Video: Michelle names her top five news stories of 2006 on O’Reilly
posted at 9:22 pm on January 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
My own:
1. Deterioration in Iraq.
2. The Democratic takeover.
3. Iran’s rise to regional power.
4. Illegal immigration.
5. The Israeli/Hezbollah war.
CNN’s Obama/Osama gaffe is still in the news so let me seize the opportunity to remind left-wing halfwits who sense the hand of Rove at work that typos occur in news graphics all the time. I catch them regularly on Fox, sad to say. Here’s the latest example. Right-wing conspiracy or overworked copy editor? You make the call.
Update (Bryan): Something about Kirsten’s formulations doesn’t add up. O’R touched on it, but essentially if we all talked about Darfur more, it would lead to an impetus to act, and there’s only one way to stop a genocide: military force. Whether it’s through the UN or not, it takes a military intervention to stop a genocide (unless the targets of the genocide are all dead, anyway, or the genocidal leader decides to call it off). That’s just the way it is.
Connected to that, there were quite a few blogs that were more than willing to talk about Darfur last year, but they were nearly all conservative blogs, and when we brought up Darfur as I did on my old blog a few times we were as likely as not to be accused by liberals of having some hidden agenda unconnected to the actual genocide taking place. Or of wanting to take the focus off Iraq by misdirection to Sudan. That’s what we tricky conservatives do, I guess. And connected to that, the leader in all the world on talking about Darfur was the Bush administration and the villified John Bolton whom the liberals won’t even send back to the UN, but liberals tended to dismiss whatever Bolton and the administration said about Darfur and, as often as not, accused them of having a hidden agenda. And by liberals I don’t mean just bloggers, but elected liberals and major liberal pundits.
Yet Kirsten decries that Darfur didn’t get enough attention last year. Well, she has her liberal allies to thank for that, for the most part, and shouldn’t expect the Reid/Pelosi Congress to do anything at all about Darfur now. They blocked Bolton and have handcuffed Bush. You couldn’t interest them in any intervention in Darfur or anywhere else if you tried. But Kirsten supports them.
But, when given the choice to take out a monster who had committed a genocide or two in his heyday that eclipsed that going on in Darfur, Kirsten didn’t support that war. And yes, stopping Saddam qua Saddam was one of the five or six justifications for going to war. It wasn’t all about the WMDs.
Is there an underlying foreign policy principle I’m missing here, or is liberal foreign policy as situational and ad hoc as Kirsten’s focus on Darfur, but not Iraq, seems to me to be?
I honestly don’t see why Darfur rates more of our attention (when we all know where that leads) but Iraq, the pre-2003 Iraq that might well have had WMDs at the ready and had a history of attacking its neighbors and supporting international terrorists and trying to kill a former US president, didn’t merit intervention. Do liberals only care about a foreign crisis when they know there’s no chance that we’ll actually do something militarily about it? Does the amount of US national interest in a given crisis have an inverse relationship to the interest liberals will show in that crisis? (**Good line I just thought of–Is Darfur the new “Free Tibet?”)
Simple anti-Americanism won’t do for an explanation here, at least not where Kirsten is concerned. I’ve met her. She’s not anti-American, not by a long shot. Maybe anti-Bush, but he’s been the leader on talking up Darfur as a serious problem. And she opposes him and was happy to see him lose Congress, though that loss for him means there is no chance of any action on Darfur. And on and on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Sluttification quickly became skankification.
At least she didn’t lump poor Miss America into the mix.
JammieWearingFool on January 2, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Did Michelle just mention Abramoff’s taint? Somebody should inform Ace right away.
Bugler on January 2, 2007 at 9:43 PM
1. Broke ankle
2. Trips to Malaysia
3. 40 days of continuous rain
4. Discovering HotAir
5. Finally getting a P.O. Box after waiting a year
Kini on January 2, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Sounds like Michelle has a cold.
JammieWearingFool on January 2, 2007 at 9:53 PM
I believe Kirsten has a point about Saddams’ execution being a high point in 2007 discussions. But Dar4…the US can easily steer away from that train wreck because after the UNs’ brazen assault on the USs’ handling of Iraq, they painted themselves into a corner & can’t say squat.
