Quotes of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on November 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Whatever she once was, Ms. Parker is certainly not a conservative anymore, having apparently realized it’s a lot easier to be popular among your journalistic peers when your keyboard tilts to the left. She writes that ‘armband religion’ — those of us who ‘wear our faith on our sleeve,’ I suppose, or is it meant to compare socially conservative Christians to Nazis? — is ‘killing the Republican Party.’ Lest readers miss the point, she literally spells it out. The GOP’s big problem? G-O-D.
*
“How can the Republican Party rebound? The first step would be to quit letting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham set its agenda.”
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
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Kathleen Parker wishes she had Laura Ingraham’s audience.
chunderroad on November 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Gotta love it when the Dem-lite faction of the Republican Party tells us how to win, WHEN WE JUST LOST WITH THEIR FORMULA AND CANDIDATE!!!
conservative pilgrim on November 25, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I thought you already covered this. Mort is a clueless dick. and Parker is the female equivalent.
R D on November 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM
I’m sorry, but since when has the GOP ever done what Rush et. al. want? We just sat through one of the highest increases in spending in the history of the country. If you think that’s Rush’s agenda…you’re delusional.
jimmy the notable on November 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Jesus, Mary, Joseph!
This thread is gonna turn into brimstone in a blast furnace.
Where’s the popcorn?
Limerick on November 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I was without internet access for a couple of weeks about a year or so ago, so i must have missed it, but,
Was Rush Limbaugh really setting the Republican agenda?
How’d it go?
Must not have lasted very long.
billy on November 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM
The problem is, the GOP turned away from G-O-D and will not listen to R-U-S-H.
R D on November 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM
And that’s why we are so F-*-*-K-E-D.
SPCOlympics on November 25, 2008 at 10:52 PM
/Passes butter and salt to Limey.
This is gonna be fun!
Tony737 on November 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Why would anyone really waste his or her time in analyzing anything Kathleen Parker writes?
Rush Limabuagh et al don’t set the agenda. The reason they’re so popular is that they voice the concerns and opinions of the average conservative. The “agenda” was around a long time before Rush. Rush and Sean (and Sarah Palin, for that matter) just provide easy targets.
ddrintn on November 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM
*Limbaugh! whoa that was butchered. :D
ddrintn on November 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Mort meet Kathleen. Kathleen, I think you know Mort.
Personally, I like mine with Parmesan cheese.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 25, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Spot on AP.
dakine on November 25, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Making the GOP all about god means that you hamstring outreach among the youth. For better or worse we’re not culture warriors…so many of us are libertarians raised in prosperity and without government handouts. We dont see the need in expanding welfare programs..but we dont like feeling like we have to sign on to making all abortion illegal and keeping gays from getting married. Again, for better or worse we (20 somethings) will be 40 one day. In fact, there may only be Obama and 1 other president between now and then. There are long term battles and short term fixes for the republican party. This whole issue of faith’s priority in policy seems to have an expiration date.
I won’t advocate one way or another which way the party should go short term…as I dont find it all that relevant. But long term, sort out the priority social conservatism holds on the platform. Acting like it needs to be banished or made gospel are 2 sides of the same all or nothing coin. It has a place, obviously. Just figure out where that place is.
ernesto on November 25, 2008 at 10:57 PM
I wish I was home in Indy. If you are ever traveling through, here’s a great place for popcorn. The cheese (not gubmint) popcorn is divine.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 25, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Huckatrolls to invade this thread in 5…4…3…2…1…
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on November 25, 2008 at 10:57 PM
If Kondracke had more than two brain cells firing off at any one time, his hair would catch on fire!
MCPO Airdale on November 25, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Coupla stooges. The GOP already ran their dream candidate, and were beaten by a cipher with no experience except in
rabble-rousingcommunity organizing. Nice try, stooges.hillbillyjim on November 25, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I do live in Indiana and I’ll check it out. I saved the site in my faves. :)
Oink on November 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Kathleen figured out that she gets attention when she bashes religion. Last week it was the Catholic Church; this week it’s Dobson. Wonder who she’ll insult next week. She’s become very troll-like and should be sequested under her bridge.
Dee2008 on November 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
ernesto on November 25, 2008 at 10:57 PM
The frustrating thing for those of us who were old enough to remember the Reagan era, is that there is no real conflict between the social conservative agenda and the libertarian one.
If,and it’s abig if, the issues are framed properly.
billy on November 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
That was amazing. Now I know what it’s like to sniff glue and write a news column at the same time.
repvoter on November 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
FIFY
thomasaur on November 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I just saw some editor for “The Hill” on O’Reilly Factor with John Kasich discussing Palin.
