We’ve all been so distracted with serious bidness the last few days that I’ve hardly had a moment to think about Sarah Palin. But I pause now to pass on two things:
- I met with Marvin Chernoff over breakfast this morning, and he asked me whether I’d seen the Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin skit on SNL, and I said I had, but after a moment it hit me that we weren’t talking about the same skit. Turns out she reprised the role Saturday night and I missed it, while Marvin was unaware of the earlier one. Now that I’ve seen the latest (clip above), I’ve got to say it sort of fell flat by comparison, but it would have been hard to match the hilarity of the first effort. It was the funniest thing on that show in decades.
- Be sure to check out tomorrow’s op-ed page. Kathleen Parker writes about the tidal wave of vehement reaction she got to her Palin-should-drop-out column the other day.
Related Posts
The funniest thing about the Palin-Couric spoof was that the writers used the transcript of the actual interview verbatim for about 30 seconds or so. Joe’s greatest challenge on Thursday night might be in monitoring his own facial expressions.
Here’s a bit on YouTube that shows what her handlers must be going through. Warning: some explicit language that will be offensive to some.
The infotainment mentality is the ruin of serious journalism.
It takes no work, and no risk, to just opine and guess, and speculate, postulate, and ridicule.
Asking serious questions, and researching the facts, especially an unknown nobody with no resume like Obama, is real work, too hard for today’s media personalities.
That’s why it’s being done by bloggers, talk radio and other new, more serious reporters.
You’re right, Lee. Obama’s completely unknown. Which one is he, again?
“It takes no work, and no risk, to just opine and guess, and speculate, postulate, and ridicule.”
Lee, you are living proof of that.
There is a huge difference between Obama & Palin that you repeated stick you head in the sand over and ignore.
Obama ran a campaign in a major political party system for over two years and of all of the dozens of other Democratic canidates, won the most votes and is the last man standing. Two years of speeches, parades, interviews and debates. All the glory and all the hard work. He’s earned the right to represent the party and has done nothing that any other US citizen couldn’t do themselves if they wished to do the same thing. Obama, just like McCain went through the gauntlet and emerged the victor.
Palin on the otherhand was cherry-pick for her role with less than 90 days left to the longest campaign season on record. She has put in zero work or effort into McCain’s campaign prior to September and her selection was based solely on the facts that she has a pulse & a skirt. Since Guiliani also has a pulse and a skirt, but isn’t as photogenic in pink, Palin got the nod.
She didn’t win anything. She didn’t earn anything. She was picked. How likely is it that any other US citizen would get the chance to be the VP on a ticket? Try no chance at all. In fact, the VP selection is very un-American in its process…but’s that’s for another day.
There is a huge difference between earning your way onto a ticket whether you agree with the policies or personality of a candidate or not and just showing up and “coming on down” when your name is picked like “The Price is Right” when your name is called.
Right now the Palin camp is already setting expectations so low that the fact she doesn’t fall over in her heels like a runway model will cause for celebration.
The US deserves better quality in its leadership than a failed & confused beauty queen.
The totally sad part is in about 8 years, she could have been a real force to reckon with on the GOP scene. Instead McCain’s use and exposure of her will have ruined her poitical career forever.
Anyone heard from Dan Quayle lately?
Not to insult the man, but who on God’s green earth is Marvin Chernoff?
And, more to the actual point, “Updates from the Palin front” gave me rise to expect something that actually involved the GOP nominee for VP, not what Tina Fey did, or what someone said about what Kathleen Parker wrote.
About both of which, I might add, I give not one sterling d*mn.
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t even qualify as an infotainer. He belches his own venomous opinion on the radio. That’s not news.
Brad, the latest skit duplicated Palin’s actual answer to one of Couric’s questions. Maybe it wasn’t as funny but it sure was scary.
Obama was a total unknown until a few months, ago, just a few months longer than Palin.
His associations with terrorists, real estate swindlers, the Nation of Islam, communists, terrorists like Bill Ayers, and Jew-haters is still unknown to most voters, and a to a lot of lazy journalists.
Big Media is lined up behind the establishment , pushing for legislation they haven’t even read, much less reported the details.