Coronagold on January 2, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Anyone know what’s going on at PowerLine? Can’t get the site open for two days…
Jaibones on January 2, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Since the “typo” occurred on Kirsten’s Top 5 list, it is obviously a blatant attempt by the dastardly copy editors to discredit one of the few ‘forward-thinking’ commentators on Fox News. Consider the timing — I blame Bush!
rmgraha on January 2, 2007 at 10:08 PM
The reason the UN hasn’t done anything in Darfour is because,
on the surfacedeep down many UN members actually want the genocide to take place. Just as many UN members want a second jewish holocaust. Just as many UN members want the US to lose in Iraq and against the war on terror. Very sad.stonemeister on January 2, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Something about Kirsten’s formulations doesn’t add up. O’R touched on it, but essentially if we all talked about Darfur more, it would lead to an impetus to act, and there’s only one way to stop a genocide: military force. Whether it’s through the UN or not, it takes a military intervention to stop a genocide (unless the targets of the genocide are all dead, anyway, or the genocidal leader decides to call it off). That’s just the way it is.
Connected to that, there were quite a few blogs that were more than willing to talk about Darfur last year, but they were nearly all conservative blogs, and when we brought up Darfur as I did on my old blog a few times we were as likely as not to be accused by liberals of having some hidden agenda unconnected to the actual genocide taking place. Or of wanting to take the focus off Iraq by misdirection to Sudan. That’s what we tricky conservatives do, I guess. And connected to that, the leader in all the world on talking about Darfur was the Bush administration and the villified John Bolton whom the liberals won’t even send back to the UN, but liberals tended to dismiss whatever Bolton and the administration said about Darfur and, as often as not, accused them of having a hidden agenda. And by liberals I don’t mean just bloggers, but elected liberals and major liberal pundits.
Yet Kirsten decries that Darfur didn’t get enough attention last year. Well, she has her liberal allies to thank for that, for the most part, and shouldn’t expect the Reid/Pelosi Congress to do anything at all about Darfur now. They blocked Bolton and have handcuffed Bush. You couldn’t interest them in any intervention in Darfur or anywhere else if you tried. But Kirsten supports them.
But, when given the choice to take out a monster who had committed a genocide or two in his heyday that eclipsed that going on in Darfur, Kirsten didn’t support that war. And yes, stopping Saddam qua Saddam was one of the five or six justifications for going to war. It wasn’t all about the WMDs.
Is there an underlying foreign policy principle I’m missing here, or is liberal foreign policy as situational and ad hoc as Kirsten’s focus on Darfur, but not Iraq, seems to me to be?
I honestly don’t see why Darfur rates more of our attention (when we all know where that leads) but Iraq, the pre-2003 Iraq that might well have had WMDs at the ready and had a history of attacking its neighbors and supporting international terrorists and trying to kill a former US president, didn’t merit intervention. Do liberals only care about a foreign crisis when they know there’s no chance that we’ll actually do something militarily about it? Does the amount of US national interest in a given crisis have an inverse relationship to the interest liberals will show in that crisis?
Simple anti-Americanism won’t do for an explanation here, at least not where Kirsten is concerned. I’ve met her. She’s not anti-American, not by a long shot. Maybe anti-Bush, but he’s been the leader on talking up Darfur as a serious problem. And she opposes him and was happy to see him lose Congress, though that loss for him means there is no chance of any action on Darfur. And on and on.
Bryan on January 2, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Way to go Bryan…you can argue this for a few more laps. ;)
stonemeister on January 2, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Michelle & Kirsten both on Fox at the same time .. that will be on my list of the high points of 2007!!
DJ Dubya on January 2, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Out of MM, AP, and KP, gotta go with AP’s list as being the best. Here’s mine:
1. Democrats take over in both houses
2. Rise in radical Islam
3. Deterioration in Iraq
4. Immigration
5. Increased broadband usage/availability gives rise to more video on the web (YouTube, Hot Air, etc.).
asc85 on January 2, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I thought KP was going conservative? Where exactly where all her newfound conservative positions on that list, aside from her number five?
Also, the only thing I can think of as her reasoning about Darfur, specifically as it relates to what she said about Iraq, is that she’s bought into the big lie that it’s wrong for America to act in it’s own best interest.
Wolfman on January 2, 2007 at 10:51 PM
I think that’s the key. Acting in the national interest isn’t one hundred per cent altruistic and thus dilutes absolute moral authority. Although I think action in Darfur would be useful to security because everytime you bomb a hostile country or destroy a presidential palace or two it puts every dictator on notice.
aengus on January 2, 2007 at 10:52 PM
The on-line dictionary says:
skank
n.
