For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Drudge outs Prince Harry. This has sparked quite a controversy regarding the media embargoing information at times of war (paragraph break removed):
In a series of meetings at the Ministry of Defence late last year, British media and selected international outlets agreed not to report Harry's deployment in exchange for getting regular pictures, video and text of his day-to-day activities once the planned four-month assignment was completed. There was a reluctance to sign up to such a deal, and an expectation among many that the "understanding", as it was called, would inevitably, rapidly be broken given the nature of Britain's cut-throat, "exclusive-or-nothing" tabloid press.
Drudge isn't apologizing: "Not one to reveal much about himself or the way he works, Drudge maintained a stony silence about this, one of his most explosive scoops."
What say you, NewsBusters? Should Drudge have honored the embargo for Prince Harry's safety? On the other hand, should one man be given anonymity that hundreds of thousands on the front lines aren't?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Should Drudge have honored
March 1, 2008 - 11:26 ET by MidAmericaShould Drudge have honored the embargo for Prince Harry's safety?
Since I haven't heard that Drudge was personally on the front lines and discovered Prince Harry there I would have to assume someone is shopping the story around and it would have come out anyway. Might as well be Drudge.
I will say I have some admiration for Prince Harry in wanting to go out into the real world and experience it and not just sit behind the castle walls. He's definitely related to his mother.
He's definitely related to his mother?
March 1, 2008 - 11:40 ET by scamoramaHUH?
I always thought of that cow as a publicity-whore.
There are good reasons for keeping mum about Harry's whereabouts. I had little use or respect for Drudge before this, and a lot less now. This sort of "get the story" behavior represents the worst of journalism.
delete double
March 1, 2008 - 11:53 ET by motherbeltdelete double
I always thought of that
March 1, 2008 - 11:52 ET by motherbeltI always thought of that cow as a publicity-whore.
Nice gratuitous insult.
Sheesh.
Perhaps
March 1, 2008 - 12:00 ET by scamoramaMy point, which you seem to have missed, was that if Harry was really like his mother, he'd have expected a BBC crew be deployed with his unit.
The Lady Diana - who was never a "Princess" and not much of a "Lady" - (another "gratuitous insult") couldn't live without the Press.
give it a rest
March 1, 2008 - 12:16 ET by dans0622and let the dead lady rest in peace.
No, the point that YOU
March 1, 2008 - 14:31 ET by motherbeltNo, the point that YOU missed was that, like his mother, as MidAmerica said, he wanted to go out into the real world and experience it and not just sit behind the castle walls.
Whether or not you liked his mother, she gave her chidren that, Charles didn't. And like most famous people, she never asked for photographers to follow her anywhere.
The difference
March 1, 2008 - 15:09 ET by scamoramabetween Harry and his mother is that he doesn't appear to relish the spotlight.
Accepted, Not Relished
March 1, 2008 - 15:41 ET by CGattonNeither did she, however she accepted it as a part of her life, and used it to her advantage because of that.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Should Drudge have honored the embargo
March 1, 2008 - 14:33 ET by Ishka BibbleIn wartime there's no such thing as royalty on the lines. Harry was a young officer in the military and as such deserves absolute privacy from nosey newshounds. Furthermore, such disclosure could possibly jeopardize not only the individual, but the unit and the mission. UNAUTHORIZED disclosure of ANY military identities is a crime and we should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law!
What embargo??
March 1, 2008 - 15:59 ET by RonCPerhaps Drudge knew about it (embargo,) perhaps not. Did the British government call him up and tell him they had emposed one? Probably not. Does every American blogger have some kind of responsibility to contact every foreign government allied in the WOT to see what might be 'embargoed?' I certainly think not.
I knew that Harry was 'on the front lines' four months ago, shortly after he arrived there - and so did millions of others on the internet who ran across the information then. In all likelyhood Drudge knew too - and refrained from making a point of it, as there was nothing to say about it more than that he was there. So what...
I wondered then when we might see more news stories about that, and didn't think anything more about it until I saw this mention re. Drudge.
My reaction to the 'embargo' is in a word, nuts! The enemy knew as much as I did - he was there... somewhere. They probably knew within days exactly what unit he was in, and made plans accordingly. So what? The enemy will do their best to destroy any and all forces, no matter who is a member of whatever allied forces exist in the theater, and would most certainly attempt to concentrate on Prince Harry. Who is surprised?
My reaction to the Drudge posting is similar. He knew the news was out long ago on the net, very certainly knew it was out in Germany in a very public way - and decided there was no reason not to post that news on his blog. I'm surprised, in view of all other net coverage, that he waited as long as he did. Knowing him, he exhibited great restraint.
Last, but by all means not least, is what the British press, heads of state and military have done to Harry - and by extension, to his unit. If they had half a brain, they would have exploited the news break militarily. Now, they look like and make Harry look like chickens - and look idiotic in the view of many.
Good post, Noel...
press
March 1, 2008 - 11:36 ET by canuckPress want it both ways...they want the royals to be commoners but they will profit from them in any way they can. Royals have participated in history...an uncle was a chopper pilot in the conflict with the Argies, Montbatten history is rich.
How many other families have their kids identified as targets in a theatre or exposure of the family on the homefront? None.
So which way is it...commoner or royal...or is it just about how much money can be made off it.
Just doing the work of the Taliban.
Drudge should have kept his mouth shut
March 1, 2008 - 11:36 ET by SupermanDrudge put the lives of Harry and his entire platoon in jeopardy just so he could have a "scoop". Absolutely shameful.
I agree Superman - Drudge is pathetic
March 1, 2008 - 11:49 ET by Dee BunkThe rest of the soldiers are anonymous because no one knows them. Knowing where the Prince was would make the area a high value target for the terrorists and Taliban. It's no different than giving advance locations on the President or Sec of Defense or Senators or anyone famous who visits.
This is as bad as something from the NYT. Drudge should be ashamed.
I agree. This was a
March 1, 2008 - 12:04 ET by motherbeltI agree. This was a "scoop" just for the sake of a "scoop." This isn't the government hiding the "Pentagon Papers." It's not as if everyone in England or America has a "right" to know where Prince Harry is and what he's doing at all times. They didn't want to endanger him and his whole platoon by advertising a target for hostage-takers.
This is why Drudge gets labelled a "gossip-monger." Because sometimes he is nothing more.
Drudge's big mouth
March 3, 2008 - 02:14 ET by JudithI will not read that blog anymore. I don't like breaking news if it puts people, places, or plans in danger. This ended something Harry was proud of doing; so hope you are happy Drudge. Your name fits.
Oprah
March 1, 2008 - 11:44 ET by iveseenitallApparantly Obama's buddy Ophra is now going to be giving her viewers the New Age, anti-Christ Course in Miracles. This is an anti-Christian, man-centered "religion" which states there is no evil, and no sin, and no devil, hence no need for Christ as Savior. You are your own God, no need for Him. Of course , this garbage has been spouted many times throughout history and been debunked. But this does show the direction many people in America are going. It is freightening. Your children and our future as a nation are at risk from this kind of stuff. On so many levels, it should not be taken lightly. This is a cult. Many followers of Oprah's show could be deemed cultists. And some modern political campaigns are very similar to cults. Obama should be questioned about this "religion", as should the other candidates. Nonetheless, I guess this cult now being legitimatized on national t.v..
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
?????? New Age,
March 1, 2008 - 11:47 ET by motherbelt??????
New Age, anti-Christ Course in Miracles????
What have you found?
New Age
March 1, 2008 - 12:01 ET by iveseenitallIt apparantly has begun on her radio show. 365 lessons in the "Course in Miracles". "A wholly redefined spiritual mindset", "A slain Christ has no meaning", "the journey to the Cross is useless"--www.truthorfiction.com/o/oprah-miracles.htm.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"Server not found."
March 1, 2008 - 12:13 ET by motherbelt"Server not found."
Is her radio show on Syrius or something? I've never heard that she has one. I'd be interested to read about this tho if you have a better link.
Update: you had a word missing. Here is the link (I think it's the same one): Oprah
I got this far in the description of the course:
Lesson #70 teaches the student to say and believe "My salvation comes from me."
and the whole thing went right into the toilet.
I see it as revenge for all
March 1, 2008 - 12:14 ET by wiwfI see it as revenge for all the crap new york slimes has printed out in just the past 5 years hampering our efforts in the GWOT. So I approve.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Here is a quick list of
March 1, 2008 - 12:16 ET by motherbeltHere is a quick list of some of the "highlights" of the course:
"There is no sin. . . "
* A "slain Christ has no meaning."
* "The journey to the cross should be the last 'useless journey."
* "Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'"
* "The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol... It is a symbol that
is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to
which you pray."
* "God is in everything I see."
* "The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."
* "The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power."
* "The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches
him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation."
History repeats itself
March 1, 2008 - 15:07 ET by KC MulvilleThis is not a "religion" website, and although I find these beliefs to be shallow and silly, I won't bother addressing them here.
However, I would like to offer a quick historical note. All of these questions were part of Christianity's birth. As early Christianity spread throughout the ancient world, those people had many of the same questions. There were all kinds of Christian splinter groups in the early days: gnostics, heretics, and so on. Each group had its own deviation on the story of Jesus. They all had different formulas for explaining the story of Jesus - how could God die? Did God destroy death? If Jesus was God's son, and he called us brothers and sisters, doesn't that make us equal to Jesus? And so on.
Don't tell me that God has no sense of humor. The angels think we're hysterical.
Link
March 1, 2008 - 12:25 ET by iveseenitallThe link--http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/oprah-miracles.htm
for the Ophra thing. Sorry for the error
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Debunk
March 1, 2008 - 12:31 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere is a link debunking Oprah's 'new' religion.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Thanks, dftt...the two
March 1, 2008 - 12:47 ET by motherbeltThanks, dftt...the two websites have similar content.
I have to correct you though. In your line
Here is a link debunking Oprah's 'new' religion.
the quotes should have gone around the word religion not new.
This is definitely a new-age "religion."
How Oprah gets such a huge pack of female lemmings to follow her blindly is beyond me. Apparently some people are so bereft of meaning in their lives that they will grab onto anything.
This is just B as in B, S as in S.
Right on, Motherbelt
March 1, 2008 - 12:55 ET by iveseenitallThe lemmings have little meaning or purpose in their lives.This is brought about through ignorance--something so prevalent in today's world. Ignorance is bliss and the "media" knows it. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER tust a "liberal"
iveseenitall, The lemmings are now worshipping their "sunrise".
March 1, 2008 - 15:27 ET by upcountrywaterWe are all about to be swept away.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
Good grief, upcountrywater!
March 1, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Mica the MagnificentA new day. A new morning. Young people. The savior has come.
I get it!
I had to stop the video 36 seconds into it. He's not a man to these people, he is God.
Damn!
. . .and when I answer the phone at 3:00 am in the White House, I will say 'hello.' - - - Obama's quick come-back to Hillary's ad
MtM, It's the FAITHFUL reples in the comments section..
March 1, 2008 - 16:17 ET by upcountrywaterThat really bothered me.
Thanks be to our
Public school system.
Iranian uranium; Iranian ICBM's; Iranian satellites..CHANGE is comming BELIEVE in that!
in greater danger?
March 1, 2008 - 12:14 ET by dans0622We all know that some in the media think "the story" is the most important thing and so they don't care what the consequences are. "Right to know" and "freedom of information" is what they care about, as well as a big paycheck. Ceratinly that can go to far and there are more serious rights and responsibilities than these, especially in war.
However, would the prince be in more danger than anyone else? Are the Taliban not really trying to kill the enemy and they need more motivation,like someone famous as a target? Also, knowing that he is in Afghanistan is different than knowing where he is, exactly. Besides, once the story broke, he was out of there. I don't think the other soldiers are now in greater danger or ever were. War is war.
If the media release war plans, that's a different story, so to speak.
Yes
March 1, 2008 - 12:35 ET by scamoramaHe and his mates would be, yes.
Considering that the NVA and Chinese had little trouble learning where units were in Viet Nam and Korea, it's not impossible that the Taliban could locate Harry's unit.
He might not be a "high value" target, but he certainly represents "high publicity", and would be worth going after.
And his mates would pay for it.
On the other hand, should
March 1, 2008 - 12:17 ET by FowlerK9On the other hand, should one man be given anonymity that hundreds of thousands on the front lines aren't?
