“Cuckservative” isn’t about race but about how much power you allow the word “racist” to have over you. It’s about the fake, phony conservatives who enjoy watching the real fighters on the right get sodomized while they gleefully gawk. They crave respectability over power and the limelight over influence. Seldom paid for their performances on Fox News or MSNBC, they repeat conventional wisdom after getting gussied up—but you can’t polish a soul.It's a good piece; angry, fed-up, and mad-as-hell. I don't claim to understand all the nuances of this tag but I do know an enormous fracture when I see one. The true conservatives are splitting from the talking-head/make-a-buck/progressive collaborator "conservatives", and they're not doing it quietly.
All I can say is: it's about damn time.
It's fascinating how the camps are lining up. I wonder if this schism will affect the presidential race? Many people who are disgusted with the whole process may now, for the first time really, have a voice that's as angry as they are. Then again, maybe not. The Tea Party got hijacked and compromised, lost its backbone, and caved. Time will tell I suppose.
Thoughts?
It sounds kind of nasty ;-)
ReplyDeleteI am a pragmatist. I think there is room in the party for many types and opinions. I no longer go to Daily Caller or Brietbart because there is no "dialogue" there, only hate. Apparently you have to be a purist down the line or you're fair game. I think Andrew Breitbart would turn over in his grave if could read the comments section.
I don't like Boehner or McConnell. I supported McConnell in the last election and now regret that. I think the problem is more in the DC political structure; I hope it can eventually be dismantled as we are getting NOWHERE on issues like debt, border security, govt. waste, etc. If only we could legislate term limits (for the supremes as well) that would solve much of the problem.
I hate the lying and secrecy of government. I loathe the double-talking, smug life-long politicians who have brought us to this point. But I don't hate people who disagree with me. I would vote for Christie in a heartbeat. Ditto Jeb Bush. They have both governed their states with some good results and would be a VAST improvement over Hillary Clinton.
I think (and don't quote me because I'm still trying to sort it all out) that this whole brouhaha revolves around race issues. Or non-issues. I think the push-back is healthy. It's ridiculous when you can't tell the phants from the asses, or the serves from the progs.
DeleteAnd yeah, it's already nasty, and I think it'll get worse. As for me, I'm making popcorn. I don't trust any of 'em. Pfft!
I would vote for Christie in a heartbeat. Ditto Jeb Bush. They have both governed their states with some good results and would be a VAST improvement over Hillary Clinton.
DeleteThat's a very reasonable position to take, flo.
I'm just not sure I'm prepared to be reasonable. (Yet. Election's a way's off).
TRUMP/SANDERS '16!!!
lewy, you are too much, lol!
DeleteMy first choice is Dr. Ben Carson. LOVE HIM. My second choice is Scott
Walker. His book "Unintimidated" was short and to the point about the unions and the recall. Anyone interested in Gov. Walker should give it a read.
It sounds kind of nasty
DeleteObviously these cuckservatives don't play 'merican football.
They're all into cuckSoccer.
[I've got worse than that. I don't think this term will catch on, somehow...]
At this point, with the actual candidates to be selected far in the future, I am inclined to favor a Fiorina/Carson or Carson/Fiorina ticket. I seem to want non-politicians over the old guard or new guard emulators.
DeleteAbsolutely, Aridog. I was just knocked out by Carly Fiorina last night. I was happy to see that a huge majority of viewers last night agree that she was the best of the 7 (83%).
DeleteI would love to see her go head-to-head with Hillary Clinton as our nominee. She would take her to the cleaners both intellectually and ethically. Plus her personal charm is so much greater than Clinton's.
It's way too ear;y to be reasonable... but if I had to be I'd say Walker/Fiorina.
DeleteFighters. Which means the knives will be out for them. The last thing the Republicans want to do is win this election.
I'd love to see Carson/Fiorina (or visa versa) but there is no way in hell the R establishment will back them. They have their black little hearts set on Jeb, and Jeb it shall be.
DeleteI'm enjoying Trump's antics. He's hilarious, and he doesn't take crap from anyone. He's not half the clown Joe Biden is, so I really don't know why Fox News has their knickers in a knot.
Apparently great minds think alike!
