Girlie-Men & Pinkos
Commie Electoral Losers
Brad DeLong
Philosoraptor
Emerging Democratic Majority
The Poor Man
Pandagon
Talk Left
Angry Bear
Centrist Coalition
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
AndrewBB: A good questionCassidy: Your forgetting context.Crank: And here IJay G: I'd say thatBruce: Ooh, ooh, Mr.MIB: Your use ofDuane: Just so's youDuane: Just so's youCassidy: For one, IJay G: Cassidy,
"Who are you,adk46er: I don't seeCassidy: No slings andJay G: Hey Moe!
(Sorry, IMoe Lane: You did bettercountertop: All pretty goodBruce: I hear you.debt consolidation: 1833 komankdebt consolidation: 6112 komankdebt consolidation: 2360 komankWarHawk: (double-posted because I
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:
December 2004
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
« Nov |
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|
Other:
|
See you in December
Okay, I'm outta here, folks. After the holiday, I'm taking my family for a 9 day trip to Disney World. Personally, I'll be upset if I don't gain at least 5 pounds, for that'd mean that I didn't eat enough during my 'down time'.
So, be good, stay safe and God bless.
11/14/2004 Forgettable
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:45 pm
I’d never heard of the guy until recently, but he seems to be the ‘go to’ guy for the moonbat left when looking for drive-by ad hominem attacks. I guess if someone’s impressed with reading a journalist play the role of Usenet-style attack dog, then….whatever makes you sleep better at night.
Personally, whenever I read someone who types stuff that they’d never have the guts to say to someone’s face, I generally ignore ‘em….and James Wolcott wouldnt’ say a fraction of his drivel to anyone’s face. There are some great things about the internet, and then there are people who make you say “you know, in comparison, Ann Coulter’s worst work and most vociferous charges are quite reasonable and well placed”. Just another blowhard who gets their testosterone rushes whenever they sit behind their keyboard….nothing to see here.
11/9/2004 Best of the internet
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:56 pm
What I’ve been reading (and what you should be reading, as well, if you want to be as enlightened as me ):
Jeff Jarvis dissects Real Time (it has been a pure joy to watch folks like Bill Maher say "okay, you won…..but we’re the rational ones, not you Christians….we are part of the ‘reality community’. Oh, by the way, it was a war for oil and Bush wants to destroy the environment!". To bastardize the bible, "forgive them…..they do not know how loony they are"):
Maher says the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein; he said the people in his rape rooms are better off but the world is not. Even Chomsky won’t pull back that far. Chomsky says the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. : Sullivan reacts: "Welcome to the world view of the far left in which the United States is the source of all evil… That is why you lost the election."
After purring for Chomsky, Maher yells at Sullivan.
Maher tries to say that Chomsky has a different definition of freedom and democracy. Sullivan says quite rightly that’s wrong: There is either freedom and democracy or there is not. Sullivan: "You don’t have to believe to the United States is perfect to believe it is a force for good in this world." He says listening to Chomsky denegrate the United States as he does is wrong and is "one of the reasons the left has lost." He challenges Maher: If Sullivan is supposed to condemn the Jerry Falwells and haters of the right, should he not condemn Chomsky as a hater of the left? "You treated him like a folk hero. You didn’t ask him a single tough question." Amen, Andrew.
Yeah…who was that imitating Andrew Sullivan Friday night…or, after watching him debate on the show, who was that person running his blog since Bush came out in support of FMA?
John Hawkins, with insights from the right that mirror mine:
This is going to be hard for a lot of Democrats to accept, particularly liberals, but quite simply put, today’s Democratic Party is very out of step with the majority of Americans. Are you a Democrat who doesn’t buy that?
Well then, why is it George Bush was openly calling himself a "compassionate conservative" while John Kerry had to hide his liberalism? Why is it that George Bush was able to run successful attack ads that did little more than in effect say, "John Kerry is a liberal"? Did you notice that at the end of the campaign John Kerry was giving speeches about his "faith," hunting, waving semi-automatic shotguns around, and desperately trying to convince the country that there was nothing that he loved doing more than killing terrorists? Come on, let’s be honest here—If Democrats really thought that’s what John Kerry was like, he could have never won the nomination.
