OWWWW! Teh Stupid! It hurts!

Is Newton pushing the agenda for the evil GOP to get Starr nominated as the next Supreme Court Justice? Me thinks this is still Starrs dream. Vote Democrat or this may come to pass.

No surprise here. After all, as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons informed us it was poor reporting by The Los Angeles Times that began the witch-hunt known as Whitewater.

This is because right wing "extremism" for the major news producers means only "behavioral extremism", in which the right winger screams and wave his hands and flings insults.

Calm, cool collected "political extremism" in which you carefully carry out deceptive and extremely harmful policies is not "extremist", if you're on the right.

If you're on the left, well, that in itself is evidence of "extremism".

Never forget what this man and his cronies did to Susan McDougal:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/02/14_McDougal.html

This man is pond scum and his name should be scorned through American history

Seems like the same willful misjudgment of human nature that makes us say that my neighbor couldn't be no serial killer cause he helped me shovel my driveway once and we had a beer together.
It sure would be nice if we stopped being fooled by high functioning psychopaths and judged them on their actions rather than their carefully crafted facade, which is after all why they are high functioning psychopaths and not inmate #1223388.
It raises the issue of how gullible we are in the face of these psychopaths, even when their actions are at odds with the facade and even when they "flip-flop" to match our expectations in an effort to manipulate.
Here's hoping we wise up in 2008! (insert spit take and guffaw)

the media is always playing helicopter parent to these Scaifeian stalkers of the Clintons

My money's on "ulterior motive".

What a jack ass! Newt was angry about being beaten by the C-man and got even using this tool. The far-right has a nice support network to keep their nut jobs employed and in the news. He makes me sick.

LATimes, WaPo, NYTimes, serving their corporate masters and ushering in America's smily face fascism. They say Joseph Goebbels was amiable and loved children. The Republican Party and their surrogates are deserving of electoral euthansia followed by deportation.

No mention in the article of Richard Mellon Scaife, chief financier of the Paula Jones trial and noted Clinton hater, giving Starr the deanship of Pepperdine as his payoff for the bullshit impeachment nonsense?

This article is a disgrace.

How can any journalist worth his salt not mention the Scaife connection/kickback to Starr for his worthless "investigation"?

I didn't know he was a lawyer. I thought he was a garbage man. All we ever saw of the weasel was him carrying a black plastic sack of trash with that supercilious smile pasted on his face.

Oh wait...that's what lawyers do

Wasn't $50 million spent by starr and co. investigating the clintons? Isn't that $49.5 million more than was spent on 9/11? Since we "take for granted" what happened with a measley study like that, two things come immediately to mind: that investigation was a white-wash; whatever really happened can easily happen again since we don't really know what the hell occurred.

I would guess that Mr Newton decided to become a conservative writer!

The more you see of the republican owned MSM and their heroes and role models, the more you are reminded that this country is in ONE HELL OF A MESS.

No matter who the Democratic candidate is, we MUST be sure that they win. To have this absolute piece of turd crap to even be considered for a supreme is stomach churning at the least.

There republicans should just ride into the sunset and FADE AWAY. Never to be heard of again. They are the most reprehensible human beings this country has ever produced.

enigma4ever @ 25:

I can not believe they did this....wow...( NYT I would expect it....but not the LA Times..)....hmmm NO.23 said the "walls of hell are wallpapered with the souls..." gee I always thought Lawyers like Starr were Soulless...

He won't be condemned to Hell, he's already on staff down there.

Looks like a secret signal meaning something like, "Ken, I will be in the 3rd stall at the second bathroom at the international section of the airport." Bible thumpers (Ken) know how to play nice when they want to, doesn't change the rotten worms inside.

Wow... Jim Newtons HEARTS Kenneth Starr

... me thinks Jim wants to "Monica" Kenneth....

Starr is a stalker. Also, his investigation of Bill Clinton's sexuality is a perversion that I simply cannot relate to. Maybe Starr has "mother issues" or "father issues."

On the millions spent, I think the figure is something like $70 million spent investigating the Clintons. Originally $3 million approximately was allocated to investigating the events of Sept. 11, 2001, but after sufficient outrage, the bush administration generously *snark* raised the amount to $15 million. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to know where the GOP priorities lie, doesn't it. (Numbers are ballpark, but fairly close.)