One who is disgustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
I suggest:
skankify
v.
to deliberately and overtly exhibit disgusting, foul, filthy or sexually promiscuous behavior for the purposes of seeking publicity or drawing attention to ones self
skankification
n. the process of skankifying acceptable social norms
(But what do I know, right?)
CyberCipher on January 2, 2007 at 10:54 PM
By the way, History Channel is running some good documentaries on Saddam Hussein tonight. The one on his WMD attack against the Kurds leaves no doubt that he needed killin’.
Bryan on January 2, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Well said Bryan. But there is more.
It’s almost like the left demands a 20-20 hindsight view on war after the fact. if that makes sense.
Almost in entirety, the left, dems, libs, they were ALL FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. FIRST! They voted to go in to Iraq. They were before it before they were against it.
Is Darfur going to be different? No, FIRST, they will support action to stop the genocide right now, but they will turn against the decision and and blame the right and President Bush for any and all trouble or blood .
There were WMD’s in Iraq, no doubt about it. Many more than the 500 they found this year, but it’s somehow a non-issue now because we didn’t prove it as tangible evidence. (its well buried)
So it’s not about what happens or why, it’s about winning they way the left THINKS IT WILL or SHOULD GO. The delusion of a perfect war.
Our problem? We gave it to them , TWICE! 1991 and 2003. But then we had to go into the cities to fight a cowardly enemy hiding in skirts and playpens. Somehow the left then convinced the world that this wasn’t ALL part of the war on terror, when actually that was the real start of the fighting and shooting of the war on terror.
So, the LEFT will back a military exercise UNTIL we go in, then they turn on you like a rabid dog. Junkyard type.
shooter on January 2, 2007 at 11:26 PM
MSM war coverage? what not enough coverage of school openings? It strikes me as odd that people expect the media to focus on houses getting electricity and school openings instead of daily double digit slayings and car bombs…as if the media only focuses on violence when it comes to Iraq. Real bias there.
And listing taking out Hussein for humanitarian purposes as a noble conservative reason to go to war rings hollow considering the world knew he was a murderer by the early nineties…where was the outrage then? In contrast it seems conservatives become humanitarians only when it alligns with their perception of the nations best interest.And Bush mentioning Darfur here and there doesn’t change that.
crr6 on January 2, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Liberals/UN don’t want to address it because they fear another “Black Hawk Down”.
Reading the book there was one part where Clinton was outraged and said something like “how could that happen”
Clinton did not expect that being shot at is a part of war.
The AC-130’s were denied to Task Force Ranger because they would send the wrong message (to much force).
Liberals want a “clean war” (whatever that is) where the enemy is defeated and no US troops die.
F15Mech on January 2, 2007 at 11:32 PM
OH, My top for 2006- (like anyone cares but me.)
1) Illegal Immigration
- - tied with -
1) Islamofascism
3) The Democratic takeover-Peloser
4) Traitors amongst us and in our MSM.
5. No child left behind - it is pushing kids with ALL D’s and F’s to the next grade, no matter what. It has backfired.
No child left behind…even w/out the knowledge.
All 5 seem to be problematic for our future.
shooter on January 2, 2007 at 11:37 PM
And to top off the year, Michelle and Kirsten graced us with TV appearances at least once a week.
zerodamage on January 2, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Definitely, just caught the reairing.
When will they do documentaries on all the evidence that points to the fact that WMDs were in Iraq? Which leads to a few, though I’m not going to sit and think about a top 5 for any length of time, so in no particular order.
- the “conclusion” to the Able Danger situation, which was bogus and just a way to keep the story surpressed
- Sandy Berger
- Why is it anytime some media person goes to Iraq and interviews troops they constantly say that what’s being reported isn’t accurate, etc. etc. Yet the MSM still does nothing but hide in their hotel and report casualty figures?
- Global Warming, and why it’s a pile of sh**
- Why we’d be truly winning in Iraq, and probably have drawn down most troops by now if a - we had a media who wasn’t so desperate to hurt Bush that they’ll assist in causing us to lose a war and b - the Iraqis take more responsibility. That may seem like a leap (about the media) and it’s too long of an idea to get in to, but think about it for a minute… think about everything. Think about the victories of the terrorists by knowing how our media works and knowing they could divide us and errode support for a war that was actually easy, until the actual “war” part ended and we sat around while Iranians, Syrians, and Jihadis came in.