I give props to the DNC & Kerry for making it as close as it was, but let’s be frank…..it was over when they nominated someone who came back from Vietnam and castigated the soldiers who were still over there fighting…..while we’re currently at war. That Bush could have fumbled away the election illustrates how lackluster the performance in Iraq has been, IMO.
TAPPED:
CAN’T STOP THE LIES. It seems clear that the bulge on George W. Bush’s back in the three debates came from a bulletproof vest. If Bush and his spokespeople don’t want to admit that, fine. Did they really have to dump on the tailor, though—and lie gratuitously?
"Hey, you just got your proverbial asses handed to you right after you spent no small amount of time trash-talking-like-a-schoolyard-punk…what are you going to do now?"
"Uh…...More!"
Michele Catalano
I do believe the Democrats have just switched one brand of Kool-Aid for another. Their new drink is Jesusland flavored and they are swallowing it by the gallon. If you read them correctly – and I’m not just talking about the fringe elements here, but your everyday journalists, talking heads, bloggers and Democrat on the street – the Christians are coming and they are going to burn crosses on your door and kidnap your heathen babies.
Real smart, guys (especially you, Ken Layne)....lose the beauty pageant and then stand on stage and call the judges a bunch of names, and then expect them to give you the crown the next time around. It’s amazing, in the aftermath of an election where so much of the blue counties were shown to be clueless about the red ones, they grab a megaphone and exponentially illustrate that they’re even more clueless than we ever imagined. My guess is that you’ve lost another tenth of a percentage point in the last week, folks…....think before you
type.
Caruso has more
So does Goldstein
Bryan McAnally
So how do we unite? I don’t believe that we do it by acquiescing or capitulating. We must continue, on every level of democracy, to continue to advance our ideas and our agenda.
First, we must realize that there are many who have no desire to unite….these are the people who are fundamentally opposed to notions of self-determination, limited government, personal
accountability, fiscal responsibility, enterprise, and liberty. To these, we must respectfully decline invitations to surrender our ideologies. To the rest who may be idealistic, naive, deceived, or uninformed, we proceed with gentle but consistent confidence that in the war of ideas, liberals are drastically and terminally outmatched, and their left-mounted wrist rockets cannot stand against MOAB-like principles.
Amen.
Crank
Anyway, I thought I’d take a state-by-state look to see where it was, precisely, that all of those 8.66 million new Bush voters came from. The numbers that follow were computed Friday, November 5, following the call of Iowa, the last contested state, for President Bush. It’s a particularly interesting question for me, as a New York City Republican listening to my fellow New Yorkers rage at what they saw as the provincialism of the red-staters who gave Bush his victory (See
here and
here for examples): where was it that all these extra Bush votes came from? What state led the charge to Bush?
Dwight Meredith sez:
I have never found blaming the jury for my losses to be productive. We did not lose because the American people are stupid, blind, or gullible. I believe in the democratic process. Ground zero of that belief is that the collective wisdom of the American people is generally deeper and more profound than any one person or any small group of people. To think otherwise is a form of elitism that is inconsistent with the idea of democracy.
You do not win trials by treating jurors like idiots. You do not win elections by telling the voters they are stupid. If you do, voters will recognize that you hold them in contempt and are very likely to reciprocate. The voters are not stupid. They are certainly smart enough to reject both you and your argument if you claim they are.
Of course, that is looking at things through a constructive lens. Democrats, you definitely want to read this, especially if you want to take my vote away from the Republicans (which could happen in local races…I voted for two donks in this election).
Slartibartfast: (via
DeLong)
As far as politics go, I’d say that I’m desirous of something outside of the eternal struggle for political supremacy. By that I mean that said struggle has gone far past mere boredom, and I’d
like to explore something more like a dialogue than a paintball fight at close range. Having participated in that sort of exchange in the past (and even, occasionally, in the present) I can say
honestly that I’m not very good at it. Mostly because it inevitably becomes boring and repetetive. My commitment here is to bring an open (yet eternally sceptical) mind to the discussion, and to offer arguments based on logic and fact rather than emotion. There’s a place for emotional arguments, but (in my opinion) emotional arguments that demonize the opponent are nearly guaranteed not to
be persuasive…
Another ‘amen’. Lord knows that I grew tired of the debating "games" a long time ago (someone who has spent a lot of time on bulletin boards or on decent blogger comments sections can denote a Usenet flame-artist who does nothing more than spew the party line a mile away).
