Interesting:Democratic Party Convention flag story Bogus

Remember that Story that I reported on, about Democrats dumping flags? Turns out, it was bogus.

Via the Huffington Post:

UPDATE: DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney issues a statement: “American flags were proudly waved by the 75,000 people who joined Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. John McCain should applaud that, but instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism. On the same day he agrees to join Barack Obama at Ground Zero on September 11, John McCain attacks the patriotism of Obama supporters who so proudly waved the American flag at our historic event in Denver just days ago.”

UPDATE II: Another statement from the Democratic National Convention Committee: “Stories circulating about flags at the Democratic National Convention are false. We distributed more than 125,000 American made flags at the Convention – the flags removed from Invesco field were intended for other events and taken without permission. It’s disappointing that someone would take American flags without authorization and then falsely describe how they were being used. We have the utmost respect for the American flag, and it’s sad to see them being used for a cheap political stunt.”

I apologize for even Blogging about this, at all. If, in fact, John McCain’s campaign was responsible for this bogus story getting out, it shows the level of desperation by the campaign to discredit the Democrats in the election.

What levels will Neo-Conservatives stoop to, to win an election!

There’s more, TPM is also reporting:

According to a article just out from Huffington Post, the story about flags from the Democratic National Convention being thrown away is simply false. The story was jumped on and apparently authored by the McCain campaign. But the real tell is down in the Huffpo piece where it traces the story to none other than Fox News’ Carl Cameron.

Longtime readers of TPM will remember that back in October 2004 this site caught Cameron publishing a series of fabricated quotes attributed to John Kerry on the front page of the Fox News website.

After I placed a series of calls to Fox News inquiring about the Kerry story, the story was eventually pulled, and Fox was forced to issue an apology and retract the fabricated story. Fox spokesman Paul Schur told TPM: “Carl [Cameron] made a stupid mistake which he regrets. And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor.”

Why anybody would believe anything this joker says is difficult to fathom. But he’s good enough for McCain.

I should have known Faux Noise would have been in on this whole thing. Not surprising at all. 🙄

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sorry guys, I don’t buy it

I happen to be reading over at HotAir.com.

It seems that Ed Morrissey was on the Northern Alliance Radio Network, and some guy, claiming to be a volunteer driver calls in and proceeds to tell them that MSNBC’s coverage was rigged, that MSNBC’s people basically lied about what they said on the air, and that Chris Matthew’s prescreened everyone, before interviewing them.

You can listen to the audio, by going here.

Okay, first of all, were any precautions taken to ensure that this guy was not some sort of crank caller? I highly doubt this.

Second of all, as much as I realize that MSNBC is now a left leaning network, mostly at night, this sort of “bottom of the barrel” type of scraping to find dirt on networks that don’t agree with your political ideologies is, quite frankly, childish and immature.

You think Fox News doesn’t pre-screen people on their network? Please. Don’t make me laugh.

If the Republican Bloggers want to be taken seriously by the rest of America, they need to focus on Blogging about factual issues that matter to people, and get away from this dirty flinging and gossip nonsense. Because when you do this, you become, as far as I am concerned, the Republican version of TMZ.COM.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bob Barr, The Right Choice for America…..

Bob Barr For President 2008

So far, Bob Barr has raised $836, 686, 52.

Join Bob Barr’s effort to retake America. Donate today

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reason number 500,865,345,564,000 why I do not watch fox news

Oy!

Via TPM:

Now you see why I refuse to watch Faux Noise. If I sat here and typed why I thought this was wrong, stupid, ect, ect, ect. I’d be here all night, and seeing my body clock is seriously whacked outta shape, and I’m just a very large pile of grumpy, I’ll pass.

But, I think you can fill in the blanks.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Memo to John McCain, Don’t be a dickhead, please….

It seems that ol’ Juan McSame is wanting to live up to the image that the Democrats are painting for him. A senile, cantankerous old man.

This little gem, comes Via TIME:

For years, John McCain’s marathon bull sessions with reporters were more than a means of delivering a message; they were
the message. McCain proudly, flagrantly refused direction from handlers, rarely dodged tough questions and considered those who did
wimps and frauds. The style told voters that he was unafraid, that he had nothing to hide and that what you see is what you get. "Anything
you want to talk about," he promised reporters aboard the Straight Talk Express in Iowa back in March 2007. "One of the fundamental principles
of the bus is that there is no such thing as a dumb question." When asked if he would keep the straight talk coming, McCain replied, "You
think I could survive if I didn’t? We’d never be forgiven … I’d have to hire a food taster, somebody to start my car in the morning." Even
after he won the GOP nomination, he demanded that his new campaign plane be configured to include a sofa up front so he could re-create
the Straight Talk Express at 30,000 ft.