I still say if the whole WMD thing hadn’t been so politicized, we wouldn’t be even close to as divided as we are today, and the enemy wouldn’t be at all emboldened (except the suicidal crazies) because they’d know they can’t win. Right now they feel like if they just keep blowing up a few dozen people a day, eventually Democrats will pull us out, and “yeah, victory for terrorists”. (and for anyone who thinks there was any justification for the politicization of the WMD issue, I probably can’t help you if you want to ignore Clinton attacking on the same info, a month after making regime change our policy, 13 years of top Dems making the same case, foreign intelligence, attacks on our planes in no fly zones, not complying with sanctions, etc.)
- All of the Democrat scandals that either don’t get mentioned outside of the blogosphere, or get brief mention that is always buried by something else. Jefferson, Conyers, Berger, Reid etc. etc.
- ……. k, I’m bored
RightWinged on January 2, 2007 at 11:39 PM
crr6, your slight of conservatives in the 1990s regarding Saddam rings hollow, considering the facts that a) Clinton was in charge of foreign policy during that time and b) the villified neo-cons did in fact push for Saddam’s ouster throughout the decade. These days they’re rewarded for that effort with more conspiracy theories.
Bryan on January 2, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Is it just me or is Michelle getting hotter? I know, I know, she is happily married and I mean no disrespect. Like I would have ever had a chance anyway……
ritethinker on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Thanks for picking up where I left off. I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote, particularly to the MSM causing astronomical difficulties for our troops and the entire Iraq effort.
…..k, im done
shooter on January 2, 2007 at 11:49 PM
right, that is a valid point that some neo-cons pushed it, but i believe a conservative president prior to Clinton had an oppurtunity to take out Hussein…and theres always the classic Cheney quote from 1992…
“And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”
crr6 on January 3, 2007 at 12:02 AM
crr6 re-read the UN mandate that Bush was given back then.
They only problem is that the first Bush listened to the UN. If he had ignored the UN and gone into Iraq back then there may have been a different outcome.
So is it the UN’s fault or Bush1 fault?
You tell me.
F15Mech on January 3, 2007 at 12:08 AM
They = The
F15Mech on January 3, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Oh and BTW I bet you did not know that we already had a US military presence in Saudi the night Iraq invaded Kuwait did you.
Because we did…
Look it up for yourself…start with the 71st FS based from Langley AFB VA.
F15Mech on January 3, 2007 at 12:17 AM
And most Democrats voted against the 1991 Gulf War (the Senate vote was 52-47, with Kerry voting against and Al Gore selling his pro vote for some face time), which means the Democrats would have left Saddam in control of Kuwait and with his troops on the Saudi border.
The Republicans voted to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, at least. Among the arguments Bush 41 proffered was Saddam’s innate evilness. We get the Saddam-as-Hitler argument from GHW Bush, 1991. The “war for oil” thing was the left’s answer to Bush setting up Saddam as badness incarnate.
But go ahead, nurse your little fantasy that the GOP came to the humanitarian game in Iraq late. Even if that were true, at least we got there. The Democrats haven’t, and won’t.
Bryan on January 3, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Michelle looked great! Her presentation was good and she brought attention to important issues. Thank you for putting her appearance on Hot Air!
Michelle made so many valid points in a year filled with news. I think she could, perhaps, work on her presentation to keep the attention of an audience that is quick to loose her train of thought. Short, quick, to the point discussion, as Kirstin did, will perhaps be more effective.
Thank you again Hot Air for putting Michelle’s appearances on this website for viewing.
omegaram on January 3, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Michelle looked Michellicious but she she also looked kinda corporate in that suit. Corporate suits scare me a little. Bring back the blouses, I say. Frilly ones, off the shoulder.
Tantor on January 3, 2007 at 1:35 AM
I am going to have to steal that and save it for a later post.
F15Mech on January 3, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Entelechy on January 3, 2007 at 2:13 AM
Once again my enjoyment of the post is completely ruined by the endless wait for the video to load.
That ten bucks a month i’m saving on a lower speed just is’nt worth it.
I thought most were good picks and Bryan is right about libs and Darfur.
Scot on January 3, 2007 at 2:31 AM
In contrast it seems liberals proclaim to be humanitarians only when it alligns with the perception of their best interest…
I fixed your quote Entelechy,
F15Mech on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 AM
1. America puts the Treason Party in charge of Congress
2. The MSM/al-Qaeda team successfully collaborates to demoralize and handcuff the war effort
3. Iran prepares Holocaust II with impunity (Bush Doctrine dead?)
4. Demographics indicate decline of the West, in both North America and Europe
5. Republicans, once again, refuse to stand up to Democrat attacks and smears, and choose, once again, to appease
Not a good year.