DeleteI like the one about Matt Lewis. That seems so true about the elite in the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteMe too Matt. I think the whole "cuckservative" thing will fade into the sunset, but they've made a point. Perhaps it's a skirmish in preparation for the upcoming battle.
DeleteRadioMattM ... I thought that the moment he said it and I watched the entire debate. Just how did any remark like that fit in reasonable discourse. He is a pig. And I respect women, not "cherish" them...and I do NOT get my opinions from various media pundits.
DeleteIf the Republicans cannot manage a fair and honest primary season, they are toast. Business as usual is no longer acceptable...and if they cling to it they will lose. And I will cease voting in the future. Why bother?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I'm to that point myself. If the Pubs continue down this path, it will feel like treason to give them my vote next November. Ptooey. Jeb certainly doesn't represent me, any more than Obama does. I'd rather cast my ballot for Bernie Sanders; at least I'll know what I'm getting.
DeleteAnd all that crap about "Americans want a president they can have a beer with" is pure D bullpucky. I want a president that's smart, tough, and a shrewd business man.
OMG....I think I just described The Donald....
/slowly crawling behind the couch and assuming a fetal position....
I had a thought this morning, why doesn't a group of citizens organize a debate. That debate would take suggested questions from the public and have a citizen moderator. I would love to go after the Republican elite and get them to justify why they throw away all the gains made by conservatives in the off year elections.
Deletewhy doesn't a group of citizens organize a debate. That debate would take suggested questions from the public and have a citizen moderator.
DeleteKickstarter!
I no longer thick Donald Trump serves a good purpose. He's not a bit "shrewd" with his diarrhea mouth...two recent remarks on the debate stand out: 1. The comment he'd not run as a third party candidate if he was the Republican nominee. Say What? 2. The remark about a woman bleeding from the eyes and other holes...e.g., in her period? Then he said he cherishes women...say what? Like one cherishes a pet? He's a pig and not too swift on his feet...I'm guessing in his business negotiations he has plenty of staff to keep him straight...stand alone he's a dolt.
DeleteYES.
DeleteNobody thought that is what he meant until somebody wrote a column about it. Meanwhile, we are just supposed to sit back and let the media pick our candidate (again)?
DeleteIt is perfectly alright for the "moderators" to do a personal hatchet job -- then defend it by saying, essentially, it was their job to do a personal hatchet job? That is what I find unacceptable. If you want Jeb Bush as the next Republican loser, then go ahead and campaign for him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteACE has a few comments about the debate that are worth reading, IMHO.
DeleteA taste:
So here's the thing:
As much of a fan of Megyn Kelly's I am, I do not feel as if I should "White Knight" on behalf, nor do I feel that she needs such White Knighting.
Even if Donald Trump did intend to suggest she's on the rag: Oh for God's sakes, who cares.
Why do we continue to wind ourselves up in these childish, fake, contrived trivial microcontroversies?
I think it's for precisely the reason they are in fact trivial microconseversies -- we can spend our time and energy jacking ourselves over nothing.
Beats real work, don't it?
People love the trivial fake non-news news, because it gives them the illusion they're engaging with Real and Serious Issues, when in fact, they're just not.
This is easy peasy nonsense. It's so easy to have a Righteous Opinion over something so absurd.
We should put our thoughts together on the format. I have a few ideas but I haven't put too much thought into the idea -- yet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNobody thought that is what he meant until somebody wrote a column about it. Meanwhile, we are just supposed to sit back and let the media pick our candidate (again)?
ReplyDeleteI didn't read any article, I just saw the headline on Drudge and thought that was clearly what he meant. As far as picking our candidates, I've heard lots of different candidates touted by the talking heads so I don't think they're "picking" anyone but just giving their take on the debate. I don't necessarily agree with them and it affects my vote not one whit. EVERYONE I listened to this last weekend agreed that Carly Fiorina outshone everyone, were they picking her?
I think Donald Trump is a vulgarian of the first order and hate to see his side show getting all the press. But "if it bleeds, it leads", pardon my irony. I hope he fades away soon and goes back to "firing" people on his reality show. I think he's found his niche there.
