"Writing is a skill, not a talent, and thus one's ability as a writer can be improved by thoughtful effort. The problem with some people is that they graduate college as good writers, experience early success on account of that, and thus never devote themselves diligently to the relentless quest for improvement that could make them great writers."
Somewhere, there should be a Hall of Fame honoring profoundly stupid Democratic Party campaign ideas. Among the featured exhibits would be Michael Dukakis's 1988 tank ride and John Kerry's 2004 Ohio duck-hunting trip. ("Can I get me a hunting license here?") The important thing to remember about such classic campaign blunders, however, is that Democrats didn't realize their disastrous potential until it was too late to prevent them. Whether it's George McGovern's choice of Thomas Eagleton as his 1972 running mate or Fritz Mondale's promise to raise taxes in 1984, for some reason there's never anybody around Democrat HQ with the foresight to shout an advance warning. If Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign melts down this year, however, the Democrats won't have that excuse. This time, there was plenty of warning . . .
In August 1972, Hunter S. Thompson recalled a conversation with McGovern campaign manager Gary Hart: "One of his central beliefs for the past two years had been that winning the Democratic nomination would be much harder than beating Nixon... So any Democratic candidate could beat Nixon, and all the candidates knew it."
Given his absurdly good fortune so far (that first book deal, for example) Team Obama can hardly be blamed for believing their candidate can do no wrong. That kind of hubris, however, inevitably spells trouble in politics.
UPDATE: Obama just clinched the Democratic nomination. Hillary conceded and endorsed him. He's the object of quasi-religious media adoration. And yet he's just 2 points ahead in the latest Gallup daily tracking poll. Just sayin' . . .
UPDATE II:Some guy at MyDD is simply rapturous over Obama's poll "bounce," calling it "dramatic," among much else. I wonder if someone could go back to June 2004 and tell me what the Bush-Kerry numbers were?
The states that were critical to his nomination were Illinois, Lincoln’s home state, and the four southern states most associated with slavery: South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. Much has been made, and rightly so, of how Obama’s rise changes America’s relationship to the rest of the world. What has been less appreciated is how deeply Obama’s victory alters America’s relationship to itself.
Uh, hold on there a second, son. Don't you think a list of the "southern states most associated with slavery" might include Mississippi? (Which Obama also won handily, by the way.) Never mind the facts. Facts and sobriety are for cynics, says our breathless Brit transplant:
The cynics demand that we cease this kind of historical hyper-ventilation. It is deemed a function of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, of insufficient scepticism, of Obamania. But you have to have a heart of stone not to see what this has already done to race relations in America.
Please stop writing about my country, sir. If you hadn't gone to grad school at Harvard, you'd have never set foot in America, and to my knowledge, your list of stateside residences consists of Cambridge, Mass., Washington, D.C., and Provincetown, Mass. Your writing about America is almost as illegitimate as if I were to write about Britain, based on having spent a few hours at Heathrow Airport.
Why is it that no one else noticed the magnificent Obama Effect on race relations that Sullivan claims to see? But this is just the tip of an iceberg of nonsense. Look at this:
Without the disastrous mismanagement of Iraq abroad and hurricane Katrina at home, the logic for a transformational candidacy such as Obama’s would never have added up.
Iraq, OK. But "disastrous mismanagement of ... hurricane Katrina"? That hurricane hit New Orleans on Labor Day weekend 2006, and it's rather hard to say what that has to do with Obama's 2008 presidential candidacy, except perhaps, "Nothing at all."
What sort of fevered "logic" connects the Illinois senator to the Louisiana flood? Does Sully even comprehend that New Orleans and Chicago are 900 miles apart? The feverish Sullivan seems to grab whatever's at hand and throws it in, as if he were making a Sunday casserole of Saturday leftovers. And he is by no means finished with the recipe:
Obama has something that Reagan and John F Kennedy had: a charisma that seems to fit the presidency. And he is obviously more Kennedy than Reagan, with youth on his side. Give the American presidency the allure of youth and testosterone and it is an intoxicating mass media phenomenon. His personality could do for it what Kennedy did, what John Paul II did for the institution of the papacy in his first years and what Diana did for the institution of the monarchy: it’s a fusion of op-cultural mass appeal with highly authoritative institutions.
