of the article:

      "In the face of all of this, these 12 men and women did what corporate media and many politicians fundamentally failed to do throughout the Kyle Rittenhouse saga: focus on the facts rather than the narrative. Gun-toting teenagers won’t protect America from the hysteria that is ripping it apart. But the quiet wisdom of ordinary people just might."

      This follows a paragraph in which the MSNBC freelancer was assumed to be trying to photograph the jurors on a bus that was a block ahead of it (on the same street), with its windows covered so no one could see the jurors and the jurors could not see out to be scared by the media. This article ignores those facts and pretends that if the freelancer were on the same public street as the bus, albeit a block behind, it must have been doing something nasty.

      Note that the Judge banned MSNBC, but not Fox News, which had a deal with Rittenhouse to film its own documentary while the trial was ongoing. No censure from the judge about that. So it was just some of the media that was behaving badly, according to this article.

      The Judge made sure that the jury didn't hear certain other relevant facts from the case, so they did make a decision, but it can hardly be considered to be based on facts without hearing things such as Rittenhouse's prior statement that he wanted to kill people, or the evidence that he provided no medical help to anyone (not even his own victims) and did nothing to stop any fires. Rittenhouse lied on the stand about his enrollment in a nursing course, and other facts of this case, such as the invitation to guard the lot from the lot owner (who denies he invited anyone to do that). These are the kinds of facts omitted by this article.

      How can a jury be expected to make a just decision when a bias judge does not permit a proper prosecution and excludes relevant facts from the jury's consideration?

      Cecelia, you are showing us what bias looks like and how the propaganda on the right presents a misleading picture of what happened to its hapless readers.

    6. Anonymouse 10:59, you certainly reveal the usual anonymouse logic.

      I linked the article. That’s an invitation to read it, not a command.

      It’s not command that you comment upon the article either, but if you do don’t be surprised when someone calls you out on sillinesses such as Cirby’s complaint.

    7. We're having an eschatological fantasy now, about Paul Campos' neighborhood being a scene of 'mostly peaceful' protest for 'racial justice', while the police force has been replaced by social workers and mental health experts.

      And not a single heavily armed religious and quasi-religious fanatic around, to protect unfortunate Mr Campos.

    8. No, it’s an opinion that the judge threw the case by making a decision not to allow Rittenhouse’s exercise of his Miranda rights to be used against him.

      It’s an opinion that the judge was wrong to make the politics of a witness off limits.

      It’s an opinion that the judge was wrong by not allowing a video of a voice sounding like Rittenhouse saying he’d shoot rounds at looters leaving CVS.

      The jury heard the testimony from prosecution witnesses that was less than persuasive as to Rittenhouse’s culpability and they watched frame by frame video of the encounters.

      They took four days to decide him not guilty of all counts.

      Rittenhouse’s identity was never a secret so the filming of his story never imperiled anyone. It didn’t imperil Grosskreutz to give a tv interview during the trial.

      That’s not the case for the jurors who were blocked in the courtroom by a screen.

      We do know that the prosecution didn’t share high def video of that night with the defense until they were made to and we do know that the default position of a case is to protect the rights and the assumption of innocence of the defendant.

    9. BTW- Here are the paragraphs *directly after the place where Corby stopped in order to make an inaccurate point.

      “That night was a tragedy that should never have occurred. Rittenhouse should have stayed at home and police should have sent him home as soon as they spotted him. Politicians should have focused on keeping order rather than pretending, along with the media, that the lawlessness that was spreading across the US was the righteous anger of the oppressed. But anyone who watched the footage from that night could see the defence had a case.

      The first man Rittenhouse shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum, chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. The second, Anthony Huber, hit him with a skateboard after he had fallen to the ground. The third, Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, was aiming his pistol at Rittenhouse’s head when Rittenhouse fired. Grosskreutz admitted as much on the stand this week, bringing the prosecution crashing down.”

    10. It would have been sufficient for cops to have disarmed Rittenhouse, but sending him home interferes with his right to protest, as it would with others protesting.

      No politician considered the vandalism to be righteous anger of the oppressed. The right considers its violence to be such, but that isn't how the left thinks about things.

      I watched the footage from that night and didn't see that the defense had a self-defense case.

      The first man Rittenhouse shot and killed, did chase Rittenhouse but he didn't try to grab his gun. The second tried to stop him after he had shot Rosenbaum, using a skateboard because he was unarmed. The third was armed, but it isn't an assault when you are trying to stop a shooter who has just killed two other men and still has a gun. Virtually all mass shooters are stopped that way, if they don't kill themselves first.

