Bertha Lewis, Acorn's chief organizer, said in a statement that came with the photo, "It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans."
Hehehe. This was in early 2006. Looks like McCain wised up. Better late than never I suppose. Of course, how much he actually "supported" acorn, besides sitting in a chair, is also still to be determined.
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
I can't believe I'm replying to this insanity.
That was kind of a laughable blog. To summarize for those who don't want to wade through it.
1) Obama is dumb, dumb, dumb.
2) Ayers is a mastermind, capable of much while regretting nothing.
3) Ayers noticed how dumb Obama was, and realized that if he rewrote his memoir it could launch Obama's career. Thus Ayers carefully brainwashed Obama and then rewrote his memoir.
4) ... well, the author hasn't figured out how Ayers dressed as Obama and gave his 2004 convention speech...yet.
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
I can't believe I'm replying to this insanity.
That was kind of a laughable blog. To summarize for those who don't want to wade through it.
1) Obama is dumb, dumb, dumb.
2) Ayers is a mastermind, capable of much while regretting nothing.
3) Ayers noticed how dumb Obama was, and realized that if he rewrote his memoir it could launch Obama's career. Thus Ayers carefully brainwashed Obama and then rewrote his memoir.
4) ... well, the author hasn't figured out how Ayers dressed as Obama and gave his 2004 convention speech...yet.
I disagree with your interpretation of what the site said. What I do find interesting is the assertions here that Obama is actually a smart man. I have seen his apologists here with an apparent straight face say that he is showing how "thoughtful" he is when he stutters, stammers and rambles, yet Palin proves she is spouting talking points if she limits her answer and then repeats it.
It is really hard to take seriously a discussion with people who hold such a position. Imagine how you would respond to Sarah if she responded just like obama. Seriously.
To another point, do you know why we are using internet blogs and other non-MSM sites to get information on these issues? Because the MSM is either literally or virtually silent on the issues. And as I said to my kids back in the 1980's, the primary way the press distorts the news is not by how they report stories. It is by choosing which stories to report.
Serious, and I mean DEAD SERIOUS issues that are arguably supported by plenty of apparent facts are not even on the MSM radar.
This is one reason the McCain supporters sound so angry at some rallys.
Well, that and the fact that there are ten times as many there as there are at Obama rallys.
This is very interesting, from an academic perspective, to observe.
I feel like I have received the least amount of information from MSM about both candidates than I have in any previous election.
Maybe "their" goal was to polarize everyone so strongly that "they" don't need to give us any information of substance and we will be so busy bickering amongst ourselves that we won't even notice.
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
I can't believe I'm replying to this insanity.
Why do you think it is insane? After all, they did live in the same neighborhood.
I disagree with your interpretation of what the site said. What I do find interesting is the assertions here that Obama is actually a smart man. I have seen his apologists here with an apparent straight face say that he is showing how "thoughtful" he is when he stutters, stammers and rambles, yet Palin proves she is spouting talking points if she limits her answer and then repeats it.
It is really hard to take seriously a discussion with people who hold such a position. Imagine how you would respond to Sarah if she responded just like obama. Seriously.
I don't care if either stammers. Stephen Hawkings talks like a funny robot, but he's a brilliant man because he has brilliant thoughts and is able to express them through written or verbal communication in a way many people can understand.
When Obama stammers, it's not much different than McCain buying times by repeating "My friends" for the billionth time. So what? When they actually say something, Obama, Biden, and McCain all sound like they have a grasp of the situations they are speaking on. Palin does not.
That is why when she repeats talking points while ignoring questions we come down on her. If she paused for a second, said "Uh", and then said something smart an honest like "No I don't have significant foreign policy experience, but that does not mean I lack understanding. Here's what we need to do in Iraq, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Israel", I might not agree with her but I could at least respect her opinion. Instead, she lies and spouts canned answers. Guess what else spouts out canned answers? Talking dolls; the kind you buy for children.
That poll was clearly an outlier, as I remember the MSM focusing on how essential Ohio would be during election day coverage. But you're grasping at straws now Robroy. Using a bad poll from 2004 to discredit the overwhelming polling problems McCain has now is like arguing that our current financial crisis will be easily solved and then pointing to the Dow in 2001-2005 as proof.
I feel like I have received the least amount of information from MSM about both candidates than I have in any previous election.
Maybe "their" goal was to polarize everyone so strongly that "they" don't need to give us any information of substance and we will be so busy bickering amongst ourselves that we won't even notice.
