The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20041014140852/http://www.rjwest.com:80/blog/index.php?m=200408

North . . Dogma

Girlie-Men & Commies

Oberon's list o' pinkos
Brad DeLong
Philosoraptor
Low Culture
Emerging Democratic Majority
The Poor Man
Pandagon
Nielsen Hayden
Progress Report
Dead Parrot Society
Intel Dump
Talk Left
Angry Bear
Pacific Views
Centrist Coalition
General JC Christian
Staunch Moderate

Georgia bloggers
Bejus Pundit
Paul McCord
Jim Flowers
Spare Change
The Dax Files
Days Limit
Dizzy Girl
Single Southern Guy
TechLinks
Red State Liberal

Latest Comments
  • WarHawk: I saw this
  • RW: Wow. I saw something
  • Cassidy: Whomever is the
  • Note-It Posts » Classy - Not!: [...] n The
  • Jay G: I understand completely,
  • Cassidy: Didn't mean to
  • : If it's true,
  • Jane: Ricky, the life
  • Baseball Crank: POLITICS: Quick
  • Andrew | BB: Please consider guest
  • Court: Sounds like you're
  • Slartibartfast: The Orlando Sentinel
  • North Georgia Dogma » Runnin’ on empty: [...] tate Liberal
  • North Georgia Dogma » Runnin’ on empty: [...] led under
  • North Georgia Dogma » Chris Matthews: [...] #8220;snap poll”
  • Allah Is In The House: Sounds like it's
  • Cassidy: "CitiesForBush.com ...try to
  • Dan: First, I'm really
  • lj: Geez, it was
  • North Georgia Dogma » Playing it even: [...] it’s now
  • Testimonials
    "...so funny..."
    "Don't make the mistake of treating RW like a GOP shill."- Jane Finch

    "Bush apologist" - Skeejin

    "one of the best Conservative blogs on the web" - Ezra Klein

    "unprincipled.....jackass" - JP

    "Approved Rightwing Blogger" - Matthew Yglesias

    "neo-confederate Racist" - Mac Diva

    "Anyone who calls you anti-gay or racist either doesn’t have a sense of humor, or is COMPLETELY misreading what you write."- Michael Demmons

    "partisan shill" - commenter

    "Liberal Christian" - Peiter Friedrich

    "As somebody who actually kinda likes Ricky, but who almost never agrees with him..." - rea

    "I have to jump on the "Liberals for Ricky" bandwagon." - Daryl McCullough




    Blogroll me, baybee!
    Contact: ngdogma at rjwest dot com
    Yahoo IM: rjwest21_ga

    Archives
    Archives:
  • August 2004
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul   Sep »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Other:
  • 8/31/2004

    ’bout to give ‘em…..
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 11:01 pm


    Rudy was great.  Arnold, my favorite living Republican, was AWESOME.  But who do I predict will have the most riveting speech?  My man,
    Zell Miller:


    "If people think that the Democrats of Georgia oppose Zell Miller’s thinking on this issue, [they’re] wrong," Miller said. "I don’t know where you think this widespread opposition is. It’s loud and it’s shrill, and it’s become very profane on our phone lines, but it’s not a lot of people."


    No, it’s not.  Zell left as the most popular governor in the history of the state and he’s retiring from politics as the most popular politician in state history (68% approval rating).


    Emory University political scientist Merle Black, who co-authored a book about the rise of Republicans in the South, predicted similar results this year.

    "Kerry represents exactly what Zell doesn’t want the Democratic Party to be," Black said. "And I think Zell represents the view of most of the people in the area he comes from. I would think most of them would not be voting for Kerry this fall."

    The leftward tilt of national Democrats has angered and alienated conservative Democrats like Miller, Black said. Many already are voting Republican at the national and state level and that trend has trickled down to the local level.

    "Conservative Democrats are already isolated and marginalized in the national Democratic Party," Black said. "They have utterly no influence."

    And we see what that’s gotten the Democratic party.


    State Rep. DuBose Porter (D-Dublin) is among those who questions why Miller didn’t work within the national party to move it closer to the political middle.


    "I wish he was working more on ways to correct the Democratic Party rather than going and giving a speech at the Republican Convention," said Porter, House speaker pro tempore. "I wish he was giving that speech at the Democratic Convention."