However, this has changed quite a bit here as of recent, here’s the transcript of ol’ McSame being a total ass to the media:

And so when TIME’s James Carney and Michael Scherer were invited to the front of McCain’s plane recently for an interview, they were ushered
forward, past the curtain that now separates reporters from the candidate, past the sofa that was designed for his gabfests with the
press and taken straight to the candidate’s seat. McCain at first seemed happy enough to do the interview. But his mood quickly soured.
The McCain on display in the 24-minute interview was prickly, at times abrasive, and determined not to stray off message. An excerpt:

What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican Convention — about you, about your candidacy?

I’m prepared to be President of the United States, and I’ll put my country first.

There’s a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could
define honor for us?

Read it in my books.

I’ve read your books.

No, I’m not going to define it.

But honor in politics?

I defined it in five books. Read my books.

[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?

Iwill do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of …

I think we’re running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Really? Come on, Senator.

I’ll provide as much access as possible …

In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate
flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it’s over?

[Does not answer.]

Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]

[Long pause.] I’m very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of
the Republican Party.

You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?

[Shakes his head.]

You don’t acknowledge that? O.K., when your aides came to you and you decided, having been attacked by Barack Obama, to run some of those
ads, was there a debate?

The campaign responded as planned.

Jumping around a bit: in your books, you’ve talked about what it was like to go through the Keating Five experience, and you’ve been quoted
as saying it was one of the worst experiences of your life. Someone else quoted you as saying it was even worse than being a POW …

That’s another one of those statements made 17 or 18 years ago which was out of the context of the conversation I was having. Of course the
worst, the toughest experience of my life was being imprisoned, so people can pluck phrases from 17 or 18 years ago …

I wasn’t suggesting it as a negative thing. I was just saying that …

I’m just suggesting it was taken out of context. I understand how comments are taken out of context from time to time. But obviously, the
toughest time of my life, physically and [in] every other way, would be the time that I almost died in prison camp. And I think most Americans
understand that.

How different are you from President Bush? Are you in step with your party? Are you independent from your party?

My record shows that I have put my country first and I follow the philosophy and traditions of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and
Ronald Reagan. Sometimes that is not in keeping with the present Administration or my colleagues, but I’ve always put my country first,
whether it’s saying I didn’t support the decision to go to Lebanon or my fighting against the corruption in Washington or out-of-control
pork-barrel spending, which has led to members of Congress residing in federal prison. So I’ve always stood up for a set of principles and a
philosophy that I think have been pretty consistent over the years.

Your tougher line on Russia, which predated [the Russian invasion of Georgia], now to many looks prescient. Others say it’s indicative of a
belligerent approach to foreign policy that would perhaps further exacerbate the tensions being created with our allies and others around
the world under the Bush Administration. How do you respond to that critique?

Well, it reminds me of some of the arguments we went through when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I think Russian
behavior has been very clear, and I’ve pointed it out for quite a period of time, and the chronicle of their actions has been well known
since President [Vladimir] Putin came to power, and I believe that it’s very important that Russia behave in a manner befitting a very strong
nation. They’re not doing so at this time, so therefore I will criticize and in some cases — in the case of the aggression against
Georgia — condemn them.

You were a very enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq and, in the early stages, of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war.
Are those judgments you’d like to revisit?

Well, my record is clear. I believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I believe it’s clear that he had every
intention to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. I can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would be doing with the wealth he would
acquire with oil at $110 and $120 a barrel. I was one of the first to point out the failure of strategy in Iraq under [former Defense
Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. I was criticized for being disloyal to the Republicans and the President. I was the first to say I would lose a
campaign rather than lose a war. I supported the surge. No observer  over the last two years would say the surge hasn’t succeeded. I believe
we did the right thing.

A lot of people know about your service from your books, but most people don’t know that you have two sons currently in the military. Can
you describe what it means to have Jack and Jimmy in uniform?

We don’t discuss our sons.

Look McCain, if you want to be President, you’d be learn to deal with the damn media AND Bloggers. Because if you continue this little trend of being a total prick to the main stream media, you might just find yourself beaten in a election, because the way I see it, as an Independent Conservative, I feel that if John McCain cannot handle the media, how is he going to handle Russia, How is he going to handle Iraq? How is he going to handle the daily grind of the day to day operations of the White House?

Of course, I expect that Mr. McSame will again use his P.O.W. status, which McCain and his campaign has been using as a damn crutch, as an excuse to be an grotchity old fool. Sorry, but this Conservative isn’t buying that line of nonsense.

In other words, change the attitude or get the hell out of the Presidential race sir.

The Media accuses John McCain of being dishonest in his ads.

This is kind of an oddball story. Mainly, because the media, as always, is full of it and, as always, in the tank for Obama.

This comes via ABC NEWS:

We in the media have given a lot of airtime to the TV ads of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week, starring as they do Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

There’s been evidence emerging that McCain’s campaign isn’t really running these ads anywhere, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

“These were basically video press releases,” CMAG’s Evan Tracey tells the Wall Street Journal.

OK, so that’s kind of dishonest of the McCain campaign.

Today’s new McCain ad — “Tiny,” which you can watch HERE — crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it’s actually airing anywhere.

The Ad in question:

The script of the Ad:

“Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to ‘generate power’ but threatening to eliminate Israel.

“Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat,'” the ad continues. “Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren’t ‘serious threats’? Obama — dangerously unprepared to be president.”

Well, golly gosh gee… Here’s Obama’s Words, first in Video:

and in Print:

“strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’

“And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall,” Obama continued. “Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.”

So, Where is the dishonesty again? I fail to see it. What more can we expect from a communist liberal media?

Others: Macsmind

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A movie that every American should watch, before voting

(H/T to AP at Hotair.com)

This movie, if it caught on in the Media would ruin Obama’s chances of being elected President.

Trailer 1:

Trailer 2:

Wow…. I don’t think Barry will have to worry about snipers. He’d better worry about this movie.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So much for that Hillary speech!

So, you think that Hillary speech soothed all the wounds amongst the Hillary supporters? Well, that is what the Democratic Party wants you to think!

Turns out, it might not be exactly true.

That is because that the Washington Post is reporting the following:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn’t erase their frustrations.

Despite Clinton’s plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.

There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech’s predictability. “It’s a tactic,” he said. “Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I’m still bitter.”

There was JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, who digested Clinton’s resounding endorsement of Barack Obama and decided that she, too, will move on and get behind him. “I’ll vote for [Obama] in the roll call,” she said, “because that’s what Hillary wants.”

I hate to say it, but I kind of knew this was coming. As the saying goes, “Hell hath no fury, of that of a woman’s scorn.” In fact, yesterday, I was over at No Quarter. Which is a pro-Hillary Blog, (I know some have discredited Larry Johnson, but it is the best example…) and the comments section tells the story. It is just this simple, Hillary cannot control her delegates and supporters. She can suggest, she can plead, she can encourage, but she cannot force them, we live in a free and democratic society. Our people choose whom they want to represent them.

So, while it might sound nice that Hillary may have influenced her many supporters into to voting for Obama, this may just not be the case. It is nice to think that Hillary might have able to pull off the ultimate persuasion act, but I am afraid that just might not be the case.

The only way it will be known, as to the depth of that influence, will be in November at the many voting booths across America.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chris Matthews just jumped on Keith Olbermann on the Air!

I do not have video yet, someone should have it, sooner or later.

But Keith Olbermann just did something to piss off Chris Matthews! and Matthews told Keith Olbermann off for it.

Something about a sound…

Did anyone else see it?

Comments PLEASE!

Video coming, as soon as I find it.

Stay tuned.

Update: Commenter Wes points to a Blog posting:

“9:15
Just got back from walking the dog. Amy has paused a segment on MSNBC where Chris Matthews gets snippy with co-host Keith Olbermann. This is classic. Apparently Olbermann was making fun of a long-winded diatribe by Matthews, and Chris just got testy with him right on the air.”

Here’s what happened, as far as I could tell. Matthews was going on and on about women feeling passed over because of Clinton’s loss. He was getting awfully sentimental. Then the producer apparently tried to get him to wrap it up, because he said “I’ll wrap it in a second, this is important” or something like that. So he goes on again and Olbermann starts the segue with some reference to the bloviation of “pundits like us” — which sounded like typical Keith self-deprecation, but I think Matthews took it as directed at him.

Interesting…. Still looking for video of it.

Update #2: Gawker now has video of it.

Update #3: Memeorandum finally picks it up. I one of the firsts who blogged on it! 😛

Update #4: and now we have video: (H/T Newsbusters)

This is why I need a good video capture system! 😀 Donations?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Interesting News: Edwards campaign giving refunds, but not to small donors.

This is a very interesting news, which comes to us, by fellow Conservative Blogger LBG1 over at Death by 1000 Papercuts or DBKP for short.

It seems that John Edwards is giving much of his money back to the “Big Bundlers” some of whom are convicted felons. But according to DBKP, not much of it is going back to the Grassroots supporters.

LBG1 Writes:

We found it interesting, at a time when Warren Buffet on CNBC This Morning (courtesy Mickey Kaus at Slate) mused whether Edwards’ contributors should file a class-action suit to get their money back, there’s a whole other “class” of individuals who’ve received their refund. And what an interesting “class” we found:

Out of 667 “bundlers” or designated fundraisers, 276 or 40%, had received a refund of their individual contributions. Not only did the individual bundlers get their money back but in some cases so did their family members.

