Thanks to Bush & the Repubs’ destruction of this nation over the last 8 years, combined with McCain’s bumbled campaign and obvious intention to continue Bush’s economic policies, you GOP towers deserve to lose Senate and House seats as well as the executive branch. You have lost your entitlements and only voter fraud, propaganda, and smear ‘n fear will save you now.
As for this ad, talk about pot & kettle. The Haditha incident was as cold-blooded as it gets. When soldiers go into a house and see that there are unarmed women and children in a room, and begin to fire on them until they’re all dead, what else do you call it? And the fact that they are yelling “smear” as they gleefully smear a decorated veteran is just more gutter GOP tactics as usual.
Where is the intense media coverage of Sarah Palin’s association with Pastor Muthee, a Kenyan preacher who cast out a witch from his village and came to Alaska to exorcise demons and devils from Sarah Palin; or Palin’s dubious relationship with Jew-hating Christian Evangelicals, including “Jews for Jesus”; or the massive media coverage of John McCain’s ethically challenged relationship with Charles Keating, a partnership at the heart of the 1980s Savings and Loan scandal; or the media’s obsession with McCain’s friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, who served 5 years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in, which plunged the country into a constitutional crisis (Liddy is a McCain friend who held a fundraiser for his presidential campaign); or the media’s intrusive inquiry into Todd Palin’s irrefutable membership in the Alaska Constitutional Party, a fringe party that advocates for Alaska’s secession from the U.S.A.?

How These Gibbering Numbskulls Came to Dominate Washington
The degradation of intelligence and learning in American politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies
by George Monbiot
How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind’s closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are? How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist?
Like most people on my side of the Atlantic, I have for many years been mystified by American politics. The US has the world’s best universities and attracts the world’s finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage.
There have been exceptions over the past century – Franklin Roosevelt, JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and survived – but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a qualification for the presidency). Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan’s response to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate. Carter – stumbling a little, using long words – carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and said: “There you go again.” His own health programme would have appalled most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents look like wonks.
It wasn’t always like this. The founding fathers of the republic – Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others – were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin?
On one level, this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby’s book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies.
One theme is both familiar and clear: religion – in particular fundamentalist religion – makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.
Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism. During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for instance, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin’s theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy – now known as social Darwinism – of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s doctrine, promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people being weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic inequalities were both justifiable and necessary.
Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of social Darwinism.
But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf opened up. “In the south”, Jacoby writes, “what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order.”
The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest denomination in the US, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid. In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state’s state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time.
This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln’s career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment, it is a recipe for confusion.
Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason intellectuals struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with communism a long time ago has been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are communists. Almost every day men such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly rage against the “liberal elites” destroying America.
The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite – like the neocons (some of them former communists) surrounding Bush – has managed to pitch the political conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been successfully branded as elitism.
Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance.

keep dreaming, michele… the words i see being used (from other republicans, even) are “bloodbath,” “shutout,” “bleak,” “landslide,” “rout,” et cetera.
it’s likely that 8 senate seats will flip party from r to d. none go the other way. in the house, it’s like you say, republicans may pick up one or two seats, but they will likely lose close to 30 (hopefully including michele bachmann who looked like she had a safe republican seat until she opened her mouth… keep talking, lady).
ever since the religious right has taken over the party, it’s been losing power.

Looks like Sarah Palin is the subject of another ethics complaint in Alaska. This time, it’s over the travel expenses for her family:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/28/cbsnews_investigates/main4554071.shtml

Oh, and another effigy of Obama has been hung, this time at the University of Kentucky:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081029/NEWS01/81029016
Of course, I fully expect Michele to ignore it since it’s not an effigy of a Republican.

michele et. al.,
did you see this? Until 11/2.
http://www.ligonier.org/publishing_studybible.php

To all my fellow conservatives on this blog: I urge you to follow in the steps of Buckley and not Bush in pursuit of intellectual truth. This party has been hijacked by a contempt for knowledge and learning and a xenophobia unlike any I’ve seen in my life. Please take the time to consider your choice on a level of honesty and not based on manipulative emotion or fear. The GOP has brought us down to such an embarrassing state of propaganda, and I REFUSE to follow them there.
The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Reconsider Their Vote
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won’t touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain’s plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama’s. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran’s nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush’s first term and George W.’s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama’s fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today’s Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America’s reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. Anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity and vote for Obama. Not since Reagan has our choice been so apparent.

Michelle, I have even more good news for you. Not only are several Senate seats and about 20 House seats going to be liberated from the LEFTY LIBS and go Republican, private polling finds McCain will get about 320 electoral votes. In fact, I’d advise most Republicans can just sit this one out.

Robert, do you realize you sound all of 10 years old when you throw out childish names in all caps? Do you feel intimidated when I say RIGHTY CON? Sheesh. And your \”private polling\” is laughable. Go to RealClearPolitics; they average hundreds of non-partisan, scientific polls, all of which have Obama in the far lead. The only way you can win this is through rigging the election.
Do you want proof that Republicans are paid by the RNC to rig elections?
Google Allen Raymond. Search his name on Youtube. Listen to his confessions.
Try to spin this guy. This is a dead serious issue and McCain and the RNC are shamelessly behind it. The truth is painfully obvious for any curious mind. The GOP uses caging, racial intimidation, suppression, and ANYTHING else necessary to keep minorities and new voters out of the booths.
There is no excuse. You people function at the lowest possible level every single day. Show me a left wing blog that posts deliberate lies and distortions every single day. How is your behavior an appropriate response to perceived bias? You are all doing this at the cost of your souls.
———
Allen Raymond: \”There\’s rigging elections with illegal tactics, (e.g. the New Hampshire phone-jamming effort that I can speak to), and there\’s the rigging by use of responsive cord messages that are effective in getting voters to even vote contrary to their self-interest.
\”Voter suppression historically tends to be a GOP objective, as Democrats have long out-registered Republicans (with exception). This year\’s voter registration clearly favors the Democratic ticket (see Virginia); therefore, voter suppression tends to be more systematic in the GOP (e.g. caging) because polarization and low turnout historically favors GOP candidates.
\”In this instance in New Jersey, off-duty law enforcement were assigned to stand at urban polling places wearing black arm bands with NBSTF inscribed, with sidearms on display. That\’s enough to scare anybody, much less a community already rightly suspicious of law enforcement.

brian z, chill… i’m preeeeeetty sure that robert’s post was tongue-in-cheek. the reference to LEFTY LIBS was parody taken from a frothing wing-nutter here by the name of guy arthur thomas.
you need to keep a sense of humor when dealing with republiCONS, brian. especially when robert nails mccain’s “we got them where we want them” shtick so well. good one, robert!
christopher, if the republican party came back to your way of thinking, i could be a republican-voting independent again. i won’t hold my breath.

Why, yes, it was entirely made up, in a way I thought any intelligent person would find obvious, and still do.

OK, I’ll take the hit. Mea Culpa. Knee-jerk. But I have a few questions:
1) Do you guys seriously not think that people say EXACTLY what Robert said (and worse) all over the internet, day in and day out, and without sarcasm?
2) Robert, considering the reality of #1, and the fact that you were being facetious, why do you turn around to attack my intelligence? Particularly as I obviously didn’t attack YOU, but your very-realistic caricature?
Perhaps you guys have not spent any time on Free Republic, Hot Air, Drudge, etc.

Hey Brian, I’ll back you up…
Robert, you posted nearly verbatim one of the most common sentiments in the right wing blogosphere, and then when Brian attacks it, you imply he’s stupid? A little unfair. Your last sentence gave it away for me, but I think you underestimate GOP ignorance. Inflection and expression don’t show up well in print.

1) Do you guys seriously not think that people say EXACTLY what Robert said (and worse) all over the internet, day in and day out, and without sarcasm?
Sure they do … among friends. We aren’t friends here …
Support has dwindled so much for michele’s political posts that it’s now statistically impossible that anyone agree with her.
Consequently, I took Robert’s post in the right light … and I’ve never fancied myself intelligent, ‘though I might be smarter than a fifth grader (i.e., “all of 10 years old”).

I was linked here from a Breitbart thread, for God’s sake. The first thing my eye fell on was “Obama’s tax policies will make us permanently poor”. Why in the world I should have expected a left-wing crowd is beyond me. Give me some slack on my first visit.
Robert’s comment wasn’t exactly one of Colbertian brilliance in the first place. Considering how far the lowest common denominator in politics has fallen, how was I to differentiate him from the common nutters who call Obama Karl Marx and Hitler and even the Anti-Christ?
I concede that I could have turned up my sarcasm meter. But if you want to call me unintelligent, I can’t help but respond with a charge of ignorance. The intellectual sloth of the modern right-wing is far more rampant and absurd than even I believed before this election. So what’s with the feigned surprise?
Frankly I’d like to see how you both might respond if it was revealed that this “Guy Arthur Thomas” was also a comedian. Would I then be entitled to call you stupid?

if it was revealed that this “Guy Arthur Thomas” was also a comedian.
I, for one, would be delighted to learn that for a fact.
You had me a mea culpa, Brian.

Dang… and I thought I was pitiless!
Brian, I know it probably feels like it, but this isn’t Fark. God knows I see where you’re coming from after spending a few minutes on Malkin, but you’ve got to let it go. Nobody honestly thinks you’re stupid — even Robert — it’s just that you cut your finger in a shark tank and got bitten.
Forget about it. We’re on your side.

Me, too. And Christopher: you ought to send copies of your post to every newspaper in the country–or, at the very least, to the major ones in your state. It is incredibly cogent and persuasive–at least to anyone still in possession of their powers of reason. (There are still a few of us left, aren’t there? Aren’t there? A few?)

Oops, yelladawgNC, I sure wish I could take credit for those bullet points, but I just forgot to cite the source. The great Andrew Sullivan put the piece together. I too was thrilled with its incredible lucidity and sincerity. Hopefully the URL will show up this time.

“if it was revealed that this ‘Guy Arthur Thomas’ was also a comedian.”
well, i for one, laugh at him constantly.
brian, robert, both good people. of course, i’m cynical of neocon-speak to begin with and i recognize robert’s humor, but even i had to do a double-take before enjoying the jolly laugh that followed.
the answer to your first question, brian, is an unequivocal “yes.” and you’ll find that this blog – shall we say borrows – from those far right-wing fringe sources that you mentioned (hotair, drudge, freeper, etc) a LOT.
welcome to the fray, prepare to take flack from your right… we’ll guard your left.

Yes…what the liberals who comment on this blog are about is coming onto the blog of a person who disagrees with them and then attacking them personally. Very classy.

uh-huh, as if you’re not guilty yourself. as if michele isn’t guilty either. as if the little gat isn’t guilty. you’re not even honest enough here to admit that conservatives who comment on this blog are just as guilty.
what’s <sarcasm>classy</sarcasm> is michele using this space on a spiritual website (whose tagline is “inspiration. spirituality. faith”) to vent her vitriolic obama derangement syndrome, calling people socialist, marxist, unpatriotic, etc, etc, etc.
it’s been pointed out time and time and time again, that michele sets the tone here, and she gets as good as she gives. and i’ve said before, if you use some bogus data to try to back up a lame point, i’ll not spare your common sense from a good lashing. but don’t take it personal. should we coddle your blind acceptance of blatant propaganda instead? maybe something like this canned response would make you feel better:
“yes, deary, you’re right. you’re always right. that’s really smart thinkin’ on your part.”
let’s try it. tell us if it works for you:
yes, deary, you’re right. you’re always right. it’s always the liberals’ fault.

AR, there’s a difference between debate and personal attack.
I slip from time to time, but make an honest effort not to attack commenters here – their intelligence, their Christianity, their motives.
Liberals here delight in personally attacking Michele in “virtual face to face” (not meat space, but rather coming to her blog in order to attack her faith, her intelligence, her motives.
I defy you to find even one instance of me going to a liberal blog and attacking the owner’s intelligence, Christianity or motives.
You can’t do it, because I don’t do it.
I have a lot of political stuff on my own blog, but choose not to invite personal abuse – which is what I would get from you, AR and Gillian and most other liberal commenters here. Not debate – personal abuse.
Do I absolutely oppose what the radical left presents? Yes. Do I know that there are sincere/intelligent Christians to support it? Yes.
Do I think liberals here are stupid? No, but I am increasingly convicted that going to the blog of another person with the intent of insulting them personally is – well, not a good thing.
It is like going to an (open to the public) church and loudly and repeatedly verbally assaulting the parishioners.

AR, Let me say, though that I don’t expect to see any change in the personal attacks.
I’ll touch on your “bogus data” comment for a moment. There is an undocumented charge that conservatives don’t give a “s*#t” about anybody.
Data shows that people in “red states” give a higher percentage of income than “blue states”. Data also shows that “blue states” give a higher amount of dollars. Which data is correct?
I say both, you say only that which agrees that conservatives “don’t give a s$&t”.
Statistics can be spun either way and the facts are the same. I see that red states are giving out of their poverty and you see that blue states are giving more, period.
At no point did any liberal commenter speak up and say that “come on, there are a lot of conservative charities out there, many of them Christian.”. Oh no, nor do I expect it. Not any more.
Scott spoke up and said that Christian charities only give to Christians and I gave a list of Christian charities that I have worked with who have no such restrictions. Any retraction or comment? Oh no, nor do I expect it. Not any more.

“I defy you to find even one instance of me going to a liberal blog and attacking the owner’s intelligence, Christianity or motives.”
as if i had infinite time to read all blogs looking for something that you post? nah, i’ll just have to take your word for it, won’t i? however, you attack people here, and you know it. you insinuate that liberals here aren’t “thinking liberals” because they have a different opinion than you. you call pro-choice people (liberals and conservatives alike) “pro-abortion” even when they’ve asked you not to because it doesn’t reflect their beliefs. and now we’re the “radical left?” yeah, you “slip” and so do we.
michele (and other conservative participants here question people’s christianity often enough.
“… going to the blog of another person with the intent of insulting them personally…”
who comes here with the intent of insulting you or michele (or even guy) personally? i come to this blog every day hoping to see a kind, thoughtful, thought-provoking, post by michele without attacking liberalism, obama, democrats, atheists, or anyone who’s not just like her. and every day, i’m disappointed and put in the position of defending my beliefs with the same acidic tone. after 20 years of limbaugh, 10 years of fox, and 8 years of bush and the neo-con congress, i’m done being nice when my beliefs are under attack (hey, i learned that from righties). i’ll at least do my best to remain honest.
“It is like going to an (open to the public) church and loudly and repeatedly verbally assaulting the parishioners.”
no, it’s like going to an (open to the public) church where the the speaker at the pulpit is screaming things like “godless liberals” and “democrats are baby killers” and “liberals hate real americans” and “obama is a socialist, marxist, communist!” while that might seem completely appropriate to you, what if it was instead, “satan worshiping conservatives” and “republicans support infanticide” and “mccain is a fascist nazi?” the issues that we deal with today are complex and the right has spent years simplifying them to 4 word bumper-sticker slogans and turning them into divisive wedges to fire up their base. sorry, i’m not about to let michele or you or anyone else define me or denigrate my beliefs. michele does not start off with a respect for a difference. nor have you shown it except in defense of your own.
take for example the issue of abortion. the reality is that abortions will happen if the constitution allows or denies it. my belief is that abortion is not murder. you have the opposite opinion. the middle ground is to let the pregnant woman decide for herself what is best for her, based upon her beliefs. that is what i support. do you?
another example – same sex marriage. i support marriage for homosexuals. you do not, based on your religious convictions. i say, let the religious beliefs (or lack of) of the couple dictate their marriage. do you?

“Let me say, though that I don’t expect to see any change in the personal attacks.”
as long as michele and conservatives here continue to show a lack of respect for democrats and liberals and attack our ideology, then i’d say that you can expect that at least i will counter attack.
“Data shows that people in ‘red states’ give a higher percentage of income than ‘blue states’. Data also shows that ‘blue states’ give a higher amount of dollars. Which data is correct?”
well, i already showed you that a state would rank in the middle of that index that you provided even if they gave nothing. that was regardless of red vs. blue. on top of that, the red/blue designator is bogus for 2 reasons (1. the entire state is not either liberal or conservative, it’s a mix, therefore it’s safe to assume that both liberals and conservatives from that state contribute and the index does not break it down to that level, 2. there are technically 50 levels of “giving” if it’s done by state, so having only 2 categories and coloring them red and blue makes no sense).
“I say both, you say only that which agrees that conservatives ‘don’t give a s$&t’.”
untrue. i think it’s a stupid argument and at best we can only speak from our personal experience (since there’s a lack of data to support either side). i know my contributions, i don’t know yours. but i don’t believe that conservatives don’t give a crap. there’s a generalized view where conservatives believe that people are worth what they make of themselves and liberals believe that rising waters lift all boats. the truth is that there’s a huge continuum between them and that’s where reality lives.
“At no point did any liberal commenter speak up and say that ‘come on, there are a lot of conservative charities out there, many of them Christian.’. Oh no, nor do I expect it. Not any more.”
i wasn’t feeling charitable to your cause that week. of course there are obvious christian charities and organizations out there that aid more than just fellow christians. but on the flip side, where are the conservatives who fight the right-wing smears from michele and defend the facts?
i have, in the past, gone against both liberals and conservatives on this blog and pushed for honesty (see the palin book burning comments which led yelladawgNC to issue a correction). but with michele in full-bore obama derangement syndrome, i’m too busy defending my own beliefs against right-wing attacks to offer you any help. and until i see some intellectual honesty from any righties, i’m not inclined to offer them any defense either.
“Any retraction or comment?”
did michele retract her post that accused an obama supporter of attacking a mccain worker and carving a backward ‘B’ into her cheek? did she issue any sort of apology for saying that liberals would “spin” it? have any conservatives here retracted their lies about obama’s tax plan? or for being hypocritical about “spreading the wealth?” oh no, nor do we expect to see any.