Gut Rumbles
Once upon a time, I was a liberal. Yes, sweet children, it’s true. In 1968, I wanted George McGovern to become President. I wasn’t old enough to vote at the time, but I was a McGovern fan. I thought the guy had a lot of good ideas.
I was as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. I remained fairly liberal through my first couple of years of college. I was young, dumb and full of cum, living in a psychedelic world full of
idealism and ignorance.
Don’t feel alone…...I was a liberal until Reagan showed me the light, also while I was in college. Also, this one’s a can’t miss:
Life is rough. You don’t always get what you want. You can sit on your pity pot and cry, you can leave the country in a fit of outrage, or you can do us all a favor by committing suicide to get
your weak ass out of the gene pool. None of that will change a damn thing. We won. You lost. The end.
Yeah, all we Crackers, gap-toothed red-necks, Bible-thumping evangelists, truck-driving yahoos, gun-toting hillbillies and Deliverance types shore are ignert. We ain’t never gonna be as smart as you-all yankees. We’d feel real bad about that, too, if we gave a shit what you think of us. We think you’re a bunch of sick fucks.
Heh.
Think People Think:
They lead off with one I forgot when I brought it up earlier – having the day off. This would give people the time
if they still need to wait five, 10 hours at, hmmm, highly populated urban areas for the most part. It would also encourage better volunteers at the precincts.
How about holding elections on Saturdays? Early voting was a huge success and the problem of aging ‘volunteers’ is easy: able bodied welfare recipients work the polling booths (or else they have part of their check garnished that week).
Denny Wilson:
It’s been a week now and the left has told us that John Fonda Kerry lost for the following reasons:
1. 51% of the people are racists.
2. 51% of the people are homophobes.
3. 51% of the people are Jesus freaks. (At least the Germans think so and also a Canadian commenter who is afraid of the southern part of the United States. Y’know, I live in the South and real
Southerners are the most tolerant and most polite people in the world.)
4. 51% of the people are country bumpkins. (At least Jimmy does. He also thinks it’s OK for one group of people to take money from another group of people.)
5. 51% of the people are stupid.
Well, 242 Swift Boat Veterans were liars, so that’s to be expected, right? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e6f8c/e6f8cd7829ef167fde02b7289049ee5a5eb6e870" alt=":)"
11/8/2004 I guess now I can let this out
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:18 pm
I kept this quiet last week in order to maintain confidentiality and make sure that I had permission, but I have a source deep inside CNN. How deep? Deep enough that I knew what state(s) were going to be called by CNN before it was announced on the air. This person’s politics pretty much mirror mine (conservative with a large libertarian streak, AFAIK) and he/she was pretty suprised when I noted that after CNN had called Florida for Bush, it appeared that she had just been informed that her dog had gotten killed (my contact wasn’t watching at the time).
From my contact, here’s the official diagnosis of the CNN building on the Wednesday after the election: “a morgue”
It was worse for the offices outside Atlanta, where the comments over the phones mirrored those found on Democratic Underground.
My friend’s analysis (not verbatim, but the best that I can recall):
“what many people call the ‘liberal media’ has been confirmed. These people are absolutely crushed and a few of us are only sharing a smile or two upon eye contact, so as to not be seen & hurt our own careers. Everything you’ve heard about the media bias, which I believed, but not to this extent, is true. Absolutely true.”
11/2/2004 Gee, thanks
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 11:23 pm
Arkansas goes to Bush.
Guess the rock star isn’t as impressive as advertised.
Gee, who said that earlier?
11/1/2004 11/2
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:42 am
FYI, I’ll be providing election day results/insight for Georgia over at the Command Post’s election site and will be cross posting here. Get ready for the bumpy ride called “election day 2004”.
10/28/2004 Wow
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 11:08 pm
I heard that Curt Schilling is scheduled to travel to NH and campaign with Bush. Yowzah.
Senator Kerry, you can take off the Red Sox cap and stop trying to catch the bandwagon….the star attraction on the team from your home state just chose the other guy.
Ouch.