What Kenneth Starr needs is a good, long, honest, satisfying blowjob.

But this time, he should try it on the receiving end.

From a woman.

After Starr completed his work in the Clinton investigation, he came west, where he and Pepperdine set out to build a law school that fuses faith and service with the law, part of Pepperdine's deliberate attempt to infuse its academic excellence with religious purpose

Oh no fucking wonder. This is a puff piece, paid for by this institution, or this Starr jerkoff. Give me a break, this is when like a lawyer or a doctor has a glowing "article" about him/her in a tourist magazine. Starr is scum, and we are in for a shitload of revisionist history in the next couple of years. The same ones that brought us this shit will shove it down our throats, as if to say, "didn't you enjoy it?"

"I’m still trying to figure out why Newton would write an almost revisionist piece about Kenneth Starr at this time. Is there some ulterior motive behind it or just blind ignorance?"

No one should underestimate the ignorance of today's press, but there is definitely an ulterior motive behind this kind of writing. Check the car in Newton's driveway today and again next week. He's going to get an upgrade very soon....

MN USA @ 42:

I just saw The Good Shepherd and what struck me was the similarity between the character Edward Wilson and the people in the Milgram experiment. Perhaps Ken Starr is a similar character. Told by an authority figure what they were expected to do was "patriotic" or "necessary," they just plod ahead without any critical thought process. I'm sure they are all nice people, yet nice people can be convinced to do horrendous things. Look at all the people who are now justifying torture because the Bush administration tortures. People like Ken Starr are scary.

Look at Lt. William Calley and My Lai. Sometimes they do realize it's wrong but are afraid to speak up.

The squeaky wheel gets greased, but the nail that sticks up gets pounded.

Starr is definitely in the elite group of GAY, bathroom trolling, Reslugs too.

wouldn't newton blowing starr on Fox accomplish the same end. Why go to all that trouble to write shit down.

pissed off patricia Says@9

Ditto. The next president may get two supreme court appointments. If that president is republican we’ll get another Alito and another Roberts. I don’t want to think about how awful our lives would be from then on.
_______________________________________________________________________

Nahhhhh! Remember the Pelicans Files, Papers or whatever the name is with Julia Robert Dentzel?

Bill B. @ 48:

His critics might be surprised, but Starr is neither monster nor prude. He is genial, reflective and easygoing, lighthearted even.

Wasn't Ted Bundy genial and easygoing, lighthearted even?

Why are you dragging Bundy down to Starr's level?

I have nothing but disdain for Kenneth Starr. That deep down hatred started during the Clinton fiasco. When I found out about the fake letters it just grew. I was in high school when Morales murdered Teri Winchell. I went to the same high school she did. I was a freshman at the time. That murder and how it effected the people in my school is one of the most vivid memories I have from that time. I live in another state now but whenever there is new news on the case my sister would send me the link so I could read it.

I guess in the "new world" created by the repuke party, even shit smells sweet. Partisan hacks like starr fit right in - the shit just keeps coming!

Could someone please explain to me what, EXACTLY, was the point of The Times article? Since most people's attention spans are about the same length as the running time of any "reality" show (between commercials) Starr had, for all intents and purposes, faded into obscurity. His conservative buddies secured him a cushy job at Pepperdine, where he could be safely cloistered from the evils of the liberal-secular media. Why peek out from the Rabbit hole?

Also, did it bother anybody else to read how much trouble Newton went to try and show that Starr was not a "prude"? Why even bring it up?

Ok, back to my coffee...

Phil

Starr already had his 14 1/2 minutes.

Why do we have to put up with another 30 seconds of this fool?

We are going to see much more of this revisionist "rehabilitation" of rightwingers in the coming year. It's a carefully orchestrated and well-funded gameplan by the Scaife group. They know that, in combination with caging, push-polling, phone jamming and other dirty tricks, if they can fool enough of the people, it might just swing an election.

Isn't it - in an abstract way - a good thing that he faked the letters?

If Hillary is going to be prez I want to out em on the Supreme Court, keep her ass in check...