She said Palin only appealed to conservatives, and not to all.
Hey idiot editor, our nominee was the one to appeal to all groups in the republican party including democRATS. How well did that turn out?! As Rush pointed out with the stats, 10% of conservatives stayed home!
The top of the ticket that supposed to appeal across the board was the drag on the ticket. RINOs are losers.
jencab on November 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Except the Republicans nominated the most pro-illegal alien candidate possible. Anyways, you win tennis matches by controlling the middle. Not political races.
SouthernGent on November 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM
How about simply standing for conservative values and stuff instead of flip-flopping everytime the political winds change? How about standing firm in spite of the fact that FRANCE thinks America is a bunch of reckless cowboys? How about simply standing on values that espouse conservatism? The Republicans lost for lots of reasons, not the least of them being they lost a bunch of people who would have voted for them if they had balls.
Example: Winston Churchil ain’t remembered for being a horrid public speaker (because let’s face it, he sounded hammered every single time). He’s remembered for standing up against a fairly intimidating enemy and tell Hitler to screw off. And England was better off for a man who said no surrender, no fear, no stoppage of the fight. As opposed to the p-s-ys in charge of either political party in the US, who seem far too eager to sit down with evil, evil people because it’s politically expedient.
mjk on November 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM
I honestly think people who rail against Rush haven’t listened to Rush. And I don’t mean an hour here and an hour there, I mean a couple of weeks of his three hour shows, because that’s what it takes to really tune into the themes and continuity of the message. And if three hours a day is too much of a commitment, the first hour is the most important (because it’s carried on AFN).
Anyone who rejects Rush is rejecting news at its most informative, advice at its most inspiring, analysis at its most insightful, and optimism at its happiest. Underlying it all is a business plan that enriches an untold number of people. Someday we’ll get to know the scope of Rush’s quiet philanthropy as well.
Little wonder Rush is the leader of the conservative movement. Followed closely by Mark Levin.
RushBaby on November 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Between Mort and Kathleen, if brains were dynamite, they couldn’t blow their noses.
cjs1943 on November 25, 2008 at 11:07 PM
It seems about the right time to begin to vote with our feet on some of our “Republican” leaders. I will not support a RINO, and will actively campaign against one.
Ms Parker simply amplifies the weak kneed and spineless faction in our party. I, for one, would be more than happy to assist her in finding a registration card for “the neo exclusive party”. It’s fashionable to “change” right now, so let’s start by encouraging all our wise sages of “moderate republicanism” to either grow some brass ones or cut ‘em off and change.
lindensg on November 25, 2008 at 11:08 PM
A lot of the social conservative positions are such that even a majority in sky-blue California agree. The demise of conservatism in the US is greatly overstated. I remember the same sort of fatuous “we’re a liberal country now” talk after Clinton was elected in ’92. We know what happened 2 years later.
ddrintn on November 25, 2008 at 11:10 PM
We are afraid; afraid of words, afraid to be called racist, Christian, pro-life, patriotic, independent, successful, American. We have let the media define us and pervert the definition of the words that matter, we have become reactive instead of proactive. Pandering to the lowest level of the electorate is what democrats do, let em’.
dmann on November 25, 2008 at 11:10 PM
If either one of them had a brain it would die of lonliness. (brain jokes are fun)
thomasaur on November 25, 2008 at 11:11 PM
First step, stop listening or tuning in to these AS#-Clowns…….. (let them apply for a bailout).
Second step, stop funding any RINO or CINO politician who even resembles these two, i.e. Grahamnesty……….
Third step, stop listening to anyone in the beltway who thinks they know better and more than those of us who they look down upon………
Forth step, Conservatism, Conservatism, Conservatism, Conservatism,……………. don’t be shy, don’t be afraid, don’t try to get along, don’t compromise, don’t back down, don’t be labeled by names, don’t give up, hit the message home, name names and point out Democratic failures, and hammer the message home, day in and day out………..
Seven Percent Solution on November 25, 2008 at 11:12 PM
James C. Dobson seems to be blissfully ignorant of the Biblical admonitions against baring false witness and against false pride.
MB4 on November 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Thank You. That’s closer to what I wanted to say. ;)
R D on November 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Which part?
On QoD, why do some think the quotes surround the writing?
