<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Slate Magazine - Kausfiles Special</title>
    <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2076887/?from=rss</link>
    <description>Political commentary and more.</description>
    <copyright>2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>,    :: EST</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>,    :: EST</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>120</ttl>
    
    <item>
  <title>Unionize the Huffington Post! </title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2210448/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2210448/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  Political commentary and more.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2210448/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>kausfiles special</category>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:24:54 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Slimmer Tim Rutten!</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2163299/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2163299/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  On March 24, Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten expounded on the controversy surrounding the cancellation of an opinion section guest-edited by Hollywood produce Brian Grazer. The section had been commissioned by the paper's editorial page editor, Andres Martinez, who resigned when it was cancelled. Martinez then named Rutten as one of the "disgruntled newsroom" staffers who'd objected to the section on ethical grounds (because Martinez has dated a publicist who works for a firm that does work for Grazer). Rutten responded with a high-minded column entitled "These Rules We Live By," which is distilled and decoded below for non-Angelenos, especially those (you, Zell!) who might accidentally purchase the paper without knowing what they're getting into:<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2163299/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>kausfiles special</category>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Tue, 3 Apr 2007 05:45:33 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Let's not save Social Security!</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2118109/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2118109/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  Should Democrats agree to let President Bush have some small, voluntary face-saving private account scheme, if in return they get a series of changes that restore the Social Security system's long term solvency? That seems to be the big issue currently facing Democrats.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2118109/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>kausfiles special</category>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Thu, 5 May 2005 13:46:28 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>Fifty-fifty forever.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2073262/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2073262/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  The mass market newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News) can't be seen as taking sides in political campaigns -- imagine Time writing a cover story on "Bush's Dangerous Iraq Policy," or "Why the Democrats Can't Be Trusted." It would be a commercial disaster. Yet the weeklies are also expected to deliver more in the way of bold, dramatic analysis than can be found in your daily paper. As a result, every two years they glom on to some sweeping, seemingly-biting-but-also-neutral story line through which to tell the story of the election. When I wrote for Newsweek in 1988, our Neutral Story Line was "Is This Anyway To Pick a President?" More recently, the favorite NSLs have been along the lines of "Oh, What a Negative Campaign" or "Money Talks: The Influence of Campaign Fund Raising." Yet these story lines have by now been worked so hard even the weeklies can't pretend that they're fresh anymore.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2073262/?from=rss">more ...</a>]<!--AD BEGIN--><br clear="all" /><a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/slate.rss/politics;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=9002" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/slate.rss/politics;pos=ad9;tile=9;ad=rss;sz=479x40;ord=9002" border="0" vspace="5" /></a><!--AD END-->  ]]></description>
  <category>kausfiles special</category>
  <author>Mickey Kaus</author>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:30:35 EST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
  <title>The trouble with Kerry.</title>
  <link>http://www.slate.com/id/2096408/?from=rss</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.slate.com/id/2096408/?from=rss</guid>
  <description><![CDATA[  As a Democrat, I have two big fears about John Kerry. The first is that he'll lose. The second is that he'll win. Let's take the second possibility first. One reason Kerry might lose, after all, is an inchoate public intuition that he would not be a successful president.<br /><br />[<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2096408/?from=rss">more ...</a>]  ]]></description>
  <category>kausfiles special</category>
  <comments>http://fray.slate.com/discuss</comments>
  <pubDate>Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:20:57 EST</pubDate>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss><!-- Total Time:5.990255ms --><!--SL-WEB10-->