The recent publication of Kay Hymowitz's book Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys has re-ignited the gender-wars in certain circles. Hymowitz's book is simply the latest in a torrent of "men are just big children" pieces, and this man is sick to death of it.

Ace already posted his take on the issue, but there are even deeper issues than sex at play here: ultimately, it's about the foundational cultural unit of our civilization -- the family. Husband, wife; mother, father, children. The last century has seen an accelerating trend away from this fundamental building-block. Beginning with World War II when women first entered into the workforce in large numbers to the 1960's "sexual revolution" (driven by, among other things, effective birth-control) to the breaking of the "glass ceiling" for many women in the 1990's, American history in the latter half of the 20th century has been one of steady female social and economic independence. That's a good thing, right?
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:29 AM | Comments (346)
Post contains 927 words, total size 6 kb.

Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:04 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

The US Does Not Have a Monopoly on Rednecks

Among foreigners the common stereotype of rural Americans is that we're all a bunch of ignorant, possibly in-bred rednecks. Think Cletus from The Simpsons. Well thanks to this clip from The Scheme, a British reality show that's like a Scottish version of Jersey Shore, it's clear that America does not have a monopoly on redneckery.

For the record all the people in this video are supposed to be speaking English. But they probably have been drinking and I don't think that retardation of some form is out of the question.

On the other hand it's probably not a complete surprise that native Rednecks are to be found in the north of Britain. In fact David Hackett Fischer has made a strong case in Albion's Seed that much of what we think of as American redneck/Southern culture is pretty much a transplant of the dominant folkways of the Scots and Englishmen living in the northern border country - people we now refer to as the Scots-Irish.

These were the people who even at that time might be called "crackers" or "rednecks" (terms that came from Britain). Centuries of cross-border warfare, raiding, and exploitative absentee lords left them with little belief in the ability of governments to promote justice and peace, and a sense that one must always be ready to defend oneself with violence. These values prepared them for the dangers of settling first the Appalachian frontier and then the Wild West, but left their descendants with a predilection toward violent conflict, as well as valuing physical prowess and robust sexuality over education and economic prosperity.

And settlers from other parts of England brought with them their own unique traditions and folkways - Puritan/Yankee ones in new England and a self-proclaimed aristocracy in Virginia and the mid-Atlantic states. Much of our current regional political and cultural differences have their origin in what particular part of England the original settlers came from almost three centuries ago.

But even with the long cultural and historical traditions and all that, I still think an airstrike on the people in the video is the best thing for all concerned. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:01 PM | Comments (472)
Post contains 1021 words, total size 10 kb.

Quite a bit it actually.

First and most importantly, the political will.

"We are working to translate the world's outrage into action and results," (Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton said, highlighting that USAID is sending two teams, one each to Egypt and Tunisia, to aid the humanitarian response to the flow of refugees coming from Libya.

The United States has moved the USS Enterprise carrier strike group to the area near Libya. Clinton said that military assets are being repositioned now to support the humanitarian mission there, but that direct military intervention remained a possibility.

Of course, not everyone is outraged or wants to see action. Can you say overcharge "Reset"?

But before any military action, he would have to secure international agreement and Russia's consent is required as a veto-wielding member of the Security Council.

Russia's support looked likely when newswires quoted a Kremlin source today saying Gaddafi must step down because by using force against civilians he has become a 'political corpse.'

But Russia's NATO ambassador Dmitry Rogozin also cautioned against moving militarily against Gadhafi without UN authorisation.

'If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya, it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law,' Rogozin told Russia's Interfax news agency in Brussels on Tuesday.

'A ban on the national air force or civil aviation to fly over their own territory is still a serious interference into the domestic affairs of another country, and at any rate it requires a resolution of the UN Security Council,' he said.

From the military perspective, it's not impossible but it's not like we have a lot of extra capacity laying around in that part of the world.