[note: yes, I’ve already offered the maximum amount allowed in my fantasy league to purchase Schilling ]
10/25/2004 Rock Star?
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 12:39 pm
Why I’m not overwhelmed….here’s part of Clinton’s recent history pertaining to endorsements:
- Traveling to Massachusetts and campaigning (with Hillary) for Shannon O’Brien to be elected governor. In case you’d forgotten, after Clinton’s former labor secretary couldn’t win the
Democratic primary, O’Brien lost (a Democrat in Massachusetts, for goodness sakes) & a Republican captured a state-wide office in a blue state.
- Traveling to and actively campaigning (rather hard during the last weekend) for Bill McBride to be elected governor of Florida. DNC chair Terry McAuliffe even said that the defeat of Jeb
Bush was priority #1. After Clinton’s former attorney general couldn’t win the Democratic primary, things got even bleaker as McBride lost, rather handily.
- Traveling to Hawaii (wish I could say the same about me!) & campaigning for Mazie Hirono to be elected as governor. Yep, a Democrat couldn’t win a state-wide race in a state with universal
health coverage as Hirono lost and a Republican captured a state-wide office in a blue state.
- Traveling to his home state of Arkansas (which he couldn’t find the support to muster enough votes for Gore to win the electoral votes & thus the election in ‘00) and campaigning for Jimmie Lou
Fisher to be elected governor. You guessed it, Fisher lost.
- Traveling to Maryland and campaigning for Kathleen Kennedy Townhend to be elected governor. In case you’d forgotten, somehow a Kennedy lost Maryland & a Republican captured a
state-wide office in a blue state.
- Campaigning in his newly adopted home state of New York for Carl McCall (after pushing his former HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo out the door when he couldn’t win the Democratic primary) to be
elected governor, McCall lost to George Pataki & a Republican captured a state-wide office in a blue state. Clinton’s HOME state, at that.
- While on the subject of NY, Clinton campaigned (and shot commercials) for Mark Green to be elected mayor of NYC. Green lost to political neophyte Mike Bloomberg.
- Traveling to Minnesota and campaigning for Fritz Mondale (after witnessing the memorial-turned-pep rally) as he battled Norm Coleman (who lost to Jesse Ventura in his bid to become governor in
‘98) for the US Senate seat. Somehow, Mondale managed to lose his 50th state and a Republican captured a yet another state-wide office in a blue state.
- Campaigning in Maine for Chellie Pingree to be elected US Senator. The trend continues, as Pingree lost and a Republican captured a state-wide office in a blue
state.
And…..need I say “Gray Davis”?
10/15/2004 What the…..?
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:15 am
A break from my hiatus:
Polls are usually wishy-washy, but if Kerry’s only at 50%...
In Massachusetts!
10/6/2004 Runnin’ on empty
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:08 pm
And speaking of having free time.....it’s time for a hiatus.
I got the point and now I think it’s finally dawning
Yeah, yeah, I got to get away
It’s been fun…..see you in the comments sections, folks.
Chris Matthews
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:26 am
On Imus, after reciting the CBS & ABC resulte, Matthews just said that Edwards won the MSNBC “snap poll” 70-30. No, Chris, that was an online msnbc poll where the level of unemployable moveon.orgers vastly outnumbered the unemployable freepers.
Personally, I went to bed with my wife after the debate. IMO, if you have so much free time to adhere to such party trickery, you gotta be a real loser to stay up late spamming a web-poll.
BTW, Matthews said that Cheney won big, which is akin to Rush Limbaugh saying that Kerry won last week’s debate.
9/30/2004 Forgeries galore
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:26 pm
Wizbang has the latest.
The blogosphere is abuzz that there might be an authoritative expert by the name of David E. Hailey, Jr., Ph.D. who might have proven the CBS documents are legit.
The Boston Globe is so excited they are getting ready to run with it.
I hope they do. Dr. Hailey is a liar, a fraud and a charlatan.
And I have the goods.
He does. It’s pretty devastating. Good lord, does anyone rankt honesty, integrity and truth aboove politcs, any more?
9/29/2004 I’m skipping
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:17 pm
The sham that they’re calling a "debate" doesn’t even register on my personal care list. I plan on sitting down with my kids and watching "Home on the Range", instead. They’re not debating…...they’re going to give their platform speeches and then make up the stances of the opponent.