Right. We'll delicately pass over Sullivan's rhapsody about "the allure of youth and testosterone," and instead ask whether "charisma" was the chief qualification of Reagan and Kennedy.
JFK, whose father had been U.S. ambassador to England in the 1930s, was a decorated Navy hero of World War II. By 1960, JFK had spent six years in the House and another seven years in the Senate. Having earned a reputation as a hardline Catholic anti-communist during the McCarthy era, JFK in 1952 had defeated a famous Republican, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge. In 1957, he won the Pulitzer Prize for Profiles in Courage, and was re-elected to the Senate in 1958.
Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood leading man who had been president of the Screen Actors Guild during a crucial period of the late 1940s, when he successfully helped fend off the efforts of Communist-backed unions to shut down the studios. When his film career stagnated, Reagan hosted the popular "GE Theater" TV program and became a success on the speaking circuit, where his usual topic was a patriotic defense of the glories of free enterprise. In 1964, Reagan's televised "Time for Choosing" speech electrified the conservative insurgents who supported the doomed Goldwater campaign. In 1966, he was elected governor of California, and served two successful terms as governor of the nation's most populous state before mounting his unsuccessful GOP primary challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976.
Now, compare the pre-presidential biographies of JFK and Reagan to Obama, and what stands out? First, both Kennedy and Reagan were nationally well-known years before they won their party's nomination for the White House. Second, both were experienced politicians who'd twice won statewide elections. Kennedy had spent 13 years in Congress, and Reagan had spent eight years as governor. By comparison, Obama spent seven years as an Illinois state legislator before his 2004 election to the Senate.
Almost no one outside Illinois had heard of Obama until his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. He is not merely young and inexperienced, he is such a newcomer to national politics as to be a cipher.
If Obama got the nomination because Democrats "clearly wanted real change," to use Sully's phrase, then Nov. 4 will be a test of whether the rest of the electorate is so desperate for "real change" as to entrust the presidency to a callow parvenu. Maybe they are, but it would mark the sharpest turn in voter preference since Jimmy Carter smiled his way into office.
[T]he outpouring of media and political grief following Sen. Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of brain cancer last month has me rather perplexed. Yes, it’s grim news for Kennedy’s wife, children and relatives, but let’s be honest: the man is 76 years old (a hard 76, I might add) and has led a long, privileged and exciting life. His imminent death . . . is the natural conclusion for a man who was born in 1932. . . . The late Texas Gov. Ann Richards once famously said about the first President Bush, “Poor George. He was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.” Maybe so, but Bush has nothing on Teddy Kennedy when it comes to the extraordinary perks of wealth, power and fame.
Well worth the time to read the whole thing, especially for those too young to remember exactly who Teddy is and what he's done.
UPDATED & BUMPED: Brother Nathanael Kapner joins the growing crowd under Obama's bus, as his post is scrubbed from the Obama Web site, but not before Michelle Malkin grabs a screen-cap. Hot Air and LGF have more.
PREVIOUSLY:Barack Obama's official Web site posts an article by "Brother Nathanael Kapner" (?) called "How the Jewish Lobby Works." When I first saw this at Memeorandum, my jaw dropped, and when I saw that it was posted in an Obama "community" called "Socialists For Obama," I fell out of my chair.
Is this what they mean by "Change We Can Believe In"? It's more like answered prayer for Republicans. Socialism and anti-Zionism -- that agenda's not going to win Obama many votes in North Carolina.
UPDATE:An anonymous commenter makes the obvious point that these "communities" are user-generated and do not necessarily reflect the official Obama campaign position. True, but this overlooks some related points:
Reinforcing negatives -- The very existence of a "Socialists for Obama" community is a liability for a candidate who's already been labeled a radical and a Marxist.
Live by the sword, die by the sword -- Obama's strong online presence helped him win the Democratic nomination, but now is exposed as a potential weakness.
The "radical cleric" meme -- Nathanael Kapner is evidently some kind of Eastern Orthodox cleric, thus joining Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Michael Pfleger in the kooky contingent of religious extremists with whom Obama's been associated.
