July 20, 2006

7/20: Can't Live Without 'Em?

Perhaps the Blogometer thinks too highly of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) blog outreach dir. Peter Daou's influence in the progressive blogger community, but Pres. Bill Clinton announced early this a.m. that he'll campaign for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) but at deadline the Blogometer could find little criticism about Team Clinton. Meanwhile, Lieberman suffered through a fresh round of blog-bashing thanks to vague TPM Cafe posting suggesting he was considering a run as the GOP nominee. No doubt if Lieberman had a "Daou," that person would have nipped that story early. Finally Robert Bluey at The Right Angle surveys the conservative blogger community for candidates to fill a Daou like role for '08 GOP hopefuls.

CT SEN UPDATE: Kossacks React

The major CT bloggers (Spazeboy, My Left Nutmeg, Connecticut Blog, Connecticut Bob, and Lamont Blog) are wrapping Bill Clinton's announcement that he is campaigning for for Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) into their Quinnipiac poll posts. Most claim Team Lieberman chose to play the "Clinton card" only now that he is behind in the polls. The silence on the front pages of the major national blogs is deafening. Nothing on DailyKos' or MyDD's main page. Atrios has a one line link to a Jane Hamsher post that was originally about the Quinnipiac poll.

Meanwhile DailyKos diarist are not staying silent. A sampling of DailyKos diarist opinions:

• Ivan: "It's on! The Clintons have chosen their side, and I have chosen mine. We have to demonstrate that we can beat the Republicans our way, not the Clinton way. We can rant and rail against the Clintons, the DLC, Lieberman, and the lot, but unless we win elections, it's all academic.
• GiveMeLibertyOrDeath: "This is so infuriating and once again self-destructive for the Democratic public image and any hope of putting out a real message."
• shergald: "Remember that Clinton is part of the DLC movement, which believes that the country has moved right and that a centrist Democratic thrust is necessary to achieve electoral success. That meant compromise with the right. And who else has been more willing to compromise with the right: Lieberman."
• Hesiod: "I have always been suspicious that Bill and Hillary are playing Good Cop/Bad Cop on various issues. Hillary herself can't come out and endorse campaign for Joe Lieberman in the primary. But her husband can. And, this way they get to play both sides against the middle. She benefits from being a "good democrat" who won't disrespect Connecticut Democratic primary voters, and Bill can go out and campaign for Joementum so as not to alienate "moderates."
• CTLiberal: "Awww Bill Say it ain't so...I'm disappointed in him. I agree with your premise that Hillary and Bill are playing both sides..."
• Billy Shears: "More proof that the Clintons are obsolete as a political force. Let's dispose of them in the same dustbin we will put the Bush family in."
• oldjohnbrown: "What on Earth is he thinking? Sometimes I wonder if he is. I remember when Dean became DNC chair, Clinton in his speech for the occasion remarked something to the effect that 'nobody here disputes that NAFTA was good for the economy.' There's no way he didn't know that Dean did exactly that."
• Paleo: "I hope this is the final straw for all the remaining Clinton defenders on this board. The guy lives to screw the left. And he campaigns for a Holier than though Joe who condemned him during the Lewinsky affair. While the left was defending him!"
• JoeOhioan: "Is this really a big surprise? I mean, politicians are nothing if not incumbent protectors. And Clinton is just another politician, after all is said and done. A brilliant man, a great leader, and all that. But still a politician. Hell, not only a politician, but married to a politician. Married to an incumbent."
ActivistGuy: "Triangulator Bill knows he would have done to Joe what Joe did to him if the roles had been reversed. Holy Joe just laid a Sister Souljah moment on Bill is all. Peas in a pod. Very natural endorsement.
• John Campanelli
: "I don't have a problem with this I still think Lamont will win. But by bringing out the big guns in the form of the Big Dawg, Democrats simply make Lieberman that much more obligated to the party. If he does anything that flirts with the Republicans, party leaders can say, "We did all we could to help you and yet you still turn to Republicans to maintain your seat?" It would send the message home that Lieberman is devoted more to himself and not the party.
• IndyScott: "It's On Days Like This That I really think we have to consider a new political party and let the Democratic Party destroy itself."

