Some of you have probably seen the McCain ad trying to stir shit up amongst the Clintonistas and Obamaoists,

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 08:28 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Kathleen Parker argues the focus of the Saddleback Forum shouldn't be on who won, but was it the right thing to do in the first place. She argues here that events like the Forum are a religious test, and break down the wall separating church and state.  Honestly, after reading the whole thing, sitting back and thinking about it, I think she makes a good point. 

While I oppose the types of people who want really want to use the separation of church and state to bludgeon and destroy faith(Christian faith in particular), the separation is important, and needs to be upheld.  When we mix the two, the results are never good, and the church almost always ends up getting destroyed. That is why I'm opposed to Bush's faith-based initiatives, the second you let the state into the church, the state will try and usurp or destroy the church. 

One of the questions at this Saddleback shindig(of the limited amount I watched) was about imposing standards and regulations on the churches receiving faith-based initiatives.  Sure, McCain said he wouldn't do that, but that the possibility of the ability to impose that kind of regulation on a religious institution even exists is alarming.  That the question even was asked is worrisome. 

I think Parker's argument needs to be given serious consideration, the potential consequences of these types of religious-based events with presidential candidates weighed very carefully. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 08:09 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

A small Texas school district is now allowing educators and staff to carry if they have their Texas carry permits.  Malkin calls it good news, I call it great news.  I've talked about it in the past, but we had a minor shooting at the high school I attended.  Thankfully, we were lucky, and it stopped after one shot and no one died. 

That was luck, and not every school this happens in gets lucky.  Most don't.  If they had wanted to, the person could have killed or injured several more at our school without opposition, because no one had the means to oppose it.  I understand why people become anti-2nd after these attacks, particularly those who lose loved ones in them, but I completely disagree with their solutions to the problem.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 04:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the thing, I actually think these open flirtations with copyright infringement on the part of the McCain campaign and the GOP aren't that stupid, depending on what the ad is and how effective it is. 

Let's face it, the GOP is never going to get the go-ahead on using anything involving entertainment outside of Nashville, and even then in some cases.  This poses a problem, because the legal inability of the GOP to get the go-ahead on using music, images and film in their ads and messages makes it even tougher for them to connect with the public than it already is with an overtly hostile media. 

Like it or not, we live in a culture where celebrity is valued as much or even more than civics, which means you have to communicate in a manner that uses pop culture to convey a message to the masses. Sad, I know.  But it is what it is.

So what to do?  Seems like the GOP and the McCain campaign have figured out how to get around this problem of no access to pop culture.  They appear to have taken their cues from the intarwebs, and are just taking bits and clips from the entertainment world and using them. 

Which works, especially if the ad is effective, because then the media will pick it up and start playing the ad even after the copyright claim is sent out.  Even if the ad is up for 12-48 hours online, it is out there, and will likely get plenty of free airtime on all the talking head shows, particularly if the media finds it offensive to their Lord and Savior.

(h/t)

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 01:05 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

The inception of the blogging phenomenon occurred during a  break from worrying about Nuclear Holocaust and for that reason not many pixels have been spent on this topic. Looks like we're unlucky enough to have our opportunity.

The Moron-in-Chief:

You can't say that's not tough... but I am beginning to wonder about the incredible commitments to fight a nuclear war with Russia over these former enslaved states.

As a neocon, I recognize this is the moral position.

As a realist, I also recognize we're talking about global war with Russia over countries not named "America."

Unfortunately for Ace, he just made the same argument the left has been making since 9/11 against spreading freedom around the world.  Simultaneously, he overlooks an argument I know he's made a thousand times.

Correctly, he states the realist's view (and also the majority of the left) of a choice between having a nuclear war over Georgia and Ukraine or not having a nuclear war over Georgia and Ukraine.

On the neocon argument, he makes a mistake. That would be a choice between a nuclear war with Russia now or a nuclear war with Russia later.

Now, I'm not saying we're going to have a nuclear war with Russia nor that any serious conflict is inevitable.  It is entirely possible that Russia can pull out and the status-quo ante can be restored, more or less.  Even if they took over Georgia, it could be made clear that no further advances are acceptable and Putin may listen.  He may not.  The one wildcard is what, exactly, Russia wants out of this manufactured crisis.

What I am saying is if Russia is intent on spreading their influence over poor, defenseless neighbors they will not stop with tiny ex-Soviet Republics.  Most likely, the passive bystanding of the world's police will only encourage a hungry Russian Empire to grab the rest of the old satellites while the gun barrels are still warm.  Hell, why not take over all over Europe?  Seriously, have you see the state of their militaries lately?