    Sorry, Rep. Porter, but stepping off the plantation isn’t allowed at Democratic conventions. 

    At Miller’s regular lunch spot, Mary Ann’s Country Kitchen and Grill in his hometown of Young Harris, retired truck driver Leroy Adams offered that he’s no fan of Bush or his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. But like Miller, he said, he’ll back Bush.

    "I know some Democrats say Zell Miller has stabbed them in the back by going with the Republicans," Adams said. "But I think some of these so-called Democrats need to be stabbed in the back."

    Alice Gribble, 58, who was working the cash register last week at her sister’s namesake restaurant, tried to explain the senator’s popularity among locals of all political stripes.

    "He don’t pull no punches," said Gribble, who considers herself a political independent. "We like people who talk straight. It’s how we were brought up. Up here, we were taught that a handshake is better than anything wrote on paper."

    Down the road in Blairsville, part-time manager Roy Bateman Sr. mingled with the last of the lunch crowd at Zaxby’s ("Kerry and Bush Agree: Left or right, Zaxby’s has the best wings," the bipartisan sign outside reads.)

    "The Democrats are mad at him, but so what?" said Bateman, a retired Baptist minister who, like Miller, is a lifelong registered Democrat, though he votes for Republicans, too.

    "Senator Miller is of the old school. He represents the people of Appalachia and Georgia, not the Democratic Party, as such," Bateman said.


    Putting the people of the state above the whims of the donk leadership?  Ya think that could be why he’s so popular amongst Georgians and so unpopular amongst the diehard lefty Democrats?

    8/30/2004

    Time saver
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 9:08 pm


    They can get back to biz as usual & wrap up the convention because Ron Silver just laid everything out in an excellent speech. Ninety percent of what he said could be presented here as my personal list of reasons to vote for Bush.

    ‘nuff said. (link via Hanks).

    Chutzpah
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 12:57 pm


    There is a part in the great movie Tombstone where Doc Holliday (played brilliantly by Val Kilmer) utters a memorable phrase:

    It appears that my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    I was reminded of this line this morning.  No, not the time where John Cole was aghast at one predictable instance.  I mean, come on, that’s shooting fish in a barrel.  I’m talking about a politician standing up in a church pulpit and admonishing others for what he claimed was bearing
    false witness:


    "It’s wrong to demonize and cartoonize one another, and to ignore evidence, and to make false charges and to bear false witness…..."Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments."


    The politician?  Bill Clinton.  Insert your "8 commandments" own joke to follow that walking joke having the audacity to talk about the ten commandments (let’s focus on adultery as well as false witness, shall we?).  Yes, it is wrong to lie.  Yes, it is wrong to demonize.  Yes, it is wrong to cartoonize.  Let’s hope someone told Terry Lenzner & Richard alladino.  Let’s hope someone told your wife as it pertains to blaming your peccadilloes on some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  Let’s hope someone told your boot-licking water carrier Sid lumenthal.  Let’s look at what the Clinton lapdogs are doing to the SBVT.

    I wonder:  Does claiming that your opponents want to starve children count as an attempt to "demonize" another?  How about wanting to serve arsenic to kids?  How about wanting old people to die?  How about poisoning the water?

    Never mind.  I think I already know the answer…..and it’s full of nuance.

    That loud sound you hear is the constant echo of chirping crickets from the folks who claim that a Bush theocracy is right around the corner, as yet another Democrat preaches politics from the pulpit of a church.  I used to seek their reference on such matters, as a point of simple decency, consistency and intellectual honesty.  Now, I know that so many couldn’t care less if they’re duplicitous as long as ‘their guy’ wins an election.  I stopped giving a damn about those freaking conscienceless hypocrites.


    And if someone doesn’t like my language, they can narc on me to my preacher…who, by the way, isn’t a Democrat politician campaigning during service.

    Monday morning snark
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:09 am


    What?


    But what caught my eye was Kerry’s response to how he would handle President Bush in the presidential debates. Kerry responded, "Kerry said the debates would be a challenge. "The president has won every debate he’s ever had," Kerry said. "He beat Ann Richards. He beat Al Gore. So, he’s a good debater."

    Is this the same president that all Democrats have accused of being stupid and simple? A stupid guy beat the renowned Democratic intellectual Algore? And the smooth-talking Ann Richards? Come on.

