Sweet jeezus Steve, thanks for the visual on that one. thats gonna stick in my head like a never ending ride in "its a small world"

He also took on Juan today on Hume about stem cell research.

I'm getting the impression Juan's being checked by the other side and doesn't like it.

CeCe was also on today - yuck, thought they got rid of her.

I think I just had a McGreevey moment...

It would be better if I didn't know what you both looked like (then I could pretend "I" = Michelle Malkin and "Charles Krauthammer" = Salma Hayek)

I do have a question though...Why is it that no one ever has a problem with George Soros giving all sorts of money to groups whose only purpose in life is the destroy George Bush? (I know the answer. It just pisses me off.)

"Nothing gay about this" said the inmate to his bitch.

Hmmm.

I just read "Unfit for Command" last night. The short and sweet summary of the book:

Kerry's a lying dirtbag that deserves to be hung up by his toes.

If this book isn't completely factual then Kerry's got a really good defamation case. If this book is factual then I can honestly say that, had I served with Kerry, I would have shot his ass.

I did a write up on R.L. Simon's blog. If anyone wants it I'll repost it here, otherwise head over there and check it out.

Kerry just comes off so badly it's just incredible.

Was it a poster on Dailypundit who wrote that he knows a newsman and this book is radioactive?

A good zinger from Krauthhammer, but the second part of his column misses the critical story of Kerry's time at the front. He's on record saying he did and experienced certain things that changed his world view; that in fact led him to his anti-war actions in Washington. Specifically, his secret missions (yes, now its missions) to Cambodia which everyone in the blogosphere knows were seared into his memory. So, although Krath is right that voters, if forced to judge Kerry and Bush on their Vietnam experiences, will most likely go with Kerry because he was actually at the front, I suspect that position might be torn down or at the very least neutralized if they come to learn that Mr. Kerry has serially misrepresented (oh, let's say it - lied about)his actions under fire and that he engaged in covert missions. These statements of Kerry's are not the same as his testimony concerning the rescue of Rassman. That is fog of war stuff. But the Cambodia stuff is the fog of fantasy in Kerry's mind. Krath appears to be doing what the rest of the officially sanctioned punditry are doing - ignoring Kerry's fantasy creations of time spent in Cambodia.

Let's leave the truth or not of the SVT accusations to one side for just a minute and consider tactics.

In a week or so the fuss about Christmas 1968, and the initial SVT ad, will blow over.

Then the SVT will, I'd expect, run ANOTHER ad -- focusing not on Kerry's time IN Vietnam, but afterwards. John FONDA Kerry's anti-war activities.

So Carville and company are going to do, what, exactly? Say the SVT are financed by rich Republicans? Old news, buddy. That's just so very "last August". This is September, and what NEW response have you got for the NEW accusation?

Won't it be interesting to see?

Pouncer, I like the way you think.

Just a random thought, but wasn't McGreevey the name of the post man from Mister Roger's? Or was that McFeely?