Were Russia to be encouraged to continue pushing around their neighbors by American acquiescence, what possible future threat would yield any better results?  What would stop them from Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania?  How would we convince our NATO allies that they were worthy of defense when other, larger nations weren't? 

Then why not Poland?  Why not Slovakia?  The only thing that would eventually stop them is to finally draw a line in the sand somewhere.  The allies in World War 2 drew that line in Poland far later than they should have.  Are we to draw the line in Poland as well?  Or Germany?  France?

I leave it to people in positions of power to determine what the Russians want but if it is to rebuild their empire, it must be stopped and they must be told in no uncertain terms that we are willing to stop them. 

This aggression cannot stand. 

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 04:41 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

No, really. No economics degree, hell, not even any Journalism School training is needed if you've got killer insights like USA Today columnist Craig Wilson, who titles his most recent column—and I shit you not—The key to saving money? Just don't spend it:

With the year more than half over, maybe now is a good time to revisit the pledge I made back in January: the pledge not to buy anything for a year.

I did this five years ago and found the experience cleansing. And not that difficult, oddly enough. Many of you even joined me in my crusade to simplify. Others wrote in to question my sanity.

The rules, which I cleverly made up myself, remained the same and give me an out every now and then. I'm allowed to buy books and music because they are nurturing things. I can buy gifts for friends and spend for travel. Those are also good things. But just going out and buying things for myself, the answer remains the same.

I'm guessing that with those "rules," he still shops for groceries.

He goes on to mention that one of the purchases he reluctantly made was "a prayer stick, which I probably do need, but an unnecessary purchase nonetheless," which he bought during a visit to Ethiopia.

Posted by: Sean M. at 04:48 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

I have always been a Braves fan. I was a fan when they lost 100 games and were terrible throughout the 80's, and I was still a fan in the 90's when they went on their unprecedented division-title-winning run. During this time, they won exactly one World Series.

I am also a Colts fan. Over the last several seasons, the Colts were a super-scary team in the regular season, only to fall flat in the playoffs. During Manning's impressive tenure, the Colts have won exactly one Superbowl, and that one only barely.

Both teams have a very similar flaw: they peak too early. The regular season is impressive, but then they fail in the postseason.

I thought of this as I read the recent polls showing McCain and Obama virtually tied in the presidential race. This really shouldn't be: McCain is the successor to an unpopular president during an economic crisis not well-loved by his party, while Obama is the fresh face adored at home and abroad who has captured hearts and minds all across the political scene.

Yet consider this: in 2006 the Democrats captured congress thanks in no small part to widespread Republican incompetence and corruption. The electorate had had enough of GOP foolishness, and rewarded Democrats with their chance to run things, because the Dems promised they'd do better.

Their results? Not so spectacular, and not terribly different than their predecessors. A minimum-wage hike, some corruption scandalry (from both parties), several high-profile losses to a lame-duck president, and now stonewalling into a recess in the face of energy-price spiking Voters in the center (which include me) are seemingly faced with two choices:

Republicans, who are saying "we were stupid, but now we're smarter," versus Democrats, who are saying "we were smarter, but now we're stupid."

Which of those sound like the group that's peaking at this very moment? Thus the sports analogy about momentum:

The mid-term elections were very much the regular season, and Democrats won a resounding success. But now it's the postseason, and having floundered away their advantage (think of it as squandering a bye week) the Democrats have got to be worried that they're about to fumble an eminently winnable election.

Is it possible the Democrats (and Obama) have peaked too early?

Posted by: plebian at 04:23 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember last year's NYT op-ed piece by the two guys from the liberal Brookings Institution who returned from a trip to Iraq suggesting that the war could be won? Well, along with Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack (not conservatives, by any stretch) have just returned from another trip, and while they acknowledge the security gains that some have argued will benefit Obama's position on troop withdrawal, they say not so fast:

ALMOST everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq. The question is what to do about it.

Democrats led by Barack Obama want to take a peace dividend and withdraw all combat brigades by May 2010. Republicans like John McCain want to keep troops in Iraq until conditions on the ground signal the time is ripe. And now the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has endorsed a timetable for withdrawal, though he seems to favor a somewhat slower pace than the Democrats propose.

If the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we should go. But this would be a bad deal for both Iraqis and Americans. Iraq is indeed much more secure than it was two years ago, thus it seems safe to suggest timing goals for significant withdrawals. Yet having recently returned from a research trip to Iraq, we are convinced that a total withdrawal of combat troops any time soon would be unwise.

These mens' opinions are worse than useless. They are traitors to our peace and should be vilified.