Halley on January 3, 2007 at 2:41 AM
Cheney was doing his job. The U.N., immediately after we informed them that we would be defending Kuwait, produced a set of procedural sanctions for the U.S. demanding that we NOT pursue the Iraqi military forces more than a short distance beyond their own border. We were not to consider a counter-invasion. President Bush 41, being a Bush, accepted the strictures, to the chagrine of General Schwarzkopf.
After the fact, Cheney offered the above quote as our way of saying “Yeah, what we decided to do agrees with what the U.N. told us to do, but it wasn’t because they told us to. We just felt like not spending any more American lives on it.”
In reality Cheney, every branch secretary, and all but one of the Joint Chiefs were for taking down Iraq then and there. Pop-quiz, name that dissenting branch Chief of Staff.
Freelancer on January 3, 2007 at 3:14 AM
1) ACL reconstruction
2)Ammo prices rising to untolerable levels(for military calibers)
3)AR-15 prices finally dropping.
4)Funny leftist rage boys.
5)Even funnier Islamic rage boys
quax1 on January 3, 2007 at 3:24 AM
It’s annoying because it’s kind of tough to put in to words exactly what has happened, because it is the culmination of so many articles and reports that have created an….. environment I guess that has brought us to where we are today…. I just wish there was an easier way to break it down…. I even had an email on this topic read on O’Reilly where he took my point and chopped it up because it wasn’t “pithy” enough to “opine” and it was even more frustrating, because it sounded so simple and thoughtless.
RightWinged on January 3, 2007 at 3:34 AM
1. Michelle Malkin hosting the O’Reilly Factor
2. Saddam’s Execution
3. Media hazing of illegal immigration
4. Hannity’s trip to Iraq (and the reveal about how the media doesn’t report enough on the good).
5. Democratic takeover of Congress
Black Adam on January 3, 2007 at 3:38 AM
ritethinker, yes, Michelle IS getting hotter, everytime I see her on the Factor she looks beeter then the last time. It was her hair last night.
Or maybe, it’s like how your wife seems to get prettier the more you fall in love with her.
Michelle’s best quote last night: “2006 was the year of perpetual muslim rage.” EVERY year is the year perpetual muslim rage, each year worse then the previous.
Bill O, it’s time retire and let Michelle take your spot. Hey FOX execs, imagine the ratings! The Malkin Factor! With nightly visits by Laura Ingraham and Tammy Bruce.
Tony737 on January 3, 2007 at 5:59 AM
None other than our own Colin Powell.
BacaDog on January 3, 2007 at 7:39 AM
Eh, the real typo was that it should have said, “assassinated,” not, “executed.”
nailinmyeye on January 3, 2007 at 7:45 AM
Top stories of 06…
1. My neighbor finally moved the hell away from me.
2. My ex and current wife became best friends.
3. I finally beat that ‘Pong’ game.
4. A new Tractor Supply store opened up in town.
5. T.O. is now the local laughing stock instead of me.
6. I still don’t own a cell phone, TiVo, or tennis shoes that flash colored lights.
07 ought to be a barn-burner.
Limerick on January 3, 2007 at 8:59 AM
crr6,
It was enforcing No-Fly Zones with American flags on its tails and perpetuating the foolish hope of regime change through nice cuddly sanctions. Where were you in the 90’s?
Pablo on January 3, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Say it however you want, he is dead and the world is better for it. Even you would agree that Saddam deserved to die.
right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 9:09 AM
AP, why do you pose as a question that which is evident?
Agreed, Michelle keeps getting hotter, and her decision to let her hair grow out is the major cause; but I think she’d do well to have a radio and not a TV show … might as well feature her show on Spike TV, given the demographic o the loyal audience she’d get, but I don’t think that Spike TV has any news programming.
Besides, if she was on TV regularly, I’d be in the difficult situation of constantly having to explain to my wife why I just have to catch
Michelleer, “the news” every night, paying rapt attention yet being unable to recall what was being talked about.As it stands right now, Michelle is a special treat and not a constant dessert, and I can live with that.