- Bo.
- Ring.
Here’s how you debate:
- LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and my self first met in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought within the scope of that half-hour’s speech something of his own opening speech. In the course of that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the interrogates then. I then distinctly intimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not and that after I have done so, I shall propound mine to him.
- I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of the party then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. Having said this much I will take up the judged interrogatories as find them printed in the Chicago "Times," and answer them seriatim. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of these interrogatories in these words:
Question 1. "I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law?"
- Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law.
- Question 2. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?"
- Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union.
- Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make?"
- A. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make.
- Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia?"
- A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
- Q. 5. "I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States?"
- A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between the different States.
- Q. 6. "I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Teritories of the United States, North as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line?"
- A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Territories.
- Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?"
- A. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves.
-
- Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other. The judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon exact form of his interrogatory. I am the really disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them.
And that was just the beginning. He expounded on each answer that he gave in a fashion that would make the text the quintessential blog entry. Can you imagine a modern day candidate actually answering in a yes/no fashion, with no qualifications or ‘nuances’ those put forth by the opposing candidate….when he didn’t have to? And then offering to give the other guy time to respond if he’ll agree to answer the same number of questions from you? And then going ahead and giving answers even though the other guy neglected to agree? I think I’ll read more of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, which are absolutely fascinating, instead of watching this year’s presidential debates, which are about as polished, prefabricated and authentic as HHH versus the Rock. Besides, as Zell said, I know where Bush stands.
9/22/2004 Hmmmm
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:15 pm
Keith Olbermann just pronounced the Bush bounce “over”.
Really?
Iowa Electronic Markets
Pres04_WTA
2004 US Presidential Election Winner Takes All Market
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e82ce/e82ce9e6d89ab76a742b31c3c9ab05542afb67f2" alt=""
Pay no attention until October 15th, folks…..but there’s no doubt Bush has the mo’.
9/17/2004 No cries of bias?
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:25 am
You’ve heard it. "The corporate media". "The right-wing media". That’s been the instantaneous response to many examples of a leftward slant in the press. Lord knows that I’ve had that thrown at me whenever I’ve pasted text from "reports" that are little more than recitations of press releases from the DNC. After this past week’s events, I’ve started to revisit a lot of those retorts.
If the media really does represent the ‘corporate right’ and is sympathetic to the GOP, why was the overwhelming initial response from the MSL (main stream left) to Dan Rather’s forged documents that of the defensive mode? Oh, there may have been a "well, I don’t really care for Rather" included, but by and large the first thing that the left did was (1) disparage those who charged forgery; (2) defend the documents as further evidence that Bush was not only a slacker (which we already knew) and that he didn’t serve in VN (which we already knew) and that he missed a physical (which we already knew).....but they jumped on the notion that Bush defied a direct order. THAT trumped any notion of falsification of documents via MSFT Word and the details of how the memos were obvious frauds were often met with charges of sophomoric responses that included words like ‘wingnut’ or ‘hack’.
If there really was a corporate media this would’ve been the perfect opportunity for the ‘little guy’ to jump on the wounded beast and kill it.
That didn’t happen. Instead, the right jumped, while the MSL covered its eyes and ears. Why? Because the MSL knew that Dan Rather was "one of them". They knew that because they’ve never put forth one…..not one...example of Rather actually carrying the water for the GOP. Ever.
They know that there’s no "corporate right-wing media" (except, of course, Newscorp and Clear Channel) and their inability to join in on the pouncing does not go unnoticed. And no, the "the memos were accurate forgeries" stuff doesn’t wash.
Of course, I could be wrong. If someone has any examples of the MSL pointing out that Rather & co. were actively trying to sway public opinion via their media status,
please place the links in the comments. Darned if I saw a single one…..please set me right.
9/3/2004 Get well, Bill
Filed under Posted by — RW @ 11:24 pm
I much prefer news of Clinton’s hardening of the arteries to be of the comical kind.
Buck up, Bubba. Yer too darn young to leave this world & there’s still a lot of good you can do. Besides, there should be a law against bad health before someone becomes a grandparent…..who’s with me?
And no, I don’t question the timing…..
|
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
|