Raising questions -- Exactly what is Obama's position on Israel? He went to AIPAC and declared himself a friend to Israel, but then waffled on the Jerusalem question. As tangential and minor as Kapner's anti-Zionist blog post might be, it's another reason for pro-Israel voters to question the sincerity of the candidate whom Ann Coulter routinely refers to as "B. Hussein Obama."
The Ron Paul problem -- Ron Paul's GOP campaign was plagued with guilt-by-association problems. (There was also his newsletter problem, a related issue.) Paul's candidacy was supported by a number of fringe types, ranging from 9/11 Truthers to the neo-Nazi site Stormfront. The fact that Ron Paul attracted such supporters, and was unwilling to repudiate their support, led to serious criticism that hurt his credibility.
This Kapner thing may be a one-day, Internet-only pseudo-scandal that doesn't even merit a footnote in the history of the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, it may be the tip of an iceberg of image problems that eventually overwhelms the Obama campaign.
Via Third Party Watch, which notes my previous (and completely irresponsible) speculation that another Texas Republican, Jenna Bush, might vote for Barr.
Rumor-mongering is a lot of fun -- did you hear the latest about Lindsay Lohan? -- but at least I'm honest in saying that these are only rumors, rather than trying to paint them as legitimate by doing the "sources said" routine.
JFK daughter brings Camelot magic to hunt for Obama’s running mate Barack Obama made a curious choice for a key position in his presidential campaign team last week. His decision to appoint Caroline Kennedy to a sensitive political role leading his search for a vice-presidential running mate has aroused both intrigue and derision in US political circles. The daughter of the late President John F Kennedy has no serious political experience, has been involved in only one previous presidential campaign - when her uncle, Ted Kennedy, ran for the White House in 1980 - and has long been considered the most private member of America’s most celebrated political dynasty. . . .
Wait a minute: They told us that a major reason Democrats rejected Hillary Clinton was because younger voters were tired of dynasties. But when Obama reaches out to the Kennedy dynasty, that's OK?
Just today a photo caption in the New York Times describes Mrs. Obama's dress as having "a Camelot reference." Mr. Obama's charisma and his sunny prescription of hope in a fairly dismal time are viewed through the lens of the aging Left and their don't-know-any-better younger allies as a reincarnation of the youthful Kennedy bringing an end to the dark ages of the Eisenhower presidency. Students of history realize, of course, that it was the triumph of style over substance, but that's another story.
Good point. There is a changing-of-the-guard motif involved in the Obama campaign. We've just had our first two Baby Boomer presidents -- Clinton and Bush -- and now the Gen X'ers are trying to push a 46-year-old with a one-page resume into the White House.
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that lots of graying Boomers are going to look more favorably on the 71-year-old codger?
A full hour on CNN Headline News. (You'll have to click the link; I can't get the embed code to work.) Every time Beck gets angry at John McCain, he tells his producer, "Hey, book Barr for another hour."
Barr was also recently interviewed by ABC's Sam Donaldson:
On Monday, Mr. Obama will travel to North Carolina — a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 32 years — to start a two-week tour of speeches, town hall forums and other appearances intended to highlight differences with Mr. McCain on the economy. From there, he heads to Missouri, which last voted for a Democrat in 1996. His first campaign swing after securing the Democratic presidential nomination last week was to Virginia, which last voted Democratic in 1964.
If his Monday trip indicates a plan to make a major play for North Carolina, this may inidicate a serious misconception on the part of Team Obama. Here are the percentages of the vote won by Democrats in North Carolina in recent presidential elections:
2004: John Kerry 44% 2000: Al Gore 43% 1996: Bill Clinton 44% 1992: Bill Clinton 43%
Do Obama's strategists think Obama will be more popular in North Carolina than Gore of Tennessee and Clinton of Arkansas?
Has there been an unnoticed revolution in North Carolina politics? Does Team Obama imagine that the brand-damage for the GOP, dissatisfaction with the war, the stagnating economy, John McCain's weaknesses as a candidate, or some combination of all of these factors will make it possible for a Chicago Democrat to do in North Carolina what no Democrat has done since 1976?
But North Freaking Carolina? If things are so bad for the GOP and John McCain that Obama wins North Carolina, then the Republican Party predicament is so hopeless that we might as well not even wait until Election Day. Just crown King Obama now.
