This entry was posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:16 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I wonder what E.J. Dionne ever did to hack off Joe Scarborough? Joe never resists the opportunity to take a slap at him. Joe has made an effort in the last twelve months to be more liberal friendly, but it doesn’t apply to their columnists.
I don’t often watch MSNBC, but it was on one of the screens last night at the gym… and finally, I understand why they haven’t found much time to talk about Solyndra. O’Donnell -who according to Newsbusters, still hasn’t mentioned Solyndra- needed to devote an entire segment to the Jackson/Murray trial! And of course, you can’t just talk to anyone about such a story of national importance. No. You have to interview someone who knows about these things… and luckily, they had one on staff, so O’Donnell was joined my Shapton (who also hasn’t found time to talk about Solyndra) so they could converse on the subject.
Phew! And here, I thought they were avoiding it because they were so heavily partisan, they can’t bring themselves to do the bare minimum of reporting, or show even a modicum of journalistic integrity. But that’s not it! They’re not shameless water carriers! They’re just too busy!
And really, when you stack the stories side to side, is it so hard to see why one gets attention, while the other doesn’t? Millions and millions of tax payer dollars wasted to put the cart before the horse, and prop up an industry that isn’t yet ready for prime time… or the murder trial of a celebrity?! Really, it’s not even close.
I couldn’t care less about Solyndra (good cause, bad bet, not quite “Haliburton enough” for me), but the Michael Jackson coverage with Al Sharpton was laughable. “Hey, Jacxkson was (sorta) black, let’s get our black guy in here to talk about it.” Ridiculous.
That was sort of like when they brought in the Telemundo guy to ask an immigration question at the debate, and then shooed him off stage.
The issue with Solyndra is not so much the bad bet, but why, when it became clear that the company would not be able to meet its financial obligations, the administration restructured the loan to put Obama’s investor friend ahead of the taxpayers in bankruptcy. That basically insured that the government would never get its investment back. What possible legitimate reason could there have been for the government to agree to stiffing itself?
I agree with you IAMNOTBLUE on most everything you said except the “prop up an industry not ready for prime time”. Actually it is ready and is thriving… own it’s own. The question is what the heck is the government doing in it spending billions of taxpayer dollars picking winners and losers? Perhaps for a stage Obama can put on his green jeans and impress the environmental wing? Perhaps as a reward for some big Democrat donors as the stink rising off the dead Solyndra carcass is starting to indicate.
Imus Guest Chris Wallace, The GOP & The Theater OF The Absurd.
Mitt Romney can’t poll above 25% that leaves 75% who want someone else for their Presidential nominee. Chris Wallace, made reference to the Republican base “Waiting For Godot”. The play by Samuel Beckett, that is performed in the Theater Of The Absurd. The Republicans still haven’t found who they’re looking for. Imus In The Morning.
At this time in 2008 Rudy Giuliani was well ahead in the polls and it turned out he was not what the Republicans were looking for. Way too early to get carried away with any meaningful conclusions.
What is the difference, for you, between Solyndra, and Enron? And what do you think of all the evidence of government involvement, and political kickbacks? And why is it acceptable (or passable) for MSNBC to ignore the story? Wouldn’t you complain if the tables were turned, and it was a Republican administration and FNC that was dodging the story?
@ Larry
“Not ready for primetime,” meant that the company wasn’t ready for the mass market, and wasn’t on solid financial footing… which clearly, it wasn’t. I chose to go that route, instead of the “government involvement” way (which is a valid question) simply because Solyndra’s fiscal mismanagement is less of an opinion, and more of a fact, and when making such an argument, I’ve learned to stick to the simple stuff, lest someone use the other parts to distract from the real debate (MSNBC not covering Solyndra).
Blue, it’s more a matter of my laziness/cynicism than the actual facts of the story. The government/business money-mismanagement stuff makes my eyes glaze over. It’s screwed up on both sides, and I’m not enough of a fan of the current administration to be surprised/shocked by it. The whole government/big-business system is an incestious morass of Big Money bandied back and forth between Big People. I hate all of it.
What percentage of those protesters could even describe what they’re protesting?