Other refundees included Fred Baron, Edwards’ former national finance campaign chairman in both the ‘04 and ‘08 elections. Baron recently admitted that he had been monetarily “helping” Edwards’ ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter. The list includes some of Edwards’ largest bundlers, Thomas Girardi, John O’Quinn, and William Lerash, as well as other “famous” refundees: Michael Eisner, Don Henley, Eric Montross, and Michigan Congressman (D) David Bonoir of Michigan.

We took a look at the Edwards campaign website to see if there was any info listed on how to get a refund and came up empty-handed.

We’ve included a list of Edward’s bundlers who have received a refund as well the “moneybags” behind Edwards who got their money back too:

According to Insider Exclusive, Thomas Girardi was named the “The Billion Dollar Gentleman” by the L.A. Daily Journal for $1 billion in verdicts and settlements over a two-year period.

According to Opensecrets.org, Girardi’s firm, Girardi and Keese donated $43,000 to Edwards’ campaign. Thomas Girardi, the founder of the firm, received his Edwards’ refund check as well as members of his family.

Interesting indeed, one has to wonder why the MSM has not covered this story? Could it be that they were possibly bought off by Edwards to prevent him for going though anymore embarrassment? I mean the Liberal media did seem to have a very cozy relationship with Edwards, when they were not ignoring him.

It just makes me wonder, if Edward’s donors, the one’s who gave of their time, money and resources will be wanting their money back. I will admit this, I kind of did like Edwards, his laid back southern manner appealed to the Southern man in me. Although, I did find his politics quite hypocritical, considering how he lived on a multi-million dollar ranch and all.

An exit question: Is Hillary refunding any of her donations?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lying asshole “Shock Troops” Author back in the news

Unbelievable.

Via Pajamas Media:

Quote:

It seemed we’d heard the last of Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve in late January, after I posted copies of the sworn statements gathered during the “Shock Troops” investigation on Confederate Yankee. The documents included Beauchamp’s own sworn statements — his first, where he did not see any of the minor atrocities written about in “Shock Troops,” and a backdated one where he finally admits he was the author. The documents also included the sworn statements from 22 other soldiers saying that the minor atrocities written about in “Shock Troops” were events that they did not witness.

Even the editor of the New Republic, Franklin Foer, announced a month previously in December that he could not stand behind Beauchamp’s stories. But just when we though it was all behind us, Beauchamp is back, (with his former fact checker wife still supporting him), courtesy of Spencer Ackerman in Radar magazine.

In “Notes on a Scandal,” Ackerman interviews Scott Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve — and no one else — and shockingly comes to the conclusion that the magazine that fired Ackerman for his anti-war views was wrong to pull its support for a series of articles (”Shock Troops” was just one of three Beauchamp stories) that reinforced those views.

How did Ackerman conduct this investigation? He hung out with Beauchamp and Reeve at a bar and later communicated with them via email. What he did not do is present any evidence to support the contention that Beauchamp’s claims are true, or that Franklin Foer was wrong to pull support for stories that still lack on-the-record evidence of any kind.

I have to admit it, he does have balls. But he is a damn liar. He’s now trying to cash in on the fame. Lying ass liberal prick.

I remember when this story come out and then it came out that it was all lies. That was one the moments when I really began to rethink my political position. I mean, if liberals are willing outright lie to make a political point, something is just wrong. Which is why I consider myself now a Moderate Conservative, not a “Republican”, not by a long shot. But I’ll be damned if I’ll ever vote Democrat again.

Others:
BLACKFIVE and AMERICAN DIGEST

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WorldNetDaily link removed from this Blog…

Why?

It seems that WorldNetDaily’s Joe Farah has decided to back Jerry Corsi’s slander book.

In fact, Farah even admits that there are factual errors in the book:

Quote:

Are there mistakes in it?

Show me a first edition that doesn’t have some – other than the Bible.

But is it truthful? Does it add considerably to the public’s knowledge of the front-running candidate for the presidency? Do we know much more about Obama than we would had we relied exclusively for our information from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press?

I offer a resounding “yes” to all three of those questions.

This statement alone proves to me, one hundred and fifty percent, that Joseph Farah is not interested in objective journalism at WorldNetDaily or in any of his other Conservative publications, but rather is more interested in right wing smear campaigns.

For this reason, I cannot and will not link to this site. I will admit, that there are some interesting Christian related articles over there, when they are actually true, that I do enjoy reading, otherwise, there is nothing there, which I would really even want to be in the business of promoting.

When I switched political sides, concluded that I was, in fact, a Libertarian Conservative, and decided that I wanted to be a Libertarian Conservative Blogger, which I do consider myself to be. I made myself a promise that I would never ever engage in the low-ball, sleazy attacks for which Republican Conservative Bloggers are infamous.