"if it bleeds, it leads"
DeleteSuperb florrie! Very clever, you put a big smile on my face! :)
I didn't mean my comment to sound argumentative, lady red & Matt. I was just so turned off by what he said, I *want* debate moderators to ask tough but fair questions and I believe it was a good question for Trump. Even if he was talking about Rosie O'Donnell. His twitter responses about Megyn proves the point that he is absolutely disrespectful of women (and men too, for that matter). I'm NO fan of Huffington Post, I never read it but I thought his comment about Arianna Huffington - after they stated they'd cover him under "Entertainment" and not "Politics" - was totally uncalled for and low-class. She probably didn't even make that editorial decision. Even if she did, there was no need to make horrible comments about her marriage and divorce, FFS! He just offends me to the core, maybe I'm too much of a sensitive butterfly but at 63 I guess I'm not going to change now ;-)
DeleteAnyway, my reply was meant to respectfully disagree...
No worries! If we can't have a lively debate, where is the fun?
DeleteI really like Matt's idea about a citizen's debate. These bleeping network moderators act like they're the star of the show! It's disgusting. They're so busy preening and primping and being enthralled by the sound of their own voice that there's no time left for questions about the issues.
I thought the moderators asked good questions, for the most part. I didn't like the joking and chit-chat; that was almost entirely Megyn (and I'm a big fan, I love her show). I thought it to be a bit unprofessional, it works great on her hourly show but for a public debate with presidential candidates, it has no place, IMO.
DeleteI thought the biggest mistake was to have 10 candidates. They would have done much better to hold 3 debates with 5 or 6 candidates; that way we could really get more in-depth perspective on them and their opinions and plans. Or just wait until the field is winnowed out and start the debates then.
RadioMattM gremlins ate my first response. I thought Trump meant precisely that the moment he said it. Period. He is a pig. As for media picking our candidates, just who is giving the Donald the spotlight? He's a spoiler...and even if Breitbart says he's now got 32 % of Republicans, with that he's still a sure loser nationally. As I said, he is nothing but a spoiler who is not nearly as adroit as he thinks.
DeleteLet's assume Trump is an obnoxious son of a bitch. OK. What does that have to do with him being asked if he still beats his wife and likes to starve little children and kick puppy dogs?
ReplyDeleteOn his show on Thursday, Rush Limbaugh was speaking about how the word was out that Trump was to be squashed. How does Trump making one specific comment about one specific person (about whom I am sure most of us here agree) equate to his saying the same thing about all women?
I will not say that he is my candidate. I am concerned about his positions regarding islam, but how many other candidates were asked questions that were either ignorantly or maliciously inaccurate? If they take Trump out, then Cruz will be the next in line. They will do it on down the line until we have a Jeb Bush or similar RINO.
Is there some law some place that "journalists" are not to be held accountable for their unprofessional behavior? Trump did not this with his comment. Megyn Kelly started it with her assassination attempt.
Assassination attempt? Good lord, Matt, that characterization of her question makes me think we were watching different debates. She quoted him directly, how is that ignorant or maliciously innacurate? He has - and continues to - say outrageous things.
ReplyDeleteWho put the word out that Trump was to be squashed? Of course, Rush didn't name sources, did he? The media is all about Trump, they are *helping" him with all the free publicity.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
Megyn Kelly said Trump said that about "women," not Rosie O'Donnell.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Rush Limbaugh is an untrustworthy source whose word is to be doubted at every turn. As I recall, he said the Politico.
I hope you're happy with Jeb as the next loser. No one else will make the cut.
Matt, please don't put words in my mouth. I've been listening to Rush for well over a decade. I just asked. Who did Politico name? Or is it just their speculation?
ReplyDeleteTrump did say that about "women". One of her quotes was about a woman on The Apprentice.
I don't understand why you're so unreasonable about this. You hope I'm happy with Jeb? Sheesh, conversation over.
Trump is a pig who would be fired anywere he worked other than his own company. Good thing he has one.
ReplyDeleteI was raised by a mother who worked in finance in the 40's and 50's... some, not all, men were pigs. She didn't marry one and took pains not to raise one.
The first real job I had was at Digital Equipment Corp. Conservative, Christian guy (Ken Olsen) in charge. You did not act like a pig or you were shown the door.