CT SEN: A New Front Runner?

Progressive bloggers are celebrating Quinnipiac University's latest poll showing cable co. exec. Ned Lamont (D) ahead of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) 51% to 47% among likely Democratic primary voters. The Political Wire quotes Douglas Schwartz: "Lamont is up, while Lieberman's Democratic support is dropping. More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman. But Lieberman's strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

Greg Sargent at progressive hang-out TPM Cafe manufactured a mini blogswarm 7/19 after he asked the Lieberman campaign: "Will Lieberman or will he not rule out running on the GOP line if he loses to Lamont in August and it's offered to him?" Sargent wrote: "The question has been posed to Lieberman campaign deputy press secretary Noah Kores, and the campaign is mulling it." Sargent's "mulling it" line quickly flashed around the progressive blogosphere as if Lieberman had issued a press release announcing he was switching parties.

Under the header "Lieberman mulls running as a Republican" DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "I wish it was hyperbole. It's not." ConecticutBlog writes: "WTF!?! Joe's thinking about running as a Republican? Okay, at this point, how can any true Democrat in Connecticut vote for this guy in the primary?" Chris Bowers at MyDD: "I can't wait to see Lieberman's "Democratic" defenders support this move. Then, when he runs as a Republican, I can't wait to see those great defenders of personal responsibility (and no accountability) blame his party switch on someone besides Holy Joe." Swing State Project: "Now, I don't know if this press secretary A) made an unbelievable [mess up] that will later be repudiated, or B) leaked something that should've been kept private or C) is part of a campaign with a death wish for the August 8 primary. I do know, however, that there's no use in taking chances when you're betting on Joe Lieberman's integrity."

Some more responsible progressives tried to figure out exactly what happened. TPM Cafe commenter Maura in VA asked Sargent: "When you say, 'The question has been posed to Lieberman campaign deputy press secretary Noah Kores, and the campaign is mulling it,' does that mean you actually REACHED Noah Kores and he said the campaign is mulling it?" Sargent never responded on that comment board, nor in his follow up post reporting that "Lieberman would 'absolutely not' run on the GOP line."

The lefty but pro-Lieberman LieberDem sums up the episode: "The TPM Cafe blog ran a piece earlier today saying that Lieberman was "mulling" a run on the GOP line. The person who wrote the initial post did not speak at the time to anyone other than a rather low-ranking member of his press staff. DailyKos and other outlets quickly picked up on the piece, saying that Lieberman was "mulling" a GOP bid. ... Such a claim was obviously bogus from the start. The reality is that the people at TPM were simply unable to get a hold of someone sufficiently empowered to speak for Lieberman, and so speculated that the non-response of the staffer somehow meant Lieberman was "mulling" becoming a GOPer. I doubt even the Kossacks bought into the story; they just wanted another excuse to get "Lieberman" and "Republican" in the same sentence for the umpteenth time."

Natural Born Killers producer and progressive Jane Hamsher adds these highlights two new CT SEN You Tube efforts. At firedoglake she interviews Lamont on why he loves public appearances, CT-04 nominee Diane Farrell (D)'s new Iraq focus, Lieberman's negative ad campaign. At The Huffington Post Hamsher posts a video of Lamont criticising Lieberman for being "all Iraq all the time" and for not supporting Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) censure resolution. Also she writes: "The starling admission by Lieberman communications director Marion Steinfels that she doesn't even watch the powerful YouTube videos made by Lamont's supporters that have spread like wildfire through the internet and done so much damage to the Lieberman campaign. Joe's answer to the beating he's taking from video bloggers? Don't watch them, and pretend they don't exist."

Finally TNR's Jonathan Chait announces his support for Lieberman is wavering: "The view that Lieberman is unique is starting to seem more persuasive to me. ... while Democrats disagree on how to make the best of the Iraq fiasco, Lieberman is left as basically the only Democrat who doesn't think the Iraq war has been a fiasco.

