...and I'm already sick of it.

McCain Exploratory Committee will file with FEC tomorrow.

Note: Keep hitting "refresh" and you get new pictures. Sigh.

h/t: The Corner

Posted by: Gary at 04:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

More sideshow antics. James Carville, the Democrat strategist behind Bill Clinton's plurality victory in the 1992 Presidential race, is down on Dr. Howard Dean as DNC chief.

Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.

He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.

Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.”

He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”

Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated.

“We should have chased them down,” Carville said. There was no immediate response from Dean or the DNC.

You want a piece of me, you Birkenstock-wearin' Lefty punk?!?

C'mon you nutroots folks! Don't you think it's about time you rode Carville out of town on a rail? I mean, comparing Howard Dean to Union General George G. Meade? That's an insult!

Posted by: Gary at 02:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

By one vote, Trent Lott is the new GOP Minority Whip.

Look, as far as I'm concerned, Lott's punishment of stepping down as Majority Leader because of a casual (and badly worded) remark he made honoring a 100-year old man was waaaay out of proportion to the offense and something he heartily apologized for (probably about fifteen times more than was necessary). Especially galling were the attacks aimed at Lott from the party of Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd (KKK-WV).

But Trent Lott is the kind of pork enthusiast who is probably the last choice the Republicans should have made for Whip. Most unwise, IMO.

Dems will have a good yuck over this one. And there's no reason they shouldn't. Maybe it'll take their minds off their own problems. And I have nothing else to add, anyway.

UPDATE:
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline finds a pony.

Posted by: Gary at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Senate Dems were being just super-nice to Lieberman yesterday.

“It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon marveled, “One senator after another kept coming up and shaking his hand.”

And Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas noted, “I gave him a hug and a kiss.”

Mr. Lieberman received a standing ovation at a caucus luncheon after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is poised to become the majority leader, declared, “We’re all family.”

Man, if I were in the nutroots I'd be pretty pissed right about now.

Mr. Lieberman was asked Tuesday if he viewed his position as similar to a swing vote on the Supreme Court, a role often played by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The parallel had not occurred to him, Mr. Lieberman replied, but he considered it “a complimentary analogy.”

He beamed as he said this, as he did for much of the day.

:-)

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Uh, oh. Looks like Jack Abramoff has the dirt on some Senate Dems, including Dingy Harry.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, there's a lot of debate and finger pointing over why the GOP lost last week. Much of that is irrelevant now. The party needs to focus on the future, not the past. It has to start over. Twelve years is quite a run, even more impressive when you consider that the same party held the White House for six of those twelve years. But the run is over. They need to work on starting a new one.

Andrew Cline, in The American Spectator, looks at how the Republican majority evolved (or devolved) during that time:

Hastert presided over a Republican-controlled House that each year became more cynical, more spend-happy, and more obsessed with maintaining power. This is no knock on Republican ideology or principles. The idea of a "Republican culture of corruption" rooted in GOP ideology is nonsense. Democrats displayed the marks of corruption quite prominently prior to 1994. The root of the problem, as always, is the corrupting influence of power.

Somewhere along the road from revolution to "permanent majority," Republican leaders abandoned the core theme that brought Republicans to power: disgust with Washington insider culture.

Ideology aside, the bulk of voters in the middle - who demand solutions rather than an agenda - got so fed up with Congress that they were willing to take on the risk of allowing Democrats to co-manage our national security. This is a big risk and one that I didn't think they'd be willing to take. I was wrong on that one. And no more than a week later, those voters have already been given reasons to wonder if they hadn't made a huge mistake.

The next two years will determine that. And if by the next go-around voters feel that the country is less safe and less secure, many will feel a strong sense of buyer's remorse. Strong enough perhaps to make them wary of keeping the Democrats in control.

But this in and of itself doesn't mean that Republicans would become the automatic beneficiaries. They can't count on this, nor should they. The GOP needs to return to the idea of fixing problems, some of which they helped create. They need to re-prioritize what issues they will champion. They need to remember that Conservative principles and ideas don't just sell themselves. Like the Contract With America of 1994, voters want and need to see tangible and practical applications of these principles that will benefit them individually rather than move our society and culture in a particular direction.

Last Tuesday, we had a reactionary election because we reached a point where the status quo was no longer acceptable. If Republicans wait long enough, they could find themselves back in control the same way. But we don't have a lot of time here. We're at war with a global Islamofascist ideology that wants Western culture in general and the United States in particular converted or dead.

The Republican party must work hard to heal its wounds and restore confidence with the majority of voters. It's time return to being proactive rather than reactive.