Not as clueless as the tea partiers are when they’re out there protesting with their signs reading “Government hands off of my Medicare!” and “No more death panels!” They aren’t known as the sharpest tools in the tool shed.
Exactly. “Smaller government” isn’t exactly a specific. Ask most Tea Partiers which parts of the government they want downsized or eliminated, and they will assiduously avoid the ones that are currently sending them a check.
One group is electing representatives and running candidates, the other side is screaming impotently, blocking doors, and testing their Mace endurance. I’ll take the “Tea Party” end of that equation.
Can we start to save time and effort by just writing, “I know you are, but what am I?” That way, instead of answering questions with unrelated deflections, which don’t answer anything, and attempt only to dodge uncomfortable situations, we (as the readers) don’t have to waste time reading that nonsense.
I’m just trying to look out for everyone. The folks who have to try to read the foolishness, and the folks who waste everyone’s time (including their’s) by writing it.
Koch is a prime mover of a Tea Party movement which has the same schizophrenic relationship to “big government” he does. There’s an intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the movement that Rick Perry exposed: It’s easy to say “small government”, but when you start explaining to real people what you’re really talking about, that bumper sticker starts to lose its power.
Once you get people dependent on government, it’s hard to get them back. Duh. That is exactly why the President and the Democrats were willing to give up their majority in order to get government power over healthcare. It wasn’t a ‘mistake’ or an ‘overreach’, it was a knowing sacrifice. They knew that once the government got it’s hands on it, then the Party of Government would reap the long-term benefit. They didn’t give a damn what was in the bill,or how much it screwed the system up, as long as the precedent was set.
That’s what the Tea Party is fighting, and I couldn’t give a good goddamn about Charles Koch.
I don’t care that you don’t care about about a filthy rich propenent of removing the safety net from poor people while he promotes it for his buddies. It bothers me.
You know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist, right? Thought that blacks and disabled people should be sterilized? That’s about as significant to anything as what Charles Koch said thirty or forty years ago. I prefer to obsess over things that actually mean something.
My supposition is clear, and refers to my original Tea Party comment. There’s a band of people out there mindlessly chanting that All Government Programs Are Evil, while taking advantage of them, and rejecting a candidate who calls them “unconstitutional” and “a Ponzi scheme”.
If you can’t connect the dots from someone saying the Wall Street protests are vague, to my declaration that the Tea Party’s aren’t a helluva lot more grounded, I can’t help ya. I’ve got payroll to do, and taxes to pay. Tootles.
Oh, I think we can connect the dots. We just can also see how tissue thin your non-answer is.
When asked if the folks know what they’re protesting, you respond with an unrelated attack on the Tea Party. It basically says, “I don’t know, and can’t defend them, so I’ll just attack something else instead.” Do you think we don’t recognize that? Do you think this tactic works? Or does appearing pathetically unable to discuss certain things not bother you?n asked if the folks know what they’re protesting, you respond with an unrelated attack on the Tea Party. It basically says, “I don’t know, and can’t defend them, so I’ll just attack something else instead.” Do you think we don’t recognize that? Do you think this tactic works? Or does appearing pathetically unable to discuss certain things not bother you?
It’s what liberals do. They spent twenty years trying to tear down Rush Limbaugh, because they have this magical belief that people would stop agreeing with him. It’s a tactic that never works, and unfortunately, conservatives often choose to respond in-kind. Done it myself. People’s core-beliefs won’t be nit-picked apart. I drew Social Security benefits as a kid. Does that make my beliefs invalid?
These things have to occur in steps, the same way they evolved. Liberal hysteria tells us that it will somehow happen all at once. No one rational thinks that it will.
Blue must review phone purchases. While he’s at it, he should review accusing someone else of doing a “what about you guys” response. That’s damn funny.
My point, son, is that it’s not unusual for a protest movement to start from a general level of discontent against whatever version of The Man they’re frustrated with. They don’t always coalesce around a specific for quite some time, i. e., the Tea Party has a problem with Big Government, but the specifics of what that constitutes are not at all clear yet. Got it?
Yes, Dad, you are correct about phone purchases. Isnt is strange that it copied only a portion of what I wrote, but not the whole thing? How does that make sense?! Damn you, Android!