USA Today's 7/16 article on '06 primary turnout has DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas feeling "pessimistic." Kos writes: "Democrats are so afraid to lead and inspire, that rank and file Democrats are unmotivated to turn out. And it won't matter how poorly Republicans do, and how many Republicans tune out of the electoral process, if we can't get our own people to vote. ... It's not too late to motivate and inspire Democrats, and there's evidence that national Democrats have gotten the memo and have ratched up the rhetoric."

Fellow activist Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the same article and sees more positive news: "Clearly, turnout is down overall. However, that does not mean turnout id down among every demographic group. Look for two groups to buck the trend in particular." Bowers identifies young people and immigrants as two groups voting more heavily but also warns: "There is a key similarity between these two demographic groups: both have fluid partisan loyalties. While both may lean toward Democrats, those leanings are not guaranteed at all."

Conservative Captain's Quarters notes a new wrinkle to Gallup's latest '08 polling: "A new Gallup poll measures the viability of potential presidential candidates in 2008, and it contains a number of surprises. Gallup did not ask respondents to endorse one particular candidate but instead to indicate their acceptability or unacceptability as a potential party nominee." CQ pays attention to the candidates negatives: "Dick Cheney rated 61% to take the prize in unacceptability, but others show large hurdles in gaining traction among Republican voters. Jeb Bush, George Pataki, and Newt Gingrich all have majority-unacceptable ratings, and the latter has made clear that he's seriously considering a run at the nomination. Of the 13 candidates listed, Giuliani and Rice have the lowest negative ratings, 25% and 29% respectively. George Allen, one of the conservative favorites, has an acceptable/unacceptable rating of 36/35, but has 29% undecided. Only Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee have more unknown votes."

Other reactions from the right:

• Shot In The Dark: "What is most notable in the Republican data is the substantial proportion of party supporters (41%) who would consider McCain an unacceptable nominee for their party."
• Right Wing News: "First place among Republicans is Rudi, with 73% acceptable rating and only 23% calling him unacceptable. Those are nice numbers that have a lot to do with his charisma, leadership, and the well deserved tough guy rep he gained by cleaning up New York. But, can an adulterer who supports gay marriage, gun control, and abortion come out on top in a Republican primary? It seems highly unlikely."
• John McIntyre at RCP Blog: "Interestingly Giuliani also leads among the potential field as the candidate Republicans find least objectionable, with only 25% describing Giuliani as "Not Acceptable." McCain polls in the middle with 41% saying he is "Not Acceptable, " though that is better than Romney, Frist, Gingrich, Brownback and Jeb Bush."
• Evangelicals For Mitt: "If you actually read the stats, roughly 4 in 10 Republicans disapprove of virtually every real would-be candidate. The only exceptions are Allen (whose 35 percent number is nothing to write home about), Rice (who is not running), and Rudy (whose social liberalism is not widely known). Suffice it to say our party is not in a genial mood. As the true agendas of both Mayor Guiliani and Gov. Romney become more widely known, the former's numbers will tank and the latter's will soar.

On the left, Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at the results for the Dem field: "One thing to note about this poll is that when people have never heard of someone, they seem to break toward "unacceptable" on that person. For example, according to Pew, in April Russ Feingold only has a 28% name ID nationwide. However, 70% of the people responding to this poll seem to have an opinion of whether or not he would be an acceptable choice. The same problem seems to be affecting Warner and Vilsack. ... Given that, who are these numbers really bad for? Wesley Clark, John Kerry and Howard Dean (not that Dean was considering running). All three have pretty high name recognition (69% for Dean, 74% for Clark, and 99% for Kerry). All three also have high "unacceptable" ratings: 40% for Kerry, 49% for Clark and 54% for Dean. Who are these numbers good for? Edwards, Clinton and Gore, but especially Edwards. The guy has a much lower name recognition than either Gore or Clinton, yet higher acceptable ratings. It still blows my mind that more people don't take him seriously in 2008. He could really run the table--and I say that as a supporter of someone else."