In fact, as of recent here, I came across a video that did in fact, I feel, prove that Obama was not a real bona fide Christian. However, I decided against running them here. In fact, I spoke with the owner of the Moderate Voice about posting them there or having Joe at least link to posting. However, after some considerable thought, I decided against even posting them here. Why is this? It is because I want visitors here to consider this website to be a mainstream Conservative Website, not a “right-wing smear” Blog or website. I admit it. I have called Obama a Communist Liberal in the past. However, mainly, that was in jest or in anger, when I would see the Democrats doing something rather idiotic. Not that I cannot say that, there has been a fair share of idiotic nonsense performed by the Republicans in the last 8 years. If I sat here and told them all, this posting would be twenty-five pages long in itself.

I have said many times on this Blog and I will say it once again, this blog is a moderate, independent, Libertarian-leaning, Conservative Blog. However, this blog is honest enough to be critical of those who claim to be representatives for the Conservative movement. Objective Journalism I am all for. However, unfounded partisan smears, I will not be a part of any longer. Factual criticism of Obama’s Policies I will continue to do, but unfounded smears are not something I wish to be a part of any longer. I have done this in the past, but I will no longer be contributing to the echo chamber of the Republican smear machine.

Because as far as I am concerned, the Republican Party does not represent the type of Conservatism that I believe in, it no longer represents the type of politics that I believe in, it also no longer cares or ever represents the financial class, which I find myself a part. I am not a fan of outright socialism, but I cannot align myself with a political party that says, “If you make less the $250.000 a year, we do not give a flying flip about you.” Anyone that says that is untrue is a Republican protectionist who wishes to deceive those who are not well acquainted with that part and its history of protecting the wealthy. You most likely wonder, do I have anything against the wealthy? I absolutely do not! The United States of America is the land of opportunity. However, a political party who only wishes to represent a small part of America, that 10 percent of America that makes more money that my father ever made or I ever made and rest to forget, is very unacceptable in my opinion.

This is why I call this Blog an Independent Conservative Blog. That it is, and that it shall remain.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Rush Limbaugh, You Blew it Pal

A little while back, before this Blog moved to its new server. There was a rather nice article in the New York Times about Rush Limbaugh. At the time, I wrote a few lines about Rush and his success in the radio field.

However, when I saw the news of what Rush Limbaugh said about Elizabeth Edwards, I was absolutely sickened by what I heard and saw.

Anyone who knows me and regularly reads this blog of mine, knows that I spare no one from criticism on this Blog. I do it to Liberals and I also do to Conservatives as well, especially those in power in Washington D.C.

However, what was said by Rush Limbaugh, went well beyond good taste and just regular Conservative cheese-head humor. This my friends was just out right vulgar.

Here it is, and I don’t want to hear no crap about me getting this from a Liberal source okay? Because it’s worthy of mentioning:

Click here to go watch the Video

Here is the transcript: (via Media Matters for America)

From the August 12 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Back to the phones. Winston-Salem, North Carolina, this is James. Nice to have you here, sir. Hello. Is he gone? James, you there? Aw, darn. He wanted to talk about Edwards and who knew and what were the motivations. And I’ve got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don’t know that I could — I don’t know that I can put this one on the air.

JAMES GOLDEN (contributor known on-air as “Bo Snerdley”): Why not?

LIMBAUGH: Well, it’s — I mean, at some point, at some point, you gotta exhibit maturity and restraint. You know, and I do that constantly. But — well, I don’t — look, let me see if I can run you through this and get you to think what I’m thinking without my actually saying it. That might be a pretty big talent if I could do that — make you think what I’m going to say without my having to say it, therefore if anybody gets in trouble for saying it, you say it.

We know — we’ve been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That’s part of the puff pieces on them that we’ve seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn’t shut up? Now, that’s as far as I’m going to go.

Well, you’re — Snerdley says he’s missing something. If you’re missing it, you’re going to have to provide it. What are you missing? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

I can’t close the loop on it. I can’t close the loop on it. I’m on — you know, I’m in a little quicksand already today talking about how the chicks are giving us boring pictures of the female athletes from the Olympics. Because I know — you — the diversity crowd’s going to be upset. They’re going to — “Ooh, do you mean the Olympics are just so you guys can ogle wom–” Yes, because we do not care to watch ’em compete. But back to Elizabeth and the Breck Girl.

I’m sorry, my friends, I just — I can’t. It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: OK, we’re back. Ladies and gentleman, my theory that I just explained to you about why — you know, what could have John Edwards’ motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk. I think I can back this up from her.

We have a sound bite. This is February 2007. She was on the tabloid show Extra. And this is what she said. Listen very carefully.

HUNTER : The whole experience was life-altering for me. One of the great things about John Edwards is that he’s so open and willing to try new things and do things in new ways.