California was different. Guys at Intel flew their swine flags pretty high. And twice I played the white knight who intervened against piggie culture, saved the girl, impressed the girl, shagged the girl. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Where was I going with this? Oh yeah. The liberal culture of California was definitely more piggish in was overt and subtle (it was that subtle aspect I picked up on).
That was early 90's. The modern wave of harpy jihad PC hadn't even started.
Trump is a throwback, a troglodyte. If the moderators expose him as one, so be it. He wasn't "set up", misunderstood, misquoted, or otherwise played. They let him be him. I saw him, I don't want him. Next.
Will they (Fox News and the rest of the media) eviscerate the rest of the field like that? Maybe. But I doubt it, because Trump is exceptionally vulnerable.
In fact, he's basically a cartoon character running for president, most likely as a service to Hillary. There are candidates - Walker, Rand Paul, Fiorina, etc, who are not establishment types. Whoever pisses off the Jeb/Christie crowd is fine by me. Someone serious, with skills. Trump ain't that guy.
(slipping on my hip boots and wading into the political pig waller. Weeee!!!)
ReplyDeleteMy opinion: Trump was targeted by Megyn, and by extension, Fox News. She doesn't like him, and she doesn't want you to like him either. Who cares what she thinks? EVERYONE knows that Trump is a borish loudmouth; she didn't have to waste a good chunk of the debate pointing that out.
Just because he's a bit of a troglodyte, does that exclude him from running for president? Maybe he would be a kick-ass president. Maybe not. But it's not up to the media to decide how "PC" our leaders should be. It's not the media's job to select our candidate, or our president. That didn't work will with Obama, did it?
I'm pretty confident that Matt is correct. Ted Cruz will be the next media target. If Ben Carson gets any momentum going, his campaign (and good name) will be quickly snuffed as well. Though it pains me to say it, Rand and Marco will "go along to get along" in the hopes of a coveted VP slot.
Walker is the dark horse. He withstood the media/union onslaught in Wisconsin multiple times. Is he strong enough, and does he have a technical enough team to get his message out without the aid of positive television media coverage? Perhaps.
I will not vote for Jeb.
As a sidenote, Jeb may have helped his campaign if he had stood up for Trump and insisted that there is room in the party for all voices. Alas, he believes (and has probably been reassured) that he is the Annointed One for 2016, so...)
One thing I know for sure. Our conversations here will certainly get livelier, and more heated, as we tiptoe into the campaign season. Let us gird our loins and our keyboards and remember that we are all long-standing friends FIRST and that we cannot allow politics to put so much as a tiny scratch our remarkable TCKT clan.
However, throwing ripe, squishy tomatos is encouraged. I have dibs on behind the couch!
Hmm, I just read this in my morning travels. Jazz Shaw and I don't always agree, to be sure, but...
Delete"But the real question is, why would anyone with a spot on the Republican National Committee still be saying things like that aloud? If you’re seriously talking about taking a declared candidate who is not only in first place, but just smoking the rest of the field at this point and refusing to allow him a seat at the debate you’ve essentially nullified the validity of the process. The RNC doesn’t get to pick the nominee, nor does CNN or we annoying folks at Hot Air or the rest of the new media. The voters do, and that’s the end of the story. If a quarter of them want Trump then he must be heard at the debates."
I like describing Trump as a troglodyte. That probably is an apt description.
DeleteThe point here is the Megyn Kelly, out of the starting block, asked an accusatory question based on a false premiss and now she is portrayed as the aggrieved party. There is plenty of time for Trump to show he is nothing but dryer lint and not up for the job. However, if we let the media make stuff up when it suits them then we have declared open season on non-RINOs. You either stand up to that or you are giving it your tacit approval.
RadioMattM ...it is NOT just ONE silly thing Trump has said, it is the near non-stop string of them....and lack of substance to boot...he tends to act like its a secret.
DeleteLady Red ...You said ..."maybe he'd be a kick-ass President, maybe not..." and IMO the be a rolling disaster as President. A guy in a focus group I watched said [paraphrasing here] that "Trump was the kind of boss you had to follow along behind and clean up his messes"...and I agree. He has staff to clean up his messes in business, but who could do that if President? I still think he is a stalking horse and media darling...when Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, plus a some others, get equal time in the media bombast I might reconsider...but not holding my breath. If asay Scott Walker had said what Trump did about women in the debate & in follow up he'd be crucified on basic fairness to women by the media...with Trump the media treated it as a humorous aside when Megyn Kelly asked ALL of them about a pleage that Trump has repeatedly made individually. How would you feel about a reference to bleeding from a hole? He is a pig and proved it.
Full disclosure: I don't "cherish" women, I respect them....some of the very best steady handed managers I've worked for or with, in business and the military, have been women, the equals of any man, so why his crap? comment?
RadioMattM you said...
DeleteMegyn Kelly, out of the starting block, asked an accusatory question based on a false premiss ...
What "false premise" ... Trump has said the same thing repeatedly as an individual prior to the debate. It was a fair question, given the potential "Perot effect" in 1980. Trump just made it worse by the nonsense that if he was the Republican nominee he'd not run 3rd party...well, duh, ya' think? Trump has a reflection in the mirror issue and can't escape it...I doubt he can pass one without pausing to admire himself. We've got one of those (Obama) now IMO.
OK, let us stipulate that Trump is a grade A asshole.
ReplyDeleteKelly portrayed a comment he made about Rosie O'Donnell as a comment against all women. That was not the case. It was a comment about Rosie O'Donnell. Has he said other stupid things? Yeah, so? The question was a mischaracterization of a specific comment. Was she lazy, ignorant, or malicious? Whichever one of the three it was, it does not speak well of her. Why wasn't the question phrased (in a diplomatic way) as to ask, "Do you think your history of running off at the mouth might be a problem for you?" Not only would that have addressed the women issue, but also the race issue (regarding his "criminal" comments).
A big concern I have about Trump is that his companies are privately held. Not that I object to companies that are privately held, but Trump is used to dictating -- something he will not be able to do as President. I think he would be great as an international trade negotiator. (I have read that the US sends diplomats to those negotiations; everyone else sends shrewd businessmen.)
What I am hearing is that if people don't like Trump, and because people don't like Trump the media is allowed to take the role of the hit-men to take him out of the race.
I vehemently disagree.
Trump has enough of a petard on which to hoist himself. You do not have to compromise journalistic integrity to do it, as if such a thing exists. Let this happen to Trump and it WILL happen to Cruz. It WILL happen to Carson.
RadioMattM ... I understand your persistence, but Megyn Kelly is not a candidate and Trump says he is one. I don't care what Kelly said, I do the things Trump has said, on many topics.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, you've given me all reasons I need to consider Trump an idiot and very unqualified to be POTUS. His presumption of personal power in politics belies his total lack of grasp on the subject. Yes, he is a grade A asshole. Why is he running? Besides momentary vanity that is...
Megyn Kelly is not a candidate. However, she is someone in whom we are supposed to put our trust to give us a neutral stance -- at least in that environment. I read a comment on another blog that said it would have been one thing if she had asked that question on her show. However, she asked it when she was supposed to be a neutral moderator.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, if we let her "press" Trump (as Baier and Wallace say was their job), then who else is she -- and they -- going to "press?" I can guarantee that someone who is not "pressed" probably won't make an embarrassing gaffe -- and, voila -- we get another RINO as the candidate.
Fox has found itself in the position of being king maker. To say you don't care what Kelly said but you do care what Trump said is the same as saying you don't care that a police officer beats the crap out of people as long as they beat the crap out of the right people. No, that is not their job. Nor was it the job of Fox to "press" Trump.
The Donald resists all pressure to explains his ideas in detail, to anyone. Now lately most news shows have been all Trump all the time. I haven't heard of him giving a interview face to face with Rachel Maddow but I'd pay money to watch that...and I despise Maddow...just like to see how he reacts to some real pressure and unfair questions. Right now he's merely a cheerleader, not a quarterback.
ReplyDeleteBTW...Kelly is not a LEO either, so comparing my opinions to them is spurious.
Remark posted elsewhere by me:
ReplyDeleteFollow on remark vis a vis Trump: He's loud and proud, and if he manages the nomination and even the Presidency he will be eaten alive by the bloated bureaucracy in DC like a tasty grilled ham & cheese sandwich. He really has no idea...it is NOT slightly similar to negotiating a business deal as he thinks, apparently, it is and is thus over confident. My years with DOD & DA taught me well...fight the bureaucrats & they will get you, usually sooner, but sometimes later when you least expect it. You can't buy, even with Trump money, the bureaucrats because there are multiple entities with far far more money than you by factors of 10X+....e.g., he'd be a mouse in the trap box and not know it until the door slammed shut.