From "In From the Cold":

And, from a military perspective, the no-fly zone would do little to help Libyan rebels fighting in the streets. The number of sorties flown by the Libyan Air Force has been rather small, and the skills of Libyan pilots are unimpressive, at best. Qaddafi's air squadrons have never been much more than a high-speed flying club for regime loyalists; the force hasn't improved significantly since the U.S. Navy splashed a couple of SU-22 Fitters over the Gulf of Sidra 30 years ago. Indeed, we might be better off by broadcasting "safe passage" rules of Libyan pilots and encouraging more of them to defect.

...Truth be told, we could probably implement an "initial" no-fly zone operation in a matter of days, using fighters from the USS Enterprise and the Aegis surveillance radars of its escort vessels. AWACS support would be drawn from the NATO AEW force at Geilenkirchen AB, Germany, along with British and French AWACS squadrons (a total of 28 aircraft). The necessary rules-of-engagement could be adapted from those used in Iraq and the Balkans. And, there are still plenty of pilots in the various NATO air forces with experience in no-fly zone enforcement. Participation by ISR and tanker aircraft--most of them American--would round out the operation.

Additionally, Libya's ground-based air defense system doesn't pose much of a challenge, either. It's essentially the same network that shot down only one U.S. F-111 during the 1986 bombing raids against Qaddafi's personal headquarters and elements of his armed forces. U.S. capabilities have improved both quantitatively and qualitatively since that time; Libya's IADS has slowly declined thanks to shortages of trained personnel and erratic maintenance. Suggesting that Libyan SAMs, radars and AAA pose a significant challenge is something of an insult to U.S. and NATO personnel who train for the SEAD mission on a regular basis.

After surveying the help we might be able to get from our regional allies, CDRSalamander seems a bit more pessimistic about the available options.

Would we give a station to our allies? Of the remaining folks, GBR, ESP, & ITA have CVS, right? Well, the Brits don’t do CVS counter-air anymore – and the Italians and Spanish carriers? How many sorties can they do? How about if they had a lot of land based fighter support? How many fighter aircraft need to be stationed at Sigonella supported by how many tankers to cover Tripoli? Same question about Souda Bay and Benghazi. The British bases on Cyprus?

UK officials said they could use of a British military air base in Akrotiri, Cyprus to enforce a no-fly mission. “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy,” said an official. “That would seem most logical.”Although fixed-wing aircraft appear to be depleted, British officials said the main concern was that Col Gaddafi could use helicopters to mount bombing raids on opponents.

Thanks, but … look at that transit – tanker and AEW/ES only. That is about the same distance as from Masirah, Oman to Southern Afghanistan.

There is the problem – but we have a solution, the one a lot of smart people are going to try to make work. We will have do a limited NFZ-L with Big E and the KEARSARGE ESG. Not the way it should be done, but good enough for show.

On alert, using limited CAPs and relying on ready aircraft. Our allies may be here and there and will be able to help on the margins – but they have neither the ability or political will to do much more. They have proven over and over that they are less concerned about their backyard than we are – either that are they are just too used to us solving their big problems – and if we don’t – they will just hope for the best.

Both posts are well worth reading in full.

Remember, the leader of the No Fly Zone idea is UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Good for him and all but it's rather hollow to hear this can of talk from the guy who has put the Royal Navy out of the power projection business.

Aircraft carriers are damn expensive to build, operate and man but they are damn handy things when you need one or three. We are at the bare minimum at the moment and as you can see, it's actually below the minimum.

Secretary of Defense Gates talks a lot about how much is enough, especially in terms of carriers when no one else really has any to speak of. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, we need at least 2 to cover the Persian Gulf, 5th Fleet area alone for the foreseeable future. If you want to start cutting them, you better let the CNO and head of Central Command what operations you want them to stop doing. And oh yeah, when the shit hits the fan, don't ask, "Where are the carriers"?

Posted by: DrewM at 05:10 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 1136 words, total size 8 kb.

This happened in New Jersey, under Christie. The teachers were told they could either pay for health insurance and pensions but keep their current workers in their jobs, or stay at their current overpaid rates but face a lot of layoffs.

Of course they chose the layoffs-- while blaming Christie for the fact that many schools lost their coaches and athletic programs. Nope. They had a choice; they voted for the layoffs.

So here are some cuts.