LIMBAUGH: “Open to new things.” Folks, it is what it is. You get mad at me for bringing the truth to you, but it is what it is.

As expected, Keith Olbermann, who himself has been guilty of a few incidents himself, although, none of them compare to this, had a few things to say about this:

Transcript: (via MSNBC)

OLBERMANN: The American sage H.L. Mencken once defined Puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. But since Mencken‘s death in 1956, there has emerged a new and more complex form of American puritan, a man haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere may be happy doing something he is also doing, that he thinks is his right, but no one else‘s. Such a creature is Rush Limbaugh, who should have learned that when the new Puritanism attacks a sinner like, say, Bill Clinton, it invariably overdoes it to such a degree that America recoils and soon perceives the sinner as the victim and the new puritan as the jackass.

Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, with comments idiotic even for him, Limbaugh has turned John Edwards into a victim. Details in a moment. First, it is not like Senator Edwards is not trying to stay competitive. The senator had implied to ABC News that his affair was over by the time he announced his presidential candidacy on December 28, 2006. Elizabeth Edwards‘ brother and closest friend now telling “People Magazine” that John Edwards revealed the news of his extra-marital conduct slowly and not until the, quote, frenzy of the campaign‘s official launch.

Acquaintances of Rielle Hunter are also shedding doubt on John Edwards‘ version of events. One says the affair began six months before she started working for the Edwards‘ campaign. Of course, that woman answers to the first name of pigeon. For that matter, Rielle Hunter is a made up name. That woman was born Lisa Druck.

As to Elizabeth Edwards and her reaction to the affair, her brother saying she decided to stay with her husband because of her cancer diagnosis and the fact that her young children will not always have a mother.

Fortunately, the lunatic right will always have a mother, on the radio. Despite the wall-to-wall sleaze of the Edwards‘ saga, Rush Limbaugh is managing to make it look like a puddle, while he represents the backed up sewage plant down the street.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: We‘ve been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That‘s part of the puff pieces on them that we‘ve seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain? And what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy wise in a campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign?

In other words, could it be that she doesn‘t shut up? Now, that‘s as far as I‘m going to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Actually, it wasn‘t. Never is. A minute later—

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman—whose mouth did something other than talk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: You mean like what you do with your mouth other than talk, consistently, endlessly wedge your own foot in it? What better pre-pubescent dream of genital waving dominance over all the women in the world than to blame the intelligence of a woman for her husband‘s infidelity. What a pure sentiment to share with the less well recompensed losers who comprise your audience than to dismiss their failures as husbands, as men, Rush, on the woman?

I mean even these days three divorces is a lot. A 38 million dollar salary and the guy can‘t keep the same woman. It‘s got to be the woman‘s fault, right? You wouldn‘t want an intelligent women reminding you that when you went after Bill Clinton, his approval ratings went up, and your two successive champions against him, your Republican two speakers of the House, had to resign in shame because of, oops, their own marital infidelity.

And you wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around to say, as somebody should have said to Sean Hannity or somebody should have said to you, you know what, you keep bringing up Edwards and infidelity, and sooner or later, someone will bring up John McCain cheating on his wife while she was recovering from a terrible car accident. Somebody, even Alan Combs.

You wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around you to say loosen up on the pedal on this Edwards‘ crap. The story was broken by the “National Enquirer.” They were the same people who broke that story about you and the pills.

You wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around you, maybe to help you keep that dream job that you blew at ESPN. So instead of sitting around in a radio studio making fun a cancer victim, someone somewhere might still care about your opinion of the National Football League, and permit you to be on television.

Oh, no, nothing worse than having an intelligent woman around, Rush.

Rush Limbaugh is a hole.

To this let me simply say this. As you all know, I left the Democratic side of the political fence because I felt that the Democratic Party had drifted far from its original principles. I am kind of new to the Conservative side of the fence, as far as politics goes. But let me say this publicly on this Blog. I totally disassociate myself with these comments and this man. He does not speak for me, or Conservatism as a whole. What Rush Limbaugh said was inexcusable, and if I were calling the shots with the syndication network that carries Limbaugh, I would be tearing up his contract and letting him know, he was no longer going to be carried.

As a bit of a parting shot, let me ask this. Yesterday, there was a tragic murder of a Democratic Leader in Arkansas. My question is, why could it not have been Rush Limbaugh? Why couldn’t have it been Sean Hannity? Why could not it have been Michael Savage? Why could not it have been any of the rest of the idiots who go around giving Conservatism a damned black eye? …and not someone who was in the business of actually HELPING people? Instead of someone, like this idiot, who loves to mock and slander those who disagree with his Political ideologies?

Something is seriously wrong with the modern day Republican Party. If it does not change, the Republican Party is going to be run to the damned rat holes for a rather long time.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

From the Dept. of “Well, Duh!”