Just imagine if there was an independent special counsel to investigate Bush's Harkin oil shenanigans (which would be similar to investigating the Whitewater fiasco). And that the "indepenent" counsel turned out to be a sheet sniffing partisan the likes of Ken Starr, who kept his shape shifting investigation open the enitre 8 years Bush was in office, effectively investigating everything that ever happened while Bush was in office.
How many years do you think Bush would be in jail for?
Or better yet, do you think Bush would ever step foot out of jail?

Maybe I'm wrong, but is it possible that Starr gave the reporter a blowjob?

Ken Starr is a political hack who cost all of us taxpayors money investigating Clinton's infidelity and allowed Bush and company to hammer all Dems on family values. He is a worthless human being and now is going to defend a company that sponsors gang-rapes and punishes the victim. What kind of family or even more to the issue, human , value is this? People like Starr will sell what little soul that they have for money and a millisecond of fame. Anyone who wastes printed paper on him is in the same class.

Well, here is my attempt to explain to him. Doubt I'll get a response but if we become pen-pals, I'll let you know.

Dear Mr. Newton:
Your piece on Kenneth Starr causes me to feel a compulsion to write to you. I seriously hope to understand what would lead you to the conclusions you draw.
I find myself actually hoping that you are not a reporter but a political operative fluffing Mr. Starr's record in preparation for some new political path. The alternative, that you are actually a reporter so lacking in the basic skills of logic, reasoning and discrimination as to believe your writings to be cogent, seems so much scarier to me.
Mr. Starr's past actions reveal him to be a skillful manipulator and ruthless warrior for his own agenda but you find that his ability to maintain a sweet facade and tell you what you wish to hear about polarization in American politics erases any actions that he has taken to the contrary.
Here is just _one _example of the vacuous reasoning underlying your piece:

/His critics might be surprised, but Starr is neither monster nor prude. He is genial, reflective and easygoing, lighthearted even. Committed to public service, he speaks most eloquently on the notions of service and compassion.

/Let us substitute another individual whose genial personality belied his underlying psychopathy:

/His critics might be surprised, but Ted Bundy is neither a monster or a prude. He is genial, reflective and easygoing, lighthearted even. Committed to helping the authorities understand serial killers and doing the public service of assisting with other investigations. He is able to speak most eloquently on the notions of service and compassion.

/All of this is completely true of Mr. Bundy. The question is whether it logically leads to the conclusions you've drawn about Mr. Starr. Though I may be able to wax most eloquent about the joys of giving birth, one might doubt that means I have the apparatus for carrying out the process.
The analogy is not meant to suggest that Kenneth Starr is a serial killer. The commonality is that they share the elements of psychopathy, both being able to destroy numerous lives in pursuit of their own agenda and then subsequently able to demonstrate the ability to mimic human, compassionate behavior in order to fool their next mark. The point of the analogy is that Bundy's ability to mimic the compassionate aspects of human behavior were exactly what made him successful and dangerous. It is what allowed him to have women "fall in love" with him in prison and defend his goodness, expressing their disbelief that he could have done what he had done. His facade of geniality, compassionate, easygoing, lightheartedness was his tool. It was not something that any sane person would use to conclude that his past actions were reasonable. It is not evidence that any sane person would use to conclude that he would not continue to be dangerous if released. In fact, Ted Bundy used his ability to mimic compassionate human behavior to set up his victims. He led them to the wrong conclusion about his real intentions through that facade, just as Mr. Starr has done with you. Mr. Starr offered his facade and you took it as fact, never looking beneath the surface for where the truth may lie. Please note this is the same mistake that each one of Mr. Bundy's victims made.
You conclude that he couldn't possibly be the Kenneth Starr that ran a crusade to serve his own agenda or who destroyed innocent lives for his own agenda and you know this because in your brief meeting you found him genial and lighthearted. Do you see why this is so frightening? If you are not a political operative actively participating in the psychopaths ruse then you are actually a journalist with the emotional and intellectual maturity of a jail house bride who can't believe that she'd ever be in danger if her lover was released because he's been so genial and lighthearted all the time she's known him.
Wouldn't you agree that we need a higher level of critical thought than that from our press if it is to remain a free press and serve the people as it is intended to do? A skilled reporter might have taken Mr. Starr's assertions with a grain of salt. He might have compared it to the choices and actions the subject has actually chosen and he would no doubt come to very different conclusions than you drew. If you have never taken courses in logic or critical reasoning, I would urge you to do so, in order that you might serve the public rather than playing shill for powerful people selling their swill through your endorsement.
Thank you for your time,

I didn't know Spanish counted as a hundred different languages.