Entelechy on November 25, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Mort…gosh, I can’t believe it is even necessary to type this. But Mort, how exactly does Rush “set the agenda”? He has a radio program, Mort. He sits on no federal committee. He holds no hearings. He offers no legislation. He runs no lobbying firm. He has only the Golden EIB microphone. He has absolutely no ability to “set” any agenda for the GOP. The GOP can do whatever they please, and Rush can do nothing to stop it. What Rush has, however, is an audience…a big one. And everyday he presents himself and his thoughts about life and politics to that audience for three hours. And what he says is weighed on their merits, and must compete with everything else that is being said out there by people like you and Parker. Your problem is not with Rush’s power, but your own impotency; and that is not Rush’s problem, nor mine.
Weight of Glory on November 25, 2008 at 11:14 PM
In one day, I witnessed this country dedicate itself to the abandonment of G-d, and to the embrace of socialism. The American foundation has been torn apart. Collapse is inescapable now.
Q: What kinds of moron would pull the bottom can from the stack at the supermarket?
stonemeister on November 25, 2008 at 11:16 PM
You can’t fix stoned or stupid.
thomasaur on November 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I’m sure I agree with both Dobson and Parker about many things, but I wouldn’t want either one setting the entire agenda for the Republican Party. All of the various factions will have to compromise, and reasonable people in each need to marginalize rather than accept the more extremist elements in their factions who are dividing and weakening the Party.
Mort Kondracke? Who cares…. He’s a Democrat.
FloatingRock on November 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM
God, when did man lose his reason?
Save us, my God, if you’re there
God, can you not feel the terror like a fire in the air?
Flash, slash!
Glisten and gash!
Tav on November 25, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I’m with Michelle Malkin on this one. Collie, tell them what the boss said.
My collie says:
Kathleen Parker is persona non grata.
CyberCipher on November 25, 2008 at 11:20 PM
BS. The GOP turned away from conservative principles such as those espoused by Rush. That’s the problem.
FloatingRock on November 25, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Well sure framing matters. Selling abortion on the federalist grounds that states have the constitutional right to tend to their affairs would be a wonderful start…but where is that message? And what of those libertarian positions mainstream conservatives don’t take…like the drug war? Where is the conciliatory framing for why the republican party DOESN’T support a drawdown in that regard?
There’s a long way to go, but there’s a new generation out there waiting to be sold a governing philosophy that fits their/our world and their/our lifestyle… it need not be liberalism.
ernesto on November 25, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Two of the three are unabashed Christians who actually talk about their faith and how the GOP is the party that holds the same values as their faith. They are both Catholic which will probably spool up Allah to suggest some sort of Papist plot.
The most important part of this moronic comment, however, is that had Limbaugh, Hannity, and Ingraham had that kind of influence, we would have been celebrating the election of Mitt Romney instead of hunkering down for four years of a terrorist-loving racist socialist who beat out a conservative-hating “Reagan Republican” (self described and never a credible claim).
highhopes on November 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Ok…scorecard so far…we have…
1. False witness
and
2. Live long and prosper
The trekkie needs to find another thread.
Limerick on November 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Yeah, we should let Democrats set it instead. Don’t worry though, I’m sure they have only our best interests at heart.
xblade on November 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Geeze, isn’t that what I said?
R D on November 25, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Simply amazing. Kondracke is truly a clueless twit. The limp-wristed, spineless arm of the Republican party was NOT in charge during 1980, 1984, 1994 and look where we got. Said side of the party WAS in charge during 1992, 2006, and 2008 and look at the results we had. These wizards of smart had their way in the past two elections and we had our butts handed to us. Their solution? More of the same.
Yeah, real winning strategy there.
AZfederalist on November 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM
If you’re growing tired of all the social conservative bashing since the election ended, here’s something to cheer you up.
clearbluesky on November 25, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I’m sorry. Evangelicals turned out higher for McCain than they had for Bush, and it still wasn’t enough. Republicans cannot rely on evangelicals and all of the baggage that comes with pulling their vote for a win. A majority of this country turns off when we focus on social issues, because republican’s message isnt popular except among the very religious/fundamentalists. This country is turning WAY away from fundamentalism. Look at the youngest generation, they are NOT going to support banning gay marraige, they are NOT going to support banning abortion, they are NOT going to support prayer in school or any of the other crazy ideas that evangelicals approve of. We will only continue to lose elections by larger margins if we focus on these issues.
I say forget about evangelicals and the like and focus on fiscal conservatism, and a conservative foreign policy. They will come along with us, and if they don’t they aren’t true conservatives, just people trying to tell others how to live socially.
muyoso on November 25, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I have voted Republican since 2004, after witnessing the abject appeasement or anti-Americanism on the part of Dems.
My one issue is small, fiscally responsible government. Statism is our biggest threat, IMO.
Republican candidates may seduce everyone else with the social issues, but they would capture all the base and the moderates like me if they just had the guts to STOP SPENDING MONEY like Democrats.