    Do you think Kerry might be planting the seed of lowering expectations for the presidential debates? Most commentators do seem to think the debates could be very important. And no one can deny that Democrats have been hammering the theme of Bush’s stupidity for the last four years—heck, even books have been written about it. You know Kerry’s got to be worried about getting whipped by a man his entire patchwork of constituents regards as a moron.

    Interestingly, Kerry knows better.

    Sorry, I can’t believe Kerry said that.  Heck, it would make some of his biggest supporters’ words look foolish with one television interview on the Comedy Channel.  I mean, come on, a Yale grad (in an real major) with an MBA & experience flying jets is intellectually inferior….I know because some folks typing on a keyboard said so, and we all know how difficult that is.

     

    8/29/2004

    Clint Black Blogging
    Filed under Posted by — Oberon @ 9:01 am Edit This


    Notes from a Clint Black concert:

    1. Many people wonder how George W. Bush manages to have a 45% approval rating after presiding over job losses, running half-trillion dollar deficits, invading Iraq instead of focusing on Islamic terrorism, spending billions on a non-working missile shield in Alaska while underfunding the Nunn-Lugar program to secure old Soviet nukes, etc. etc. etc.

    I found the answer: President Bush looks like Clint Black.

    2. Where else but Atlanta would you see two men holding hands in the front row of a country music concert?

    3. The encore is written into the musician’s contract. You can scream and cheer after the last song, or you can sit on your thumbs. It doesn’t matter.

    4. me: “Hey look, a black guy.”
    wife: “He’s with security.”

    5. I don’t enjoy country-pop. I don’t like the whole twangy sound that comes from singing out of the side of your mouth without moving your jaw. I wouldn’t know the number #1 country radio song if it bit me on the ass. That being said, Clint Black is great performer and we had a great time at the show.

    I’m off for a short vacation to coastal Georgia. More of my strange opinions later in the week.

    Yet Again With the Swiftvets
    Filed under Posted by — Oberon @ 8:32 am Edit This


    Which is the most disingenuous argument in the whole Swift Boat Veterans Who Hate Kerry mudfight?

    (A) “280 veterans can’t all be lying.”

    Only a small number of Swiftvets are eyewitnesses to the events of Kerry’s Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star (the others just hate Kerry). It’s only these small number of veterans that are the liars.

    (B) “Bush can’t tell the Swiftvets to withdraw the ads because that would constitute illegal control over an independent group.”

    This statement is too dumb for me to bother refuting.

    (C) “Kerry drew these attacks on himself by emphasizing his service record.”

    If you think the Swifthaters would have kept quiet if only Kerry hadn’t mentioned his service, then you don’t understand politics and you don’t understand hate. The attack would have been a little different (such as “John Kerry is hiding his Viet Nam record. That’s because he’s lying about…”), but it would have come all the same.

    (D) “Democrats are hypocrites for attacking this one 527 group while benefitting from others.”

    The Democrats are not disputing the Swiftvets right to speak; the Democrats are attacking the lies and smears that are the content of the Swifthaters’ speech.

    Meanwhile, the President now opposes basic free speech rights for any group other than political parties and politicians.

    8/28/2004

    The fallback position
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:07 am


    This week isn’t the first time that John Kerry’s campaign has resorted to publicity stunts with letters. Earlier this year he sent one to the President admonishing him for wanting to talk about Vietnam during this year’s campaign (yes, you can stop guffawing, it really did include that) and, of course, includes the ever-present “mommy, make them stop” instance of claiming that his patriotism is being questioned (so much for “bring it on”).

    Let’s revisit history, from February:

    “Over the last week, you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defence of this nation,” Kerry wrote.

    “As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation’s history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So it has been hard to believe that you would choose to re-open these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do.

    “I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged.

    “America deserves a better debate. If you want to debate the Vietnam era, and the impact of our experiences on our approaches to presidential leadership, I am prepared to do so.”


    What’s changed since February?
    Not much.
    Kerry is still talking about Vietnam, still sending off letters and still trying to waive the white flag of Victimhood. The only difference is that now he’s decided to play the sympathy card & started sending out cripples to deliver the letters.

    8/27/2004

    If John Kerry coached the USA men’s basketball team
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:18 am


    “If I were team USA coach instead of Larry Brown, you wouldn’t see all these missed shots because I would have the team make the baskets.”