Three weeks after igniting a firestorm of protest from unions, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker introduced a budget Tuesday that would slash more than $1.25 billion from aid to local governments.

Walker stressed that the aid won't be missed if the legislature votes to severely curtail public employees' collective bargaining power. That's because school districts and local governments will be able to raise workers' contributions to their health care and pensions, saving a total of $1.5 billion.

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (464)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

$2 Billion a week, 2 weeks at a time. Progress.

The House on Tuesday approved a stopgap measure that would keep the federal government funded through March 18 and cut $4 billion in spending by targeting programs that President Obama has already marked for elimination.

The proposal, which passed the House on a 335-to-91 vote, now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass easily. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Tuesday that it is likely to come to a vote in his chamber within 48 hours.

...House Democrats were divided on the measure: 104 Democrats backed it while 85 opposed it. Two members of Democratic leadership, Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), voted yes; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Assistant Minority Leader Jim Clyburn (S.C.) and Democratic Caucus Vice-Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.) voted against it.

Democrats have been talking big about a government shutdown and seemed to think it played into their hands, yet the first time they have a chance to make it happen, they fold.

Senate Democrats are in full retreat on the two week CR as well.

Reid said that Senate Democrats had made multiple suggestions to Republicans on a different way to proceed — they had proposed a 30-day measure — but that the GOP had rejected them.

...These are huge cuts,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy.

“The Army Corps and bureau is cut by $554 million, so what I’ve wanted to do is add some back to it,” Feinstein said of the House GOP’s two-week spending measure. “This is levy repair, this if you’ve got a dam that earthen that’s in trouble, it’s bridge repair.”

But Feinstein conceded that she might still vote for it.

“I would support the two-week CR that came over from the House if we could have some flexibility on this Army Corps of Engineers — maybe I’ll support it anyway,” she said.

Like many Democrats, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) doesnÂ’t like the House GOP proposal, which terminates funding for programs that President Obama slated for elimination in his budget and cuts spending in programs ranging from science research to mine safety to special education.

But Mikulski doesnÂ’t want to risk a government shutdown, an increasingly likely possibility if Senate Democrats were to reject the two-week spending resolution the House is expected to pass Tuesday.

I love that the GOP refused Reid's counter offer. They are controlling the agenda and the process. I'd say a 100+ House Democrats voting for any spending cuts and hardcore liberals like Reid, Feinstein and Mikulski are folding in the Senate.

It's a small victory in the opening skirmish of a long and protracted war (sorry for the "old tone') but success breeds success. For far too long the idea of cutting wasn't even on the table, it's going to take a while to change the default mindset but change it must.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:42 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

I have to point out that Charles Krauthammer called the flight of Big Boobs McGee a "leading indicator" for the direction of the revolution. Which is just what I called it on Saturday. Well, I said "Leading Sexual Indicator."

It's an obvious point but still, I enjoyed seeing it on the Big Show.

So, anyway, Nurse SweaterZeppelins says she's be back for the victory party.

The article notes a cable leaked by WikiLeaks:

The cable added that only Miss Kolotnytska knew the 68-year-old dictator's precise habits, which was why he always kept her close. "Some embassy contacts have claimed that Gaddafi and the 38 year-old Kolotnytska have a romantic relationship," it said.

No shit, really?

Nurse Pumpkins denies that, but then, Qadaffy's married. Counting against her denial: She calls him "Papa." And, by her daughter's account...

"Other Ukrainian women also work for him as nurses. Mum is one of them," she said. "For some reason, he doesn't trust Libyan women with this matter."

She said her mother found Col Gaddafi "kind" and that he had given her a watch with his face on it but that he "could be strict if he had to be."

"Papa" can be both "kind" but also "strict"? And he's got a gaggle of Ukranian nurses tending to him?

That's hot. Qadaffy might be crazy, but he's my kind of crazy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (180)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

You can't stay away from home forever. Being away from home is tough on our troops and they're disciplined and tough. These guys? Pansy-ass punks.