This is Newton's job application for the editorial staff of the NY Times.

I understand it now. The GOP/RNC mantra for the past seven years and for the next, lets say 20 years is "it's Clinton's fault". Clinton made Kenneth Star into the republican attack dog he turned out to be. A man who started out looking into Whitewater, which he found nothing illegal done by the Clintons, into a almost seven year hunt to find something that they could get him for. They got him for lying about oral sex, there is some doubt about the lying part though. He "lied" in a non-criminal court case. He is the first sitting president who was forced to give sworn testimony under oath in the history of the country. The republicans in congress forced that. It amazes me now, because you had six years of this administration where they would hold few hearing and when they did they did not require the witness being sworn in under oath. If you lie to Congress, under oath or not under oath that is a felony under United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES = CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS - Section 1001. Statements Or Entries Generally. It carries a five year penalty and a fine.

Kenneth Star is trying to portray himself in the best possible light so that his client, Blackwater, will benefit in the trials to come. Good lawyer=good client. Nice try!!! Mercenary lawyer + mercenary client = guilty, guilty, guilty!!!

RGKahn @ 80:

Kenneth Star is trying to portray himself in the best possible light so that his client, Blackwater, will benefit in the trials to come.

Starr's real client is THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, a conspiracy to crash the Constitution.

Looking forward to the article telling us how Richard Mellon Scaife is a genial and idealistic do-gooder, who, to the scribbler's surprise, does not have fangs, smell of sulfur, or munch on puppies.

It is an excellent thing to be reminded of these people.

Jim Newton was promoted to his new job as editotial page editor by his boss, David Hiller who worked in the Justice Department of the Reagan Administration. Mr. Hiller, who currently runs the paper, is a big fan of Ken Starr. The readers here should also know that Mr. Hiller is the squash partner to Donald Rumsfeld and has vouched for his character in the LA Times. Connect the dots if you will. Its not too hard.
Jim.Newton@latimes.com

Well, up until I read this posting, I had no strong opinion either pro or con about Pepperdine U. I used to play music with a girl who ended up going to school there for something or other in the 80's... Now, understanding that Kenneth Starr is some kind of big muckity-muck there, I have a decidedly negative view of it... Frankly with people like Ken Starr running law schools, it's no wonder we are churning out attorneys with the kinds of credentials and ethics of Alberto Gonzales and the like...

Ken Starr, this Newton revisionist crap aside, will always be regarded by me as a glorified ambulance chaser and republican shill who wasted millions chasing cum stains while those he fronted for conspired to burn this nation to the ground...
And he had the temerity of continuing in this charade long after the curtin was rung down and the janitors had swept up and went home. Just couldn't let it go even after it became clear there was no 'there' there.... In fact I thought I had read no more than six months ago that he was still chasing some aspect of this pipedream of a scandal.

History will not be kind to this asshole any more than it will be to Bush, Cheney and the rest of them long term..... Ken Starr?? Look, you can keep on chasing this train of your carping Clinton bad, Clinton bad bad bad, you can keep hiring clueless, classless pseudo-journalists to keep slapping paint on your legacy but at the end of the day? You are still, and will remain,...a pig! JD

Kapitan Kreate a Krime Ken is a self rightious putz!

Lindy

I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of an attempt to remake his image as a "centrist" so that when the Bush/Cheney investigations finally come down, they can attempt to sell this partisan hack as a "independent investigator".

Yes, they really do have that little respect for us, the public.

Poor Ken Starr

Poor misunderstood pile of bear dung.

Poor beleaguered twisted amoral fuck-wit.

Poor unhappy swag-bellied unmitigated SOS.

Poor unfortunate arrogant lunatic wanker.

