September 8, 2011 | 5 comments
September 7, 2011 | 3 comments
August 27, 2011 | 10 comments
August 17, 2011 | 5 comments
August 4, 2011 | 21 comments
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.
But no panic here, as I’m ready to accept whatever the election results bring. I’m only interested in what I believe is the right thing to do. First-hand, direct culpability is irrelevant in this case. It’s about Hastert’s leadership abilities which he continues to demonstrate are inabilities. He could do as much damage — arguably more damage — to the party’s prospects next month by staying as he could by leaving. Especially when he keeps faulting Democrats, Soros and ABC while the average voter (especially outside the Beltway) is reading Foley’s disgusting IMs and thinking, “He’s blaming who?”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online