    Sir, how would you cause the players to make their baskets any easier than Larry Brown’s offensive plays?”
    “Because I would have assembled a better team of our allied players who would do the job in a much better fashion.”

    “Sir, Shaquille O’neal, Allan Houston, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, etc., all refused to join the team, even after repeated requests. What makes your presence alone preclude that those people would suddenly change their minds?”
    “Because I wouldn’t approach them in such an arrogant manner, turning away our long-time friends with talent.”

    “Sir, Larry Brown and Team USA tried everything to get those players to join…...nothing would change their minds. Again, how would YOU get them to join?”
    Because I know what it’s like to carry an M-16 in the jungles of…...

    Cripes, there he goes again...Sir, knowing what we know now, that the listed players wouldn’t attend the games, that Puerto Rico would have such fantastic team speed, that Lithuania would be so adept with the outside shots, what would you do differently than coach Brown?”
    “I would institute a more cohesive plan, with our allied players…”

    “Sir, they weren’t going to travel with the team to Athens no matter what…..that aside, what SPECIFICALLY would you do that would make the players shoot better than coach Brown? What is that cohesive plan?”
    “My plan, as I’ve said all along, would not turn off the rest of the world, which rallied to our side after the ‘88 Silver medal and that support which, by the way, has been lost by coach Brown’s reckless and irresponsible play-calling which….”

    “Sir, that’s just it, what could YOU do that would cause the players’ shots to go into the basket?”
    “I have with me a band of brothers….”

    “Sir, that’s fine, but that band of brothers won’t help get the task accomplished. The team that’s here is the best team available because all the NBA players who can actually shoot refused to join in. That’s a fact & that can’t be changed. Once more, how would YOU make the team better able to convert their field goal attempts? You couldn’t even throw a baseball from inside the pitcher’s mound to the plate before a Red Sox game….it bounced before it could get there.”
    “That’s a lie. That’s a smear. That’s part of the slime that the Brown team is behind and I call for them to stop, immediately.”

    “Sir, it’s me, asking you these questions, not coach Brown. And I’ll note that you haven’t answered several of them, especially the one that gives some sort of detailed plan that would cause the team to pay better. Saying that you’ll do it ‘differently’ isn’t exactly an answer.”
    “I call on you to stop this smear campaign and I’m sending over Christopher Reeve to deliver you a letter demanding that you either put up or shut up. I remember this sort of behavior back in Vietnam, you know.”

    Linkage
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:20 am


    McGehee

    These are private citizens taking part in the political process, but the Kerry campaign is treating them like criminal suspects and is going to publish private personal information about them.

    What if you were a supporter of a 527 group seeking to counter the spin of a presidential candidate you didn’t agree with? The Democrats say they have every right to do this to you if you dare to oppose one of their guys.

    There is a deliberate and unmistakable message being sent here. If you don’t like us, SHUT THE @#$! UP OR ELSE.

    8/25/2004

    Blast from the past
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 10:23 pm


    Since Max Cleland has assumed professional victim status (not to be confused with Coretta Scott King’s professional widow moniker), here’s something posited in January:
    —————————————-

    The blogosphere is chok-full of people ‘fisking’ Paul Krugman.  Sometimes, it’s a little much.  Hey, the guy is an opinion writer in the NYT & anyone who thinks that paper is anywhere near it’s apex of credibility is dreaming.  So I must admit that I rarely read the fellow.  Heck, finding a hyper-partisan lackey who hates the president is about as difficult as scratching my belly and from my experience about the last people who know about the actual workings of how companies budget and how the ‘real’ economy works are economists (sorry to any economists out there); because there’s more substance in actual numbers than economic theories.  His rantings resulted in jack-squat as far as swaying public opinion in ‘02 and there’s no reason to think that he’s doing more than appeasing an audience that is already in agreement.

    All that being said, I see that he’s the latest to jump on the bandwagon of faux assertions (otherwise known as lies) regarding the urban legend ofquestioning Max Cleland’s patriotism.  I guess this will have to be a monthly feature here, since there is so much false information out there.  Just in case there are any questions, here’s the commercial in question (thx to Marshall).  Look at it for yourself, instead of relying on what
    someone else says.