Brad Warthen fills the editorial page with opinions blasting those who stopped this bailout and cover up of the largest bank robbery in history, yet his paper has not printed a synopsis of the bill.
That is so typical, and it is why America doesn’t trust news media and doesn’t buy print media.
Lee,
And today’s lead editorial in The State has this tasty nugget:
” Rep. Gresham Barrett, the only member of the S.C. delegation to vote “no,” said he wants to let markets work. What an empty explanation. Markets showed what they thought of that after his position prevailed.”
When have the markets been able to work without government intervention? Has The State heard of the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, Congress, FNMA, and FMAC? Any thoughts on how those non-market entities might have had an impact on the financial situation?
Does The State understand that the reason the market dropped is more likely due to the fact that financial institutions were hoping the government (i.e. taxpayers) would end up paying more for their assets than they were actually worth (i.e. the market value)?
We need more people like Mr. Barrett in Congress and a lot fewer Lindsey Graham’s — whose sole contribution has been empty rhetoric and partisan diatribes.
It’s a rare event when Lee and I agree on anything but in this case Lee might have a point. A good synopsis of the bill with both supporting and oppossing opinions on the major points would be nice to see. With the stock market recovering most of the ground in lost on Monday this crisis seems a bit overstated. Perhaps I’m wrong but the administration has some tools to help us limp along until a good, solid bill can be crafted that doesn’t simply enrich a handful of Wall Street types who have already gained enormous wealth through ill-advised decisions.
Lee writes “The infotainment mentality is the ruin of serious journalism” and for a rare occasion I agree with him, and would add “the ruin of serious politics and governance” as well.
Problem is, I believe that “infotainment mentality” is what led McCain to pick Palin as his running mate.
And, the Palin pick being just one piece of evidence, more indications that McCain is at risk now of losing much more than an election.
Guys, the stock market “recovery” is only a drop in the bucket. The overnight lending rate between banks tripled Monday night. TRIPLED. This is catastrophic to our banking system. The stock market is only a very public small part of the much larger credit crisis.
Doug, if I can read the entire bill in an hour and boil it down to a 2-page handout, which I have done, the newspaper certainly could, if they wanted to act like a newspaper.
That comment you quoted from THE STATE about “markets not working” shows their ignorance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are FEDERAL-controlled fascist-style banks that failed. The other banks collapsed because of the repossessions and asset devaluation of their junk loans to blacks and Hispanics under a GOVERNMENT program.
This is the biggest bank robbery in history, by the Democrats.
bud, most of the “Wall Street types” who got rich packaging mortgages did it honestly. What is inexcusable is all the board members of FNMA and FMAC voting huge salaries and bonuses for themselves, while cooking the books by billions of dollars of phony profits. These are all Democrat and Republican cronies.
Jimmy,
Yes, the interbank rates are jumping, because the banks are fighting for cash. This is a golden opportunity to hold the legitimate rescue hostage until we get some instant tax reform and legislation blocking any bailouts, ever, for the government and union pensions.
This is the tip of the iceberg of socialist corruption. The rest of the iceber is:
* Social Security
* state and municipal pensions
* union pensions
* big corporate pensions
* Medicare
* Medicaid
It is time to melt it all down.
Imagine what the markets would do if the bailout was tied to direct cuts in government spending?
How about we just dump the Department of Education as part of the deal? Or eliminate foreign aid?
There’s more than $700 billion available to cut. Why doesn’t the government act like a responsible adult would and shift spending from one area to another? Oh yeah, I forgot. Because the government doesn’t care about responsibility when it can just tax people as much as it wants.
Spare me this socialist crap Lee. This crisis has a major free-market component to it and everybody knows it. The big banks and mortgage companies lapped up the bad loans based on the promise of ever-rising home values. No one forced them to do against their will. It was a free-market driven bubble more than anything else.
Funny how everyone keeps bringing Social Security up. That highly successful program has been on the verge of collapse now for 75 years. Yet somehow the checks keep arriving in the mail, even as PRIVATE banks fail. The Adam Smith “guiding hand” continues to suffer a severe case of Parkinson’s disease and all the blowhards can do is call the bank failures socialist. That is so lame.