Spurius Ligustinus on January 3, 2007 at 9:24 AM
crr6 basically proved my point. Liberals tend to only talk about serious humanitarian issues only when other liberals are talking about them, and tend to refuse to talk about the same issues when conservatives are talking about them, apparently under the impression that agreeing with a conservative about anything is the unpardonable liberal sin. All of this is even more true when conservatives are actually doing something about the issue at hand. Then, you get liberal carping, second-guessing and whining–about the conservatives’ perfidy or incompetence or other failures, but not about the gravity of the issue itself or any notion that hard problems are in fact difficult to solve.
When a liberal hears a conservative talking about a serious humanitarian issue, the first thing to come out of the liberal’s mouth is usually some variation of “Well what took you so long?” That’s soon followed by some variation of “But that’s not why you’re really interested,” which is followed by a few theories as to why the conservative is really interested–theories mostly made up whole by the liberal out of disconnected bits of fact. And all of this occurs when, of course, the liberal himself hasn’t uttered a peep about that issue. But the more the conservative speaks on the issue, the less seriously the liberal tends to take both the issue itself and the conservative’s statements on the issue. The liberal will say “A few statements here and there don’t matter” when the conservative speaks, even though the standard liberal MO calls for “raising awareness” and “drawing attention” to their own issues–a strategy that is itself nothing more than making a few statements.
The liberal won’t decide to read up and get interested in the issue until Richard Gere or Angelina Jolie or some other Hollywood lighthead says something about it. Then, said liberal tends to get right on board. And pretend that the conservative wasn’t talking about the same issue all along.
Of course, none of this describes Kirsten. I’m just still trying to figure out why in her thinking Darfur merits our attention (when we all know where such attention leads) but Iraq didn’t.
Bryan on January 3, 2007 at 9:53 AM
I’d really like to hear from Powers on this.
One Angry Christian on January 3, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Is it just me? Or Michelle gettin HOTTER.
Sacwannabe on January 3, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Sacwannabe: Yes, Michelle is definitelly getting “Hotter”. There has been an improvement in her TV persona - I believe that a professional must be working on her hair, and her makeup is stunning.
omegaram on January 3, 2007 at 12:50 PM
1) Increasing MSM political activism
2) Fauxtography
3) Disturbing developments in European dhimmitude
4) Baltar wins presidential election!
5) “Balls”
Blacklake on January 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Bryan
crr6 on January 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Michelle’s list is easily the best.
MarkB on January 3, 2007 at 3:22 PM
…and how does she manage to get more gorgeous all the time? Wow.
Halley on January 3, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Michelle really could be in line for her own TV gig…she’s easily the best looking woman to grace Fox News (hell, all cable news for that matter) and her delivery and on-camera presence keeps getting better. Plus, she has what so many lack: a real sense of hunmor.
Even a weekly gig would be great. C’mon Michelle, work on this will ya?
Malpaso on January 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I accept your abject surrender, crr6.
Bryan on January 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM
right2bright - did you click on the link? come on man.
nailinmyeye on January 3, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Michelle looks stunning! Absolutely gorgeous. Who, despite sounding as if she has a cold, looks as beautiful?
I agree with her “top five”.
My top two are:
1. war on Islamofascism
2. illegal aliens/border control
doingwhatican on January 3, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Most humble apology…I feel so ashamed, beat me for my miserable mistake…I do not deserve to blog.
Sometimes I just get lazy and do not click on all of the links. Thanks.
Everyone ignore this post
I am an idiot.
right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 7:17 PM
nailinmyeye one more thing. I love your blog. Worth reading.
right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Michelle IS getting hotter as if that’s possible. Somebody also mentioned Michelle guest hosting the Factor. That was DOPE. First Laura Ingraham, then Michelle. Great surprises. THEN, the other day, Tammy Bruce was filling in for Ingraham on her radio show.
I demand that Michelle and Kirsten fill in for H & C. That would be nice to watch.
Metro on January 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Michelle, Kirsten, Ann Coulter, et al, looks like “FOX” news to me. It’s so great to see such beautiful women with substance and intellect by the boatload. Great to listen to AND easy on the eyes. What’s not to like?
Buck Turgidson on January 4, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Illegal immigration a major problem now?? It’s been a major problem in my home state of Texas for years. I guess since the problem is now showing up in 49 states, it’s time to do something about it ( I didnt include Hawaii…yet).
I suspect when these pesky fire-ants and africanized bees make their way to New York, perhaps we may do something about them as well.
gary on January 4, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Barn burner? Do I need to be worried?
Barntender on January 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM
right2bright - no problem, and, um, don’t be so hard on yourself. Oh, and, thanks.
nailinmyeye on January 4, 2007 at 6:05 PM