PattyJ on November 25, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Kathleen who?
bill30097 on November 25, 2008 at 11:30 PM
He took a wrong turn and thought this conversation was a convention.
R D on November 25, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Why is it that some people want us to leave God? Godless people are the most degraded people. My observations being San Francisco and the Netherlands. Look at their moral relativism. You can do anything you want to, because no one will judge you. Homosexuality practiced out in the open on public streets. Same way with prostitution and drugs. They don’t have any sense of what is proper and improper, decent and indecent, and what is socially acceptable and unacceptable. It all heads for the lowest common denominator. Is this what you want for the whole country? Perversiness everywhere? Nothing but filth.
cjs1943 on November 25, 2008 at 11:31 PM
:)
DaveC on November 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Weight of Glory on November 25, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Solid stuff WoG, solid.
Saltysam on November 25, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Exactly.
Zorro on November 25, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Please explain the 30 times that the people in a state limited the government form interfering with marriage out of the 30 that tried it?
How about the California during this election, a blue state?
Your analysis is tainted with personal bias.
Saltysam on November 25, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Kondracke’s comment is not well considered. But I caution people on this site and elsewhere not to accept everything that Rush is saying either.
Rush is 100% correct concerning media bias; however, his comments to the effect that the GOP could have won this year over Obama with a better messenger are nonsense and not coming to grips with the problems that this year the GOP faced: a financial meltdown that created economic anxieties that have historically favored the Democrats and did this year; a financial bailout that muddied the waters of what was a Reaganesque economic message delivered by McCain and Palin on the campaign trail; the unpopularity of Bush, which is unfair but which is the result of unceasing attack by the Left and Bush not using the bully pulpit to defend his Administration; money and more money, some of it illegal, that Obama had; and media bias that was absurdly in the tank for Obama and that operated effectively day-in, day-out as a propaganda machine for Democrats (e.g., Obama, the tax cutter). Before the financial meltdown, McCain was ahead in the polls; after the meltdown, the economic anxieties, the money and the media bias trumped all.
Rush says that the conservative message is key, and in 1984, for example, the conservative message won. But that year, 1984, was one of peace and prosperity for an incumbent President in Reagan. In 1996, an incumbent President in Clinton won with a liberal message at a time of prosperity and apparent peace. Did 1996 teach that for Democrats having a liberal message was key? No; there were other factors at work; and that is my point.
It is important for Republicans not to think that it is simply a matter of having a silver throated attractive conservative talker. We need to face up to the problems because some of those problems, such as media bias and Soros money, are not going away.
Phil Byler on November 25, 2008 at 11:39 PM
God is non-negotiable. Not gonna happen if you think people of faith will leave it for some political party.
Mojave Mark on November 25, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Parker wants America to be Europe, like all liberals or self hating Conservatives do. Godless and powerless.
AYNBLAND on November 25, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Partly, except you said it was because they abandoned god. I’m saying it’s because they abandoned conservatism. They’re not the same thing, and in fact a lot of Christians are actually quite liberal. Having religious faith as a faction of the Party is one thing, but having it run the party is something else. If the Republican Party is to become strictly a religious party, I don’t think it will ever regain a majority. Even if most people are religious, there there are many degrees of religiosity and not all religious people fall into the conservative side of the spectrum.
It needs to have a broader appeal, is my point.
FloatingRock on November 25, 2008 at 11:40 PM
God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.
Tav on November 25, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Who says that? Just don’t make it hostile to God or to the Judeo-Christian values that built this nation.
jgapinoy on November 25, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Too deep for me at this particular moment.
*tokes*
SlimyBill on November 25, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I think Mort Kondracke is absolutely right. Let’s turn off Rush and tune into Mort’s radio show which sustained conservative values for 20 years.
Now, what time is it on?
MadisonConservative on November 25, 2008 at 11:47 PM
In other words:
He doesn’t exist, but he does. But he doesn’t, so he does.
jgapinoy on November 25, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Thomas Jefferson is persona non grata.
Abraham Lincoln is persona non grata.
Barry Goldwater is persona non grata.
MB4 on November 25, 2008 at 11:48 PM
I think it comes from the fear that we will all blaze a Teutonic Cross on our t-shirts and storm Jerusalem.
Limerick on November 25, 2008 at 11:48 PM
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Tav on November 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM
What no mention of the Boss?
It has become one of my life’s desires to be labeled a Michelle Malkin “groupie”.