Again, in the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” department, here are some of the earmarks that have been attached to the bailout bill.
I would assume that Senator McCain will continue to vote no on the bill until every single one of these is removed. If he votes yes to this pork, he’s nothing but a political hack.
“New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
– Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
– Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
– 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
– Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
– American Samoa (Sec. 309)
– Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
– Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
– Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
– Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
– Railroads (Sec. 316)
– Auto Racing Tracks (317)
– District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
– Wool Research (Sec. 325)
Bud says:
“Funny how everyone keeps bringing Social Security up. That highly successful program has been on the verge of collapse now for 75 years.”
Yeah, sure. They keep raising the tax to pay for it. Kind of easy to keep it “successful” when you have a mandatory tax you can raise at will.
Did you know that they raised the maximum income that people pay into Social Security on this year? Went from $97,500 to $102,000.
That means if you make $102,000 or more, you and your employer will be paying $4500*0.124 = $558 more tax dollars into the social security welfare system than you did last year.
It’s a pyramid scheme enforced by the government. The only way it can “succeed” is if taxes are raised, benefits are cut, or retirement age is increased.
It’s welfare, Bud. Socialistic WELFARE. It’s not a retirement pension system.
Here’s the Maverick’s comments on the earmarks in the bailout bill… he loses more and more credibility every single day:
“I certainly would have done everything in my power to remove those earmarks,” he told ABC’s “This Week” in an interview. “But I may have voted for it if, I probably would have ended up voting for it, but I decry a system where individual members are, are faced with taking all this unacceptable, outrageous stuff that has contributed to the largest growth in spending since the Great Society.”
By one estimate, the bill includes 2,322 pet projects sought by lawmakers for their home districts and states, totaling $6.6 billion.”
Subprime loans were created by Congress to lend money to blacks and Latinos who had bad credit, without proof of income, employment assets or history of repaying loans.
No banks would have made these loans without the GOVERNMENT guarantees from FMAC and FNMA.
The political cronies who sat on the boards of FMAC and FNMA cooked the books, paid themselves bonuses larger than the presidents of real banks, and kicked back lots of payola to the Congressmen and Senators who kept the tax money coming.
Let’s have public hearings before the election, and before any vote on a bail out bill.
Social Security has gone broke seven times, and been bailed out with an payroll tax higher than necessary each time.
I received one of their phony statements last month. No one has an account in Social Security. There is no cash, just IOUs from the deficits the cash financed.
My “statement” told me not to worry, that I would be getting “at least 75% of my promised benefit”. 75%? What kind of promise keeping is that?
Marvin Chernoff is the father of the Columbia Festival of the Arts, a professor/psychologist/playwright from New York via Los Angeles instrumental in the revitalization of the Congaree Vista.
His political contributions to Democrats include John Kerry, John Edwards, Brent Weaver, Alex Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Spratt, Jim Clyburn and Al Gore.
Thanks, Brad, for telling me absolutely nothing. Google told me a lot you wouldn’t have.
So Doug, are you saying that a legislator should only vote for bills that contain nothing that they disagree with? Maybe you are, since you are a Ron Paul supporter, and that tends to go along with an affinity for ideological purity.
More specifically, if the rescue bill (there I go with that word again) — something that bipartisan consensus agrees needs to pass, and quickly — contains things that someone else insisted on but you opposed, are you saying you should just make like Gresham Barrett and vote “no” so you could say you did?
If a congressman votes to include $6 BILLION dollars of spending that is unrelated to the bailout, he should resign immediately.
Each one of those earmarks could be put into a separate bill. For a bill like this, it should be clean of ANYTHING else.
Why would that be hard to do?
The bailout shouldn’t be held hostage to the greed of individual congressmen. That’s not bipartisanship, it’s graft.
I agree with Doug on this one. The bill should be as clean as the driven snow. No entitlements whatsoever.
Postings have strayed from the original topic, Updates from the Palin front. This is strictly news about Palin and nothing about the bailout, rescue, whatever you want to call it.