Add to that, he'd have no recourse to demanding he be treated "fairly"...once in office, he'd be a target, like any POTUS, and have no blackmail gambit to fall back on.
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll add one more comment :-)
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see the Black Lives Matter agitators that disrupted Bernie Sanders speech here in Seattle go to a Trump event. Oh please let that happen! I would pay to see how Trump and Cohen handle them. They got REALLY agitated and hostile until they got the mike, VERY aggressive, then they had the cojones to call the uber-lefties in the crowd "white supremacists"! Ha!!
And on another note, is anyone else enjoying the deepening shyte that Hillary Clinton finds herself in regarding her secretive email server as much as I am? Aridog, do you think the feds will stall revealing any results of their investigation until after the election?
Agreed...I'd pay to see that interruption too....but I don't think Trump is a "tough" as he thinks he is at present.
DeleteHillary's problems today are typical Clinton forensics...deny quibble deny quibble deny...until the "blue dress" moment arrives. It may have arrived about now.
I watched Geraldo Rivera hold forth on how government agencies handle classified materials...he proved that he has no idea about it and just pontificates. On the other hand I do know how it is done and who is responsible...a cabinet head is responsible to the classifications much of the time and when they ignore it or erase a prior annotation on an email they are committing a felony. I doubt Hillary's dismissive style bordering on irritation that she's asked anything not scripted by her can survive it.
Well, I'm encouraged then. I think she should be held responsible for any laws she's broken but the Clintons seem to face few consequences for their bad (or illegal) behavior.
DeleteA criticism I have of Fox News is that they let Geraldo spout off inaccuracies without fact checking or moderation. I'm fine with differing views, but I prefer them to be based upon fact. His concept of how security is managed in the USG pegged the needle on inaccuracy and outright falsehood, or ignorance.
DeleteI PRAY they don't have him on The Five permanently. He throws out his BS like a typical progressive, fast-talking and going on to the next point before anyone has a chance to rebut it. It drives me crazy. I can't abide Hannity either but apparently his show is now part of the Trump campaign.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing about Geraldo, he becomes unglued when people talk about legal or illegal immigration and have an opinion that differs from his. I remember very well a few years back when he got into it with Michelle Malkin (who is ALWAYS well-informed on her facts) re: immigration and said he wished he could spit in her face. Here is the actual quote:
“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people.
“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”
His comments were in response to Michelle saying that Geraldo plays the race card in his statements about immigration issues. Why does FNC keep this person on? He's emotionally unhinged.
My favorite was when Geraldo suggested he'd punch Eric Bolling in the mouth if he wasn't a "friend"... they guy is unhinged often as you said. I'd love to watch a fight between Bolling and Geraldo...all mouth and little else I suspect. Actually I'd prefer they just find a nice pasture for Geraldo and put him in it. There are far more erudite and intelligent liberals that could easily replace him. WTF? Never mind his given name at birth and on his documemts is "Gerald" not "Geraldo." Whots zup wit dat?
DeleteDidn't know that, I guess he feels he has to have some Latino street cred. Sheesh.
DeleteI liked Julie Roginsky (sp?) as a replacement for Beckel. Of course, I wanted Bob back, I'm not sure what happened there but Julie R. is very good, seems to give honest opinions as opposed to talking points. She has an interesting story, being an immigrant from Russia. They had her on for a couple weeks, I guess they're looking for a good fit and I hope they settle on her.
If I ever run for office (which is never....I am too cranky, and make "The Donald" look like a sweetie pie :-) ) I guess I'll change my name to "Richardo" or "Ricardo" with my middle name to "Guillermo" ...
DeleteI think you would be Risteard Liam. Risteard is Germanic in origin meaning "ruler hard".
DeleteI guess that has a certain symmetry :-)
For Ari, I'd go with الأب الذئب
Delete:P
Dana Perino does try to set Geraldo straight when he gets his facts wrong. She states the facts and stays calm. Props to Dana.
ReplyDelete