Poor hounded sublimated feeble-minded Kraken.

. . . sorry have to run . . . .

Or perhaps I have the wrong Ken Starr?
*

So, I guess Chrissy Matthews can't WAIT to book him as a guest.

He's no monster! Just look at him petting that puppy dog! Go on -- you can take pictures and everything!

Thank you otay! Great analysis!
Jim.Newton@latimes.com
Let him know what you think

Below is what I sent to them, via their Editorial Letters (for whatever it's worth):

I’m dismayed after reading Mr. Newton’s Piece “Kenneth Starr, Open to the Public” and question the level of "journalism" this represents. My college journalism professors would have sliced and diced me for such nonsense, regardless of the fact that it was couched as an editorial.

“To Meet Kenneth Starr is to question the anger of his most partisan critics and the ardor of his most ideological admirers”. Where do I start? Do I ask what place this superficiality has in actual journalism? In this light, I understand that Charles Manson can be pleasant, when you first meet him, but that’s not to say I want to meet either man, nor belittle the fierce sentiment that both bring out in their detractors! Why would such a characterization change my dismal view of Judge Starr’s role in Richard Mellon Scaiffe’s Arkansas Project, where he elicited lies by convicted felons against President Clinton? Or, do I start by asking why Mr. Newton never posited a question to Judge Starr over the stark difference between Whitewater and the Investigation that led to the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby? During the Plame investigation, nothing of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s investigation was leaked to the media. Contrast that to Kenn Starr’s daily leaks and periodic press conferences and we see night and day. Unlike Judge Starr, Patrick Fitzgerald was only after the truth and was careful to protect the reputations of those he was investigating.

But what really made me sick was the portion of the editorial that portrayed Starr as someone committed to public service. Yes, I’m sure Public Service was behind Judge Starr’s representation of the Tobacco Industry. It mush have been public service which was his motive in representing Blackwater against the surviving family members of it’s employees it needlessly sent to their death’s in Iraq. Public Service was why those families were threatened by Blackwater, through Starr for merely trying to find out how their loved one’s died! Yes, it surely was Public Service that forced Ken Starr to send bogus letters, purportedly from Jurors, to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his client, Convicted Murderer--Michael Morales, seeking clemency. Finally, it was “Public Service” that allowed Judge Starr to be part of the law firm Kirkland & Ellis which represented Paula Jones, against Clinton BEFORE he accepted the role of “Independent Counsel” investigating Whitewater. No sir, Pure Public Service and not a wiff of conflict of interest there!

I gave up my dream of journalism as in college, as I was told and believed I wasn’t good enough to make it in this field. But in this Editorial, Mr. Newton shows me that I wasn’t shallow enough to make it in what today passes for Journalism!

> > From: Mark Groubert
> > Sent: Sun 12/30/2007 11:36 AM
> > To: Jim.Newton@latimes.com
> > Cc: crookandliars@gmail.com
> > Subject: Kenneth Starr
> > >
> > Jim:
> > Thank you for helping to rehabilitate Kenneth
> Starr.
> > Guess we know now where you stand. I was curious
> > when you said you were non-partisan when you were
> > hired by the Times. Thanks. I hope you are the
> first
> > guy fired by Mr. Zell when he gets set up. With
> all
> > that is going on in the government and all we've
> > learned, its good to know that helping Mr. Starr
> is
> > high on your agenda. Also, thanks to Mr. Hiller
> and
> > any other Reagan era friends he has up there. Do
> you
> > also play squash with Mr. Rumsfeld as your boss
> > does? Hope to see your and Mr. Hiller's departure
> > early in the new year.
> >
> > "The President inserted a cigar into Ms Lewinsky's
> > vagina, then put the cigar in his mouth and said:
> > "It tastes good"
> > Kenneth Starr
> >
> > "At the same time, this was a judgment made based
> on
> > a very broad bipartisan sense that the American
> > public needed to have this information and they
> > needed to have it immediately,"
> >
> > Kenneth Starr
> >
> > Mark Groubert
> > Los Feliz