This trip to North Carolina looks like hubris, pure and simple. Team Obama is thinking back to their decisive Democratic primary blowout against Hillary. Hey, morons: It was a primary. Obama's vote total there was 875,683 -- which is nearly 700,000 votes less than Kerry got against Bush in 2004.
Something tells me that, if Obama loses this election, on Nov. 5 his staffers are going to be sitting around saying to themselves, "North Carolina? What the #*&@ were we thinking?"
Marcus is a young conservative who shows up at just about every party around D.C. This makes him evil, acccording to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
So Marcus buys a spot on the SPLC's "Wall of Tolerance," and gets a certificate lauding him for his "important contribution to the ongoing fight against hatred and intolerance in America."
Moral of the story? SPLC is a carnie hustle, a ripoff operation to scam rich old liberals out of their money by making them believe they're fighting "hatred and intolerance" by smearing conservatives like my young friend Marcus.
The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States. . . . Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. . . . And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.
Many of her supporters watched, some weeping, turning out to witness this latest milestone for the Clinton legacy. . . . Most in the crowd roared their approval when Mrs. Clinton mentioned Mr. Obama’s name, though there were boos and jeers from the upper levels of the three-tiered room. Several of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters tried to drown out those boos by clapping louder.
You know what I didn't hear? I didn't hear her say she was releasing her delegates to vote for Obama on the first ballot.
Campaigning on xenophobia, guilt by association, and red-baiting has desperate and unintentionally self-parodic qualities this year that it didn't have as recently as 2004. The likelihood is that John McCain will lose; if and when he loses, the multilateral truce among neos, paleos, reformists, and GOP hacks --- which is about as fragile as the truce in Basra to begin with --- is going to shatter before Obama's victory speech ends. The neocons are in a decidedly weak position. Fairly or not, it's their foreign policy more than anything else that has made the name of the GOP radioactive --- and even worse for Republican partisans, has destroyed the party's nearly 40-year-old, frequently decisive advantage on national security. And though the Republicans somehow stumbled into nominating their only candidate with a prayer of victory, they exposed the neocons to even more risk by choosing, in John McCain, the most prominent exponent of their philosophy in American politics. Honest neocons like Lawrence Kaplan readily concede that neoconservatism's future rests on McCain's shoulders. Kristol, on the other hand, is trying to reframe the debate to obscure its ramifications for his ideology in case McCain loses.
Very perceptive, Mr. Koffer. Neoconservatives have, indeed, been adept at blame-shifting. The fact that Bill Kristol is still a regular at Fox News -- and that both he and his protege David Brooks landed full-time op-ed gigs at the New York Times -- suggests how successful they've been at this "It's Not Our Fault" Jedi mind trick.
I hasten to add that Koffer is dead wrong about one thing: There is not, never has been, and never will be, any truce between neo- and paleoconservatives. Going back to the earliest days of the Reagan administration, the necons have shown a zealous determination to hunt the paleos to extinction. Someone (me?) could write a book about this. Suggested title: "First They Came for Mel Bradford."
Of course, I'm a "Rodgers & Hammerstein Conservative": I believe that the farmer and the cowman can be friends, so to speak. But in the Neo-Paleo Wars, there can be no doubt that the neos have been the aggressors.
The root of the problem is the neos' insistence that they, and they alone, are fit judges of what is "acceptable" conservatism, and that no one may present himself as a conservative without their permission. They have relentlessly purged so many people -- Bradford, Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, Thomas Woods, to name but a few -- from the ranks of "acceptable" conservatives that it's hardly surprising that now the Big Tent is looking kind of empty.
Perhaps worse than that, the neocon "Urge To Purge" creates a fear-based vibe within the GOP coalition. Who will be next?
Paul is referring to a blog post at The Next Right where conservatives of all persuasions are gathering to discuss whether or not to abandon the GOP or try to rebuild it from the bottom up. I elect to rebuild it from the bottom up but that road is going to be long and hard seeing that the GOP/RNC leadership wouldn't know what a conservative was if one smacked them on the forehead with a baseball bat...or a moonbat. As Paul stated above, the tuning out of the Republican message is due to several factors one of which is they sound more leftist in their estranged rhetoric. Another factor is silly things like working with - read that as reaching across the aisle - socialists and develop nonsense like the No Child Left Behind quagmire. This government program stripped States Rights away from the States - the theoretical United States - and placed the education dictates into the hands of career idiots (politicians) at the Federal Level. Conservatives don't like having States Rights stripped away. It's that simple.