      I don't know what you think this quote proves, Cecelia. No one is questioning the sequence of events, just what they mean. You think that it was OK for Rittenhouse, a 17 year old with a gun, to shoot an unarmed mentally ill man. Not even cops should do that, and they have the authority to shoot people when necessary.

      You refuse to engage the issues of vigilantism, why Rittenhouse was there, that he was there without permission, that he lied about his actions and his motives (he was not there to give medical aid), and that he continued shooting unarmed people after the first one, his bragging to a friend on his phone, his admiration of the alt-right, and so on. All of that provides a context that undermines his self-defense claims and makes it clear what he was doing there.

      Grosskreutz didn't bring the prosecution crashing down. He was asked a yes or no question that he answered truthfully, but that didn't allow him to provide any context. That is how cross-examination works. The judge skewed the trial by disallowing evidence the prosecution wanted to introduce and by making rulings and instructions to the jury that harmed the prosecution's efforts. The judge is supposed to be objective. This one was not.

    11. The prosecutor presented a frame by frame analysis of the moment Grosskreutz was shot. The gun Grosskreutz was holding was not pointed in the direction of rittenhouse until after his right arm was blown off at which point he had no ability to squeeze the trigger.

    12. Grosskreutz did bring the prosecution crashing down. If you had seen the response of the prosecution after he admitted to having pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, you would have seen Corey Chirafisi cover his face with his hand. That footage didn’t make the broader media.

      I’m not sure of the point about vigilantism. It’s okay to set 30 cars on fire on a car lot, but it’s vigilantism to try and protect property? Would a property owner have been a vigilante if he/she did more than just hand the keys to their property off to the people with …torches?

      It’s okay to threaten to kill a vigilante and to chase him and try to grab his gun? That doesn’t make YOU a vigilante? You aren’t a vigilante if you chase a shooter down in order to bash him with your skateboard? You certainly aren’t a vigilante if you chase a shooter down and point your gun at him?

      Who ARE the vigilantes here?

      I don’t think the jury factored in the notion that being a vigilante renders you into a shooting duck for anyone who wants to run down a street and knock you down in order to make a… citizen’s arrest.

      Yes, you did excuse all sorts of violence on the basis of historical grievance. You’ve done it since Ferguson.

      You can thank yourselves for this mess.

    13. "But during cross-examination, Rittenhouse defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?”

      “Correct,” Grosskreutz replied. The defense also presented a photo showing Grosskreutz pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, who was on the ground with his rifle pointed up at Grosskreutz."


    14. Was that before or after Grosskreutz tried to approach young Florence Nightingale with his hands raised?

    15. Cecelia, just because Rittenhouse says he was there to defend private property doesn't make it true. For one thing, there is confusion about when the cars burned. Rittenhouse was commiserating with the owner of the cars about their burning on the day before the shootings took place. Do you think they were worried about the cars being burned twice? Second, the owner of the lot testified he did not ask or give permission to Rittenhouse or others to defend his lot. Third, there is no evidence of Rittenhouse doing anything to protect anyone or render assistance to anyone, as a medic or a security guard.

      Grosskreutz has expanded on his answer several times on TV since the trial. He wasn't permitted to do that on the stand (because it was cross-examination), but you do seem to be ignoring the comment about the frame-by-frame analysis of his interaction with Rittenhouse. That comes from the trial itself. How is that not something that would change your mind?

      And why do you keep ignoring the fact that these two subsequent shootings were people trying to apprehend rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed mentally ill man? You don't have a right to self-defense after you have shot someone. These others were trying to prevent additional shootings by Rittenhouse, when he shot and killed one and seriously injured Grosskreutz. Should bystanders have permitted Rittenhouse to go on killing people indefinitely? Those additional victims were brave, whether Grosskreutz aimed at Rittenhouse or not. Rittenhouse was the murderer at that point, not a scared victim.

      It boggles my mind that you think this kid deserves a defense like you are giving him. He went there with a gun to kill people and that's what he did. He doesn't get to say he was scared when someone tried to stop him. A scared kid should have stayed home in the first place. No one dragged him to that scene and told him to shoot, unless you count the alt-right and its militia-recruiters who were telling people on the radio to show up armed.

      How can you defend this kid? Somerby doesn't bother to argue the facts -- he just says he thinks no one should be locked up, apparently regardless of their crimes. You seem to think this particular kid did nothing wrong. How can you say that?

    16. It boggles my mind that you think Rittenhouse didn’t deserve the defense that he did get and that it didn’t matter that Rosenbaum (who witnesses described as being “hyper-aggressive”) had threatened and chased him though he was carrying a gun.

      It’s moot to you that jurors watched this footage and concurred.

      It’s moot to you that Amber Rasmussen, a DNA analysis, testified that though neither Huber’s or Rosenbaum’s DNA was found on the gun, this did not mean that they had not touched it. After being show photographs by the defense, Rasmussen admitted that the pictures looked as though both men had touched the gun while chasing Rittenhouse.

      I don’t get how it never.seems to occur to you that although you have dismissed out of hand that Rittenhouse might actually believe his own story, that it is not incumbent upon the jurors to do so as well.

      The jurors are supposed to ask themselves how would Rittenhouse have felt if he thought he was being chased down by people intending to kill him. They’re supposed to weigh how his feelings would fit his description of his feelings and with what they see in the video. In particular as to who were the aggressors. .

      You spent a summer defending violence and destruction to property because it was done by the right people taking the law into their own hands. You loved that particular vigilantism. You did then and you always will.

    17. "people intending to kill him"

      Unfortunately, Grosskreutz was too much of a human being to shoot the kid. Why didn't he use his gun if he was intending to kill him? Why did he approach pig vomit with his arms raised?

      Once Grosskreutz was shot, the bullet severing his bicep, his arm lowered in an involuntary action, the prosecutor said.
      "At this point, yeah, absolutely. That right arm is probably dangling down towards the defendant," Binger said. "It's not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle, and it's not a voluntary thing. It's done because the defendant just blew his arm off."

    18. It doesn't matter whether Rittenhouse came to believe his own story. Belief doesn't make something true.

      I have never defended violence or property damage. I have repeatedly said that people are more important to me than property, but that doesn't condone violence, looting or rioting. I support the right of anyone to peacefully protest and I deplore the police violence aimed at protesters. That is ALL I have ever said here, so don't be putting words into my mouth.

      If you equate rioting with vigilantism, you don't know the meaning of the word. It is defined as: "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". That is not what rioters of any persuasion are doing. But so-called peacekeepers and ex-officio security guards fit that description.

    19. "And why do you keep ignoring the fact that these two subsequent shootings were people trying to apprehend rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed mentally ill man?"

      So, then, dembots do condone vigilantism?

      Why don't you ask your cult's priests to clean up their talking points a bit?

  9. Rittenhose probably fell for Christopher Rufo's lies about CRT, like every other bigot on the Right.

  10. In reality, this is the most chuckle-worthy part of that letter:

    “Senator Sinema is a serious, hardworking member of the Senate who contributes a great deal to the policy deliberations before us.”

    They don’t seem to share Somerby’s unexplained view that Sinema is a “nutcase.” And they work with her!

  11. “More attacks on disfavored pols for their wardrobe selections, please!”

    Is Sinema really ‘disfavored?’ By the New York Times? She’s getting a lot of publicity, and I don’t see the Times being very supportive of Biden or his agenda, which has the support of most Democrats.

    Surely Sinema knows that her deliberately flamboyant outfit choices, especially in a workplace where everyone else dresses conservatively, focus attention on herself. Does that perhaps reflect on her personality in some way?

  12. “In our usual dimwitted way, we liberals let that brilliant journalism go.”

    From 1999:

    ‘On ''Crossfire'' this week, Patricia Ireland, among others, said the criticism of Ms. Wolf was plainly sexist and noted that nobody had ever questioned how much male consultants, like Karl Rove, the top strategist for Gov. George W. Bush, are paid.’


  13. Herpes can be cured because it truly has a complete cure. I’m a living witness of it because I recently got rid of my HSV VIRUS within just two weeks. And as I speak right now! I’m perfectly cured from the herpes disease.  There is a cure and it's called herbal medicine. I'm so glad to have come in contact with Herbal doctor Kham who is also known as the two weeks healer of herpes virus. Doctor Kham got me cured completely from my long term genital herpes (HSV VIRUS) with the help of his powerful and effective herbal medication which I took for only two weeks, and I got a good result being cured from the herpes disease. If you are out there diagnosed or suffering from the herpes virus you can reach out to Herbal doctor Kham for help in getting rid of your herpes virus forever just the way he helped me got rid of mine; His email address is dr.khamcaregiver@gmail.com or for his quick response to you, you can reach him on WhatsApp with +2348159922297 The medical industry/Big Pharmacies make huge profits off treatments and modern drugs/medicines that can't even get the herpes virus cured. That's why they don't want you to know the cure. Aaron Tray wick had a cure for HIV and herpes and he turned up dead like a week later, even Nipsy Hassell was murdered along with Lisa Left Eye Lopes by the US Government simply because these people were doing a research on how Dr. Sebi makes herb for the cure to herpes virus and HIV. The Doctor Sebi in question was also killed by the US Government just because he was having the cure to herpes and HIV. You can Also Visit his website to know more about him at > https://herbal-dr-kham.jimdosite.com 

  14. It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

    Visit Web
    Click Here
    Visit Web