Unfit “tone and substance” for the Tampa Bay Times

One-sided journalism is propaganda, not journalism.

Editors note:  I submitted the following as my bi-monthly column submission to the Tampa Bay Times two weeks ago. The editor rejected the column saying it “does not fit in tone or substance.” I pointed out to the editor that the subject matter was in the ultra-liberal New York Times (and referenced in the column) days earlier. I further pointed out that the Tampa Bay Times has a regular columnist who frequently calls names, bashes Republicans and makes baseless claims, while my rejected column does none of that.

 mullet-wrapper_editedThe editor later said they would be running the New York Times piece in the Sunday opinion section, which they did.

Not surprisingly, subsequent to my rejected column with its “unfit tone and substance,” the Tampa Bay Times has run multiple front page stories and editorials on unproven allegations of sexual harassment against Donald Trump. 

Regardless, the Tampa Bay Times’ decision is an example of a today’s liberal media. They embrace thought-provoking differences of opinion — so long as those opinions are theirs, and they conform with the propaganda it calls journalism. I have notified the Tampa Bay Times‘ editor that I will no longer be writing for the paper. One-sided opinion is merely propaganda and is not something I wish to be associated with. Shame on me really, what should I have expected from a paper that in over 100 years of existence has never endorsed a Republican for president or governor of the state of Florida?

I have cancelled my subscription to the Tampa Bay Times. You can do so by calling this number: 1-800-888-7012.

Images were not included in column submission.

Here is the column: 

Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy

Last year, while addressing the press in Iowa, Hillary Clinton said, “Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault… don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.”

But practicing what she preaches has never been Mrs. Clinton’s strong suit. As it relates to addressing sexual predators, she has taken a blind-eye to the one who is most front and center in her life: her husband Bill Clinton.

Out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump has tried to make an issue of Mr. Clinton’s behavior, but he is not making the connection as to why it is relevant in this year’s campaign for the White House.

The relevancy is not the fact that Mr. Clinton has been accused of rape (by Juanita Broderick and Eileen Wellstone), has engaged in what can only be characterized as workplace sexual harassment (in the cases of Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky), as well as groping (Kathleen Wiley, Christy Zercher, Sandra Allen James), not to mention claims of extramarital affairs; no, what is relevant is Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as it relates to her husband’s misogyny. Because she is right. Victims of sexual assault (and harassment), have the right to be heard, and the right to be believed.

But over the years, Mrs. Clinton has chosen to not help women who are victims of her husband’s assaults. Instead, she has vilified and denounced those women who have accused him of rape, abuse, and workplace harassment. She once referred to Flowers as a “bimbo” and “trailer park trash,” and referred to Lewinksy as a “narcissistic loony toon.” Her husband has admitted to relations with both women – both of whom were under his employ at the time of his mistreatment.

Imagine for a moment if a prominent Republican had been accused of rape, sexual harassment in the workplace, or had carried on with a young intern. No doubt, liberals, feminists, and Hillary Clinton would have certainly (and appropriately) condemned them, called for investigations, resignation, etc., and would have repeatedly reminded us that the victim was the woman.

Over the years, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly had the chance to stand up for her husband’s victims, but she has done none of that. Instead, she has chosen to ignore what’s right for victims, in favor of what is best for her and her political aspirations by defending her husband and attacking the victims.


According to a report in the October 2, 2016 New York Times, “Outwardly, [Mrs. Clinton] remained stoic and defiant, defending her husband while a progression of women and well-funded conservative operatives accused Mr. Clinton of behavior unbecoming the leader of the free world.

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.

The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers’s ‘character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.’”bill-clintons-victims-2

While nothing Mrs. Clinton says is, in my opinion, credible, and her actions or inaction on sexual assault victims won’t change my vote, I am dumbfounded by the number of women who claim to be feminists who are willing to give Mrs. Clinton a pass.

Perhaps having blinders on and being in denial about Mrs. Clinton’s pathetic actions involving her husband’s misogynistic behavior makes it easier to cast a ballot for her; but it sends a terrible message to young and impressionable women who look up to Mrs. Clinton as role model.