This news from the 49’th state, Alaska, courtesy of the Anchorage Daily News:
Approval rating for Palin tumbles among Alaskans
This is the actual text one amendment to the bailout bill:
“SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN
21 WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY
22 CHILDREN.
23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b)
24 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub301
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
1 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A)
2 the following new subparagraph:
3 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN
4 ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not
5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural
6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of
7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold
8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished
9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the
10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as11
sembly—
12 ‘‘(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in
13 diameter, and
14 ‘‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow
15 described in paragraph (1)(A).’’.
16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date
18 of enactment of this Act.”
—
Defend it, Brad. Why should this be part of bailing out the worst financial crisis in John McCain’s lifetime?
Why would I want to defend that? I can’t imagine…
I learned an interesting thing in college. I had thought the idea behind the Rorschach test was the content of the perceived image. As in, if you see THIS in it, then you’re nuts. But a professor explained that it was more about HOW you perceived it. For instance, did you see the blot holistically, as an image of one, coherent thing, or did you obsess about the crenellations around the edges. (And yes, you psych majors out there, I’m sure that’s an incomplete explanation and that my memory is selective; it’s just a concept that stuck with me.)
Anyway, whether it’s an inkblot or a rescue plan or whether we need single-payer health care, I’m more of a whole-inkblot guy than a crenellation type. I study an issue until I reach a point that, holding everything I’ve learned in my head at once, I reach a conclusion. I don’t say, “I can’t support this because it has THIS thing I don’t like.”
Other people look at things differently. Doug tends to find something he doesn’t like about McCain, or Obama, and reject him on that basis, preferring somebody who doesn’t have a chance. I like Obama and McCain based on thousands and thousands of impressions I’ve formed over a period of time. This one gaffe or that one inconsistency or some area of disagreement over there isn’t enough to deter me from an impression formed on the basis of so much information that has gone before. That sort of inoculates me against being overly impressed with the spin cycle. Maybe you think that’s a bad thing; a lot of people would. But that’s the way it is for me.
So what you’re saying Brad is that once you’ve made your mind up on something, it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Remember – I started as someone who voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. And then watched him make one big mistake (not fighting Bush when he and Rove slandered him) followed by a series of missteps over the years culminating in a horrendous immigration bill last year. And then since he got the nomination, it has become almost a daily reminder that I had horribly misjudged McCain’s basic character. These aren’t little inconsistencies or nitpicking – they are huge red flags waving right in my face. McCain hasn’t done anything that would be considered remotely presidential in the past three months. He has become exactly what he claims he’s going to Washington to fight. He’s a political partisan hack now.
You choose to ignore what is right in front of you. You have to. To see McCain now for what he really is (or has become) would take away your dream of writing the endorsement in November that’s been sitting on your hard drive for eight years.
McCain is voting for 2,000 earmarks.
He is more interested in getting along with the crooked Democrats in the Senate than in protecting the taxpayers.
Obama, of course, is celebrating the earmarks.
He doesn’t worry that this pork bill soaked up all the tax revenues for the next 4 years, because he just plans to run huge deficits, print more money and pay off his cheap wine constituency.
Marvin Chernoff originally came to SC to work on the campaign of a Wall Street banker who was declared ineligible for not being a citizen, the later convicted of investment fraud. Chernoff set up shop running campaign PR for other SC Democrats.
Marvin Chernoff came to Columbia to work on the campaign of the last major-party nominee for governor that actually got people who cared about the future of South Carolina excited — sort of the way Obama has done this year, or JFK did in the early 60s, or Reagan in the 80s. (Joe Riley would have been another, in 1994, but he lost by a hairsbreadth to a far lesser, business-as-usual candidate. And Joe was part of the Pug Ravenel movement.)
He was seen as a huge threat to the entrenched political establishment, so that establishment made sure to find a way to push him aside. They managed to get the state Supreme Court to declare him a nonresident of South Carolina (not a noncitizen), and replace him on the ballot with their own guy. The result was that the angry electorate rejected the Democratic nominee instead of the usual practice of automatically electing him, leading to the fluke of Jim Edwards being elected the first Republican governor since Reconstruction — long before Republicans had the numbers to win any normal contest.
As is often the case, Lee’s description is the Bizarro world version. Lee sort of almost knows a lot of things.
So you’re saying, Doug, that I’m like Austen’s Mr. Darcy: "My good opinion once lost, is lost forever." True, I’ve always sort of identified with that character, in that I, too, seldom dance.
But no, that’s not a fair characterization. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Myers-Briggs types (as long as I’m on a psychology kick), but I’m an INTP. The "P" part means "perceiver," as opposed to "J" for "judger." Myers explained that judgers tend to "have matters settled" permanently in their minds, while perceivers "keep decisions open."
The way this works for me is that a large amount of information goes into my eventual judgments — even the ones I tend to leap to "intuitively" (and my intuitive score is extreme on Myers-Briggs). What happens is that things I’ve been thinking about and/or observing for years suddenly crystallize with a new piece of information, almost like the missing piece in a puzzle that suddenly completes the picture for me — or, more likely, enables me to extrapolate what the eventual picture will look like. But if that piece of info doesn’t pull everything into focus, I can delay making a decision longer than other people are comfortable with, being confident that I can decide by the time I have to).
When I do make a decision, whether it seems sudden to the observer or excessively dragged out, it’s on the basis of enough data that it can seem adamantine to someone like Doug, a regular Rock of Gibraltar. That’s because I generally see data as accumulating the way bowling averages do. Did you ever bowl in a league, and have an official average? Early in the season a good or bad game can have a dramatic effect on your average. But after you’ve got a certain number of games under your belt, it’s hard to move the average. That’s my essential conservatism at work, the thing that editorial page editors and judges should have in common, with a great respect for precedent, and the more precedent, the more solid the rulings.
But — and this is a big "but" — if you work with me long enough, you will have the experience of being jarred by sudden changes of mind, often seemingly at the worst moments. You will think that a matter is settled, but all the time I’m collecting additional information, and it’s quietly shifting my judgment, to where one day, BANG, the picture I infer from the available pieces is quite different. That can cause problems with co-workers. They will be put off by, say, my seemingly "sudden" decision to push for us to endorse Jake Knotts in the primaries this year.
Maybe you haven’t seen enough of that trait to believe in it. But I’m very, very conscious of it, because it’s caused me problems in my career. I had a falling out with a boss I was very close to years ago because he was an INTJ and I was an INTP (I knew this because we had actually been through an exercise in which all newsroom editors were tested, and we discussed each others’ types ad nauseam). He and I had worked on something very hard for a long time, and once he judged the result "good," that was it for him. He was enormously invested in it — he toured the country talking about how wonderful it was. Meanwhile, I was changing my mind, and began to speak against it, because I had concluded that the project was a practical failure as well as being conceptually flawed. It led to some ugly scenes. I was sorry that he felt betrayed, but neither that emotion nor the fact that he was my boss shut me up, to my detriment.
So no, it’s not true that once I’ve made up my mind, I don’t change it no "matter how much evidence there is to the contrary." You need to turn what you’re seeing and look at it from another angle. Basically, I don’t jump to the conclusions you do about McCain — which I see as based upon superficialities — BECAUSE of all the evidence I see, and have seen over a long period of time. Read David Brooks’ recent column for a point of view very similar to mine in this regard. Basically, I keep my mind on the overall picture of the man that endures. I believe you’re focusing excessively on crenellations, to return to the Rorschach analogy. By the way, after I wrote what I said above, I ran into this description of the aspect of the Rorschach I was trying to describe:
Particularly that last sentence. You have to add to this tendency of mine to go to the "heart" rather than fussing around the edges the fact that some the fact that some of very substantial things that have turned you against McCain are things that you and I disagree about to a huge degree. Take the immigration bill, for instance — you think it was hugely awful; I saw it as an instance of courageous, thoughtful leadership that is characeristic of the man. And I’ve always been puzzled by the amount of emphasis that you place on his not "fighting" back against Bush in 2000. I’ve always seen his demeanor then as a combination of two things: One, as an honorable man he was taken aback by such dishonorable behavior directed toward him. Second, his lifelong struggle with his temper (which has been so successful that his mildness actually stands out among politicians, but you always know it’s the product of a supreme act of will, of deliberate self-control — he CHOOSES to react mildly; I recognize it as the mildness of a strong man rather than of a weak one) would cause him to restrain his natural impulse to respond to such a dishonorably blow extremely (even, in his youth, violently).