One of the funniest Political Blog postings I’ve ever seen. Identity Politics at it’s finest.

TheRoot.com asks, “Can Blacks be trusted to cover Obama?”

When a weary and jet-lagged Barack Obama took the stage on the last day of the UNITY Journalists of Color convention in Chicago last month, most of the attendees had already left. But there was still a healthy crowd of over 2,500 there to hear the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

That is when, according to the mainstream media, black folks apparently acted like natural-born fools.

As you all know, I am quite well known for my controversial remarks. It is what I do. So, I will not disappoint.

Saying that blacks can be totally trusted to cover Obama would be like saying that White Nationalists could be trusted to cover David Duke.

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Right Truth, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Thoughts on the Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank Split

Yes, I have seen Keith Olbermann’s entry over at the Kos. Overall, I think it speaks to Olbermann’s integrity in the business. Dana Milbank obviously distorted a quote for personal gain and that put him at odds with Keith.

The argument that MSNBC and Keith are in the tank for Obama is naĂŻve and simplistic at best. That is the narrow view of the whole situation. Keith was just looking out for the integrity of his show; Keith knew that if he did not call Milbank on this, people on the left and the right would ridicule him. Therefore, Keith did the smartest thing possible, damage control. Keith held Dana’s feet to the proverbial fire. Milbank seeing that the world was against him, made a new deal with another network.

From reading the reactions, everyone seems to think that Keith did the right thing, and the Bloggers are saying that Olbermann is in the can for Obama; again, that is the narrow view of the whole situation. One Hillary shill thinks it was just downright horrible; however, this is the same moronic idiot, which claimed there was a Michelle Obama “Whitey” tape, which we have still not seen.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

The AP/NYT performs the typo from HELL

OUCH!

Via DCist:

D’oh!

I wish Novak well. I wish the moron that made this idiotic typo, that something would fall on his head and he would be killed right away. As he does not have a right to exist on this planet and be that damned stupid.

Others Blogging:
NewsBusters.org and FishBowlDC

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What is racist? Let’s review shall we?

Okay, I’ve about had enough of this Crap.

So, we are going to do a review. Pay attention!

THIS is racist:

Video: Unknown

Music: Johnny Rebel

THIS is NOT:

Any Questions?

Class Dismissed!

Others:
NewsBusters.org, The Democratic Daily, Sister Toldjah, www.redstate.com, Connecting.the.Dots, Political Punch, Real Clear Politics, www.redstate.com and The Swamp

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scott McClellan sucks up to Bill O’

This is too funny:

Transcript:

McCLELLAN: The truth is I messed up. I was
specifically not trying to single anyone out, including you. But the
way a couple of the questions were phrased in that interview along with
my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have
let that happen. … I understand why you got upset. … You’re the Big Kahuna at Fox News, and some people tried to paint in a black and white term through a preconceived notion.

But then, Bill let him have it and fireworks broke out:

O’REILLY: Matthews played you. … He played you! You should be mad at him!

McCLELLAN: So you don’t owe me an apology for calling me a liar? –

O’REILLY: You are a liar! You said I received talking points and I didn’t!

McCLELLAN: No I didn’t! I was not confirming that. I’m telling you right now —

O’REILLY: Oh you’re parsing the damn thing! Come on, be honest! … He baited you! He baited you! … You’re crazy! You’re partners with [NBC] in selling your book!

I would politely told that feckless piece of shit to fuck off and die and hung up the phone, if it were me. He’s a fucking asshole, and yes, I am a conservative and saying that. So, Bill if you read this, you’re an asshole.

What kills me is how Scott is sucking up to that feckless windbag. Who cares if he’s pissed? fuck him! Who is he? A big fucking nobody with a large title and small dick, just that simple.

No damn wonder Michelle Malkin quit appearing there.

Others:
TVNewser, The Campaign Spot and Media Blog

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

German chick sees Obama, goes ga-ga…

Does Michelle know about this?

A few snort worthy quotes:

“Hi, how’s it going?“ asks Obama in his deep voice. My heart beats. “Very good, and you?” I say. Obama replies: “Very good, thank you!”

What? No Halo? Hmmm…

He goes and picks up a pair of 16 kilo
weights and starts curling them with his left and right arms, 30
repetitions on each side. Then, amazingly, he picks up the 32 kilo
weights!
Very slowly he lifts
them, first 10 curls with his right, then 10 with his left. He breathes
deeply in and out and takes a sip of water from his 0,5 litre Evian
bottle.

Oh man, making me moist already… 😛 😆

“My name’s Judith” I reply. “I’m Barack
Obama, nice to meet you!” he says, and puts his arm across my shoulder.
I put my arm around his hip – wow, he didn’t even sweat!
WHAT A MAN!

