Am I the only one asking the question, “If Dan Blather is just a journalist, and he is supposed to be impartial, why the heck is he on this political show?”

What about “Abel Danger”?

What about “Jamie Garilleck”?

What about “Sandy “Papers in my Pants” Burglar”?

What about the letter from AQ that said the US was “winning” that was never publizied, and could have possibly ended this war??????

The left, however, can’t seem to separate itself from the lunatic fringe – an undesirable element that prevents dems from having any mass appeal to moderatesPM

Even Hillary, whom I thought was being so disciplined. I felt like I could almost see her lips moving saying “Swing voters, go for the swing voters” over and over like a Hare Krishna, but she’s abandoned the center, which is where the action is (and where Rudy can kick a**), and has fallen off message harder than a drunk falling off the wagon. I hate her, but I’ve always marvelled at her unabashed, Machievellian cynicism. Now it turns out she’s just as stupid as all the rest of them. Every time she tries to sound firm she gets this tone of voice. . . I’m like, where have I heard that tone before? Then it hit me–it’s the same tone my mom used to use when she was telling me to clean up my room for the fifth time.

smellthecoffee on February 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM

I agree. I’m not swayed by the last election – THAT was a commentary on the Bush administration. The left, however, can’t seem to separate itself from the lunatic fringe – an undesirable element that prevents dems from having any mass appeal to moderates (and certainly not among conservatives) and will ultimately boil down to the root cause of its undoing. I say, “bring it on”.

Was that a lucid moment from Dan?

csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Dan says, “This is very dangerous for the Democrats. In the end, it may be the best thing for them …”. Yeah, if it’s very dangerous for the chickenhawk Democrats, then it could be the “best thing for them U.S.”

Matthews (usually such a blathering idiot that I cannot stand to listen to him; thanks, AP, for doing the dirty work) gets it right also we he describes this as a kind of “exam re-do” (“I was sick; give me another re-do”). Wonderful representatives in Congress to say, “opps. I need a re-do.” Life is serial and has consequences; no re-dos allowed. (repentance, yes, not re-do.)

“This type of homosexual activity is referred to in the trade as “chicken hawk” (the male adult pervert) and the “chicken” the young victim. And it is part of the sickening homosexual life style.”

Maybe it does fit some moonbats