Anyway… I’m not sure what your other criticism of me references. But not making sense isn’t exactly a new thing.
Here’s a challenge for you, Joe… talk about the Wall St. protest (which got Michael Moore out last night, for an interview with O’Donnell), but only mention THAT protest. Don’t change the subject or blame other people. Try that… if you can.
Blue, you compare a righty thing to a lefty thing all the time. It’s silly for you to bust on someone else for doing the same thing.
I don’t have much to say about the Wall Street protests beyond a response to what someone else said. There’s a lot of people in this country that feel helpless to the power of the government/Wall Street matrix, and don’t know where to start other than to stand in the middle of the street, screaming, “WTF?”
What you are seeing is little people who don’t know exactly what’s being done to them, but they know it’s wrong. They don’t know exactly what to do about it, but they’ve got to say something. We had a booming ecoonomy built on an inflated housing market built on a house of cards. The house of cards collapsed, and everybody got screwed. Except for the politicians and Wall Street. They’re fine. That bothers people.
Excellent debate going on here. I would only add that the “Tea Party” is far less monolithic than even the two political parties are. Actually, there’s a whole bunch of tea party groups, and they’re composed of a wide-range of political stripes. There’s certainly a libertarian population involved but they aren’t the majority.
Their collective message is: The reach of the federal government has been extended too far beyond its constitutional authority. Instead of working to create new federal programmes, our elected representatives should be proposing and debating ways of reducing and eliminating what we have. We can’t afford them and they don’t work, anyway.
CNN & FNC, at least, are open to report that side of it.
“I don’t care that you don’t care about about a filthy rich propenent of removing the safety net from poor people while he promotes it for his buddies.”
Hyperbole much? The Kochs aren’t pushing for a return to uninspected meat and cholera outbreaks. They and the Tea Party are looking for deficits less than $1.5 trillion. Is that so much to ask?!?
The tea party (parties) don’t seem to be vilified to the extent they were a year or so ago. I don’t hear the vulgar name for them used by liberals too much anymore. The collection of people that gathered to see Glen Beck at the Lincoln Memorial gave an image much different than that originally portrayed by media: more of a church picnic group than lynch mob. One of the few good things Beck accomplished. Election of November 2010 showed their power and earned them respect. Hard to portray them as a bunch of dumb racists who could no spell “cat” after they ended the Democrats dominance of the government.
September 29, 2011 at 7:17 am
I wonder what E.J. Dionne ever did to hack off Joe Scarborough? Joe never resists the opportunity to take a slap at him. Joe has made an effort in the last twelve months to be more liberal friendly, but it doesn’t apply to their columnists.
September 29, 2011 at 7:47 am
Uncle Onyango Obama goes to court today on the drunk driving charge. Questions are:
1) What cable networks will cover it?
2) Will nephew invite him to the White House for a beer summit?
September 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
I don’t often watch MSNBC, but it was on one of the screens last night at the gym… and finally, I understand why they haven’t found much time to talk about Solyndra. O’Donnell -who according to Newsbusters, still hasn’t mentioned Solyndra- needed to devote an entire segment to the Jackson/Murray trial! And of course, you can’t just talk to anyone about such a story of national importance. No. You have to interview someone who knows about these things… and luckily, they had one on staff, so O’Donnell was joined my Shapton (who also hasn’t found time to talk about Solyndra) so they could converse on the subject.
Phew! And here, I thought they were avoiding it because they were so heavily partisan, they can’t bring themselves to do the bare minimum of reporting, or show even a modicum of journalistic integrity. But that’s not it! They’re not shameless water carriers! They’re just too busy!
And really, when you stack the stories side to side, is it so hard to see why one gets attention, while the other doesn’t? Millions and millions of tax payer dollars wasted to put the cart before the horse, and prop up an industry that isn’t yet ready for prime time… or the murder trial of a celebrity?! Really, it’s not even close.
September 29, 2011 at 8:33 am
I couldn’t care less about Solyndra (good cause, bad bet, not quite “Haliburton enough” for me), but the Michael Jackson coverage with Al Sharpton was laughable. “Hey, Jacxkson was (sorta) black, let’s get our black guy in here to talk about it.” Ridiculous.