You and I might actually agree on some of the things you object to. I can’t remember what you’ve said about Palin, but I see that decision as problematic. It almost seems like something he did as a spiteful response to the party regulars who refused to accept his first choice, my man Joe — an outward expression of his sublimated rage. And that’s not good. But to jump from that to he is "a partisan hack" — well, it strikes me as YOU lashing out by calling him the one thing that he is not. Really, it would be hard to come up with a characterization less fair, or less accurate. The Palin problem is that he gave some ground to the ACTUAL partisan hacks, who are his natural enemies. And giving ground is something a person who would lead the country — rather than always cherishing his "maverick" status — must do at times. THAT respect makes my ultimate judgment as to what I think about the Palin move a little ambivalent. One who would lead the country should give ground and make allowances for others — but did he have to do it to THAT degree?
Pardon me for the extended navel-gazing. Yes, I realized that I was going on and on about myself there, but I didn’t stop because the central purpose of the blog is to be open about my thought processes as an editor, even to the point of excessive self-absorption.
Funny that about that comment, as I read it back over. Although the subject was my continuing respect for John McCain, I think my going on and on like that was influenced by Barack Obama. I’m finally reading his first book at the moment, and I think it’s rubbing off on me. I think he’s my nominee for having been the most introspective 20-something in history. He sliced, diced, inspected, questioned and analysed himself to a degree that makes me, by comparison, look like Gary Cooper in "High Noon" (whose self-explanation extended no farther than, "I just gotta.").
Obama wrote this book about his youth, not when he as a youth.
Have you gotten to the part where Obama talks about cutting class to get drunk, smoke pot, and snort cocaine?
Pay attention when he talks about his Muslim prayers, and his love of Islam.
Pug Ravenel was not a citizen of South Carolina, nor a resident, long enough to meet the legal requirement, JUST LIKE OBAMA!
With each passing day McCain looks more and more and more ridiculous. Maybe I was just fooled in 2000. Then he seemed pragmatic, sensible and focused. He was a Maverick. Or was he? The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests McCain is nothing but a political hack now, taking one last shot at the White House. The Palin pick was just about as flagrant a political ploy as there has ever been in American politics. There couldn’t be a more obvious act of political expediancy to utterly disprove any remaining notion that McCain is thinking of country first. How can the Palin pick be viewed in any way shape or form as even remotely “superficial”. Brad even admits it was a decision made to spite those who objected to his choice of Lieberman. It was a selfish pick, one that I find abhorent. Yet inexplicably Brad continues to see McCain as this bipartisan Maverick. Stunning.
I see him as John McSame a political clone of George W. Bush. A selfish man with no respect for his principles. A man who when given a choice between what’s right and what makes John McCain happy, he’ll choose happy McCain everytime. How else can you explain his philandering ways. How else to explain a man who chooses the utterly incapable Palin to serve in a capacity one heartbeat away from the White House. McCain is a fraud with poor judgement. How else do you explain his association with Phil Gramm. He is a man who will turn his back on lifelong principals to get what he wants. How else can you explain his astounding torture flip-flop. That is not superficial, that’s underscores his character with devastating clarity.
McCain has assumed the bi-partisan mantle under false pretenses. But now it appears the country is catching on to this fraud. They see through his selfishness and greed. John McCain loves only John McCain. I for one will be glad to see this miserable old man go back to Arizona where he belongs. I for one will not miss John McCain.
McSame??? My god man, do you have an original thought or copy them from every political blog you fanatically subscribe to. That post was very very Rush-esque. Your viewpoints are actually getting kind of scary.
Yeah, bud gets carried away. But he has his good days, too.
bud has that Michael Moore movie memorized.
Brad,
The last major-party nominee for governor that actually got people who cared about the future of South Carolina excited was MARK SANFORD.
Too bad the newspaper sided against the people.