That's just angry, incoherent noise, and it's not going to persuade anyone that you have a valid argument worthy of their attention. We get that you're angry at the Republican Party leadership, but you're not expressing your anger in the form of an argument.
The disorderly structure of your rant conveys a message much clearer than the message you intend to communicate. It tells people: "I am an unorganized, sloppy goofball, full of chaotic passion, but not capable of developing a rational plan of action."
People who want to engage in political communication must learn to express themselves in a coherent, persuasive manner, and they must learn that the form of communication conveys information just as much as the content does. You can't scrawl a misspelled note in green crayon on the back of a cocktail napkin and expect people to treat that as a serious message.
That last line is telling. I've had my own exasperating experience trying to get through to the Obama press office. Hillary's media people were very accessible, but Team Obama? Puh-leeze. Try this yourself: Go to the Obama Web site, try to find a media contact number, and see how long it takes you to get in touch with a real human being in their press office. Maybe they figure with "Oprah" on their side, that's all the media they need.
Some Swedish "model" bimbo nobody ever heard of has a "Britney moment" that is, er, tranparently staged.
Just when you think you've seen the low ebb of Western civilization, it always sinks a little lower. When wannabe celebrities now resort to this kind of stunt for the paparazzi . . . how desperate for fame can you get? Cue the Brad Paisley.
"You have betrayed us, our children, and our future," [Democrat activist Amy] Siskind proclaimed during her speech, "and you will learn the new meaning of stay-at-home moms!"
Probably just angry noise, but it might turn out to be more, if Team Obama doesn't placate Hillary, whose campaign debt is now reportedly $30 million. They want her to go away, but they don't want her to go away angry, stirring up discontent amongst her supporters.
Allahpundit says this is better than the McCain campaign had hoped, since they expect Obama to jump ahead by 10 points in coming weeks. As to the third-party showing, CNN says:
[I]ndependent candidate Ralph Nader and Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr are both vying with the two major-party candidates for independent voters. But at this point, it looks unlikely either will play a spoiler role: the margin between Obama and McCain is virtually unchanged, with the Illinois senator leading 47 to 43 percent. Nader pulls in 6 percent, and Barr 2.
Given that Nader has done almost no campaigning, it's likely that his showing is almost entirely a result of name recognition, rather than any deep left/independent (or pro-Hillary) animus toward Obama.
On the other hand, the CNN poll could be an indicator of how much work Barr's got to do in terms of his own name recognition. He's gotten an awful lot of "earned media" the past few weeks to be polling at just 2%.
Perhaps most ominously to those who would prefer a Republican presidential candidate who echoed talk radio on the issue, illegal immigration, [campaign manager Rick] Davis noted that McCain's history of stands on immigration that caused him such grief in the GOP primaries "may suit to fit him in a general election."
That Team McCain thinks their guy can ride the open borders agenda all the way to the White House shows how little attention they pay to the conservative base.
Several of the LP delegates I spoke to in Denver who attended that debate said they thought Barr made a mistake by not participating, but the fact was that (a) he'd previously scheduled a Friday night reception for his supporters, and (b) the candidates who would actually be in contention for the nomination would be in the official Saturday night debate anyway.
As I explained in my first story from Denver, there was a paranoid vibe among the hard-core anti-Barr contingent. Barr's late entry into the race, and the fact that he'd officially been a Republican until 2006, had a lot to do with that. Understandably, he was viewed as an outsider by many longtime LP people, but some of the more freaky-deaky fringes of the party's grassroots are just paranoid anyway. Ivov captures the conspiratorial vibe:
By Sunday morning, all nerves are fraying. There's another persistent rumor -- cheerful to some, frightening to others -- that a last-minute busload of pissed-off anti-Barr anarchists, summoned by Kubby, is on its way to the Sheraton.
Nerves were also fraying in the Barr camp, after Wayne Allen Root's strong debate showing Saturday night, as Ivov notes:
Stephen Gordon, Barr's rail-thin, gloomy adviser, when the debate is over. He's staring at the convention hall's floor as he speaks. "Root won. Personally, it frustrates the hell out of me."