- "Newton, Jim" wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr. Groubert,
> >
> > What a churlish and stupid note. I encourage you
> to
> > read our series of editorials on American values
> and
> > the presidential election and suggest you consider
> > those -- all of which I edited and oversaw -- in
> > evaluating my politics. In fact, you might pay
> > special attention the editorial that will lead our
> > pages tomorrow, since I happened to write it.
> >
> > Since my arrival in this position, we have been
> > steadfast and principled critics of the Bush
> > administration. That does not preclude keeping an
> > open mind when it comes to some conservatives,
> > including Kenneth Starr.
> >
> > As for Zell firing me, that's certainly his
> > business, but his politics are far more
> conservative
> > than mine, so be careful what you wish for.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jim Newton
> > Editor of the Editorial Pages
> > Los Angeles Times
> >
> > p.s. I never said I was non-partisan. I described
> > myself then and now as a liberal, though one
> > principally concerned with practical politics. If
> > you're going insult me, at least don't misquote me
> > to myself.

> From: MARK GROUBERT
> Sent: Sun 12/30/2007 12:44 PM
> To: Newton, Jim
> Subject: RE: Kenneth Starr>
>
> Dear Mr. Newton:
>
> Your defense of Kenneth Starr, whom many of us
> consider the "Roland Freisler of American
> jurisprudence" is both astounding and shocking. Your
> personal, "Ich bin ein Liberal" defense is even more
> insipid. Does that vindicate you? Kenneth Star is
> not
> "some conservative'" as you indicate. You are well
> aware of this I am quite sure. The fact that you
> direct me to read other works by you in not
> relevant.
> I'm sure you've written many pithy political pieces.
> We are referring only to your resurrection of one
> Kenneth Starr, one of the most despised figures in
> the
> nation. Is this your idea of "practical politics" as
> you refer to your mantra?
> In your defense of Kenneth Starr you write:
> "Whatever
> one thinks of Starr's politics or his pursuit of
> Clinton, his long record as a public lawyer
> unmistakably suggests an advocate who has chosen
> service over money."
> Mr. Newton, I suggest you follow the money in the
> case
> listed below. He now defends the bloodthirsty
> mercenaries of Blackwater and you feel the continued
> need to defend him. I suggest to you, that it is you
> who are out of touch here.
> To paraphrase a famous quote: At long last sir, have
> you no decency?
>
> Blackwater Security Consulting v. Nordan (No.
> 06-857)
> Starr is representing Blackwater in a case involving
> the brutal deaths of four contractors killed in
> Fallujah, Iraq in March 2004

--- "Newton, Jim" wrote:

> Mr. Groubert,
>
> Obviously, we disagree about Starr, and you're just
> as entitled to hate him as you are to hate my piece.
>
> As for your notion that my politics or other work
> are irrelevant, that's quaint, given that you're the
> one who raised them, not me. As you'll be reminded
> if you read back on your initial message, you
> attacked me for my "non-partisan" declaration (which
> I never made, but in your uninformed view was
> somehow relevant). You questioned whether I
> hobnobbed with Rumsfeld (ridiculous, and rebutted by
> the work that you won't let me cite). And, of
> course, you expressed your hope that I would soon be
> fired (nice). So if I understand our exchange
> correctly, it is appropriate for you to attack me
> and my politics or associations, but if I defend on
> the same grounds, it's irrelevant or "insipid."
>
> And yet, on that last point, maybe I should concede,
> given your writing. You did write, after all, the
> sentence, "Ich bin ein Liberal" and actually meant
> for another person to read it. So I guess you know
> insipid when you see it. And then there's "have you
> know decency."
>
> By all means, have at Ken Starr. He's neither friend
> nor enemy to me, and you have every right to despise
> him. But your attack on me is obnoxious, and any
> chance you had to persuade me to listen to you -- if
> you cared -- evaporated with your last note.
>
> Happy New Year.
>
> Jim Newton

From: MARK GROUBERT
Sent: Sun 12/30/2007 8:40 PM
To: Newton, Jim
Cc: crooksandliars@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Kenneth Starr