It is highly unlikely that such a conspiracy exists. I think the MSM is limited in their power and, in the previous century, we could not really have talked this over. Now we don't just talk it over. As you see, there is LOTS of information out there.
Imagine this with the full CBS treatment. Hmmm, they didn't seem to be there.
The internet is having a similar impact that the invention of the printing press did. You can get your message out whether it is truth or fiction. The reader/viewer gets to listen to both sides much like a juror in a court case and weigh the veracity of evidence on both sides and make up their own mind.
You couldn't do that when all we had was an MSM lock on press. It was the absence of that lock that allowed the Swift Boat Vets to get the truth out on Kerry's Winter Soldier lies and caused Dan Rather to lose his job.
That poll was clearly an outlier, as I remember the MSM focusing on how essential Ohio would be during election day coverage. But you're grasping at straws now Robroy. Using a bad poll from 2004 to discredit the overwhelming polling problems McCain has now is like arguing that our current financial crisis will be easily solved and then pointing to the Dow in 2001-2005 as proof.
yes, somewhat of an outlier. But check out electoral vote for 2004. You will find Bush down quite a bit before the election even though he won. And there was no bradley effect there.
'Course, we won't know until November whether there will be one here.
I disagree with your interpretation of what the site said. What I do find interesting is the assertions here that Obama is actually a smart man. I have seen his apologists here with an apparent straight face say that he is showing how "thoughtful" he is when he stutters, stammers and rambles, yet Palin proves she is spouting talking points if she limits her answer and then repeats it.
It is really hard to take seriously a discussion with people who hold such a position. Imagine how you would respond to Sarah if she responded just like obama. Seriously.
I don't care if either stammers. Stephen Hawkings talks like a funny robot, but he's a brilliant man because he has brilliant thoughts and is able to express them through written or verbal communication in a way many people can understand.
When Obama stammers, it's not much different than McCain buying times by repeating "My friends" for the billionth time. So what? When they actually say something, Obama, Biden, and McCain all sound like they have a grasp of the situations they are speaking on. Palin does not.
That is why when she repeats talking points while ignoring questions we come down on her. If she paused for a second, said "Uh", and then said something smart an honest like "No I don't have significant foreign policy experience, but that does not mean I lack understanding. Here's what we need to do in Iraq, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Israel", I might not agree with her but I could at least respect her opinion. Instead, she lies and spouts canned answers. Guess what else spouts out canned answers? Talking dolls; the kind you buy for children.
Although I don't think it is the best response one could give, I rank "I'll get back to you on that" over "that's above my pay grade".
Regarding canned answers, I think all candidates resort to them from time to time. There are multiple reasons. One is that there simply is no answer. Many of the "canned" answers are responses to "is it true you've stopped beating your wife" or "do you agree with the bush doctrine" type of questions. But not all the answers are canned. And sometimes the "canned" answers are not canned at all. They appear that way to people who believe a person can not be that steadfast and succinct with their answers, therefore they "must be" canned.
Imagine this with the full CBS treatment. Hmmm, they didn't seem to be there.
My guess is that CBS wasn't there, because that's not very interesting. "Volunteer gets out the vote, and some volunteers pitch their favorite candidate at the same time" is hardly an eye catching headline. Neither is "some political ads placed legally just outside the 100 ft buffer zone". If republicans were doing the same, but talking up McCain on the way to the booth, I would be equally meh on this.
Although I don't think it is the best response one could give, I rank "I'll get back to you on that" over "that's above my pay grade".
Regarding canned answers, I think all candidates resort to them from time to time. There are multiple reasons. One is that there simply is no answer. Many of the "canned" answers are responses to "is it true you've stopped beating your wife" or "do you agree with the bush doctrine" type of questions. But not all the answers are canned. And sometimes the "canned" answers are not canned at all. They appear that way to people who believe a person can not be that steadfast and succinct with their answers, therefore they "must be" canned.
The same tired example. Which is nuts as an example, because neither was canned. Could you imagine any handler recommending either of those responses? And what's with the strawman arguments. You, at least implicitly, are comparing a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha with "what's the bush doctrine". The bush doctrine may not be well defined (I've heard perhaps four variants) but as a poorly worded version of "do you agree with Bush's foreign policy" it's a perfectly valid question to ask a candidate.
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
I can't believe I'm replying to this insanity.
That's what I was thinking. There's more proof that Trig is Bristol's kid.