Robert Bluey at The Right Angle notes Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) "has already hired her own "blog adviser" -- a job that each presidential campaign will have to fill," and asks "Where does that leave Republicans? ... Here's my list of eight potential "blog advisers" who could fit the Daou/Armstrong model on the right." Bluey goes on to plug: RedState co-founder Mike Krempasky; Bush-Cheney '04 eCampaign manager Chuck DeFeo; Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott; RNC eCampaign director Patrick Ruffini; RedState managing editor Erick-Woods Erickson; Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) "spokesblogger" David All; Human Events contributor Matt Lewis; and APCO Worldwide's Spencer Whelan.

The Corner's Anthony Dick doesn't think Gallup's new poll should be great news for ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani: "I don't think it's quite right to say that the poll really demonstrates that 'Rudy has the most appeal among Republicans.' Rather, the poll merely shows that more Republicans find him acceptable than any other candidate. In an election, there's an important distinction to be drawn between being merely widely 'acceptable' and actually 'having the most appeal': You can be considered 'acceptable' by a lot of people without being the first choice of a single one of them. So even though Rudy might be just plain 'acceptable' to most Republicans, it still might be the case that all of them have a stronger preference for someone else."

Also at National Review Online, Greg Pollowitz keeps track of who Giuliani has campaigned for: "Rich posts over in the Corner that, "The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on." Reed did have one friend during the primary, however ... Rudy."

Evangelicals For Mitt thinks the Beltway is overplaying Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) UT Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. endorsement: "Huntsman likes McCain's take on immigration, which the vast majority of the conservatives who will be voting in the 2008 GOP primaries abhor. And we're supposed to view this move, then, as something that "strikes deep into the political base of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another of the potential contenders for the Republican nomination?" Sorry, but no."

Libertarian GOPer Ryan Sager at RCP Blog notes a Salt Lake Tribune story reporting that filmmaker Mitch Davis is forming a 527 to fund a movie about Mormonism and MA Gov. Mitt Romney. Sager quotes the SLT: "Davis' campaign -- which he acknowledges likely will start with donations from sympathetic Utahns -- could end up helping Romney make his religion a non-issue or end up reinforcing the cultish image many Americans have of the faith." Sager comments: "I'm going to guess the latter. Here's Davis's IMDB page, which also has information on a religiously themed project he has out in 2006.

Tom Bevan at the right-leaning RCP Blog is not impressed with the Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) campaign's use of doctored world tower images in an attack ad: "Apparently some moron thought it would be a good idea to add computer generated smoke to a pictue of the towers. ... I hate to beat a dead horse over the issue of fairness and hypocrisy, and I know Republican outrage was already at ear-shattering levels over the DCCC video, but how much louder do you think they would have screamed if Democrats had not only used images of fallen soldiers in a political video, but had doctored them to enhance the effect?"

TPM Muckraker picks up on an AP report that "the ad was created by Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, the same shop that produced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in 2004." TPM Cafe has video of the ad.

Patrick Casey at National Review Online posts Rasmussen Reports latest RI poll showing Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R) at 41% to ex-AG Sheldon Whitehouse's (D) 46%. Casey also notes: "Rasmussen is wary on polling for the Republican Primary, as it is an open primary that allows independents to vote, but does note that Chafee's primary opponent Steve Laffey polls better with Republicans (61%) than does Chafee (52%), and that Chafee is viewed favorably overall by only 46% of the Republicans. ... If Laffey does win the primary, which is entirely possible, he will have two foes other than Whitehouse to worry about. The first is the NRSC itself which has little credibility now in Rhode Island and whose ads against Laffey will be used by the Whitehouse campaign. The second is the Providence Journal which will be as in bed with Whitehouse then as it is in bed with Chafee now."

Tom Schaller at the liberal TAPPED shares a rumor he picked up from a DSCC fundraising event in Nantucket: "Donors were very impressed by candidates Sherrod Brown (OH), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Jon Tester (MT), but that Virginia nominee Jim Webb fell flat. Somebody close to Webb told me that, to put it rather bluntly, Webb just isn't good at the ass-kissing that (some) Democratic donors expect."

Schaller admits to "a grudging respect for candidates who don't prostrate themselves to donors," but also wonders if Webb is going to have to change his tune to succeed against Sen. George Allen (R): "Still, if the recent cash on hand numbers are any indicator, for all his other political and personal assets, if he isn't prepared to do a little groveling, Webb ($424K) is simply not going to come close to having the kind of advertising monies he will need to upend a suddenly not-so-invincible George Allen ($6.6M that's for million). This may be a sad statement about contemporary politics, but it is what it is."