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

Some German guy named Gerhard Spörl, writing in Der Spiegel, was really impressed by Obama's speech in Berlin. Shockingly, he believes that for anyone who saw his non-campaign rally campaign rally, "it is hard to imagine that John McCain still has any chance." I suspect most of the Germans who showed up believed the same thing. I also suspect most Germans also believed the same thing about John Kerry in 2004, but I digress.

I mention this article because Gerhard says the following, later in his column...

George W. Bush is yesterday, the Texas version of the arrogant world power. Obama is all about today: the "everybody really just wants to be brothers and save the world" utopia.

Let's allow ourselves to be warmed today, by this man at the Victory Column.

Posted by: Sean M. at 04:51 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

Raymond Rodriguez, a retired educator and walking cliché from Long Beach, is alarmed by the 25% dropout rate here in California's high schools:

The dropout rate is staggering, and everyone is trying to rectify the problem, or so it appears from the rhetoric. But are we really serious? Obviously not. It all begins in the classroom, with the teacher. Compare what we spend in time, money and effort to train a teacher with what we invest in training a fighter pilot. One gives meaning to life; the other's job is to end life. Whom do we value the most? There is your answer to the problem.

Posted by: Sean M. at 02:10 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, that's what this guy seems to think, anyway.  And I think he takes it personally.

Posted by: Sean M. at 04:32 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Just War. That's it.

Instead of explaining my theory, I'll show it to you by describing what I would have done when confonted with this situation.

Samir Kantar, one of Lebanon's most notorious militants, has been freed by Israel as part of a controversial prisoner swap which saw the dead bodies of two kidnapped soldiers returned to the Jewish State this morning.

Kantar and four other Islamists crossed into Lebanon at around 5.30pm local time, hours after Hezbollah handed back two black coffins containing the remains of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both Israeli reservists.

The soldiers' kidnapping at the hands of Hezbollah, in summer 2006, led to the second Lebanon War, which lasted a month and left 1,200 people dead. They will be buried on Thursday.

Kantar, meanwhile, had been held in an Israeli prison for almost 30 years for the 1979 murder of a father and his daughter, which has become etched onto the Israeli public consciousness.

In the first place, I would have never stopped hurting the people involved until I got my soldiers back alive.  I won't go into details because what I just wrote makes me look like a heartless monster.  Let's just say I don't believe, once a reasonable condition is established, anything is off the table.  Unresonable opponents deserve unreasonable(and in this case, terrifying) responses.

Now, they've given back 5 subhuman monsters including a man who by merely being alive proves the utter moral superiority of the Israelis.  They should have tortured that fucker to death. 

Know what the Moron Pundit Just War Theory demanded in this situation?  As soon as those fuckers crossed into Lebanon and we had our fallen warriors back, I'd have located that car and have every last one of the returned terrorists executed along with any person evil enough to be hanging out with them.

Then I'd drop a 2,000 lb bomb on Bashar Assad's favorite car as a warning.

Just war.  That's it.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 12:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

An open letter to the editors and staff at Townhall condemning their willingness to allow the anti-Semite dirtball Pat Buchanan's columns to appear there.  Where this reader argues Buchanan should be made to apologize, I don't, it'd never be sincere, Buchanan's anti-Semitism has been well known for ages. 

Buchanan should be purged from the conservative movement altogether, we allowed him back in a bit a few years after the WFB purge of Buchanan, and we never should have done that.  Buchanan should be driven out of any mainstream conservative publication, online or print, and left to his own to publicize his anti-Semitic garbage.

Moar: Buchanan's latest column at Townhall argues that Teh Joooooos are the cause of high oil prices. 

Like the Rott, I'll no longer be visiting or linking Townhall.com until Buchanan and all his "works" are purged from the site.  I'd encourage every other moronblogger who is opposed to Buchanan and his anti-Semitic filth voice their displeasure with Townhall and follow suit.  Any other site that hosts Buchanan's filth should be subjected to a similar embargo as well.  The only visit that should be made to Townhall is to the Townhall contact form to demand Buchanan be thrown off of Townhall.  Let's finish what Buckley started.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 03:13 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

Conde Nast's Matt Cooper has three female GOP politicians who have been looked over for vice president because those silly conservatives consider them ideologically impure.  His train wreck of an article is worth a read, but his cheerleading for Sen. Olympia Snowe was my favorite part (emphasis mine):

The senior senator from Maine has been in the Senate for 14 years and served in the House before that. She's married to a former Republican governor of Maine. She has close ties to the Bush family, which, of course, has kept a residence in Kennebunkport. She sits on the Armed Services Committee and knows defense policy intricately. She's been overlooked because she's a moderate, pro-choice, and had the temerity to vote against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

But while her nomination would surely annoy conservatives, I think the gain with centrists would be offset. She didn't support the Clinton tax hikes, although she didn't back the George W. Bush tax cuts, a position once held by McCain himself. Unless she's for raising taxes now, and she isn't, I don't see why she couldn't pass muster with the fiscal conservatives. Like McCain, she's a spending hawk. On choice, she just has to note that she's supported all of the conservative nominees that McCain has and that she will continue to support them, and while she's personally pro-choice, McCain is president and that's that. It'll be a ruckus, but McCain could stand some ruckus right now.