Dear Mr. Newton:
I did not put quotes around 'non-partisan' so I was
not directly quoting you. I do not recall the exact
quote you used the day you were hired but I got the
impression you were saying you were above the fray
politically. Saying that my note was "stupid" is
incorrect. Mr. Hiller does indeed play squash with Mr.
Rumsfeld whom he has spoken highly of on the same
pages you now edit. Many of us feel that Donald
Rumsfeld is a murderous war criminal who should be
brought to justice. The fact that the man who hired
you is a character reference for him makes us a little
suspicious of you. Does that make any sense? Can you
possibly see that? Indeed, yes, I would prefer a
complete house cleaning of the upper levels of the Los
Angeles Times including yourself and Mr. Hiller and I
do not believe I am alone in this opinion. Your lack
of understanding as to why this piece on Starr is so
offensive to myself and many others is indicative of
your lack of sensitivity in this area. Your paper has
been savagely ridiculed by much greater minds than
mine during the past two years and the fact that you
would feel it necessary to do a puff piece on Starr is
reflective of the deafness at the LA Times. Your
writings are not relevant - in this particular case. I
am not judging your body of work nor do I care to as I
am writing about your advertising/promotional piece on
Starr. Your defense that you are a liberal has the
tone of, "How dare you. Some of my best friends are
Black." That is what I'm responding to in regards to
that and I apologize for the mocking tone. I am merely
dismissing your other writings just as you are
attempting to use them as a defense of your personal
politics.
My statement about you being a liberal was merely to
site its irrelevance in this matter. You have directed
the words "churlish," "stupid," and "obnoxious"
directly at me. Your faux-outrage is duly noted.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on you as
that is not my intent.

Mark Groubert
Los Feliz

From: "Newton, Jim"
Subject: RE: Kenneth Starr
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:23:57 -0800
To: "MARK GROUBERT"

You don't like that I was hired by Hiller (I actually wasn't hired by
him; I've worked here for 19 years, though he promoted me to this job).
Fine. Does it help that I also was hired or promoted by James Reston,
Bill Kovach, John Carroll, Shelby Coffey, Janet Clayton, Dean Baquet and
Narda Zacchino, among others? My work is my resume, and whether you
like the Starr piece or not, it's one of thousands that I have written
and edited, for the New York Times, the Atlanta Constitution and the Los
Angeles Times. It also stands with my book on Earl Warren, which I
suspect you have not read and which might inform your critique of me.

Before you call for my firing, do a service to intellectual honesty and
check your facts.

And yes, I understand why the Starr piece is controversial. It's meant
to be, just as the other pieces in this series are meant to be (one is
a tribute to a labor leader, another to Tom Hayden, etc.). Hey, we live
in a disputatious society, where it's OK to disagree without attacking
one another or calling for each other to be fired. I would hope that
could continue, but if not, if I get fired for being too liberal on the
editorial pages or too sympathetic to a conservative in this piece,
well, at least I won't have to get more emails like the ones you've been
sending me today.

Happy New Year.

________________________________

Mr. Groubert:

Loved the back and forth you had with Mr. Newton. It is so dismaying to see the corporate media trying ever so hard to "revise" history, "rehabilitate" reprobate personalities, and totally discharge itself from it's manifest of reporting the facts (or leaving then out).
However, it was delightful to see an average reader (no insult intended) such as yourself, totally eviscerate a so called "professional" writer.

Dave @ 106:

Mr. Groubert:

Loved the back and forth you had with Mr. Newton. It is so dismaying to see the corporate media trying ever so hard to "revise" history, "rehabilitate" reprobate personalities, and totally discharge itself from it's manifest of reporting the facts (or leaving then out).
However, it was delightful to see an average reader (no insult intended) such as yourself, totally eviscerate a so called "professional" writer.

Hear Hear!!

This man is a filthy degenerate monster.

May he be damned to hell for the damage he has done to our nation... and for the many crimes he has committed.

He is living proof that GANGSTERS RUN OUR COUNTRY.

Well, folks, GANGSTERS RUN PEPPERDINE TOO.

ACK!

Death is too good for this creep.

"I’m still trying to figure out why Newton would write an almost revisionist piece about Kenneth Starr at this time."

Perhaps the reason for this nonsense is to remind people of the Clintons past problems there by casting shadows from the partisan past over Hillary's campaign.Of course he's careful to paint Starr in the most favorable light while doing so.Who knows?