September 29, 2011 at 8:44 am
That was sort of like when they brought in the Telemundo guy to ask an immigration question at the debate, and then shooed him off stage.
The issue with Solyndra is not so much the bad bet, but why, when it became clear that the company would not be able to meet its financial obligations, the administration restructured the loan to put Obama’s investor friend ahead of the taxpayers in bankruptcy. That basically insured that the government would never get its investment back. What possible legitimate reason could there have been for the government to agree to stiffing itself?
September 29, 2011 at 8:58 am
Ooh, Telemundo Guy. They didn’t even give him a chair!
September 29, 2011 at 9:31 am
I agree with you IAMNOTBLUE on most everything you said except the “prop up an industry not ready for prime time”. Actually it is ready and is thriving… own it’s own. The question is what the heck is the government doing in it spending billions of taxpayer dollars picking winners and losers? Perhaps for a stage Obama can put on his green jeans and impress the environmental wing? Perhaps as a reward for some big Democrat donors as the stink rising off the dead Solyndra carcass is starting to indicate.
September 29, 2011 at 9:47 am
Imus Guest Chris Wallace, The GOP & The Theater OF The Absurd.
Mitt Romney can’t poll above 25% that leaves 75% who want someone else for their Presidential nominee. Chris Wallace, made reference to the Republican base “Waiting For Godot”. The play by Samuel Beckett, that is performed in the Theater Of The Absurd. The Republicans still haven’t found who they’re looking for. Imus In The Morning.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2011/09/imus-guest-chris-wallace-gop-theater-of.html
September 29, 2011 at 9:53 am
At this time in 2008 Rudy Giuliani was well ahead in the polls and it turned out he was not what the Republicans were looking for. Way too early to get carried away with any meaningful conclusions.
September 29, 2011 at 10:31 am
@ Joe
What is the difference, for you, between Solyndra, and Enron? And what do you think of all the evidence of government involvement, and political kickbacks? And why is it acceptable (or passable) for MSNBC to ignore the story? Wouldn’t you complain if the tables were turned, and it was a Republican administration and FNC that was dodging the story?
@ Larry
“Not ready for primetime,” meant that the company wasn’t ready for the mass market, and wasn’t on solid financial footing… which clearly, it wasn’t. I chose to go that route, instead of the “government involvement” way (which is a valid question) simply because Solyndra’s fiscal mismanagement is less of an opinion, and more of a fact, and when making such an argument, I’ve learned to stick to the simple stuff, lest someone use the other parts to distract from the real debate (MSNBC not covering Solyndra).
September 29, 2011 at 10:45 am
Blue, it’s more a matter of my laziness/cynicism than the actual facts of the story. The government/business money-mismanagement stuff makes my eyes glaze over. It’s screwed up on both sides, and I’m not enough of a fan of the current administration to be surprised/shocked by it. The whole government/big-business system is an incestious morass of Big Money bandied back and forth between Big People. I hate all of it.
September 29, 2011 at 10:46 am
‘incestuous’
Another typo day begins..
September 29, 2011 at 11:00 am
^In other words crony capitalism. Isn’t that the stuff Palin has been (more or less) crusading against lately?
September 29, 2011 at 11:02 am
Just because I think Palin is a ditz doesn’t mean I disagree with her on everything.
September 29, 2011 at 11:48 am
They’ll smell better in the cold.
Breaking News
Wall Street protest leaders vow to stay through winter, plan Friday demonstration – Reuters bit.ly/qUMjW1
September 29, 2011 at 12:24 pm
They’re having a good time now. Solidarity gatherings in other cities like Chicago. Won’t be as much fun in the cold.
September 29, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Actually Jacky, Ralph Nader, after adding the mandatory qualifiers, had some nice things to say about Palin on that subject.
September 29, 2011 at 12:53 pm
What percentage of those protesters could even describe what they’re protesting?
September 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Brooke Balwin will be on cnn from2-4pm next week
September 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Not as clueless as the tea partiers are when they’re out there protesting with their signs reading “Government hands off of my Medicare!” and “No more death panels!” They aren’t known as the sharpest tools in the tool shed.