Independents don't donate.

Independents don't care about get-out-the-vote efforts. 

Independents are independent because they don't really have any deeply held philosophy of government, and therefore are not willing to fight to prevent an Obama presidenct.  After all, Sen. Snowe won't be solidly against that outcome.  Obama is against the Bush tax cuts and for abortion, just like she is.  The independents she would attract would feel the same way. 

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 12:46 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

I know I'm a freak but I like to actually read legislation before I rabidly denounce it. As with the Patriot Act, I feel completely baffled as to why people are so disturbed by the FISA amendment.

They say it violates the Fourth Amendment but I'm not sure how that can be true if it says this:

Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

• `(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
• `(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
• `(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
• `(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
• `(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is a voucher system that was signed into law by President Bush four years ago, and has been a very successful program in the DC area, with many students now able to escape the horrendous DC public school system to private and religious schools of their parents choosing.  Be sure to read that article, there are some very positive results already showing as a result of the program.  Unfortunately, there is a growing effort to dismantle the program by Democrats in Congress, and undoubtedly, the teacher unions are behind that effort.

The public school system needs their monopoly broken up.  Not only must this DC voucher program be defended but it should be implemented on a larger scale, even the liberal dunce of a mayor in DC is strongly supportive of this voucher system.  There is a large list of students hoping to get a voucher(over 7000!), and that list will undoubtedly continue to grow if the program is allowed to continue.

Competition would force our public schools to perform better, or maybe even replace public schools fully if the they could not compete.  Teacher unions, particularly the NEA don't want to compete, because they know it would lead to their weakening and possible demise, and will do whatever is necessary to shut down this fledgling program.  We can't let them succeed.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 02:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

While I agree with Ed Morrissey that this piece by the WaPo is an attempt to stir things up, the points the WaPo brings up are not to be dismissed, which is what Ed seems to be doing.  There could well be some nastiness at the Minnesota convention if McCain tries to change the Republican party platform to reflect his platform.  Ed doesn't seem worried, but he should be, says he,

How will McCain thread the needle?  Probably by allowing the activists to get what they want from the platform, while maintaining his own positions in the campaign.  It would be an easy way to allow conservatives to demonstrate their stewardship of the party, without binding McCain in any way for the general election.  A man with McCain’s military experience knows the value of a tactical retreat, allowing opponents to occupy essentially meaningless ground.

Methinks not, and I can point to McCain's repeated abandonment of his bogus "secure the borders first" rhetoric for starters.  We all know McCain's rhetoric when he does say he'll secure the borders is purely symbolic. 

Ed knows how important that symbolism alone is, McCain surely knows it too, and both know how charged this issue is and what a minefield it is for McCain. Yet McCain dares to abandon the "secure the borders first" rhetoric in regular intervals, even knowing that he may well lose the election as a result of angering people who demand immigration enforcement.  So the idea that McCain knows when to make a tactical retreat is ludicrous, approaching an insult to our intelligence.

Would anybody go to Vegas and bet their life savings on it?  I wouldn't bet more than $5 on it.  McCain is exactly the kind of arrogant, egomaniacal, intemperate twit who would go in and try and change up the GOP platform to suit his needs, and to presume otherwise just because common sense says he wouldn't shows a total lack of understanding of what  John McCain is.

I want to take a look at one other bit from Morrissey's post before I go on, so let's do that,

How many Republicans bother to read the party platform?  Most of the delegates won’t make the effort, mainly because it does nothing to bind candidates to the party positions.  Few if any voters of either party will even skim the party platforms, and even the media will use it only as a reference.  It’s a document meant for activists within the parties to stake out ground and for factions to demonstrate influence over the direction of the whole.

This is where Morrissey has it wrong, the McCainiacs have it wrong and the GOP or DIE brigades have it wrong.  This year, these things matter.  In the past decade, maybe two decades, any other year, Ed would be absolutely correct, the platform wouldn't mean a damned thing, and it would mean little more than a tiny core of activists and insiders jockeying for power.