*snort*

For those wondering… 16 kilos is 78 pounds. 🙄

Others:
Macsmind, NewsBusters.org, Newsweek Blogs, Stop The ACLU, Wonkette, www.redstate.com, alicublog and Deadline USA

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No smart McCain, Not smart at all

Really smart McCain, really smart. Blow off your Republican Conservative Media base for the Liberal Media.

Watch it:

I don’t know if the maverick knows this or not, but the Conservative media could turn on him on a dime. He is already doing poorly in the polls and the next to the Obamassiah, he looks like an out of touch fool. So, if I were McCain, I would be kissing the collective ass of the Main Stream Conservative Media. Because they could, in effect, bury his campaign in a New York minute. 

Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person in the World

Yeah, I’m still miffed at him, for some rather stupid and insensitive remarks that he and some of his cohorts made. But he does a have a point here:

I mean the misspelling of education, during, of all things, an education spot, is just downright funny. 😛

The poll thing goes without saying….

But the biggest of all, Bill O’ comparing Al Gore going to a Netroots convention, to a Klan meeting? That takes on a whole other decibel of stupidity. 🙄

I mean, don’t get me wrong, My feelings on global warming are that the science is just unproven and the whole movement was hi-jacked as a political movement rather than a Environmental issue, which is what it should be.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another reason why I cannot STAND President George W. Bush

Look for this to be the next big story.

Seen at the Houston Political Blog (via HuffPo)

Update: Video was Pulled head on over to the Site and watch the video.

Update #2: Here’s a snippet of it:

The Basic Transcript:

It is uncertain, there’s no question about it.

Wall Street got drunk, it got drunk, (it’s one of the reasons I asked you to turn off your tv cameras.) It got drunk and now it’s got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up, and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments.

And now we got a housing issue, not in Houston, and evidently, not in Dallas, because Laura was over there trying to buy a house today. (laugher.. Crawford!)

I like Crawford, unfortunately after eight years of asking her to sacrifice, I’m now no longer the decision maker. She’ll be deciding, thanks for the suggestion! I suggest you don’t yell it out when she’s here. Later, telling her “Hey honey, we’ve been on government pay now for 14 years… so go slow!”

It’s uh.. caused me to lose my train of thought. Anyway.

As a caveat, the cameras were supposed to be off, but obviously, a tape was rolling. But still it speaks to the Political tone deafness of the President. He is yucking it up, while people are losing their houses and while people are dying, because of a pointless and undeclared war in Iraq. Yes, I know, the surge has worked, but still to the general populous of America, this just looks bad. This also could possibly hurt McCain in the long run, because I have sneaky suspicion that the 527’s and possibly Obama campaign might use a video like this, to do a hit job on McCain. In a attempt to try and push McCain closer to Bush.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Americans know what Conservative Bloggers have been saying all along.

That the media is in the tank for the Obamasssiah….

The Story Via Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The paper’s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines, with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives.

At the time of that survey, the Times was being criticized for an article it had run about McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Sixty-six percent (66%) of those who were aware of the story in question believed it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign.

In the latest survey, a plurality of Democrats—37%– say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

Perhaps Bill O’ was right after all. I will be the first to admit. MSNBC does seem to be in the tank for Obama. CNN was for Hillary, but seeing she is out, they have swung their support behind Obama. The notable exception being Lou Dobbs. The only Anti-Obama network, really, is Fox News. However, from what I have read in various places, Even Fox has softened their coverage on him as well. The notable exception there is Sean Hannity and of course, Bill O.

It is quite funny, anytime you say to a Liberal that media is in the tank for Obama. Their heads explode and they accuse you of being a racist bigot.

Anyone that wants to know the real truth about B. Hussein Obama, check out the picture of ol’ Barry with the cigarette in his mouth and click it, and also check out the link below it, to read about his communist ties. It is a real eye opener.

The real funny thing is how the Liberals try and spin this story. Check out Huffpo‘s Poor attempt at Spin.

Whoowee… All that spin, I’m so dizzy... 😉

Others Blogging: The Opinionator, www.redstate.com, The Confluence, American Power, michellemalkin.com, Pajamas Media, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Wake up America and QandO

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New York Times rejects McCain Piece, Because it doesn’t sound enough like Obama’s.

According to Matt Drudge, This editorial by John McCain was rejected by the New York times:

Quote:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

The reason for the rejected was this:

Shipley continues: ‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’

In other words, McCain’s piece didn’t sound enough like Obama’s piece. Bias, thy name is the New York Times.

Others Blogging:
Little Green Footballs, Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, BLACKFIVE, A Blog For All, Hot Air, Comment Central, The Washington Independent, Political Radar, GINA COBB, TIME.com, Gateway Pundit, Get Drunk And Vote 4 McCain, race42008.com, Gothamist and MSNBC

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,