F15Mech on November 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Call him butter, ‘cuz he’s on a roll.
jgapinoy on November 25, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Thank you master, Grasshopper must rest now.
thomasaur on November 25, 2008 at 11:53 PM
God doesn’t believe in atheists… therefore they don’t exist.
Texas Rainmaker on November 25, 2008 at 11:53 PM
I dunno.
Maybe, maybe this could be Palin’s message.
I ran across a tidbit, that prior to her nomination to the Veep slot, most Alaskans were unaware of her Evangelicanism.
Libertarian candidates with socially conservative instincts pushing a strong national defence/ strong federalist message could be the future of the Republican party.
It sure as hell isn’t with Lindsay Graham or Arlen Spector.
billy on November 25, 2008 at 11:53 PM
No wonder it’s on late. Why, my watch is exactly two days slow.
Cheshire Cat on November 25, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Any member of the GOP with a toupe that bad is already suspect.
Limerick on November 25, 2008 at 11:55 PM
While we are asleep in this world, we are awake in another one…
Tav on November 25, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Maybe we need to Malkinize the party.
Laura in Maryland on November 25, 2008 at 11:59 PM
That’s a fair statement… and I’m not trying to defend Parker, she’s over the line, IMO. But speaking more broadly there is a perception that religious extremists want to use the party and the government to proselytize their religious views. If those people become too powerful within the party then it will weaken it.
I’ve noticed that while most of the religious right represented here are reasonable people, for the most part, and I think that they get a bad wrap, but I think the reason is—what I’ve noticed—is that they are too accepting of more extremist fundamentalist views. They may not agree with them outright, but they aren’t uncomfortable with them either.
I suspect this is what has allowed the partial misconception to flourish.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 12:00 AM
If ‘I think, therefore I am’ then ‘I am, therefore I think’ then how the hell do you explain democrats?
Limerick on November 26, 2008 at 12:00 AM
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.
Cheshire Cat on November 26, 2008 at 12:01 AM
“Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” I think this was from the Wisdom of Maimonides
sharrukin on November 26, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Democrats = “Cogito, ergo Cogito”
warbaby on November 26, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Republicans have become very good at electing bad Democrats.
Tav on November 26, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Palin/Malkin……..Malkin/Palin 2012
katy on November 26, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Dear God! Then we would end up with Allahpundit as Press Secretary!
Limerick on November 26, 2008 at 12:06 AM
La lor cieca vita e tanto bassa, che invidiosi son d’ogni altra sorte. Fama di loro esser non lassa; misericordia e giustizia li sdegna. Non ti curar di lor, ma guarda e passa.
Tav on November 26, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Now that would be interesting. I wonder if he would use one of those blinds and disguise his voice.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Fair enough. I think my response was more a play on the d-a-s-h-e-s theme without thinking. Your’s is more correct, and I agree.
R D on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Exactly why God invented English.
Limerick on November 26, 2008 at 12:08 AM
I’m not advocating that the GOP become strictly a religious party…
but;
if the two parties are viewed as one being “God- fearing” and the other “God-mocking”…
and we experience real, hard economic times, and/or devastating war and/or a pandemic…
I think a deep reverence for the Almighty as a primary source for the meaning of life may rebound after the disillusionment sets in as the broken promises of the hyper-materialistic sixties fade away along with its clinical overdosing of atheistic secularism.
Saltysam on November 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Ha! Naaa. Todd would beat him out there. AP will on SS duty.
katy on November 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Ightray. Etslay allay eakspay ateverwhay anguageway eway antway.
jgapinoy on November 26, 2008 at 12:12 AM
LOL!
jgapinoy on November 26, 2008 at 12:13 AM
anguagewayanguagelayjgapinoy on November 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Obviously the conservative side of the spectrum appeals to the non-religious as well. This country has just elected its first arguably non-religious president (I don’t believe BO is Christian for a minute) and that doesn’t endear him to a single right-of-center atheist or agnostic.
As for your point that not all religious people fall into the conservative side of the spectrum, you’re sure right about that. Anecdote: I have relatives in the Bay Area who are fervent Christians and fierce leftists. Justice is served to them, though: Their bright and beautiful grownup daughter has rejected religion (recent surprise) and is under my influence to bring her around to conservatism as we speak. :)
The values we stand for as conservatives are actually immortalized as Classical Liberalism, and have lasting value like gold and diamonds. The culture is off chasing after alchemy and disco balls for now. But we are protecting and nurturing Ordered Liberty: the treasure that will come back into fashion eventually.
RushBaby on November 26, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Liberals prefer to be told what to think. Parker, Kondrake, Will, Noonan and others want to move that tradition rightward. And each of them wants to be the Grand Inquisitor.
snaggletoothie on November 26, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »