So Chris Matthews is hosting the next GOP debate tomorrow night, and based on his comments on Thursday night about the administration, it's sure to be the hottest ticket in town! Wink
Anyway, if I were the GOP candidates and their supporters, I'd say "BRING IT BLOWHARD! Give us your best below-the-belt shot!"
If they can't handle Chris, how can they handle Al Qaeda right?
Plus, this gives them a stunning opportunity to make the Democrat candidates look like the wussies they are for not going on Fox to debate. Can you imagine? Sean Hannity hosting their debate, or Bill O'Reilly? HA! I'd pay money to see that! To think they were only going to be facing down the likes of mild-mannered Brit Hume who makes Chris Matthews look like a pit viper!
I hope they rise to the occasion and make Matthews look like the unhinged windbag that he often is. And I hope the Dems take this as their cue to have Rush host their next debate. Hey, at least more people would tune in!
Why thank you Mr. Turley. I realize it's only been around for a little over two centuries, but I'm glad you finally found the time to sit down and actually READ it.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
Fine, don't "celebrate" it, just don't go looking for someone else to blame should the need arise someday for you to have a gun (or to have someone nearby who has one). Or, put another way, are you OK with my not "celebrating" the "individual rights" people on your side have managed to invent for women seeking to abort their babies, or for pedophiles to live near schools, or for illegal aliens to have their status ignored. Because I've read the same document over and over and over again, and try as I might, I fail to find the justification for those alleged "rights."
But still, it's mighty white of you to finally acknowledge that liberals might be wrong about something. It's a start at least.
And I don't give a rat's ass who knows it!
Does this mean I'm a "ditto-head?" No.
Does this mean I agree with every word that comes out of his mouth? No.
Does this mean I think it's GREAT that he is not backing down in the face of this bogus onslaught by the liberal smear-mongers and their "ditto-heads" who refuse to even look at the truth because they're just too happy to have a bandwagon to jump on against a man they hate? YES, a thousand times YES! Instead, he is wisely allowing nature to take its course, allowing the new media to do what we do best.
Hugh Hewitt explains this better than I ever could:
Thus everybody knows that Senate Democrats and now such would-be grandees as Wes Clark are pushing a lie as a means of attacking Rush, and doing so in plain view. New media guarantees that no such story can succeed, and it hasn't for the simple reason that it is not true, and print journalists, bloggers talk radio and some cable outlets have completely undercut the charge. It is a sort of reverse Rathergate: Rather than watching new media destroy the reputation and credibility of a key media player, we have seen it buttress that reputation and credibility.In the process though, Americans have again seen a close-up of The Great Snarl that the MoveOn.org Democrats have become. It is a disturbing thing, this collection of hard-left activists, vulgar and profane bloggers, captive Senators and know-nothing MSMers, and the more it is on display the more it becomes one big blob of seething hate, from the Code Pinkers to Tom Harkin, Media Matters and the HuffPo express. On to the center-right this blob projects its disfiguring anger, but it doesn't work because most Americans hear and watch for themselves. They know Rush, Sean, Laura, Bill, Michael, Dennis. Mark, Glenn, Neil and me and all the rest of the talkers. They read Powerline, Instapundit, Michelle, NRO; watch O'Reilly and Special Report and, crucially, know who supports the troops and the war and who doesn't. You can't talk over Barnes, Barone, Boot, Kagan, Kristol, and Krauthammer. The center-right supports the military and the mission. The left doesn't.
The American people know this. Ten years ago the MSM might have been able to facilitate such an attack on Rush, but it is simply impossible today. Pushing a smear in the new media environment is a profoundly self-destructive bit of bad political theater that insults the audience's intelligence while revealing the attackers' character.
Of course that the troops know the real score. Their families know. And their friends know. Watch the Peter Pace farewell remarks below. He knows too. It is impossible to be awake in this country and not know.
Let's just hope Hugh is also right that this "Great Snarl" as he calls it, proves that the Democrats are following a losing strategy for winning back the White House. (Did I say "hope?" Make that PRAY)
[Hat-tip Wake Up America!
I just don't know what to say about this.
I guess I could say I'm terrified by it. I guess I could say the Britons would only get what they deserve if they cave and do this. And I guess I could say that even I am surprised by their cluelessness when it comes to what it *is* in the first place.
What I won't say is that I'm surprised the BBC would put out such a sugar-coated-candy-mess like these videos, because I'm not.