“Don’t let anyone silence your voice,” she says. Unless that is, she is doing the silencing and the silence benefits her. Mrs. Clinton’s hypocrisy suggests she’s just fine with it remaining a man’s world.

Chris Ingram is a columnist, Republican political consultant, and political analyst for Bay News 9.

Bill Clinton’s hooker problem

Thanks to my friend Larry for passing this along this amusing tale (joke).


Bill Clinton started jogging near his home in Chappaqua.
But on each run he happened to jog past a hooker standing on the same Street corner, day after day.
With some apprehension he would brace himself as he approached her for what was most certainly to follow.

“Fifty dollars!” she would cry out from the curb.

“No, Five dollars!” fired back Clinton.

This ritual between Bill and the hooker continued for days. Continue reading “Bill Clinton’s hooker problem”

The Water Cooler: Clinton for Secretary of State?

Let’s get one thing perfectly clear, Hillary Clinton is a lot of things, but she isn’t a diplomat. And why would she want to be SoS? There isn’t much to hand out in the form of graft, and corruption to her elite political supporters. For that, she ought to head over to the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development or some other agency full of government grants and programs she can dish out. That’s the Clinton way afterall.

Pinch me, this has to be a nightmare

By Chris Ingram

The Water Cooler is an occasional feature of talking points about politics.

• Politics makes strange bedfellows. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton exchanged a lot of heated words during the Democratic Primary this year. Now it appears Obama is “considering” Ms. Clinton for Secretary of State. News reports say Clinton and Obama met in Chicago this week and that the Obama camp is doing nothing to deny speculation that she is being considered. CNN reports that Continue reading “The Water Cooler: Clinton for Secretary of State?”

Get Ready for Obamalism

Despite being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars, and taking bad advice by a bunch of (Bush) people who never had his interest at heart, John McCain’s numbers on Election Night were actually respectable. Had George W. Bush been on the ballot for re-election to a third term, I’m not sure he would have even carried Texas. McCain for his part put up a good fight and managed to win enough states to show this wasn’t a clear mandate on Obamalism. But in the long run, McCain was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or as my friend and noted political scientist Darryl Paulson likes to say, George W. Bush defeated John McCain not once, but twice.

I want to puke, but at least HRC isn’t the president-elect.

By Chris Ingram

My friends, George W. Bush has left our Republican Party in disarray. Make no mistake, John McCain ran a lousy campaign, but McCain could have run a lousy campaign and won had it not been for the pathetic eight years of the Bush presidency. Bush I believe will go down in modern history as our worst president — even worse than Carter.

Despite being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars, and taking bad advice by a bunch of (Bush) people who never had his interest at heart, John McCain’s numbers on Election Night were actually respectable. Had George W. Bush been on the ballot for re-election to a third term, I’m not sure he would have even carried Texas. McCain for his part put up a good fight and managed to win enough states to show this wasn’t a clear mandate on Obamalism. Continue reading “Get Ready for Obamalism”

The Polls Have Been Wrong Before

Are you starting to detect a pattern here? All the pollsters predicted Obama, on the heels of victory in Iowa (which shocked most of them), would cruise to victory in the Granite State. They were all wrong. Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Barack Hussein Obama 39 percent to 37 percent when N.H. Dems went to the polls — thus the old saying, “the only poll that matters is on Election Day.”

If you’re looking for hope for McCain, consider this…

By Chris Ingram

Two days before New Hampshire Democrats went to the polls in January of this year, CNN and the University of New Hampshire’s tracking poll predicted Barack Hussein Obama would beat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary by ten points (39 percent to 29 percent).  A day later, these same geniuses predicted HRC had narrowed her deficit, but only by a point (39 percent to 30 percent). 

Meanwhile, over at American Research Group, the brains in their polling operation found Obama leading 40 percent to HRC’s 31 percent the two nights before the election.  Over at CBS, their poll had it at 35 percent Obama and 28 percent for Clinton. While Reuters/Zogby had the race all but over for Clinton, with Obama getting 42 percent to her 29 percent.  Continue reading “The Polls Have Been Wrong Before”