Rail-thin, yes, but "gloomy" is not a word I'd ever think to apply to Gordo -- most of the time he's a happy-go-lucky fellow. As the man in charge of organizing the Barr campaign's floor operation at Denver, however, he was definitely as stressed-out as I've ever seen him.
There's a certain Rashomonthing comparing my coverage to other reporter's coverage of Denver. For example, Ivov reports a lot of the wheeling-dealing among the campaigns during the presidential vote, while I was focused on live-blogging the balloting as close to real-time as possible.
Denver was a very competitive journalistic environment: Dave Weigel of Reasonwas also live-blogging it, as were Jason Pye and other Libertarian bloggers, and Aaron Gould Sheinin of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was reporting the story in real-time. I was mainly concerned about trying to keep up with Weigel, an excellent reporter who knows the LP inside and out, so I was quite flattered when Rocky Mountain News columnist Dave Kopel credited the Spectator with providing the "best national coverage" of the convention.
Herd journalism doesn't suit me well. Whenever I go to an event that's being covered by a lot of other reporters, I usually feel like I'm out in my own little orbit. It's easy to get paranoid about this stuff: "Look at those other reporters over there, doing their thing -- should I be doing that, too?" But you can't let that stuff get to you.
During the balloting at Denver, I found it convenient to set up my laptop near the Barr booth in the exhibition hall, where Team Barr had a super-fast WiFi connection and a big-screen TV with a closed-circuit connection to the action on the convention floor. I'd go out to the convention floor to collect notes and get photos, then hustle back over to the Barr booth to file the updates as each ballot's results were posted.
Since I was the only reporter doing it that way, it seemed a bit weird, but it had its advantages. My laptop was in a safe and uncrowded space. I could leave it there and roam around to report, not have to worry about squeezing past the chairs of other writers on Blogger's Row, and file my updates without being surrounded by a lot of distractions. Doing it a different way apparently worked, but at the time, I was by no means sure this was how I was "supposed" to be doing it.
Here's my video of another media moment at Denver, with Barr responding to a question from Ivov at a Saturday morning media breakfast -- the camera pans over to show Ivov near the end:
Something else about Denver: Extreme sleep deprivation. Weigel and I talked about this afterwards. All the delegates had to do was to attend meetings, vote, hang out and party. We reporters had to cover most of that activity and then try to write coherently about it. Ivov had the luxury of being assigned this one big feature story, rather than constantly filing updates and liveblogging. We'll try not to hate him for that.
San Francisco liberal Mark Marford asks, "Is Obama an enlightened being?" He means it as a rhetorical question, for who can doubt the enlightenment of St. Hopey?
Review Situs QQ Poker Online Terpercaya Untuk Kamu
-
Satu lagi situs QQ poker online yang wajib kamu tahu. Situs yang satu ini
bernama QQPokerOnline. Situs ini juga bisa dengan mudah dicari dengan kata
kunc...
Video: Easter Parade
-
One of the sweetest numbers from any musical ever: And Mark Steyn has done
a special Song of the Week podcast on this Irving Berlin classic. Learn the
gene...
"When R.S. McCain talks about gonzo journalism, he knows what he’s talking about." -- Chapomatic
"You are reading Robert every day, aren’t you? If you aren’t, you’re missing out, folks. The guy brings the good stuff every day." -- Jimmie, The Sundries Shack
". . . the one-of-a-kind Robert Stacy McCain, whose blog should be on your must-read list, if it isn't already." -- Dyspeptic Mutterings
"The most enthusiastic blogger I have yet to meet." -- Pam Geller, Atlas Shrugs
"The guy has to be the hardest working dude in DC. I've yet to meet someone here he doesn't know." -- Dan Riehl, Riehl World View
"The fount of wit and wisdom, Robert Stacy McCain." -- Brian C. Ledbetter, Snapped Shot
"A very sharp mind and strong writing that pulls no punches." -- Matthew Archbold, Creative Minority
"One of the most important conservative writers working today." --Donald Douglas
"For what it's worth, the man can also hold his liquor better than most; that's probably how he gets his scoops." -- Little Miss Atilla
Posts