OK what idiot at NB wrote that line? All I see is NB Staff. Is no one reviewing what the "staff" writes before displaying thier ignorance? Hey NB "staff", show me where hundreds of thousands of front line troops names, location and family members names are reported world-wide? No? Show some personal responsibility and list the person that wrote it.
Fowler - I dont' think the person who posed the question
March 1, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Dee Bunkis saying that they agree with that sentiment. They are just trying to spark conversation and they are giving an argument liberals might use. The point is to put it out there so it can be dispelled.
Dee
March 1, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Noel SheppardDee,
Exactly. There are many positions on this matter, and as this is an Open Thread, I see nothing wrong with posing questions, regardless of how sensitive, from multiple perspectives. In fact, I think I would be doing a bad job if I didn't. Make sense? ns
Fowler
March 1, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Noel SheppardFowler,
That idiot would be me. The question was posed to stoke debate and discussion about whether special treatment for Harry is appropriate when hundreds of thousands have risked their lives for this effort.
That said, I understand your concern, and apologize if this offended you. ns
Thank you
March 2, 2008 - 02:49 ET by FowlerK9Noel, my point was that no single soldier (let alone hundreds of thouiseands) name, location, or family have been identified world-wide, unlike Prince Harry. He was not granted anonymity because he's special. There was a requested media blackout of his tour of duty because of the danger it posed to him and everyone around him. Surely you and any intelligent person could understand that. My problem was with the last line in the open thread post, which I pasted in my original post. If Drudge or any other news outlet were to post the location of the President while in Iraq or other "war zone" you could see the danger it would create. If your intention was different than the way I read it, then I apologize for the reply. But the way that line was written it seemed to me to imply that Prince Harry was receiving special treatment, when in fact we was only being given that exact SAME treatment that all of the members of the Armed Forces expect when deployed. Which is to NOT have their name, location, or family identified while in an active war zone.
Regards, FowlerK9
It's a tricky one.
March 1, 2008 - 12:36 ET by Jack BauerIt's a tricky one.
No American news outlet is under any obligation to go along with the request from a foreign government not to report what they consider "news."
However, the UK is the U.S.'s major ally in both Iraq and Afghanistan. America provides air-cover for British troops, especially in Afghanistan where British commanders can and do have authority to call in USAF strikes on terrorist positions.
Therefore there's a great comaradre between the forces fighting a common enemy. But from what I have read, the info was broken by a German magazine, so once it was already out, Drudge was probably entitled to assume it was within a day of breaking bigtime anyway.
Drudge has many MSM contacts in the UK and I bet he knew months ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if he voluntarily held back himself.
One other addendudm -- it was only the week before last that four al-kayda supporters in Britain were convicted of a plot to kidnap a British muslim soldier, and behead him live on the internet.
Anyone who doesn't think the Taliban wouldn't have put everything they had into attacking the location of Harry's unit is living in la la land.
I Agree Jack
March 1, 2008 - 16:00 ET by acumen"....the info was broken by a German magazine, so once it was already out, Drudge was probably entitled to assume it was within a day of breaking bigtime anyway."
I applaud Drudge for beating the demedia to the punch by a few hours/days. In doing so Drudge places the demedia in the uncomfortable position of choosing between attacking Drudge for something the demedia is quite comfortable in doing themselves or defending Drudge whom it is reasonable to conclude most demedia outlets abhor.
For example, let's see if the AP defends Drudge as vigorously as they continue to defend AP photojournalist Bilal Hussein suspected of aiding insurgents in Iraq.
Historically, the demedia has not appeared to be in the least bothered with the repetitive practice of the NY Times, the WaPo, Reuters, AP and other demedia outlets disseminating information which endagers Coalition Forces in war zones.
Harry Right; Drudge Wrong
March 1, 2008 - 12:56 ET by EnDashEnDash The veil of silence was the only way Harry could go to fight without unduly endangering himself and his fellow troops. The press blackout was essential to this, and Drudge should have honored it, as did the entire UK press corps.
Even though the story did appear in one or two other minor venues, it wasn't being picked up by any major outlet until Drudge put his own ego before the principle of doing what's right.