I'm starting to see a serious trend of abuse of power here. What's silly, in this case, is that the Palin's combined income is something over $200k. They could easily have afforded to build that house all above board.
3...2...1...queue up Robroy attempting to change the subject by linking to a blog that suggests Ayers attended Obama's basketball games as a youth or some such nonsense.
HEH,heh, this would be funny if it were not so serious. He spoke at ONE small gathering TWO years ago and the only words he says in that entire video is "what makes america special is what's in this room tonight." And then we never hear what he meant by that. Did he mean volunteerism in general? Did he mean Acorn? Did he mean himself? Who knows? Not much of a speech.
Meanwhile, this single event two years ago is a tiny drop compared to the bucket of Obama involvement at many levels and for many years and in many ways, including donating hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That's pretty funny. There may or may not be something to this but some of the assumptions in the article are not reasonable to anyone who has actually lived in a small town or actually built their own house or helped friends build a house.
I have done both. Most or all of the questions in this article can be easily answered. One of the funny premises was that contracts were granted to people who the Palins know in some way. I have friends in Alaska who have been there for decades. I can tell you that with a family that has been in politics for as long as this family has, coupled with their diverse local backgrounds, they would be hard pressed to find contractors they DIDN'T know.
I'm starting to see a serious trend of abuse of power here. What's silly, in this case, is that the Palin's combined income is something over $200k. They could easily have afforded to build that house all above board.
3...2...1...queue up Robroy attempting to change the subject by linking to a blog that suggests Ayers attended Obama's basketball games as a youth or some such nonsense.
Naw, I'll post this instead. I admit it is not random house construction speculation nor as serious as the possiblility that Palin's son is really her grandson or as damning as the possibility that as governor she re-assigning one of her employees that was fighting her vision, but it is interesting nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
Interesting. In that OPINION piece, the assertion is made, "In plain English, she did something "unlawful." She broke the state ethics law."
Not a very valid opinion, obviously, since that directly contradicts the report.
This is getting sillier and sillier. To take it a step further, if this exact same thing had happened with Obama in Chicago, the Trooper would have simply dissapeared. No scandal at all.
Nor should there be a scandal here. The report is very clear to anyone who actually reads it. She was completely vindicated. Well except for this: "The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform."
Another statement from above: "Branchflower reads the Ethics Act to prohibit any governmental action or decision made for justifiable reasons benefiting the State if that action or decision might also make a public official happy for any other reason."
It is simply a political hackjob that completely exhonerated her of any wrongdoing. Period.
That's pretty funny. There may or may not be something to this but some of the assumptions in the article are not reasonable to anyone who has actually lived in a small town or actually built their own house or helped friends build a house.
I might have misread this story, but I think the important question is - did the Palins receive compensation in the form of a house for political favors rendered. Now, if these guys are friends, and they just stopped by a few times to help Todd put up roofing or something like that, then it's no big deal. It may still give the impression of potential favoritism, and they should have known better, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I should add, however; if you have some control over contract decisions, it is vital to prevent even the appearance of moral hazard. If I got to decide which construction company built a road (just making something up), I would not so much as accept tickets to a ball game or a single dinner out from any of those lobbying for the contract.
Now has anyone here ever seen or heard what he's said? I certainly haven't.
Their entire strategy is this:
1) deny it happened.
2) say that the other side is doing what they are accused of doing.
I just saw the video. There is nothing there worth posting about. It is short, concise and reasonable. He said he has "heard the same thing". Is he pressing charges somewhere or is he simply making a statement that he has heard it? Considering the fact that there are nutcases on both sides there is no doubt in my mind it is likely true - and irrelevant.
Now, if he was constantly drumming this mantra into interviewers it would at least rise to the level of "curiosity". But that is not what I am seeing in this brief sentence. He's saying there are fringe nuts on both sides.
I mean, Obama DOES have the support of Louis Farrakhan.
That's pretty funny. There may or may not be something to this but some of the assumptions in the article are not reasonable to anyone who has actually lived in a small town or actually built their own house or helped friends build a house.
I might have misread this story, but I think the important question is - did the Palins receive compensation in the form of a house for political favors rendered. Now, if these guys are friends, and they just stopped by a few times to help Todd put up roofing or something like that, then it's no big deal. It may still give the impression of potential favoritism, and they should have known better, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I should add, however; if you have some control over contract decisions, it is vital to prevent even the appearance of moral hazard. If I got to decide which construction company built a road (just making something up), I would not so much as accept tickets to a ball game or a single dinner out from any of those lobbying for the contract.
