Sorry, Jed, but you've got a Republican scandal that features gays, sex, underage victims, all under the liberal Democrat and media microscope. Worse even than stashing money in your freezer. Should be good for at least another week or two of dominance -- maybe longer. Not that I'm happy about that.
The Spectacle Blog
Ok, boys and girls: time to Defoleyate the campaign. Napalm the jungle of junk news, drop agent orange on the liberal grapevine that's keeping this side issue on the front page. Real issues, real news, anyone?
…they get what they deserve.
Angelides comes off as the quintessential slick, trial lawyer. He'll pander to anyone. Just saw him on the news, and he said he wants "to balance the budget, give a tax cut to the middle class, and roll back tuition increases for college students."
And, watch him pull a rabbit out of his hat!
In a New York Times article assessing post-Foley GOP House election prospects today, reporter Adam Nagourney makes this assertion:
Talk radio hosts, working off a list of talking points distributed by Republican Party officials, recounted how two decades ago, House Democrats stood behind Representative Gerry E. Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, after he engaged in sex with a male page.
Talk radio hosts working from GOP talking points -- as though they were taking marching orders? I didn't detect in the story that Nagourney had interviewed any talk show hosts to ask them if they were reading from a Republican game plan. Nor did he even quote any on-air remarks.
That's the same Charles P. Pierce who writes for the Boston Globe Magazine, who penned a paean to Ted Kennedy that was outright embarrassing, ending with the words, "Mary Jo Kopechne would have been 68, and Ted Kennedy would have taken care of her in her old age." And he apparently thought this was some sort of compliment.
Pierce is one of the more unbearably ambitious leftist characters, has got himself a pretty regular slot on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," a current events quiz show that spends a lot of time bashing George W. Bush in whatever terms are fashionable. It's on Saturdays at noon here in the Boston area, and I recommend it for insight into what liberals are really thinking, and how they are really behaving.
I thought most people who followed these things closely understood almost as soon as Joe Lieberman decided to run as an independent that a Lamont general election victory was pretty close to mathematically impossible. But over at TAPPED, Charles P. Pierce is apparently just now realizing that Ned Lamont might not win.
In his column today, Charles Krauthammer makes an important point on whether or not the war in
It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific war put a definitive end to the whole affair.
Jed, I refer you back to my first response to Quin yesterday: "(Hastert) doesn't get it. The issue isn't about when he knew about e-mails, IMs, or when and whether he did or didn't decide to do something about them. The issue is that the Foley disaster represents one more in the long list of ethical breaches (Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, etc.) on his watch, not to mention the abominations of legislation...." It's not just this one thing; it's the pattern of things.