Pelosi takes another one on the chin
March 1, 2008 - 13:07 ET by BlondeThe Attorney General refuses to refer contempt citations to the Federal Grand Jury (Josh Bolton & Harriet Meiers).
"The contempt of Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an executive branch official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege," Mukasey wrote, quoting Justice policy.
Democrats outraged, natch. Pelosi's blinks exceed the speed limit.
Another resounding success for Congressional Dems. Bawhahahah.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
March 1, 2008 - 13:11 ET by RESTLESS 1Nice find. Will these people EVER get over it and do some real work?
On second thought, if these shenanigans keep them busy and out of my wallet, so much the better.
Restless - More Dem Useful Activity
March 1, 2008 - 13:18 ET by BlondeThanks...I found that on Drudge, and was kind of surprised that no one had posted it here.
This is from my local rag....the Florida (D)'s are caucusing today to select their (non) delegates to the convention. This is going to get VERY interesting. I see lawsuits (oops...pantsuits) in Florida's future.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
From Blonde's link: "The
March 1, 2008 - 13:21 ET by RESTLESS 1From Blonde's link:
"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said. "As
public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and
protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks
to do just that."-Nancy Pelosi
Since when has this dem congress been worried about the rule of law? They are the ones protecting out Constitutional rights??? These people are ... Geez I can't even think straight when it comes to pelosi, reid et al. It is actually infuriating.
"The suit had a political purpose too. Democrats have urged that the
filing occur swiftly so that a judge might rule before the November
elections, when all 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up
for grabs. Criticism of Bush's use of executive power is a key tenet of
the Democrats' platform, from the presidential race on down."
Well DUH!!!! Everything is political with these idiots.
I wish I could take credit
March 1, 2008 - 14:16 ET by RightOfMostI wish I could take credit for this. But just compare the third-in-line to the "throne" in England and the U.S.
Prince Harry wants to fight and defeat the terrorists and is (was) on the FRONT LINES.
Nancy Pelosi wants to appease the terrorists and defeat the UNITED STATES, and she is trying to do so anonymously, except when she publicly violates American law and visits American enemy Bashir Assad.
Prince Harry = hero. Thank you, sir, and I'm sorry that you had to be dismissed from the job that you volunteered to do.
Nancy Pelosi = Traitor. You should be on death row.
WHY CAN'T WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS??
Blonde
March 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by MrShyPelosi's blinks exceed the speed limit.
Hahaha... nice one, B ! :)
SOCKS THE CAT 2008... for REAL Change
Too Funny!
March 1, 2008 - 21:48 ET by Del Dolemonte"The American people demand that we uphold the law," Pelosi said
What a crock. If San Fran Nan was correct, Bill Clinton would have long ago been indicted for perjury, a felony.
More rebuttal to global warming
March 1, 2008 - 13:13 ET by nkviking75The National Weather Service in Des Moines, Iowa, issued the following statement this morning:
Statement as of 10:46 am CST on February 26, 2008
... Record snowfall month at Des Moines and 2nd highest at Waterloo...
A new February snowfall record has been established at Des Moines. In addition... the total February snowfall at Waterloo ended the month as the 2nd highest on record.
You can see the statement here, although it probably won't remain beyond 3/1/08. Scroll to near the bottom
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Chump Change!
March 1, 2008 - 22:00 ET by Del DolemonteDes Moines' new record is just over 22 inches of snow in one month (February 2008).
Here in central New Hampshire, I have received over 22 inches of snow in just the past 4 days.
I used
March 1, 2008 - 13:14 ET by bigpapato go to drudge a few times a day just to get links to stories..
I will never go there again... it's not about ONE soldiers safety it's about the entire unit being more of a target.
I could give two stinks about Harry but the possibility that the entire unit might be in more danger is unforgivable..
screw drudge
I DISAGREE
March 1, 2008 - 14:32 ET by paulnashtnIs Drudge and the rest of the world supposed to bend down and kiss the royal ring just so the boy prince can go play soldier?