Yeah. Lots of good questions.
By all means, lets ask and get to the bottom of this nightmare!
While we're at it, lets ask Todd if it is true that he has quit beating his wife.
Comments
Until now.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/oba ... _write.htm
It's legs are now strong enough for me to at least bring it up for discussion.
Bertha Lewis, Acorn's chief organizer, said in a statement that came with the photo, "It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans."
Hehehe. This was in early 2006. Looks like McCain wised up. Better late than never I suppose. Of course, how much he actually "supported" acorn, besides sitting in a chair, is also still to be determined.
It does a good job explaining the danger of echo-chambers.
wtf.
Yes, yes Robroy. You've seen through the lies. Ayers ghost-wrote Dreams from My Father way back in in the early nineties. He molded this nobody-community-organizer as part of his master 15-year plan for the presidency.
I can't believe I'm replying to this insanity.
That was kind of a laughable blog. To summarize for those who don't want to wade through it.
1) Obama is dumb, dumb, dumb.
2) Ayers is a mastermind, capable of much while regretting nothing.
3) Ayers noticed how dumb Obama was, and realized that if he rewrote his memoir it could launch Obama's career. Thus Ayers carefully brainwashed Obama and then rewrote his memoir.
4) ... well, the author hasn't figured out how Ayers dressed as Obama and gave his 2004 convention speech...yet.
It is really hard to take seriously a discussion with people who hold such a position. Imagine how you would respond to Sarah if she responded just like obama. Seriously.
To another point, do you know why we are using internet blogs and other non-MSM sites to get information on these issues? Because the MSM is either literally or virtually silent on the issues. And as I said to my kids back in the 1980's, the primary way the press distorts the news is not by how they report stories. It is by choosing which stories to report.
Serious, and I mean DEAD SERIOUS issues that are arguably supported by plenty of apparent facts are not even on the MSM radar.
This is one reason the McCain supporters sound so angry at some rallys.
Well, that and the fact that there are ten times as many there as there are at Obama rallys.
This is very interesting, from an academic perspective, to observe.
Maybe "their" goal was to polarize everyone so strongly that "they" don't need to give us any information of substance and we will be so busy bickering amongst ourselves that we won't even notice.
Here, have some more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/ ... the_1.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... E4YzRjMjg=
http://tedmathis.blogspot.com/2008/09/d ... ms-by.html
Same guy as the original article I linked but different and earlier
http://cashill.com/natl_general/more_pr ... hosted.htm
It is only insanity to you because you have, apparently, relied on the media and Obama for your news.
Do you consider this insanity too:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
A redacted document as discussed here:
http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/1 ... rtificate/
I ignored this issue for months, but it seems to keep getting legs even though the MSM is completely silent on it.
Interesting. You need a birth certificate to join a little league team.
Kerry has not signed over that form 180 either...
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cf ... -04&cat=PP
I don't care if either stammers. Stephen Hawkings talks like a funny robot, but he's a brilliant man because he has brilliant thoughts and is able to express them through written or verbal communication in a way many people can understand.
When Obama stammers, it's not much different than McCain buying times by repeating "My friends" for the billionth time. So what? When they actually say something, Obama, Biden, and McCain all sound like they have a grasp of the situations they are speaking on. Palin does not.
That is why when she repeats talking points while ignoring questions we come down on her. If she paused for a second, said "Uh", and then said something smart an honest like "No I don't have significant foreign policy experience, but that does not mean I lack understanding. Here's what we need to do in Iraq, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Israel", I might not agree with her but I could at least respect her opinion. Instead, she lies and spouts canned answers. Guess what else spouts out canned answers? Talking dolls; the kind you buy for children.
That poll was clearly an outlier, as I remember the MSM focusing on how essential Ohio would be during election day coverage. But you're grasping at straws now Robroy. Using a bad poll from 2004 to discredit the overwhelming polling problems McCain has now is like arguing that our current financial crisis will be easily solved and then pointing to the Dow in 2001-2005 as proof.
For example, this is not MSM but it is REAL information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8C1E11kliE
Imagine this with the full CBS treatment. Hmmm, they didn't seem to be there.
The internet is having a similar impact that the invention of the printing press did. You can get your message out whether it is truth or fiction. The reader/viewer gets to listen to both sides much like a juror in a court case and weigh the veracity of evidence on both sides and make up their own mind.
You couldn't do that when all we had was an MSM lock on press. It was the absence of that lock that allowed the Swift Boat Vets to get the truth out on Kerry's Winter Soldier lies and caused Dan Rather to lose his job.