Posted by: Gary at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 626 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, boy. Here we go. Her Shrillness has thrown down the gauntlet once again:

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

What was it that Santayana said about history?

A "bad dream for some"? It's going to be a nightmare for any Democrat who thinks the voters will fall for this one the second time around.

Posted by: Gary at 01:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Each day we hear something new to add to our nightmares of the Dems taking over. Like Rush said its going to get worse before it gets better.

Posted by: Little Miss Chatterbox at November 13, 2006 06:23 PM (ZfLHN)

2 I'd prefer the line from the movie "Excalibur" Merlin :"..a dream to some, A NIGHTMARE TO OTHERS"!!!!

Posted by: KMR at November 13, 2006 07:08 PM (HLXIT)

3 She is the bad dream.

Posted by: bird dog at November 14, 2006 06:20 AM (YadGF)

4 I just don't get why they want to mess the health care sysem up for 360 million for 40 million who don't have coverage? My DM was all for it until I told her how much other people in other countries pay for this free coverage and how long the waits are. Have a Canadian friend with a bad knee, she is 44 yo. They told her when she is 94 they will replace it for her. They don't do replacements before then, sorry! Just live in pain is the answer she got.

Posted by: chris b at November 15, 2006 01:01 PM (thrrn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

God, I love this.

When asked on MTP yesterday morning whether he'd consider pulling a Jeffords, Lieberman responded: "I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point."

Even if Joe has absolutely no intention of ever switching over to the Republicans (I think it'd have to be a pretty extreme situation to push him in this direction), the fact that he's clearly busting their balls brings a smile to my face this Monday morning.

:-)

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The lefties have learned not to trust Mr Lie-berman. Now its the righties' turn. He is not for left or right. He is for "Joe" and only Joe. His positions will be all over the place in the next 2 years as he orates from both side of his crooked mouth. Trust Not Joe Liarman. Fortunately he is becoming less and less relevant to any current political conversations. A political has been, rejected twice by his party. What about the $487,000, Joe?

Posted by: Nerd Lament at November 13, 2006 10:10 AM (T7A/1)

2 Fortunately he is becoming less and less relevant to any current political conversations. Hmmm. That's news to the WaPo, who are calling him a "political wildcard". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/12/AR2006111200357.html Had Dems won a stronger majority, you might have a point. But Kos and Co. have given Lieberman more influence as a result of the Lamont fiasco then he would have normally had. Ironic.

Posted by: Gary at November 13, 2006 11:49 AM (PLHs9)

3 As a Republican, I have had my own frustrations with "Holy Joe", but he has remained steadfast in support of the President. The Left tried to push him out of office with the primary, but oh well, payback is a mother....

Posted by: KMR at November 13, 2006 07:12 PM (HLXIT)

4 Yes payback is a mother. Joe should remember that when the Dems pick up more seats in '08. The Repubs will regain their health and return, but BushCo. has done some long lasting damage...It will take a while. Also the Rove stranglehold on the Repubs has dissipated and many moderate Repubs may be voting with the Dems, to be not seen as obstructionist. This will further water down Lieberman's supposed influence. Joe has 2 years at best to feed his ego. Then its back into irrelevance. Enjoy it while you can, Joe. You would have made a great Fox news analyst.

Posted by: AJ Smith at November 14, 2006 03:01 PM (SfeT4)

5 You're getting a wee bit ahead of yourself there, bucky.

Posted by: Gary at November 14, 2006 03:32 PM (PLHs9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bright and early today, because Barry at Enrevanche is a little under the weather. We wish him a speedy recovery!

Posted by: Gary at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. It didn't take long, did it? Moonbat pressure being applied or has the mask slipped?

Once again, the Dem leadership thinks that just because you have military service on your resume that you have some kind of moral authority that cannot be questioned. I mean, there's no reason that America should be concerned (or the terrorists encouraged) that Democrats may not have what it takes to handle national security...is there?

If Murtha wins, so does the GOP. But the country loses. Big time.

Posted by: Gary at 09:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

To Citicorp.

The name of the Mets' new home ballpark will be Shea no more, come 2009. The successor to Shea, the club's home since 1964, is to be named CitiField, according to several newspapers and Internet reports. The name comes from CitiCorp, Inc., the biggest bank in the nation, according to reports which put the value of the naming rights at as much as $20 million annually.

CitiField.

Feh. You just know that when the team is in a down year, fans and non-fans alike will call it ShittyField.

UPDATE: (11/15/06)
OK, a few days later and I'm still not thrilled about it. But after reading this quote from Marty Noble, a writer for MLB.com, in response to a disgruntled fan I at least have a little perspective.

If you have so much passion for the Mets that you will embrace Shea forever, you probably will want the Mets to be competitive too. Selling the naming rights to a ballpark is a way of life now, a way of life that will cover the average annual value of the next Beltran contract by itself.

Given what it is, Citi Field isn't nearly so offensive to the ear as 3-Com, U.S. Cellular or Minute Maid. It has the sound of City Field. Say it that way and save your outrage for something more troubling.

Posted by: Gary at 06:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Man, I thought this day would never come.

Apparently, Fidel is terminal. The generous estimate with chemo is 18 months. Of course, his 80th birthday celebration planned for next month will probably be his last. Might as well have that extra piece of cake, dude!

Do you think he'll take advantage of Cuba's wonderful government-run healthcare system? More likely El Presidente will fly in specialists from throughout the world to treat him - paid for by his citizens, of course.

Time to start drawing up blueprints for casinos.

Posted by: Gary at 10:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

And this week's Diane Lane Netflix Pick of the Week:

Vital Signs (1990)

Synopsis:
A group of medical students experience life's ups and downs while struggling to complete their residencies in this drama. Guided by head surgeon Dr. David Redding (Jimmy Smits), the group includes married student Kenny (Jack Gwaltney) and doctor's son Michael (Adrian Pasdar), both of whom compete for the attention of their beautiful colleague Gena (Diane Lane). Meanwhile, students Bobby and Suzanne become more than merely study buddies.

Gary's take: A bunch of surgical interns having sex when they should be focusing on learning medicine. Sheesh. Before there was "Grey's Anatomy", there was this flick. It took me half the movie to figure out why this one was rated "R" - a stand-up against-the-wall sex scene featuring...guess who? And the only movie I can recall where Diane Lane had such light blonde hair.

Posted by: Gary at 06:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Palance has died. Doogie Howser is gay. Add that to the Democrat takeover of Congress and you have the three remaining signs of the Apocalypse.

We are now officially f'ed.

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Maybe Doogie Howser can take over as the head of the Evangelical church. Unlike Ken Haggard, he's honest and he's probably not doing meth.

Posted by: PoliticalCritic at November 11, 2006 06:08 PM (n97ko)

2 LOL That about says it all!!

Posted by: Little Miss Chatterbox at November 12, 2006 01:56 AM (ZfLHN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And I need Melissa...

Posted by: Gary at 03:35 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Germany has brought a lawsuit against outgoing SecDef Donald Rumsfeld for "war crimes" at Abu Ghraib. That's a good one.

Memo to Howard Dean: You need to understand that a trial against Rumsfeld is a trial against the United States. You want to weaken the United States in the tradition of Jimmah Carter? Go ahead and offer the human sacrifice. But keep in mind that this is your big chance to ensure that you keep your majority. Tell this ungrateful "ally" in no uncertain terms to suck your balls. That is, if you can find them.

The country is watching.

Posted by: Gary at 03:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Now is the time for Shadenfreude for the Democrats.

They fought hard, they won. They've earned it. In fact, it really doesn't bother me at all. Because I fully expect it to last for a while. The only segment of gloating that will annoy me is Hollywood, because they will do everything they can to take credit for Tuesday. It's what they do. Because in the little bubbles that they live in, it's all about them.

But after the champagne bottles are empty and the confetti is swept up, Democrats need to face some reality. Charles Krauthammer explains:

This is not realignment. As has been the case for decades, American politics continues to be fought between the 40-yard lines. The Europeans fight goal line to goal line, from socialist left to the ultranationalist right. On the American political spectrum, these extremes are negligible. American elections are fought on much narrower ideological grounds. In this election, the Democrats carried the ball from their own 45-yard line to the Republican 45-yard line.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax — and now a Democratic congressman.

The result is that both parties have moved to the right. The Republicans have shed the last vestiges of their centrist past, the Rockefeller Republican. And the Democrats have widened their tent to bring in a new crop of blue-dog conservatives.

This isn't a point of view held only by Conservatives. MSNBC concurs:

The exit polling data indicates that much of their election edge came from independents and swing voters who could very well swing back again if theyÂ’re disappointed by Democratic policies.

This is not a majority made from cookie-cutter liberals. These are men and women winning in districts that were drawn for Republicans. Some are pro-life, some pro-gun, some sound so Republican they might be in the other party if it werenÂ’t for President Bush and the Iraq war. It will take all of PelosiÂ’s skills as a manager and disciplinarian to forge a coalition out of these philosophical disparities.

A few examples of the more tasteful and mature ones (seriously):

Bush should be dragged out of the White House by the ear and horsewhipped on the South Lawn. We could see if heÂ’s take a little Texas justice. Of course, the voters did that, figuratively, on Tuesday.

And:

This might work, if Georgie wasn't a big pussy. Just like you, Limbaugh and Hannity. All giant pussies who would run away from a real fight in a second but love to spew the tough talk. Grow up all ready and be a real man. You and Georgie need to quit talking tough and playing dress-up.

Or:

Alright Rambo. That was some funny stuff. You're a real man. If you need someone to show you how to shoot that gun....What a maroon.....

Or:

You have hit on something very important, crucial in fact to the current political climate, but well beyond the understanding of the MSM: President Bush is the definition of an "uninitiated male."

What you say is absolutely correct: He needed to kill that bear and throw the pelt not at Helen Thomas but at the feet of his own father. He needed to do it at age 12 or 13.

If you want to see this in action go to any schoolyard and find the bully. He will be the one who mistakes the infliction of pain with the possession of power.

Instead (like millions of other guys) President Bush attempted to initiate himself into manhood by coasting through college drunk and f*****g off. His one shot to have manhood initiated upon him was undone when he went AWOL. With no real sense of masculinity other than one created by pop culture and exploited by his advisors, President Bush became a fake cowboy, even taking the charade all the way to Texas. (The fake cowboy thing is a favorite of uninitiated men; George Allen has the same problem, and for the same reasons: bigshot daddy who didnt help junior kill the bear and insist he eat the heart).

Surounded by people who reinforced this hollow simulation of manhood for their own purposes, President Bush has been permitted to act out of an equally hollow sense of himself. Hence the eternal smirk, the condescension, the dramatic pronouncements that ring so empty ("the evil-doers," "I'm the decider," etc.) True men — not macho cliches — who by force of will or by sheer accident have managed to kill some kind of bear or another, rarely if ever have to speak in such bombastic terms. Young men who are never initiated into Manhood always struggle with an unbalanced relationship to society and to themselves. Too often the result is hobbled careers, toxic relationships, and unfulfilled expectations. And if an uninitiated man is really unlucky, he gets US stuck in Iraq.

Have a nice day.

Democrats have said that problems need to be fixed. Fair enough. But their first order of business is fix their problem - a schism between two factions. One of these factions thinks the quotes listed above are standard for political discourse and the other recognizes how this bile turns off the segment of the electorate who holds the cards - the independents. I suppose you could describe this current conflict as...oh, I don't know...perhaps quagmire is a pretty appropriate term.

I've watched this internal battle with disappointment for some time. And frankly, I find it hard to believe that the former will not dominate the latter. My expectation was that the Democrats of today would ultimately implode and from its ashes a new party would rise - one that would put the national interest over partisan politics. While the Democrats were not in control, this struggle could take place without endangering the safety of our citizens. Now that they are in control, I'm in the strange position of hoping - for the country's sake - that this implosion doesn't happen.

Believe me if Democrats could show some moderation and exercise some real leadership I'd be the first one to give them the credit and congratulate them.

It's easy to be on the outside, lobbing criticism. It's easy to find fault. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback.

What's difficult is governing. What's difficult is supporting and defending policies that may not be popular.

Now Democrats have the difficult tasks.

And Republicans have the easy ones, as do I.

It's a role reversal.

This blog has never had any mission statement (go ahead and search the archives). But one of my goals has been to emphasize that while Republicans aren't perfect, the Democrats are not the solution. The electorate, however, was willing to give the Democrats their shot. As a patriotic American, I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

I'm not holding my breath.

Now that the landscape has changed, I assume my new role with relish.

UPDATE:
It would seem that the bloodletting has already begun.

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1337 words, total size 9 kb.

A quickie post-mortem. Scalpel, please.

1) The voters have spoken. Republicans in Congress lost something in the last couple of years - leadership. They've shown very little of it and they became more concerned with trying to protect their own butts than accomplishing the kinds of things that would give voters a reason to keep them around. So...

2) A lot of people - independents in particular - decided they were sick of hearing Democrats say that they could do a better job and gave them the opportunity to prove it. They weren't motivated by a sudden enthusiasm for a Liberal (or Progressive or whatever euphemism you want to use) agenda. They elected moderate Democrats to replace moderate Republicans - plain and simple. If the desires of the electorate were truly aligned with the Angry Left, then Ned Lamont, Lincoln Chafee and several others would be serving in the 110th Congress.

3) This is essentially a test for the Democrats. With control of the House and the Senate, they have no excuses. The time for rhetoric is over. Many of those seats could go right back to the Republicans in two years if they're not careful. They didn't put Democrats in power so they would appease the moonbats by extracting payback or making the President's last two year in office a living hell. Of course, if the Dems really believe otherwise, I encourage them to follow that strategy. The American voter is fed up with partisan bickering. And they don't care who "started it". They don't care about Karl Rove, Al Gore's litigation-fest in 2000 or the bile between the parties that led to the Clinton impeachment. They're beyond that stuff. And, frankly, they have little patience for it.

4) The Republicans have some soul-searching to do. They need to agree on what they are willing to fight for and how to be unified again. But the Democrats have their own challenge. The war between the moderates and the Left that has been held back by a tentative truce in an effort to win will come to the surface as they fight over how they intend to keep the power that they've won.

Conclusion: The responsibility for the next two years rests on the Democrats' shoulders, especially considering that the President is wrapping up the final two years of his second term. Now that the Virginia Senate race is called this can be truly called the "Democrat Congress". They can either get credit or blame. It's their choice.

One side note: Since George Allen showed he was unable to run a decent Senate re-election campaign, it's safe to say that very few Republicans will be taking any Presidential campaign he may attempt seriously. A while back I picked him as my early favorite for the nomination in 2008. At the time, it made sense. Now it makes none. So I'll be paying closer attention to that race starting immediately.

UPDATE:
I received this comment on an earlier thread from "Joe Liarman":

"No, there is a vulnerable Chris Shays in 2008
Ned will be back.
Ned standing up to Joe and Bush opened the floodgates for a national Dem victory.
To that, we thank him"

So Ned Lamont was the catalyst for this control change? By that logic, had Ned Lamont not entered politics and had Joe Lieberman been re-elected as a Democrat, the results of Tuesday wouldn't have happened and the Dems would still be in the minority. Sorry, Joe but you're not taking into consideration normal political cycles. Though that you would rationalize Lamont's loss as some sort of moral victory makes sense. It's what you guys are used to doing after an election.

The reference to Chris Shays is amusing, however. I'm wondering when it's finally going to sink in with these people that they're not the "party of change" anymore. Their whole campaign was "we have to get the Republicans out of power". OK, so that's done. Now what? They can't run on that two years from now.

In 2008, their task will be to defend the status quo. In order to do that, they'll have to actually accomplish something, promote it and use it as a rationale for not allowing the Republicans back in.

I know the concept is a little foreign to these folks but the campaign's over. Now they have to actually do something. Otherwise it's the GOP that'll be campaigning on change in 2008. Hello?

Posted by: Gary at 07:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 4 kb.

I know you're very busy trying to focus on bipartisan consensus with the new Congress. Nice speech, BTW. However, I wanted to remind you of something very important that you may have heard of at the time you first came to Washington but have clearly since forgotten about. The prior occupant of the Oval Office left it in one of your desk drawers. It was left to him by your father, who had received it from President Reagan, passed along to him by his predecessor and so on and so on...

It might be time to search around for it, dust it off and keep it handy for the remainder of your term. You will need it... more...

Posted by: Gary at 08:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Until all outstanding races are confirmed, I don't see a reason to weigh in. I'll leave that to the punditry. That's their job. I'm off today with other priorities to deal with. Though all in all I can sum it up in a word...sucky.

However, I'm happy to say my number one priority - the re-election of Joe Lieberman and the subsequent rejection of the Kos-backed empty suit known as "the Freshmaker" by 50% of Connecticut's voters - has been accomplished. Congrats Joe.

Sorry, Ned. Hey there's always Dodd in 2010.

UPDATE:
The Moose rubs it in on Lamont, but makes an important point:

A powerful message has been sent to the '08 wannabees who sent Negative Ned their money and support - you can pander to the nutroots to win primaries, but you must reach out to the vital center to win a general election (even in a deep blue state). More persuasion and less comment threads, please.

UPDATE II:
Interesting development, Rumsfeld is set to resign.

I suspect that if Bush appointed Lieberman as his replacement (in the spirit of bipartisanship, of course) then Gov. Rell would appoint Nancy Johnson to fill his term - giving her a job and keeping the Senate in GOP hands.

That would make me laugh out loud.

UPDATE III:
Nevermind

Posted by: Gary at 09:36 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.