I'm sorry, I know what a pain it can be not to be able to do exactly everything you want to do but if the boy prince's presence endangers his unit then HE is the problem NOT Drudge
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Instead of trying to be
March 1, 2008 - 15:24 ET by motherbeltInstead of trying to be "Democrats-lite" or "liberal/conservatives", Republicans should read this piece by John Hawkins about What Conservatism Can Do for the Middle Class
He makes the case, in detail, that (emphasis added):
America is a beacon of hope in a dark world and it got to be this way
because of our people, not because of our government. The bulk of
Americans have always been decent, hard working, ambitious, independent
people and conservatism is a philosophy best suited to them.
As they say....go read the whole thing.
Wrong Question
March 1, 2008 - 15:38 ET by CGatton"...should one man be given anonymity that hundreds of thousands on the front lines aren't?"
The real question should be, "should one man be given the anonymity that hundreds of thousands on the front lines are given automatically" The answer is, of course, yes. As was said yesterday, this story was driven by the concept that everyone has a right to know everything about everyone and everything, which is patently ridiculous. It never should have been researched or published.
What is needed is to remove all libel protection form pissant little reporters/editors/publishers. I would go so far as to urge for triple or even quadruple damages because of the media's ability to seriously and unrepairably damage reputations. And no, I don't think it would stifle free expression, or shut down blogs. It would, however, force research and honest reporting, and do away with the rush to scoop. Heck, it might even force people on blogs to be civil, let alone do some fact checking, lol.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Even Harry does not mind
March 1, 2008 - 15:48 ET by DelsaEven Prince Harry does not mind his where abouts known. He himself has said he'd rather be in Afganistan than in England. At least in Afganistan he has real friends who depend on him and on whom he dpends. And where I might add the media are very few and cannot hound him.
Harry said he does not want to be sitting around the palace and being hounded by the media. I hope the queen lets him return to the front where he feels real and alive.
The enemy wants to kill all soldiers in the area. They have no intention of killing just one. If they hit Harry it would be a plus for them and real peace for Harry.
God bless Harry and long live Drudge.
My thoughts on O'Bama
March 1, 2008 - 16:37 ET by ricklailThe late Brother Dave Gardner had a comedy routine that I believe best sums up Barry Huzzey O’Bama.
A promoter goes into a small southern town and puts up a giant billboard that says” WATCH FOR IT.” He goes back a couple weeks later and puts up another one that says “IT’S COMING.” A few weeks later he returns to the town and puts up another board stating “IT WILL BE HERE ON THE 14TH. TICKETS ON SALE THAT DAY AT THE HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM.” On the 14th the promoter is at the stadium selling tickets like crazy to the frenzied citizens. When every seat is filled he sends his assistant to pull the cover off a giant billboard in the stadium. The sign says “IT’S GONE!”
I can’t tell it with the elegance of Brother Dave but if Barry Huzzey O’bama gets elected this is exactly what we will have on November 4th.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard
rick...That about sums
March 1, 2008 - 17:03 ET by bigtimerrick...
That about sums it up alright.
...which of course makes Hillary seethe all the more...
Huck vs. McCain
March 1, 2008 - 19:23 ET by bigtimerHucksters last Alamo?
Anyone think ol' McCain should have had one last debate with Huckabee before Tuesday?
I would of enjoyed seeing this that is for sure.
I wasn't for either...I just think it is sad that McCain assumes he is going to win all the way around....why they don't need us conservatives the have three to one with the so-called moderates/independents....I have heard this quite a bit last week, especially by Rove and his little white chart on H&C.
Time will tell.
"How About a Little Fire, Scarecrow?"
March 1, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Del DolemonteThe Science Channel has a new series running called "Master Blasters", about zany model rocket enthusiasts who do stranger things with rockets than some of the Food Channel folks do with raw fish.
The normal air time is every Wednesday at 10 PM Eastern, but they are running a marathon tonight. Be sure to catch the episode where they try to launch a replica of Dorothy's house from "The Wizard of Oz".
"The two teams must launch a small farm house and safely return it to the ground in this "Wizard of Oz" inspired challenge. To win, the house must spin three times while in the air."
Other requirements-Hillary must separate from the house while the rocket is in the air, and the house must return safely to Earth with Dorothy intact.
http://science.disco...
outing drudge
March 1, 2008 - 23:59 ET by WesenSomebody needs to out Drudge.