"This from Rupert Murdoch's Wall St. Journal"

Gee I wonder what would make one of the Mudcatters allegedly most against Mr. Murdoch cite a column in the WSJ.

Couldn't possibly be that the column is negative on Obama. Of course not.

So much for that poster's supposed opposition to Mr. Murdoch. He's against him--unless he can use something from the WSJ. A slight whiff of hypocrisy?   Of course not.

And of course the poster is also likely trying to prove Mr. Murdoch's domination of the WSJ. Wrong again. He quotes a column from the editorial page--which has always been Neanderthal--long before Mr. Murdoch came on the scene.   But, as I've said more than once, it does not reflect the quality of the actual reporting--which for my money is the best in the world---and contradicts the editorial page all the time.

And we have yet another baseless and pointless allegation from the same poster--blissfully free from any logic or evidence, as always----that many voters would be uneasy with Obama "at the helm".   Sounds like another special at Smears R Us.

The best things in life don't change, they say.