This year is different, we've had a major shakeup in the GOP as a result of the collapse of Bush and the loss of the Congress in 2006, and it shook the party to the core.  We now have a er, Mexican standoff between the different factions of the GOP.  Everyone is feeling betrayed by the current leadership, and everyone is using the threat of walking away from the conservative coalition to try and get the out of control GOP leadership back in line.  Having any major faction in the broader coalition abandon the GOP would spell disaster for the GOP, and the nation at large, and anything could set any one of them off.

Beyond that, people like Mike Huckabee and McCain are actively encouraging this crackup of the coalition, as neither are conservatives and hope to create new coalitions by breaking apart the old order.  A major change to reflect the platform of John McCain would be a symbol to some factions within the GOP that indeed, McCain and non-conservative factions have succeeded in wresting control from them. 

That would spell electoral disaster for the GOP at large in 2008, much of the conservative base has already abandoned McCain as is, he isn't pulling in much money, he has little to no grassroots support, and has been largely abandoned by 527's.  Support for Republicans is weak already, alienating traditionally reliable supporters on the level McCain has already is a really big problem, and may have consequences downticket as well.   Even changing a symbolic measure like the otherwise ignored GOP platform could be the catalyst that shatters the already fragile coalition. 

So I have to ask, what will McCain's game be?  Does he see his candidacy primarily as the means to shatter the coalition with the hopes of creating a new one in his Mavericky image?  Or does McCain want to win the election, either by creating a new coalition or playing a careful game between being the moderate/independent while paying the bare minimum in political dues to the coalition?

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 11:16 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 6 kb.

That just about sums things up.

Stay-at-home-mom Heather Hammack grapples with tough decisions daily about how to spend her family's dwindling income in the face of rising food costs. One day, she priced strawberries at $1.75. The next day, they were $2.28.

"I could cry," she responds when asked how things are.

God, it's like The Grapes of Wrath all over again. Except with strawberries.

Posted by: Sean M. at 08:27 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, we've probably all heard the story of the woman who sang Lift Every Voice & Sing at the Denver city council meeting instead of the Star-Spangled Banner by now.  I see Baldilocks trying to get people to relax and not have a visceral knee jerk reaction to the song itself, which seems to be having the opposite effect, so let me try my hand at it. 

Lift Ev'ry Voice & Sing was a poem written by James Weldon Johnson in 1900, and was set to music by his brother John that same year.  Over time, the song became a subtle way to speak out against segregation, Jim Crow laws and racism in the early 20th century.  The NAACP of that era called it "The Negro National Anthem."

It faded in popularity in black culture, until it made a resurgence in the 60's and 70's, where it was sung after the Star-Spangled banner during many civil rights demonstrations and events, and it was often referred to as the Black National Anthem. 

From what I gather, to declare it a Leftist song, a Liberation(of the Rev. Wright variety) song or a "Black Power" song is a vast oversimplification, it has meant a number of things to a lot of different people with a lot of different ideologies over the 100+ years it has existed.  I think what Baldi is trying to explain to people is that they need to tread gingerly, because not having a grasp on what exactly you're attacking can lead to problems.  

Black Americans don't automatically associate Lift Ev'ry Voice & Sing with the sort of radical, aggro ideology of a Rene Marie, note again, in the 60's and 70's Lift Ev'ry Voice & Sing was sung after the Star-Spangled Banner.  What she did was not the norm by any means.

Undoubtedly, many black Americans probably just associate it with the civil rights movement itself, or the fight to end segregation law in the early 20th century, not the ridiculous Black Power characters we see dragged onto cable TV shows for the hosts to feign outrage and kick around every once in a while. 

What I think Baldi is trying to do is to warn people to take a breather, do their homework, and to not deploy a carpet bombing when a surgical strike is the better approach, because the collateral damage from a carpet bombing is unnecessary and counterproductive.  By attacking or falsely characterizing Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing itself instead of just this singer, people open themselves to false charges of racism, but false charges that could be effective at sowing discord and causing unneeded and unwanted destructive racial tension in our nation.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 05:01 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

The President of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Sammon, has offered a response to yesterday's op-ed by Gary Bauer, who insisted that the GOP should spend less time formulating policy and running on principle and more time scaring people about teh gheys!!! 

Both articles are worth reading, but I take issue with this analysis:

In 2006, the five Republicans who used marriage most prominently as a wedge issue all lost. Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.) and George Allen (Va.), Reps. John Hostetler (Ind.) [sic] and Anne Northup (Ky.), and Ken Blackwell (in his race for Ohio governor) tried to win with anti-gay campaign tactics. They didn’t necessarily lose because of their tactics, but these tactics didn’t prevent them from losing, as they might have a decade ago.

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 01:38 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.