September 29, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Exactly. “Smaller government” isn’t exactly a specific. Ask most Tea Partiers which parts of the government they want downsized or eliminated, and they will assiduously avoid the ones that are currently sending them a check.
September 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm
How can Al Sharpton do a TV show through a bullhorn?
September 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm
^ He ain’t doing it on my TV.
September 29, 2011 at 3:50 pm
One group is electing representatives and running candidates, the other side is screaming impotently, blocking doors, and testing their Mace endurance. I’ll take the “Tea Party” end of that equation.
September 29, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Can we start to save time and effort by just writing, “I know you are, but what am I?” That way, instead of answering questions with unrelated deflections, which don’t answer anything, and attempt only to dodge uncomfortable situations, we (as the readers) don’t have to waste time reading that nonsense.
I’m just trying to look out for everyone. The folks who have to try to read the foolishness, and the folks who waste everyone’s time (including their’s) by writing it.
September 29, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Read the whole thing.
http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
September 29, 2011 at 3:59 pm
^ So. What? I’ve yet to meet the conservative who reveres Koch the way that we’re apparently supposed to. But nice try.
September 29, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Koch is a prime mover of a Tea Party movement which has the same schizophrenic relationship to “big government” he does. There’s an intellectual dishonesty at the heart of the movement that Rick Perry exposed: It’s easy to say “small government”, but when you start explaining to real people what you’re really talking about, that bumper sticker starts to lose its power.
September 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Once you get people dependent on government, it’s hard to get them back. Duh. That is exactly why the President and the Democrats were willing to give up their majority in order to get government power over healthcare. It wasn’t a ‘mistake’ or an ‘overreach’, it was a knowing sacrifice. They knew that once the government got it’s hands on it, then the Party of Government would reap the long-term benefit. They didn’t give a damn what was in the bill,or how much it screwed the system up, as long as the precedent was set.
That’s what the Tea Party is fighting, and I couldn’t give a good goddamn about Charles Koch.
September 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm
I don’t care that you don’t care about about a filthy rich propenent of removing the safety net from poor people while he promotes it for his buddies. It bothers me.
September 29, 2011 at 4:18 pm
@ Joe
What in the heck are you talking about?
September 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
You know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist, right? Thought that blacks and disabled people should be sterilized? That’s about as significant to anything as what Charles Koch said thirty or forty years ago. I prefer to obsess over things that actually mean something.
September 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm
^ An excellent point. But when all you’ve got is distraction and redirection, these little bits of hypocrisy and faulty logic seem brilliant.
For many on the left these days, it’s easier to attack those on the right, than to defend or explain their own actions or opinions.
September 29, 2011 at 4:29 pm
My supposition is clear, and refers to my original Tea Party comment. There’s a band of people out there mindlessly chanting that All Government Programs Are Evil, while taking advantage of them, and rejecting a candidate who calls them “unconstitutional” and “a Ponzi scheme”.
If you can’t connect the dots from someone saying the Wall Street protests are vague, to my declaration that the Tea Party’s aren’t a helluva lot more grounded, I can’t help ya. I’ve got payroll to do, and taxes to pay. Tootles.
September 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Oh, I think we can connect the dots. We just can also see how tissue thin your non-answer is.
When asked if the folks know what they’re protesting, you respond with an unrelated attack on the Tea Party. It basically says, “I don’t know, and can’t defend them, so I’ll just attack something else instead.” Do you think we don’t recognize that? Do you think this tactic works? Or does appearing pathetically unable to discuss certain things not bother you?n asked if the folks know what they’re protesting, you respond with an unrelated attack on the Tea Party. It basically says, “I don’t know, and can’t defend them, so I’ll just attack something else instead.” Do you think we don’t recognize that? Do you think this tactic works? Or does appearing pathetically unable to discuss certain things not bother you?
September 29, 2011 at 4:36 pm
It’s what liberals do. They spent twenty years trying to tear down Rush Limbaugh, because they have this magical belief that people would stop agreeing with him. It’s a tactic that never works, and unfortunately, conservatives often choose to respond in-kind. Done it myself. People’s core-beliefs won’t be nit-picked apart. I drew Social Security benefits as a kid. Does that make my beliefs invalid?
