I must profess to never having read his column. I clicked over to read a few and enjoyed my visit. Sorry you feel you have to chuck him, but so be it.

I am wondering something now... and I will email you my question...

Charley has seemed to change his tone over the years, from some sensible comments to a more hardened view of the US and our role in the world. Anyone who has read in detail the dealings of Galloway should realize what a self-serving bottom feeder he is.

Well, yes ... but it's a DRY heat ... :-)

- - - - - -

But, seriously, stand by your FINAL decision, Eric. I don't read Reese's column, even on an irregular basis. But, if he's as bad as you say he is, it will show up in ratings points, households, hits, page views or whatever measure is used.

Then, you may not be the only one saying, 'Goodbye, Charley.'

I clicked over to read a few and enjoyed my visit.

It's nice to have a reliable barometer for testing my political views! ;-)

Jeff, if you're referring to the MRT's website, they don't publish Reese's column online. I suspect there's something in their syndication agreement preventing them from doing so.

In any event, I'm not sure it's a good idea to drop a columnist just because he has unpopular (from the local majority's perspective) ideas. This would be an awfully dull place if we all agreed on everything.

Not that I see that happening anytime soon.

I keep telling myself that I, too, would quit.

And then, somehow...I find myself reading Reese and getting extremely angry about 95% of the time. It's that darn 5% that sucks me into a "maybe it'll be good this time" mindset.

It rarely is.

Whatever his column is, good or bad, he makes people angry on all sides of the fence.

Is that bad?

I've blogged on him a bit, and have decided he'll never be happy unless Jefferson Davis is president of the Confederacy once again. I'm serious.

Julie, I know precisely what you mean! And, really, that's why I'd hate for our local newspaper to drop him. (I much rather see Helen Thomas' pitiful excuse for a column go away.) Even if Reese gets you riled up, he's still thought-provoking and makes you (well, me, anyway) stop to consider whether my opinions are well-founded or not.

But I'm still going to stop reading him.

At least 95% of the time. On average.

Reese usesd to put out a very well-thought out, common sense-laden column. 15 years ago. No more. Personally, I think it is either creeping senility, or growing intellectual laziness. He seems to be listening to NPR and reading the New York Times, and assuming that they are fair, reasonable, and telling the whole truth. Big mistake. Added to the mix seem to be some old-South attitudes, perhaps bubbling up from his youth, for a strange melange of loopy notions. He's even jumped on the environmentalist band wagon. Pity, he used to be pretty good.

Charley Reese was not the only one impressed with Galloways's Senate Performance. It certainly looked like our senators made wrong accusations.

I rarely read Charley Reese' articles in the past nor talked to him when he would appear on the Craig Anderson KWEL 1070am Talk Show. But I sure am glad that not all Americans have the herd mentality.

For a person who I think only had a high school education, I say, "Hurray for Charley Reese!!!!

It certainly looked like our senators made wrong accusations.

I'd be interested in knowing the facts that allow you to draw that conclusion.

Most people just look at the faces. I saw their faces. They were just silent, including the senator at the center. So facewise alone, they lost in the arguments.

Also, Galloway always had an answer

I can add some more, but that's enough

=======

And these things that we hear in our national talkshows and national TVs, they are just too one sided to be believable.

Besides, I personally know how these media people and senators, congressmen, president can bend the truth. Just look at the $300 eurasian government money giveaway experimental. THOUSANDS OF INTERNET ARTICLES ON THIS $300 BUSH REBATE. GNP PRODUCTION FOR ALL OF THEM, ALL PROFITING FROM THE EURASIAN EXPERIMENTAL. NOT EVEN THE CONSCIENCE TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHERE THEY GOT THE SUGGESTION THAT MADE IT ALL POSSIBLE. AT ANY RATE, IT IS A DISCOURAGEMENT THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE US CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE I HAD OTHER PLANS FOR IT IN SOLVING OTHER PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTRY. JUST YESTERTAY, I TALKED ABOUT THIS $300 EURASIAN EXPERIMENTAL TO CONGRESSMAN MIKE CONAWAY AT THE CRAIG ANDERSON SHOW AT KWEL 1070. AFTER ONE SENTENCE AND BEFORE CONAWAY COULD EVEN SAY ONE WORD, THE TALKSHOW HOST, CRAIG ANDERSON DISCONNECTED EURASIAN'S TELEPHONE CONNECTION. WHAT KIND OF A DIALOGUE SYSTEM IS THIS. CONGRESSMEN WHO ARE MERE PUPPETS FOR RADIO ADVERTIZEMENTS???? IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT TALKING TO PROBLEM SOLVERS WHOSE INVENTIONS THE USE, TALK TO US HERE OPENLY IN THESE PUBLIC INTERNET FORUMS WHERE RADIO TALK SHOW HOSTS CANNOT SABOTAGE CONVERSATIONS, INSTEAD OF SPENDING TIME PRIVATELY WITH THE SPECIAL INTERESTS AND LOBBYISTS!!!!

OVERTHERE IN THAT WEBSITE YOU RECOMMENDED, THE WEBSITE OF STATE REP. AARON PENA. WHAT KIND OF A WEBSITE OF A STATE CONGRESSMAN IS THAT??? ANY OF YOU, TRY TALKING WITH AARON PENA OVER THERE AND SEE IF HE WILL EVER DIALOGUE WITH YOU!!! THESE REPRESENTATIVES PRETEND NOT TO KNOW WHAT A REPRESENTATIVE IS. IDEALLY, REPRESENTATIVES ARE SUPPOSE TO TALK TO OTHER REPRESENTATIVES NOT ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT BUT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WANT. TO DO THAT, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THEM TO HEAR PEOPLE, BECAUSE REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT MIND READERS. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY DON'T HEAR PEOPLE. ALL THEY DO IS HEAR THE SPECIAL INTERESTS.