My oldest brings us two plus minutes of... well... just watch:...
4:56 PM |
1 comments
The House ethics committee found Rangel guilty of multiple house rules. CNN has a breaking news article on the topic but so far it doesn't contain any more information than...
12:19 PM |
16 comments
A picture is often indeed worth a thousand words, so no need to say much else. Hat tip: Hot Air....
12:10 PM |
5 comments
If you're Newsweek, you claim the job's too big... for any man:Can any single person fully meet the demands of the 21st-century presidency? Obama has looked to many models of...
6:31 AM |
41 comments
Unbelievable. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), accused of a stunning array of corruption charges, involving lots and lots of money gained through illicit means (tax evasion, unreported income, unjustified benefits, and...
6:00 AM |
44 comments
They had me at... How can Americans create private sector jobs? The solution to America's jobs problem lies not with budget-busting federally mandated "stimulus" programs. Ah, your smal-government lower-regulation...
8:27 PM |
7 comments
That's Obama's description of Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake aka Chief Sitting Bull in a new book he's written for children called Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters: President Obama's picture...
8:26 PM |
10 comments
Before the Sarah Palin fans out there get up in arms, hear me out. My main point is this. Sarah Palin would be much more effective supporting causes like fiscal...
5:00 PM |
35 comments
Over the weekend, my colleague Rick posted a piece about the latest strain of violence in Iraq -- the deliberate targeting of that nation's relatively few Christians. And that got...
4:00 PM |
10 comments
Well, it seems that everyone's upset about the new airport security measures -- either the body scanners that essentially strip you naked, or the "patdowns" that pretty much equates to...
2:00 PM |
39 comments
Comments (4)
Don't forget that this come... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Falze | April 30, 2007 10:03 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Don't forget that this comes on the heels of her plain-spoken denial that the campaign would be dropping the Rodham. Quite the trustworthy lass.
1. Posted by Falze | April 30, 2007 10:03 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on April 30, 2007 10:03
2. Posted by Scrapiron | April 30, 2007 11:20 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
The dropping and picking up of names seems to be a habit with the mental retarded democrats. Don't I remember a Heinz becoming a Kerry for the duration and losing cause in a recent election, and the picking up of Heinz again after the loss.
The democrats have bacame a comedy within, dangerous to the survival of the United States, but still a comedy.
2. Posted by Scrapiron | April 30, 2007 11:20 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on April 30, 2007 11:20
3. Posted by Jim Addison | April 30, 2007 2:43 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Obviously someone's been doing some polling on the issue.
I expect it was just a gut feeling which led Hillary to add the "Clinton" in the first place, which she had originally declined, for Arkansas politics. You can bet, though, that wealthier candidates like Edwards and Kerry had the poll numbers in front of them before their wives suddenly became more traditional spouses and adopted their last names - even temporarily. Likewise for the Rodham-Clinton campaign today . . . I thought her best bet was simply to reprise her 2000 Senate persona of "Hillary!" No muss, no fuss, no messy middle or last names to hide, reclaim, or defend.
I suppose we can't blame politicians for engaging in such cynical charades, given the remarkable success rate.
3. Posted by Jim Addison | April 30, 2007 2:43 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on April 30, 2007 14:43
4. Posted by Elizabeth Edwards | May 19, 2007 10:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Just so you know, I did not change my name to Edwards when my husband ran for the US Senate in 1998. I changed my name in 1996 when our son died. I stopped practicing law then, too. I wanted to have his headstone and mine have the same name. It is tough enough out there without having to respond to someone's speculation.
4. Posted by Elizabeth Edwards | May 19, 2007 10:50 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 19, 2007 10:50