Fox Nation has learned exclusively from a highly placed source within Wisconsin state politics that the fourteen AWOL Democrats are experiencing “dissension in the ranks.” State Sen. Julie Lassa (D) is pregnant and “extremely unhappy” about being on the run. State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D) has been hit particularly hard by his paycheck being withheld. Wisconsin State Senate leadership is currently negotiating with eight of the fourteen to come home.

Important update over there at Hot Air -- the majority leader may be negotiating, but he says he's not conceding anything as regards the bill.

Meanwhile, a poll is out that says 42% of the country support the unions and only 31% support Walker.

Is that bad? Well, not when you consider that a lot of that 42% of support comes from the young, union members, Democrats... in other words, the pillars of support of the Democratic Party, also known as People Who Will Vote Against Us Anyway So Who Gives A Wet Shit?

I have a little more spin, if you want my spin. I'm not sure how much I'm buying this spin -- but I think I sort of like it.

On a lot of issues, there is something I would call a default, easy, "nice" answer. Like, if I have some kind of poll on some issue that's about trees, I'd expect the "pro-tree" side to get like 60%+ support, easily. On a whole lot of issues, people have no idea what the actual question is about but they offer up emotional responses to key words. Trees? I support them. Health care? I support that. Children? The little children? I'm on the pro-child side, and I don't care who knows it.

That's not to say that such support can be easily disregarded because the same reason people want to say they're "pro-tree" is the same reason they will vote against a politician successfully portrayed as "anti-tree."

But on many issues, there is an easy, lay-up answer, and it usually is a liberal-leaning answer, because, superficially, liberals are in favor of trees, and health care, and children. (At least they favor the idea of children, though they are also pretty big on the idea of, erm, terminating them.)

Now, "unions" are not as an easy lay-up default "nice" thing to support like trees are, but they do have some of that going on there. Like, it's the nice thing to say. People say lots of stupid shit when they're programmed to say the nice thing -- like when Rand Paul said that Wisconsin teachers make $89,000 per year (or three-quarters year, I should say) David Letterman wasted no time in offering the clapper answer "And they should make twice that!!"

Really, dude? A teacher required to be in command of the information a child is supposed to know at age 12 should be making $188,000 per year? Or three quarters year, I should say? For successfully teaching children lessons from a manual they should be making nearly $200,000 per year in straight salary, let alone benefits, and have summers and every major holiday off?

Really?

What the fuck should a doctor make then, I wonder? What should a garbageman make? Their jobs are harder, dirtier, go on throughout the year (including in sub-zero weather) and they have less respect. What should we pay them, then, to make that job competitive with the blandishments afforded teachers?

But you see my point. There is an easy clapper answer, and there is a tougher, more honest, but not-as-nice answer.

So here's my question: if the easy, "nice" clapper answer gets... um, 42% support... is that anything really to crow about?

Only 31% support Walker. What about the 27% who are undecided? What is more likely -- that they more support the unions but feel uncomfortable saying so that they support Walker but feel that isn't nice to say?

I think the latter. That's not strong support, certainly, as they can't even admit it to a pollster.

But I'd tend to bet that if you put them on a lie detector, you'd find they were more on Walker's side than they feel it's socially acceptable to admit.

Because "I support the unions" is such an easy answer to offer, it seems to me that 42% should be taken as the almost the highest level of union support including leaners, and it can be safely assumed that Walker gains the support, when you include leaners, of 55% or more.

Posted by: Ace at 11:40 AM | Comments (290)
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

At least I assume this guy is a liberal. I'm not sure that piece is worth reading. I cite it just to note people are wondering if Obama has any kind of strategic idea at all on foreign policy. Correction: A commenter tells me he's not a liberal. He's a British Tory who supported the War in Iraq.

Krauthammer was noting some of the steps short of war Obama could have undertaken to aid the Libyan rebels, but did not, at least so far. Some of the below are my own thoughts, too.

1. A No-Fly Zone. Strangely, Europe is leading the US on this point. They're planning for it while we're twiddling our thumbs. A no-fly zone is harder to establish than just putting up some jets (we need to create a permissive enviroment, that is, we need to take out their ground radios and anti-aircraft weaponry as well as all their planes); but even prior to that, we can take the occasional Libyan jet out with a ship-to-air missile. Even putting Qadaffy's loyal pilots on notice that lightning may strike once in a while is helpful.