The progressive blogosphere were quick to portray Pres. Bush as the enemy of science and sick people everywhere following his 7/19 veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. DarkSyde at DailyKos captures the tone: "If and when the day comes that a cute kid stands up and walks away from his wheelchair for good, the President and the right-wing culture of death are going to appear about as appealing as the theocrats who imprisoned Galileo." The Reaction hits a similar note: "Well, Mr. President? You talk about "a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect," which must sound nice to your base, but all you prove with this veto is that you are closed off - politically and morally - to the possibilities of science and to a beneficial (and hopefully benevolent) technology that will save the lives of the living."

Also on the left The Carpetbagger Report noted how quickly the Beltway can move when it wants to: "For a slow-moving bureaucracy, Republicans in Washington sure can move quickly when they want to. It's almost as if Republicans are counting on voters forgetting all about this as the election season moves forward. It'll be up to Dems to make sure they don't." Meanwhile AMERICAblog wonders why Bush keeps his conservative base in the closet: "Seriously, how many times does Bush have to treat the religious right and its agenda like pariahs before they get the picture? Remember how during the gay marriage White House speech Bush hid the leaders of the religious right from the TV cameras?"

Many on the right cried foul at MSM coverage of the issue. The Anchoress: "It never fails that when the press discusses things like President Bush vetoing this bill, they leave out the word EMBRYONIC. They want the world to think that Bush is a "Christian who is afraid of science," and so they always discreetly forget the EMBRYONIC part, leaving casual readers to think the president is against adult stem cell research, in general which is not at all true." Confederate Yankee: "Frankly, I'm with the President on this one: I'm against killing human embryos to create cancer, when adult stems cells are already clinically proven to work." Power Line: "But the politics of the issue are deadly for conservative Republicans. Because of poor reporting and misleading headlines, I suspect that most Americans do not understand that "embryonic stem cells" is not synonymous with "stem cells," nor are they aware of the considerable doubts among many scientists about the benefits of this research."

Other conservatives spun the veto as a principled stance against run away spending. RedState: "It is fitting that the President's first veto would erase a bill to increase spending. Somehow, many in the Republican Party who are opposed to increased spending have a blind spot on this morally divisive issue - perhaps some are merely opposed to increased spending on programs they dislike, and change their minds when it's something that social conservatives care about."

Pro-stem cell research libertarian Ronald Bailey at Hit and Run wonders if GOP blocking of federal funding has actually slowed any research: "The restrictions probably have slowed research a bit because researchers have had to build completely new infrastructure using private donations and state funds in order to avoid mixing federal funds from their other research. In other words, stem cell researchers who want to work on new stem cell lines have to find money to pay for new standalone labs, new microscropes, new petri dishes, and so forth. On the other hand, President Bush's limits on research have provoked an outpouring of private and state funding that I have argued previously may well exceed whatever federal funding might have otherwise been available." Meanwhile the reliably conservative and anti-embryo user Captain's Quarters also sees little impact from the lack of federal funds: "The lack of federal funding should make little difference, if the science is sound for hESC. It's not, or at least it isn't commercially viable, which is why researchers want the federal government to pay for it. Pharmaceuticals won't underwrite it because adult stem cells and umbilical-cord stem cells have had much more success. They have produced actual medical treatments, where hESCs have had little real success."

The GA LG post-mortems continued on the left and right. At National Review's The CornerRich Lowry passes along the official Ralph Reed explanation: "Once the Abramoff stuff exploded, it was going to be a very tough road for Reed. Glen Bolger did a poll for the campaign in January showing that it was possible for Reed to win, but his negatives were very high and he would have to squeak by. ... Reed's connection to the Abramoff stuff had broken back in the summer of 2004, so it couldn't have been predicted that it would be such a huge deal even now. But it was. The Reed camp blames John McCain for playing payback for his 2000 primary defeat with a campaign of leaks, and the press, of course, was happy to pile on. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran dozens and dozens of stories about the scandal. Outside liberal groups might have spent upwards of a quarter-million on the race."