    Now, I’ve said all along that I thought it was stupid to question Cleland’s own campaign theme of "the courage to lead" because anyone who served in a war gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to courage.  However, there’s no rational way (emphasis on ‘rational’) that anyone can discern that Cleland’s patriotism was questioned in the commercial.  I’ve discussed this thing a lot more than I should have to, primarily because the DNC talking points came down in October of ‘03 and thus the campaign of excuses & victimization was underway.  In the past I’ve seen people swear that the commercial morphed Cleland’s face into Osama & Saddam.  I’ve seen people swear that the commercial compared Cleland to Osama and Saddam.  More than
    anything else, I’ve seen folks swear that the commercial questions the patriotism of Cleland.  One more time:

    • The commercial goes after Cleland’s campaign theme of the ‘courage to lead’

    • The commercial shows pictures of our enemies while saying "as America faces terrorists and extremists dictators "

    • The commercial does not question anyone’s patriotism, but rather attack Cleland’s theme of having the courage to lead while kow-towing to the union demands for the homeland security department

    And before I get inundated with folks saying "it implied" an attack on his patriotism, that is a stretch of monumental proportions.  I could say that Dean questioning Bush’s decision to go to war would be questioning his patriotism since that choice cost American lives.  Or that the DNC attacks on the administration’s post-war plans questioned their patriotism because it involved accusations of cronyism.  I wouldn’t do that because it’d be childish and petulant (well, okay, I cede the notion that it therefore wouldn’t be out of order for one of my entries, but bear with me :>).  There’s such a thing as dirty politics.  If you want to claim the commercial is a cheap shot – fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was over-the-line, fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was ill-timed, fine.  Like I said, I thought it was off-base to target ‘courage’, especially that of someone who lost their limbs in a war (no matter how it happened – yes, I know what occurred), but don’t urinate on me & claim that it’s raining by climbing on top of your ‘I’m persecuted’ horse and riding a crusade of "he questioned his patriotism", because it’s just an out-and-out lie. 

    And for my friends on the left who are becoming irate while reading this because they think I’m coming across as a GOP stooge, I type this as a former Max Cleland voter who has simply become fed up with falsehoods in politics.  I’m calling them as I see ‘em & feel free to disagree, but the urban legend is getting old. It was false to state that Max Cleland lacked
    courage IMO and it’s false to charge that the commercial questioned his patriotism.  And the kicker: If the election between Chambliss & Cleland were to be held again today, the margin of Saxby’s win would be even wider.

    Last week he began a column that I couldn’t finish because he said the administration has turned the country to the ‘far right’.  Since the Taliban is the ‘far right’ and Tom Delay represents the ‘far right/ of actual American politics and keeping in mind that the administration is filled with pro-choice cabinet members, has passed the biggest entitlement program since the great society, signed Ted Kennedy’s education bill into law and has increased non-defense spending more than Clinton could’ve ever dreamed, I now need someone to explain to me why I should read anything by Paul Krugman ever again.  And that is a serious request.




    —————————————

    I’ll be blunt: The “let’s feel sorry for the crip” staged photo-ops can only be used so many times.

    Sorry, Max. You had my vote in the 80s. You lost it, later. Apparently, I’m not alone in feeling that the government would be a better place without you in it. And to think that a war hero has now been reduced to pulling duty on John Kerry’s dirty-work detail…..

    Action Hero
    Filed under Posted by — Oberon @ 8:29 pm Edit This


    Is Conan the Governor just a fluke, or another California trend that will sweep the nation?

    A new article in Wired argues that Ahnuld is a real force, and he’s got the approval ratings to prove it (the Political Animal notwithstanding). His star power is part of it, of course, but Schwarzenegger has also been surprisingly effective governor.

    I’ve had a good impression of Schwarzenegger since he took office, partly because he’s a social liberal and economic conservative like me. He’s not tied to any special interest or voting block, so he’s free to govern in the best interests of all Californians. But what impresses me most is this paragraph, which I had not known about before:

    The best example of Schwarzenegger taking on the political establishment is his determination to drive a stake through the practice of gerrymandering. For decades, politicians in both parties have colluded to create safe electoral districts – areas drawn in bizarre configurations to capture Democrats in one district and Republicans in another. This conspiracy to rig the system has all but killed the competition of ideas. As a result, voters too often face a choice between a well-financed extremist from their own party and a weak, unelectable candidate from the other party. Seats are so safe that contests in all but 30 of the 435 congressional districts in the US can be predicted months before voters go to the polls. In his campaign, Schwarzenegger called for a constitutional amendment that would remap safe districts. The plan: Assign a panel of retired judges to draw boundaries based on geography, not ideology. He’s talking with Ted Costa, the activist who helped put the Davis recall on the ballot, about how to make this happen through a 2006 ballot initiative.