2. Medical Aid and Other Sorts of Relief for the Rebels. This is almost cost-free and buys an outsized amount of goodwill for a tiny cost. Why hasn't this been done yet?

2a. It should be pointed out that regularly flying in medicine and basic foodstuffs also gives a nation the cover to fly in weapons, should it come to that. And the rebels certainly could use some shoulder-fired missiles to knock the professional and experienced mercenaries out of cover. And no, we don't have to give them our top-of-the-line made in America tech; Chinese copies of 10 year old technology would be a good upgrade.

3. A Blockade to Prevent the Influx of Additional Mercenaries. This is a big one-- Qadaffy is relying on mercernaries from Chad and Niger to do his fighting for him; his own corps of reliable troops is too small for the job. An announcement by the president of a blockade to prevent troops from coming into Tripoli would not only hearten the rebels (and make them think well of us), it would also shorten the confrontation.

3a. Related to that point -- America could also stop troop movements out of Tripoli. The mercenaries must realize that Qadaffy will almost certainly lose; they're just taking the money while it's available. But this means they must be giving some thought to an exit strategy; they don't want to be caught, and hanged, by the rebels when they win. (And it's a "when" they win situation.) Announcing that within 48 hours a blockade of all troops moving out of Tripoli would cause a good number of these troops to take advantage of that 48 hour window and get out while the getting is good.

Clarification: I thought it was so obvious that I was talking about a sea blockade I didn't bother to specify a sea blockade. I even told commenters, "I specified a sea blockade, not ground action."

But I didn't, actually. All I can say is that the sea was so obvious to me I just assumed it.

That's what I'm talking about here. I am certainly not advocating ground troops in this fight. (The Libyan rebels have requested air support but specifically said they wanted no ground troops -- and I wouldn't offer them even if they did request them.)

So, sea power. Tripoli is a coastal city. There are few things more amenable to US power projection than a coastal city.

...

3b. It wouldn't hurt to also begin setting up international tribunals for the trial of mercenaries found to have engaged in war crimes. It would be better, maybe, to leave them to the rough justice of the rebels, but it can't hurt to also establish a more civilized tribunal. Let everyone know that if caught in Tripoli when the city is taken there will be serious consequences.

None of these measures expose too many US soldiers and airmen to enemy fire, but all are welcomed by the rebels; some of them (such as the no-fly zone) have been requested by the rebels. There is no doubt whatsoever that the "world community" (whatever that is, but liberals seem to think it's pretty important) is in favor of these steps; when the British, French, and Arab League are all out in front of America, it's just not possible to accuse America of acting as an "imperialist."

As the rebels seem highly likely to win (certain to win with a small amount of aid from America), all of these steps are helpful in the post-Qadaffy diplomatic/PR environment.

But we're not doing these things. Only recently did we begin to even position our warships in the area, and talk of such steps is still in the talk-about-talking stage. And this is two weeks on. What, exactly, is the hold-up?

It seems that the Obama Doctrine is basically strictly non-interventionist, informed by 60s/70s romanticization of "peasant warriors" leading "people's revolts;" in this context, any entry by the First World Oppressor America taints the authenticity and righteousness of the cause.

Of the three major revolutions which occurred slowly enough that the US could have intervened in some small way (I exclude Tunisia as having occurred too quickly), it can't be helped but be noted that the Obama Administration actively supported the anti-American (and therefore "authentic") Mullahs in Iran, eventually turned against the US ally Mubarak and begin making very foolish, very confident-sounding pronouncements that they had solid information he was about to be deposed, and is very hesitant to aid the rebels against another anti-American tyrant.

The lesson seems to be that if you like your tyranny, you can keep your tyranny, so long as your tyranny is anti-American. If you're a friend to America -- watch out. What incentives this "doctrine" is intended to create, I don't know.

Obama's feckless, spastic foreign policy has one good unintended benefit: The world now longs for America the Strong again. They have seen what the world looks like when Superman is dead (or at least brain-damaged and crippled), and will not be as quick in the future to snipe at American leadership.