These things have to occur in steps, the same way they evolved. Liberal hysteria tells us that it will somehow happen all at once. No one rational thinks that it will.
September 29, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Must review chapter on “Paragraphs”…
September 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Blue must review phone purchases. While he’s at it, he should review accusing someone else of doing a “what about you guys” response. That’s damn funny.
My point, son, is that it’s not unusual for a protest movement to start from a general level of discontent against whatever version of The Man they’re frustrated with. They don’t always coalesce around a specific for quite some time, i. e., the Tea Party has a problem with Big Government, but the specifics of what that constitutes are not at all clear yet. Got it?
September 29, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Yes, Dad, you are correct about phone purchases. Isnt is strange that it copied only a portion of what I wrote, but not the whole thing? How does that make sense?! Damn you, Android!
Anyway… I’m not sure what your other criticism of me references. But not making sense isn’t exactly a new thing.
Here’s a challenge for you, Joe… talk about the Wall St. protest (which got Michael Moore out last night, for an interview with O’Donnell), but only mention THAT protest. Don’t change the subject or blame other people. Try that… if you can.
September 29, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Blue, you compare a righty thing to a lefty thing all the time. It’s silly for you to bust on someone else for doing the same thing.
I don’t have much to say about the Wall Street protests beyond a response to what someone else said. There’s a lot of people in this country that feel helpless to the power of the government/Wall Street matrix, and don’t know where to start other than to stand in the middle of the street, screaming, “WTF?”
What you are seeing is little people who don’t know exactly what’s being done to them, but they know it’s wrong. They don’t know exactly what to do about it, but they’ve got to say something. We had a booming ecoonomy built on an inflated housing market built on a house of cards. The house of cards collapsed, and everybody got screwed. Except for the politicians and Wall Street. They’re fine. That bothers people.
September 29, 2011 at 5:17 pm
I do that comparing thing, “all the time?” I had no idea! You’ll have to point it out next time that happens.
Anyway, I think your reasoning makes sense, and is a valid review of the situation. Kinda wish you had gone with that at the start.
September 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Kinda wish you had gone with that at the start.
Sorry mate, “at the start” was pre-coffee..
September 29, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Keep buying coffee.
September 29, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Excellent debate going on here. I would only add that the “Tea Party” is far less monolithic than even the two political parties are. Actually, there’s a whole bunch of tea party groups, and they’re composed of a wide-range of political stripes. There’s certainly a libertarian population involved but they aren’t the majority.
Their collective message is: The reach of the federal government has been extended too far beyond its constitutional authority. Instead of working to create new federal programmes, our elected representatives should be proposing and debating ways of reducing and eliminating what we have. We can’t afford them and they don’t work, anyway.
CNN & FNC, at least, are open to report that side of it.
September 29, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“I don’t care that you don’t care about about a filthy rich propenent of removing the safety net from poor people while he promotes it for his buddies.”
Hyperbole much? The Kochs aren’t pushing for a return to uninspected meat and cholera outbreaks. They and the Tea Party are looking for deficits less than $1.5 trillion. Is that so much to ask?!?
September 29, 2011 at 6:51 pm
The tea party (parties) don’t seem to be vilified to the extent they were a year or so ago. I don’t hear the vulgar name for them used by liberals too much anymore. The collection of people that gathered to see Glen Beck at the Lincoln Memorial gave an image much different than that originally portrayed by media: more of a church picnic group than lynch mob. One of the few good things Beck accomplished. Election of November 2010 showed their power and earned them respect. Hard to portray them as a bunch of dumb racists who could no spell “cat” after they ended the Democrats dominance of the government.
September 29, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Hyperbole much?
It’s weather dependent.
September 29, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Palin is going to make us wait even longer. Why…
September 29, 2011 at 8:10 pm
^ Because she likes that shade of color?
September 29, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Jacky, my man, we have a phrase for girls like that. And Beckel would probably use it on The Five..
September 29, 2011 at 8:38 pm
From Reagan’s America is a “shining city on a hill” to Obama today, “America’s Gone ‘Soft’”.
Perhaps America will take off its bedroom slippers and dust off the old treadmill.