    Maybe only a political nerd like me cares about districting, but I believe there is no greater threat to our democratic system. Both parties use modern database technology to draw Frankenstein districts. And Frankenstein districts elect Frankenstein legislators. Voters should pick the representatives, not the other way around.

    Iowa, I believe, is the only state where districts are drawn by an independent commission, instead of being drawn for political purposes. Every state should do the same. But how can we expect our politicians to change the system that benefits them?

    Seen on the web (but amended by moi):
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 12:39 pm


    There are two candidates in this race:

    *One has said John Kerry’s service was honorable, one said he comitted atrocities in Vietnam.

    *One has said he honors John Kerry’s service, and one has said Kerry engage in war crimes.

    *One has said John Kerry should be proud of his medals, the other felt they they merited no more than being throwng away (or was that ribbons? Or was that someone else’s medals?)

    *One has been called into question by the mainstream press pertaining to a lack of evidence when claiming WMDs, one has NOT been called into question pertaining to lack of evidence when claiming coordination with the SBVT.

    *One has praised Max Cleland’s military service, and one has claimed that the other questioned Max Cleland’s patriotism (without one scintilla of evidence or one question from the mainstream media for the charge).

    *One is leading the fight in the war on terror, and one has a band of brothers that follow him around as they talk about the war in Vietnam.

    *One has cut taxes on every income group, one promises to raise taxes on selected citizens.

    *One pushed for congressional approval to give the authority to go to war, and so did the other one.

    *One pushed for congressional approval to pay for the soldiers fighting in the war approved in the item above, and one voted against it (after voting for it).

    *One has called for the redeployment of troops located in the Korean peninsula, and so did the other one (for just a short time, now he’s against it).

    Scorecard time again
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 12:34 pm


    Much has been made about Kerry’s designation as the most liberal senator
    The latest being the approved talking points item (it’s obvious that TDS writers are lefty blog readers & Air America fans) is that Kerry is only the most liberal when you look at the last year…but
    if you go back a few years, he’s really not.  And there you have a cyber-movement:  someone presents a different way of looking at things that counter-act the facts, a wave of people
    link/agree and then they all declare that the issue is discredited and anyone who brings it up is either a liar or a right-wing drone.  So, for all you "Kerry is not the most liberal senator" fans, it’s time to update the scorecard:


    In 1998, when Bill Clinton is about to be impeached, "is" means now, not "over the past few years".

    In 2004, when John Kerry has wrapped up the nomination & needs to be shown as not so liberal, "is" means "over the past few years", not now.

     


    This entry has been given to you by "Diehard Activist Democratic Water Carriers", where moving the goalposts and non-stop word redefinition is a foundation for dishonest party line rhetoric.

    Ignored By The Media
    Filed under Posted by — Oberon @ 9:05 am Edit This


    If the media is so “liberal,” why won’t they investigate the controversy over Bush’s medals?

    Oh, and the Nixon tapes reveal John O’Neill was in Cambodia in Swift Boat.

    You’ll NEVER guess who is a Republican…
    Filed under Posted by — Jay G @ 8:43 am Edit This


    ‘Cuz I almost fell off my chair when I read that Alice freakin’ Cooper is a Republican.

    Cooper, whose real name is Vincent Damon Furnier, is reportedly a strong Republican who joins Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at NBA games in Phoenix.

    RTWT. The man’s got a pretty good point, too.

    [Shaking head] I cannot get the image of Alice Cooper whoopin’ it up with Trent Lott out of my head…

    Digital Brownshirts

    Somewhere out there
    Stuff
    Public Debt
    Drudge
    Best of the Web

    FrontPage Mag
    MRC
    NewsMax
    FAIR
    Real Clear Politics
    Ann Coulter
    Krugman Truth Squad
    blogs4God
    Hugh Hewitt


    Powered by WordPress



    Fight Spam! Click Here!