'Course, we won't know until November whether there will be one here.
Regarding canned answers, I think all candidates resort to them from time to time. There are multiple reasons. One is that there simply is no answer. Many of the "canned" answers are responses to "is it true you've stopped beating your wife" or "do you agree with the bush doctrine" type of questions. But not all the answers are canned. And sometimes the "canned" answers are not canned at all. They appear that way to people who believe a person can not be that steadfast and succinct with their answers, therefore they "must be" canned.
My guess is that CBS wasn't there, because that's not very interesting. "Volunteer gets out the vote, and some volunteers pitch their favorite candidate at the same time" is hardly an eye catching headline. Neither is "some political ads placed legally just outside the 100 ft buffer zone". If republicans were doing the same, but talking up McCain on the way to the booth, I would be equally meh on this.
The same tired example. Which is nuts as an example, because neither was canned. Could you imagine any handler recommending either of those responses? And what's with the strawman arguments. You, at least implicitly, are comparing a "have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha with "what's the bush doctrine". The bush doctrine may not be well defined (I've heard perhaps four variants) but as a poorly worded version of "do you agree with Bush's foreign policy" it's a perfectly valid question to ask a candidate.
That's what I was thinking. There's more proof that Trig is Bristol's kid.
http://www.mdc.edu/Home/Press/rally.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9wy2MI1NI
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/covers ... ohn_mccain
I'm starting to see a serious trend of abuse of power here. What's silly, in this case, is that the Palin's combined income is something over $200k. They could easily have afforded to build that house all above board.
3...2...1...queue up Robroy attempting to change the subject by linking to a blog that suggests Ayers attended Obama's basketball games as a youth or some such nonsense.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/555236.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9DKa8TXwk
Now has anyone here ever seen or heard what he's said? I certainly haven't.
Their entire strategy is this:
1) deny it happened.
2) say that the other side is doing what they are accused of doing.
HEH,heh, this would be funny if it were not so serious. He spoke at ONE small gathering TWO years ago and the only words he says in that entire video is "what makes america special is what's in this room tonight." And then we never hear what he meant by that. Did he mean volunteerism in general? Did he mean Acorn? Did he mean himself? Who knows? Not much of a speech.
Meanwhile, this single event two years ago is a tiny drop compared to the bucket of Obama involvement at many levels and for many years and in many ways, including donating hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Meh...
I have done both. Most or all of the questions in this article can be easily answered. One of the funny premises was that contracts were granted to people who the Palins know in some way. I have friends in Alaska who have been there for decades. I can tell you that with a family that has been in politics for as long as this family has, coupled with their diverse local backgrounds, they would be hard pressed to find contractors they DIDN'T know.
This is a comedy of speculation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
What a joke.
Seriously.
Not a very valid opinion, obviously, since that directly contradicts the report.
This is getting sillier and sillier. To take it a step further, if this exact same thing had happened with Obama in Chicago, the Trooper would have simply dissapeared. No scandal at all.
Nor should there be a scandal here. The report is very clear to anyone who actually reads it. She was completely vindicated. Well except for this:
"The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform."
It is in this rundown: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/1 ... 1804d9fbc1
Another statement from above: "Branchflower reads the Ethics Act to prohibit any governmental action or decision made for justifiable reasons benefiting the State if that action or decision might also make a public official happy for any other reason."
It is simply a political hackjob that completely exhonerated her of any wrongdoing. Period.
Sheesh. Talk about yer low hanging fruit.
I might have misread this story, but I think the important question is - did the Palins receive compensation in the form of a house for political favors rendered. Now, if these guys are friends, and they just stopped by a few times to help Todd put up roofing or something like that, then it's no big deal. It may still give the impression of potential favoritism, and they should have known better, but that doesn't make it illegal.
I should add, however; if you have some control over contract decisions, it is vital to prevent even the appearance of moral hazard. If I got to decide which construction company built a road (just making something up), I would not so much as accept tickets to a ball game or a single dinner out from any of those lobbying for the contract.
Now, if he was constantly drumming this mantra into interviewers it would at least rise to the level of "curiosity". But that is not what I am seeing in this brief sentence. He's saying there are fringe nuts on both sides.
I mean, Obama DOES have the support of Louis Farrakhan.
By all means, lets ask and get to the bottom of this nightmare!
While we're at it, lets ask Todd if it is true that he has quit beating his wife.