America's irresponsibility and cowardice has forced other nations to be responsible and courageous; that's a good thing, certainly, but it's not so good that we should be happy that America is now a flailing, feckless spastic idiot on the world stage. That Obama's America is now a one-man leadership vacuum.

And it all goes back to Obama's terrorist-palling-around worldview, fundamentally Marxist in pedigree, that any contact by foreign peoples with the Opressor America is a bad thing. For them. That we carry the taint of Evil with us wherever we go.

On Arab Scape-Goating: I don't believe Obama's toxic weakness even benefits us when it comes to the Arab world's pathological need to blame all ills on outsiders. While it's true that Obama's dictator-coddling America Is The Disease type of strict (and non-nuanced) non-interventionist policy protects us from Arabs and Muslims blaming us for intervening, it fails to appreciate they will also blame us for not intervening.

It is highly likely that Qadaffy is doomed. The open question is how large the massacres will grow. They're already rather large. They could become enormous.

If Obama thinks the Libyan rebels will scape-goat us if we act: Has he considered how much scape-goating there will be if Qadaffy is allowed, without us lifting a single finger, to kill thousands and thousands more?

I have to believe that Obama believes his own hype. He was sold as a Healer who could move mountains just by commanding them to move -- and he behaves as if that's true. He wants this to be true, and damnit, if he isn't running a large and bloody experiment on the world stage to determine if it is true that his words alone can move mountains.

So he offers words. And more words. And the furrowed brow of disapproval and, especially, the uplifted chin of superiority.

Because this response makes his words, his charisma, his elevated thoughts the central fulcrum on which the world turns.

To inject the military into this, even in a small, mostly humanitarian way... why that might make the actions of big-shouldered men the important thing, and Obama doesn't like that idea.

If great events are to unfold, they must unfold in such a way that Obama's status as hero-god commanding the oceans to fall by the sonorous tone of his voice is preserved and enhanced.

There is no room on this stage for other heroes.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (369)
Post contains 1463 words, total size 9 kb.

Just in case you forgot that Ron Paul! is dangerously naive when it comes to, well so many things but in this case Israel, he'd like to remind you who he is.

I believe in non-intervention. I believe we should treat all other countries alike, and that we should be friends. Israel is very, very powerful. If we werenÂ’t in there, they could do what they want to protect themselves, and they wouldnÂ’t have to ask us permission, and we would never have to be dragged in if something happens over there. I think theyÂ’d be much better off, and that would be a constitutional position.

Yes by all means, let's treat "all other countries alike". Canada and Libya...all the same! Andora and China? Don't discriminate!

Amazingly enough, he gets even goofier by saying we shouldn't pick sides between Israel and the Palestinians. This of course puts him at odds with most Americans who support Israel and the Obama administration which supports the Palestinians.

It all sounds very even handed but Paul and others who think we tilt to far to Israel's side never quite get around to explaining what exactly is in it for us to see the Palestinians run the Jews into the sea? And let's be honest, that's the end game here. If they were genuine about a two-state solution, the Palestinians could have had that years ago. Put the morality of allowing another Holocaust aside for the moment, it's simply naive in the extreme to think if we just feed them the Jews, they'll leave us alone. Where's the evidence for this notion that if we and the west simply retreat, expansionist Islam will simply be satisfied at Israel? History kind of demonstrates the exact opposite.

So, the outcome of an even handed or pro-Palestinian policy is morally reprehensible and pays no strategic dividends? What's not to love about it?

Beyond the foreign policy nuttery, I really don't get the Ron Paul phenomenon. Here's a guy who is 75 years old and seems to attract a lot of attention from young (and really annoying) supporters. I guess it's because there's always going to be a fair amount of cranks in the world and Paul gives voice to a certain subset of them, so for that group he's pretty much the only game in town. Plus, he's like the crank who made good and got elected to the House. I guess this gives him and by proxy them, so legitimacy.

Naturally the MFM loves the guy because he's an embarrassment to actual Republicans and conservatives. Any thing or any one they can use to beat up the evilllll right wing with will do nicely.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:15 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.