Erick at conservative RedState weighs in: "The Abramoff scandal weighed Reed down. When Casey, at the end of the race, decisively made the case that "Ralph Reed's values are for sale," there was no where left for Ralph Reed to go. Few people, including yours truly, thought Casey could be a giant killer. But now we know he is."

The Moderate Voice broke focussed on the corruption charges as well: "The significance of this loss can't be understated: (1) There was a time when Reed and the group he represented was considered the can't-lose wave of the GOP political future, (2) Reed was considered sort of the Karl Rove of the Christian Coalition - a guy who had the credentials, the job title and the political smarts to rise...and rise FAST, (3) This shows that there CAN be some political fallout from the corruption scandals of the past few years, (4) This shows that GOPers can't simply assume voters will simply dismiss or ignore allegations of corruption and people who seem to be ethically challenged."

The left was happy to see Reed go. Atrios writes: "From my memory, Reed is a symbol of the dawn new era in the media, where anyone cloaking themselves in (Christian) religion was treated with obscene deference. He was a political operative from the beginning, yet I remember him back in the old days being treated with reverence as he'd make the talk show rounds. I'm not sure how important it is in the grand scheme of things, but it'll be nice to see golden boy go down." Fellow lefty Legal Fiction: " I've said my peace on this many times, but Reed's gambling tactics are about as close as one can get to the Platonic ideal of hypocrisy."

Turns out not all bloggers are hung up on pols, stars and tech: a Pew Poll finds that the "ease and appeal of blogging is inspiring a new group of writers and creators to share their voices with the world. A national phone survey of bloggers finds that most are focused on describing their personal experiences to a relatively small audience of readers and that only a small proportion focus their coverage on politics, media, government, or technology."

Mystery Pollster notes that footnote #2 in their latest report on Internet activities. The wording of the question changed slightly. In earlier studies, they asked: 'Do you ever use the internet to read someone else's web log or blog?' In this latest study, they asked: 'Do you ever use the internet to read someone else's online journal, web log or blog? [emphasis added]' As I read it, absent a side-by-side experiment testing the two versions of the question, we cannot be absolutely certain that the increase is real and not the result of the change in wording."

MyDD'sChris Bowers was struck by "how the demographics of the blogosphere as a whole were very different than the demographics of the political blogosphere. ... By way of contrast, the median age for members of the progressive political blogosphere is much higher -- in the mid-40's. There are more men than women in the progressive blogosphere, with men currently making up over 60% of the progressive blogosphere, but that ratio is slowly approaching equity. ... While there is no really good data on race / ethnicity within the progressive political blogosphere, it is a safe bet that we are no where that diverse."

Romenesko at Poynter points out copyright protections are being ignored because though "Just over a third of bloggers polled say they engage often in journalistic activities such as verifying facts and linking to source material, according to a Pew Internet & American Life Project report. Sixty-one percent say they rarely or never get permission to use copyrighted material."

On 7/19 The Corner's John Miller "blegged" his readers for help finding a Milton Friedman quote on the importance of think tanks. On 7/20 a reader sent along this quote from Friedman's 1982 Capitalism and Freedom: "Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable."

LEST WE FORGET: Tent Pitching

Right Wing News sat down with NV Gov. candidate and ex-porn star Mimi Miyagi. Highlights include:

John Hawkins: When did you start getting into politics and what drew you to the Republican Party?Mimi Miyagi: I am an avid supporter of bearing arms since 2001 ... I love the people in the (Republican Party). I have been to some of the Democratic parties here and there, but the positivity, the upbeat attitude of the Republicans was more for me.

John Hawkins: So, you kind of thought the Democrats were pessimistic and negative?Mimi Miyagi: ...I don't like all the mudslinging and a lot of the things they say about the Republicans really (aren't) true. The Republican Party is about individualism, it's about freedom, it's about lowering taxes. That is something I truly believe in.

The Right Angle links to the post and asks: "The GOP is known to have a big tent, but maybe not this big."

Posted by Conn Carroll at July 20, 2006 12:39 PM