Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 22, 2005
BLOG: Damn You, Glenn!

So, I'm out of commission all day after having a tooth pulled, and I'm feeling like I have a good excuse - what with the painkillers, loss of blood, etc. - for neither working nor blogging today. And then I see that Instapundit had dental surgery today too and still managed to get 16 posts up. You're makin' me look bad!

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:52 PM | Blog 2002-05 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Ouch! Hope it feels better soon.

Posted by: Jerry at July 22, 2005 11:57 PM

I wouldn't feel too bad about it. Glenn could slip into a coma and still get 7-8 posts up. He's superhuman that way.

Posted by: Richard at July 23, 2005 12:49 AM

Quality over quantity.

Dusty Rhodes '54. Hurrican Hazle '57.

That's what I tell myself.

SMG

Posted by: SteveMG at July 23, 2005 3:42 PM

Glenn is a machine...

Posted by: Richard at July 24, 2005 2:34 AM

Dear Crank - How about a peep from someone who maintained that Clinton perjured himself (even related to personal matters) and should have been impeached?

Put bluntly, your post sounds like something that could have been generated by Bill Clinton's legal team. Surprisingly, we're hearing the same kind of besides-the-point excuses and apologias from people on the right wing who were craving Clinton's petard. All hypocrites.

That's said with all due respect for your willingness to engage in legal analsyis (which painfully to few news "analysts"/writers are these days), your web site which is great and your passion for baseball, which is unimpeachable.

But how about ethics, objectivity and integrity. Rove's actions, as you understand them, merit immediate termination from his job, no?

If you can't answer affirmatively to that its clear that your legal analysis is more apologia and your no worse than the Clinton defenders you rightfully took a poke at.

Let us know. www.http://reliantmedia.blogspot.com/

Posted by: rmg at July 28, 2005 8:45 AM

Well, the legal analysis depends on the facts. On the facts, it always seemed clear to me that Clinton's was an obvious example of perjury, because he sought through false statements to completely conceal the factfinder's ability to discover a fact - his affair with Lewinsky - that the court had previously ruled was discoverable. I don't see a similar case here at this stage, but if there is one it, of course, should be prosecuted.

Posted by: The Crank at July 28, 2005 9:49 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg