51 Comments

• 1. LiberalMind  |  January 31st, 2008 at 8:49 pm

  After eight years of Republican sabotage, neglect, incompetence and bungling, Clinton or Obama would be a gust of fresh air.

  America will once again shun the destructive conservative policies that always damage the economy and diminish the U.S. standing in the world.

  The end of conservatism is closing in and we will once again return to the progressive policies that truly made America strong.

• 2. Matt Margolis  |  January 31st, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  LiberalMind, you pretty say the same exact thing every single time you post a comment… Instead of giving us rhetoric on repeat, why don’t you say something substantive?

• 3. yekepyt  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:00 pm

  Watch the Republicans, and their minions in the for-profit press, as the realization slowly dawns on them that the gig is up.

  Americans are about to take their country back, and just in time. Anyone read “The End of America”?

  I can’t wait to see Romney or McCain go up against one of these two.

• 4. Rich  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:04 pm

  “gust of fresh air” That isn’t fresh air you smell. Smells like Kazakh uranium and dirty money.

• 5. LiberalMind  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  Let’s look at Republican “accomplishments”…blah, blah, blah litany of liberal lies ’cause I know my candidates are lousy so I don’t want to talk about them and thus will just stick to the lies I believe about the Republicans because it makes me feel better about myself…(Ed. Note; don’t even think you’re going to get away with stuff like this)

• 6. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  Matt,

  LiberalMind has nothing of substance to say, much like the two on stage this evening. I do find it curious how they intend to improve our world standing by abandoning our global neighbors struggling to create their new liberated country.

  Secondly, Hill stated that she had done her due diligence on Iraq and knew Saddam had “bad things” in 1998 when her husband bombed the country, and then no one challenged her on her past assertions that she was lied to by Bush.

  I guess they just say what they want. Like saying that they’ll stop the banks from foreclosing, not once mentioning the culpability of the mortgagee.

  These people are dangerous.

• 7. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  LiberalMind,

  Not bad, you actually got one right. Everything else is just litany of lies.

  You’re dangerous liberalmind because you don’t have the capactiy for critical thought. You’re a child that continues to regurgitate propaganda. A few minutes of research would expose your diatribe as false, yet you have invested so much in the doctrine that you believe what you want to believe and this country simply can’t afford sheeple like you.

  Your democratic masters though would be very proud to know that there efforts of indoctrination have paid off.

• 8. Retired Spook  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:38 pm

  LiberalMind, if a Republican wins the WH again in November and the GOP recaptures both houses of Congress, will you move somewhere else, or at least go cry on some other blog?

• 9. neocon  |  January 31st, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  >>Army not prepared to handle domestic attack. - LiberalMindless<>Widespread corruption and lobbyist influence. - LiberalMindless<<

  Harry Reids secret land deals and his three lobbyist sons. Is that who you’re talking about?

  Just a couple of her lies I wanted to address.

• 10. Brian Gregory  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm

  Listen, I’m conservative, but it’s not like President Bush’s tenure in office has been anything to be proud of. Come on, people.

• 11. Nate  |  January 31st, 2008 at 10:11 pm

  conservatism is about staying where you are, not changing, not accepting new things, new ideas, progress. why do you think we continue to see all white men running for president in the republican party?

  Think about not wanting to progress in the stock market, not wanting to progress in technology, not wanting to progress in anything in the world, not wanting to understand the world of which we are a part, not the whole…

  well, there are the conservatives, the republicans…

• 12. Mark Noonan  |  January 31st, 2008 at 11:58 pm

  Nate,

  You’ve never actually talked to a conservative, or read a conservative book, have you? Only rank ignorance on your part can excuse your comment.

• 13. David.B.Schmidt  |  February 1st, 2008 at 12:10 am

  [Hope this is not a double posting]

  Holy guano droppings, Batman. I just found out I am the uber-rich because I have been working hard for over 30+ years and climbing above $75K mark.
  (according to Senator Obama)

  For Nate (quoting in part)

  … why do you think we continue to see all white men running for president in the [sic] republican party?

  Please look at every–I do mean every–cabinet of any President and compare that to President Bush’s cabinet. There is no comparison–yet the Democrats ran under the “Big Tent” B.S. during the last go round. Looked like white sliced bread in all previous Democratic cabinets. Educate yourself before looking foolish.

  Probably, the Democrats will try it again this time just because…

  Still B.S. including the expected response from Nate about “I meant the Presidency. Whaaa.

• 14. Kahn  |  February 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am

  What a load of crapola.

  Two failed wars. Um, really? Forced our way into the mid-east, source of hatred. Now they MUST deal with us. We are in a position to influence every nation in the area with ground troops, Navy access, and air power.Because of these wars there have been no more attacks on us and THREE hostile nations have stopped their nuclear programs.

  1 Million dead Iraqi’s. Flat out lie.

  Resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Good adjective. Define it. Every time they gather in a group bigger than 25 we bomb them. But hey, the Corps can use you if you want to join up. You could be up there helping in five months or so - depending on what MOS they give you. My sister-in-law is up there now.

  Emboldened Iran in Middle East Another good adjective. Note, they stopped their nuke program almost immediately after we invaded Iraq.

  $3 Trillion added to national debt. Got me there. We should spend less. I agree.

  Dollar at all time low against Euro, Canadian, etc.. Is that bad? It makes our products more attractive overseas and gives the protectionism Democrats scream for in the form of higher prices for foreign goods.

  Erosion of civil liberties. You mean, like what? I do know that Democrats along with RINO’s passed campaign finance laws that severely restrict speech. I’ve seen Democrats call for banning conservatives from the airwaves and attack the ONLY non-liberal news network. I’ve also seen Democrats try to circumvent the 2nd Amendment - an amendment describing an important civil liberty.

  Erosion of Constitution with executive power grabs. Oh? So see what the Supreme Court has to say about it.

  Widespread corruption and lobbyist influence. You mean right now - right? How else can you influence laws? The NRA and the Right to lifers, and the pharmeceutical companies are all lobbyists or have them. But so do the unions, and the Sierra Club, and Code Pink, and the N.O.#W. and the N.A.A.C.P. Should NOW and the NAACP be disbanded? Prevented from lobbying? Don’t be absurd.

  Army not prepared to handle domestic attack. Um, yah - create a massive hypothetical scenario and argue if we could handle it. So, are nukes important now? Care to congratulate the Bush’s for disarming Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea? Thats one way to handle it you know? Prevent it.

  Veteran suicide rates at record highs. Must be all the love they’re getting from liberals. What with Cambridge banning Scouts from collecting soap for them, and Oregoneans marching with “F*** the Troops” signs, and Berkely trying to force out Marine recruiters, and San Francisco refusing the Marine Corps permission to film an ad there….

  Military broken, worn out, over extended. Yep, hard to explain the way we keep killing Taliban and the success of the surge in Iraq. Are you arguing for a bigger defense budget? Cool. I’m with you on that. Lets expand the military.

  Home foreclosures at record levels. Taht was because of the over-extension of credit in adjustable rate mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. So, now rates are down and so are the A.R.M.’s - is that good or bad?

  Infrastructure crumbling, public works severely neglected. Ha Ha Ha, there is so much road construction in my area it’s incredible. The Wilson Bridge. The 95/beltway interchange. Maybe in Massachusetts where they spent all their money on an insane tunnel project run my corrupt liberals thats true. But not here.

  What a pip. Not, pick some small part of my rebuttel and argue that it proves the rest false. Tactic number 7a, if I remember correctly.

• 15. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 am

  So now we come to about the 80th justification for destroying Iraq: better to destroy over there, oops “influence”.

  You go, guy! I am sure that is great influence, we had at least a crowd of irrelevant Iraqi legislators in the IZ that hope we don’t leave anytime soon. Man, if I were Al Maliki I’d be asking Crocker what bedroom I had in the new Embassy.

• 16. keefer  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:47 am

  Sure, he can talk fluffed up rhetoric very well, but he stumbles over policy.

  Ever notice the emphasis Earbama puts on his statements? Give this man a pulpit; he sounds like a preacher.

  They blame President Bush. When it comes to actually leading, they can’t handle it, because when they are in power, and their incompetence is on display, they have no one to blame.

  Matt, I’m afaid you’re slightly wrong on this one. Either Hitlery or Earbama, if in the WH, will blame Bush for any of their failures. They’ll claim that “it’s gonna take a long time to clean up Bush’s mistakes.” They’re just like my boy governor, Marty O’Malley, aka Fartin’ SoSmelly. He never takes the blame for anything; when he was only the mayor of Baltimore, he’d blame Erlich first, then Bush.

  These libgressives are too perfect, in their own minds, to be accountable for anything. Just look at the mortgage crisis. Who forced these companies to loan to every T, D, and H? Congress did, and now they want to blame Bush for the crisis. Who spent the SS money? Congress did, over the last four decades, and they want to blame Bush. Who spilled his gin & tonic on the floor? Ted Kennedy did, and he wants to blame Bush.

  Remember, Matt–it’s all Bush’s fault!

  Listen, I’m conservative, but it’s not like President Bush’s tenure in office has been anything to be proud of. Come on, people.

  Yeah, right. And Cindy Sheehan’s a right-wing kook, huh? C’mon, David Gregory, you sound like one of those seminar callers. Conservative? What, you drive a hybrid? That’s about as close as you’d get to being conservative…

• 17. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:49 am

  I’d like to see someone make the case that Bush is really conservative and not a big government security-authoritarian type. Is the case made because he is socially conservative? Because he prefers to borrow money as opposed to raise it in taxes? Because he makes the military (”commanders in the field”) the fall guy for his stupid military ventures?

  Responsibility and accountability, please.

• 18. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 6:49 am

  I love the laugh line about Obama’s inability to talk policy.

  This from someone who worships the least articulate, least-informed presidential candidate in my lifetime. Why, W circa 2000 made Ross Perot look like a policy wonk. I marveled then that anyone could vote for him for anything, even mayor of a small town.

  Even worse, he made a virtue of being a “just regular guy” kind of ignorant, and his fans ate it up. Well, I do believe the country has, at least temporarily, learned that lesson.

• 19. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 6:53 am

  Oops, correction. Most of the country has learned that lesson. Ignorance has its fans, I don’t want to be unrealistic.

• 20. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 6:58 am

  Um, “too scary to comprehend”? What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? That it scares you into incomprehension?

  Does that scare you more than Islamofacism, or are you scared into incomprehension by it also? I hope you do not find incomprehension or fear to be disabling when you blog.

• 21. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:24 am

  >>Hillary can’t open her mouth without lying or blaming everything on Bush.

  Doesn’t the irony of that statement strike you?

  I mean, the Republicans (including this site) don’t ever talk about their vision or accomplishments, they only blame Dems. Where’s all the Republican pride in Bush’s accomplishments? I mean, he has been in power for nearly 8 years (6 years with both houses of Congress)- and, as I recall, didn’t BUSH blame the Clinton administration for most of their problems?

  Also, it’s ironic that people on this site decry the “loony left” who refer to Bush as ’smirky monkey Hitler boy’, but go on to sanction namecalling (like ‘Hitlery’ or ‘Earbama’). I think this just emphasizes how ideologically bankrupt the GOP is- I mean, they implemented all Bush’s policies and where did it get us as a country?!?!?!?

  Face it, the Dem debate last night was FULL of specifics, “wonky” details. Further, one can go to their web sites to get all the details on their health care plans (debated for 20 minutes last night), their plans for Iraq, etc. It was a VERY substantive debate and either of these candidates will make a VERY STRONG and COMPETANT President.

  Either of these candidates will SOUNDLY beat “multiple choice” Mitt or “less jobs and more wars” McCain! This is apparent if you listen to rightwing commentators (WHO does RUSH want, BTW? In fact, I think even HE wants a Dem president- if only for the fact that it would unite the GOP again and boost his own ratings)

  But rather than talk about how PROUD you are of YOUR GOP candidates, you bash the Dem’s excellent candidates! And then you are delusional enough to fault the Dems for blaming Bush for the problems his administration caused!

• 22. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:35 am

  >>I love the laugh line about Obama’s inability to talk policy.

  >>This from someone who worships the least articulate, least-informed presidential candidate in my lifetime.

  EXACTLY! GW fans didn’t seem to care that he didn’t understand policy at all. Not only that, but McCain has acknowledged that he doesn’t understand economics!!!

  And ‘CEO’ Romney. . . if staying in Iraq was approached as a business decision (like he wants to approach government policies)- how long do you think a corporation would throw BILLIONS of dollars at something without appreciable progress? Don’t we need to start turning a profit, or at least get a unity government in Iraq for the nearly 2 TRILLION dollars we are spending?

  If you want more of the same, vote Republican! More expensive health care, up to 100 years of Iraq war, more outsourcing, more deficit spending, more tax cuts for the wealthy, bigger national debt, more oil consumption and dependence on the middle east, etc, etc. . .

  If you want a real change of direction for this country, vote Democrat. Health care for all, an end to the Iraq war, restoring our standing in the world, balancing the budget, less dependence on fossil fuels, etc. . .

  The choices are pretty clear. . .

• 23. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:40 am

  >>What, you drive a hybrid? That’s about as close as you’d get to being conservative…

  Because conservatives CAN’T drive hybrids?!?!?!?

  I mean, conservatives can’t care about conserving fuel, conserving our natural resources, air pollution, getting off our dependency on the Middle East, etc . . .

  Is THAT what you’re saying? You have to be a ‘tree hugging’ liberal to care about conservation, the environment, and our dependence on the Mideast Oil?

• 24. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am

  >>>If you want a real change of direction for this country, vote Democrat. Health care for all, an end to the Iraq war, restoring our standing in the world, balancing the budget, less dependence on fossil fuels, etc. . . - searp<<<<

  Buying inot the propaganda again I see without any constructive thought. Let me point out a few things for you searp before you run off to school.

  While Republicans are attempting to find a free market solution to health care, the democrats have only offered government solutions to resolve the matter which will only add another massive entitlement program, which currently consumes 60% of the budget when Medicare, Medicaid and SS are factored in. And the government has always been very efficient at running large programs right?

  100 years in Iraq? Well maybe with some small interest to bolster support for our new allies, much like we’ve done in Europe, the Balkans, South Korea, etc. How do Dems plan to build allies, when all you want is isolationism?

  Restoring our standing in the world? By running away from them? You have strange ideas.

  Balancing the budget? Yet Harry Reid has just tried to add another 30 billion to the stimulus package. ALL politicians are guilty of spending.

  Less dependence on fossil fuels? Did you see the news conference of McCain, Giulani and Schwarzenegger?

  Searp, try and go outside the liberal bubble and educate yourself on soem other doctrine. If they’ll let you.

• 25. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am

  I forgot to address the end to Iraq war.

  First of all, it is no longer a war, but a security mission. Secondly, both Hill and Obama stated in an earlier debate that they could not promise to have all troops withdrawn by the end of the first term in 2013. Yet now they’re racing to retreat.

  Which time did you believe them?

• 26. hermie  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:06 am

  The mortgage crisis was helped along by a little thing called the Community Reinvestment Act. That’s where banks and other lenders were ‘encouraged’ to lend to areas which were populated by lower-income people. You had groups like ACORN which latched on to the CRA and began lawsuits and pushed local politicians into placing more pressure on banks to lend to these areas.

  So, how to ensure that you won’t lose money lending to people who tend not to be able to pay back these funds? Well, you take a chance and tie your interest rate with that of the marketplace. Now, all loan documents are required to disclose the terms and conditions in easy to understand language. They also have a very conspicuous box on the loan contract which explains how much you will be paying and what would happen if the rate goes up.

  If those who signed these contracts didn;t understand them, they have three business days to change their minds. They can obtain guidance from other people during this time, or they can let things stand as they are.

  Nobody put a gun to their heads to sign these mortgages, and the government had mandated safeguards to inform and protect the borrowers.

• 27. hermie  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:13 am

  The same leftists who decry our attempts to drill in ANWR, are the same ones who fight wind turbines, who fight more efficient oil refineries, fight nuclear power plants, fight coal fired plants and coal mining, and yet tell us to switch to hybrid cars without reminding us the electricity for these hybrids have to come from existing facilities which are already straining from the excessive demand.

  We all can’t place solar panels on our roofs and expect to obtain the same amount of electricity to run our lights, microwaves, tvs, etc. Not everywhere has the same weather conditions as Southern California.

• 28. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:19 am

  The same leftists who decry our “world standing” are the same ones who want to abandon the ME and let them fend for themselves. That should do wonders for our image.

  Just like children, I don’t believe they think these issues all the way through.

• 29. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am

  >>First of all, it is no longer a war, but a security mission. Secondly, both Hill and Obama stated in an earlier debate that they could not promise to have all troops withdrawn by the end of the first term in 2013. Yet now they’re racing to retreat.

  >>Which time did you believe them

  In fact, both of them have been very consistent about Iraq and their plans to bring the war to an end.

  I guess it might be confusing to someone who sees the world as simplistically as Bush (which is why we ended up in this mess in the first place). .

• 30. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am

  >>Just like children, I don’t believe they think these issues all the way through

  Ummm, this is what I kept saying during the lead up to the Iraq War. Meanwhile, the naive Republicans kept insisting that the Iraqis would welcome us ‘with flowers and chocolates’ and that the ‘war would pay for itself’, etc.

  I kept asking, what happens AFTER we get rid of Saddam? What if they elect a leader who DOESN’T like America (like in Iran, Palestine, Turkey, etc)?

  We’ve tried it your way- with naive incompetance- for eight years! Now, it’s time to bring competance and responsibility back into the White House!

• 31. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:36 am

  And did you guys see Ann Coulter’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Hannity & Colmes? She stated that she would CAMPAIGN and VOTE for Hillary over McCain because SHE’S MORE CONSERVATIVE!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

• 32. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am

  Coulterfan,

  First of all, learn a little about satire. Secondly, There is currently a UN mandate for us to continue to assist the Iraqis in stabilizing their country. So do you advocate violating that mandate? We are also in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi leader himself, so again, how do you bolster our world standing by abandoning them? You still haven’t answered that question.

  And if you think Hill has been consistent on Iraq, then I want what you’re smoking.

  Other than that, your rebuttal was VERY WEAK.

• 33. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:53 am

  Hey neocon, I think you were quoting someone else in post #24.

  I urge you to correct the mistakes while I am away in school, then maybe we could debate your set of misapprehensions about me personally and workable policies in general.

• 34. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am

  And please address Hermies statements, how we will lessen our dependence on foreign oil if people like you won’t allow us to domestically explore alternatives. These questions take some thought. Not just regurgitating propaganda which seems to be your MO.

• 35. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am

  Well you two are interchangeable. How’s geometry class?

• 36. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am

  Abandon the ME? I haven’t read anything so… imperious (being kind here) since Colonel Blimp’s memoirs. Since when was the ME our protectorate?

• 37. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am

  Geometry was terrible, I am now in my advanced comedy class.

• 38. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:10 am

  Searp,

  Briliiant. You’re one of the few liberals with a good sense of humor.

• 39. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am

  >>And if you think Hill has been consistent on Iraq, then I want what you’re smoking.

  Other than that, your rebuttal was VERY WEAK.

  She’s been consistent through the debates. Granted, her position HAS drifted with political sentiments, but she’s been as consistent as any Republican in that regard (including Bush). Obama has been very consistent in his opposition to the war.

  The only thing that’s WEAK is the GOP candidates!

• 40. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am

  Wednesday, January 30, 2008
  AdvertismentThe latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.

• 41. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am

  A McCain nomination is fine with me. I disagree with him on most things, but at least he doesn’t seem blinkered by ideology. Should my Republican friends develop a pragmatic streak I for one would applaud. Long before we had, well, whatever the current administration is ideologically, I even voted Republican on occasion.

  I am not one to spend much time defining “authentic” conservatism, but I know sheer lunatic incompetence when I see it. McCain will be a breath of fresh air.

• 42. hermie  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:45 am

  “Her position has drifted with political sentiments”

  So she is NOT consistent (like with drivers licenses for illegal immigrants) and you LIKE that?

• 43. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am

  >>AdvertismentThe latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.

  And just a month ago, Guiliani was the far-and-away GOP frontrunner. McCain’s campaign was over, Huckabee was the underdog coming from behind, etc, etc.

  Just wait. . . The Republicans are in for a HUGE loss come November. . . and you only have Bush and his policies (which you blindly followed) to blame. . .

• 44. coulterfan  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am

  >>So she is NOT consistent (like with drivers licenses for illegal immigrants) and you LIKE that?

  We were talking about Iraq. I have to say, though, that I much prefer Obama. However, either would be preferable to ANY GOP candidate.

  Which of your candidates has been consistent in ANY way?!?!? McCain, who called Falwell an agent of hate and intolerance and then spoke at his University? Romney who has changed his position on EVERYTHING MANY TIMES!?!?!?

• 45. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am

  Coulter,

  Let’s back to critical thought, shall we? You state that the GOP will lose because of Bushs policies, but Bush is not on the ballot and McCains policies, to the chagrin of many conservatives, have been applauded in the MSM for years. So again you just regurgitated propaganda.

  And I have blindly followed Bushs policies? Which ones? I have been highly critical of his spending, his hesitation to be proactive on many domestic issues, his hesitation in adjusting Iraq tactics, his support for McCain-Kennedy etc. Again, you lack critical thought which makes it difficult to take you seriously.

• 46. neocon  |  February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am

  And what is inconsistent with calling an administrator spiteful and yet accepting an invitation to speak at that institution? Wouldn’t building a bridge to them be a liberal approach to reconciliation?

  Use your common sense, if you have any left.

• 47. Canadian Observer  |  February 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am

  We can only hope that Obama or Hillary possess the ability of digging you out of the dark hole in which currently find yourselves.

  If either one, by some miracle, can bring the country back to where it was before the Bush debacle then the world will be forever grateful.

  Do they have the integrity, intellect and desire to do the right thing?

  The world is watching.

• 48. Infidel  |  February 1st, 2008 at 10:48 am

  It’s refreshing that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are being so honest with the American people. Not about themselves mind you, just about each other. All anyone needs to know about how disastrous either of these two phony blowhards would be as President is made very clear by the other.

• 49. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am

  Infidel: that sounds like a credo as opposed to an analysis. I’d eschew speculation in favor of introspection.

• 50. searp  |  February 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  This statement is hilarious:

  “The funny thing is, that’s really what Democrats do. They blame President Bush. When it comes to actually leading, they can’t handle it, because when they are in power, and their incompetence is on display, they have no one to blame.”

  Can you say projection?

• 51. Forward to Yesterday - Bo&hellip  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  […] h/t: I found this while trolling reading through the comments at the site formerly known as Blogs for Bush, now Blogs for Victory. Always good […]

Matt Margolis on Twitter