August 25th, 2010

The Alaska Republican Senate primary results

Uncertain.

But it is clear that Miller might just be the winner, although the final results won’t be known for about a week..

And another thing that’s clear is that Sarah Palin can really pick em. At least so far.

Miller has already done better than polls suggested he would, and certainly better than the left predicted. Was this also one of those anti-incumbent votes? After all, Murkowski is the current senator from the state. My guess is that the incumbency factor was part of it, but hardly the whole part.

42 Responses to “The Alaska Republican Senate primary results”

  1. Scottie Says:

    Let’s hope those same kinds of polls are also under-representing the anti-dem and anti-Obambi vote this November!

    I believe this could be described, provisionally, as the lovely Mrs. Palin getting the last laugh on the media as her endorsed candidates clean up!

  2. PA Cat Says:

    “Repubican”? Paging Dr. Freud . . .

  3. Occam's Beard Says:

    What is it exactly about Palin that drives Reds so nuts? The very mention of her name absolutely drives them bat-sh*t crazy, causing them to rant and take a frothing bite out of the carpet. It’s an amazing phenomenon.

    Even more than Limbaugh, Beck, Rove, or Cheney, she causes them to slip whatever moorings they have to reality. What do they see in her that terrifies them so?

    Americans don’t like, e.g., Soros, or his henchmen such as Axelrod and Emanuel, but that distaste is as nothing compared to the volcanic fury liberals direct toward Palin. I don’t get it. I really don’t.

  4. neo-neocon Says:

    PA Cat: thanks, will fix.

    Spellcheck doesn’t function for the post titles. Unfortunately.

  5. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: if you take a look at some of my Palin posts (see the “Palin” category on the right sidebar), particularly the ones written between her nomination and the 2008 election, I talk about the phenomenon. It is multiply-determined, a perfect storm of class, regional, cultural, political, and educational snobbery (including even her accent). In a nutshell, you might say that for most liberals and the left, Palin is the fulfillment of all their myths about the right, a sort of female “Deliverance” character. And anyone who likes her, likewise.

  6. Occam's Beard Says:

    neo, yep, I’ve read your posts, and agree with them, but they still don’t account quantitatively for the violence of the leftists’ reaction, which seems…disproportionate.

    It’d be like if they saw someone jaywalking and wanted to exterminate the offender and all of his relatives to the second degree, burn his house down, and sow the site with salt, send all of his friends to the gulag, and cut out the tongue of anyone who ever mentioned his name thereafter – i.e., a response wildly disproportionate to the original stimulus.

    That’s the part I don’t get.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: I hear you. Remember, many leftists and liberals tend to lead with their emotions in politics. The other thing is, Palin’s popularity and influence shakes the foundations of the world of many liberals, what they base their own self-esteem on, and how they evaluate people’s worth or intelligence (for example, fancy degrees and a certain way of speaking).

    Just as Bush was the grinning frat boy who mocked them back in college, Palin is the high school beauty queen, a stupid redneck with big hair. These people can’t be smart, they can’t run the country—that should be left to their betters! The feelings this all engenders can be very intense.

  8. T Says:

    Neo and Occam’s Beard,

    If I may offer an opinion. I think that Sarah Palin drives the left nuts simply because she represents much of what they have championed in a package that they can’t tolerate.

    She can have a family (even the extra responsibility of caring for a handicapped child), be a successful executive (gov of Alaska), successfully challenge the old boy’s network, become a nationally known figure and develop a following of people who respect her and heed her.

    Simultaneously, she is a proponent of fiscal and social philosophies that the left despises. How dare she not worship at the liberal altar; it’s as if she’s co-opting liberal dreams in a conservative (or at least libertarian) package.

    In short, Sarah Palin is proof positive that women (and by extension, minorities) do not need liberal philosophy as a path to accomplishment. She’s a constant reminder that the left is passe.

  9. jon baker Says:

    Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) drives them nuts also, though she is not as well known.

  10. Mike Mc. Says:

    Far be it from me to say I told you so. Well, not that far.

    Palin is the real deal. She has earned her clout by being almost the only person male or female to be out there confronting the abomination in the White House from Day 1. She has spoken her mind and confronted him and his minions directly, without fear, and with good humor.

    She’s been attacked and harrassed from every angle on the left, and, sadly, right.

    People love her. She’s one of us. She’s normal. She has the right principles. She’s gracious and far more itelligent than she gets credit for.

    Rule of Thumb confirmed now twice in Bush and Palin: If the left attacks someone for being stupid and tries toi laugh that person off the stage; it really means that is the exact and precise person who scares them the most and who would, therefore, be best for Republicans to nominate.

    Let’s not forget, without her McCain was a zero. With her he had a real shot up until the financial meltdown, and even in that race she acquited herself far better than he did.

  11. Occam's Beard Says:

    Maybe it’s that she defies leftist peer pressure, rather than deferring to it (as they themselves do), and they are reacting to her courage in doing so, an implicit rebuke to them for their cowardice (as they see it).

    Leftists live and breathe social conformity, despite their protestations to the contrary. Not being thought “cool” is the ultimate nightmare for them. They enforce herd discipline by deprecating those who deviate from the Party line, even if that deviation results simply from a failure to keep up with the twists and turns of that line (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact effect).

    Someone who not only fails to slavishly track every tack in the Party line, but actually actively defies it, gives the lie to the underpinnings of their self-esteem.

    Just my conjecture, at this point, but I am fascinated by their reaction.

  12. Occam's Beard Says:

    Rule of Thumb confirmed now twice in Bush and Palin: If the left attacks someone for being stupid and tries toi laugh that person off the stage; it really means that is the exact and precise person who scares them the most and who would, therefore, be best for Republicans to nominate.

    Exactly. Maybe we should embrace the leftist meme (as does the Ace of Spades site) and brand ourselves “Morons for a Stronger America,” or some such. Nothing defangs a canard (pardon the mixed imagery; I know ducks don’t have fangs) quite like its target embracing the characterization.

  13. Mike Mc. Says:

    Maybe we should embrace the leftist meme (as does the Ace of Spades site) and brand ourselves “Morons for a Stronger America,” or some such.

    That’s perfect. Right back in their faces with everything. Return slander with ridicule.

  14. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Another poignant observation; so many of her attackers sound exactly alike; doesn’t that constitute a herd?

    A herd of stampeding Upper West Siders, trampling through the arugula fields to get to a noveau art exhibit, when all of a sudden a hamburger and french fry eating Sarah Palin steps out in front of them, smiles, and causes them to go crashing into a book signing by a Lesbian Sociology Professor just back from Cuba whose just published memoirs they found so defining.

    Time to wake up and go home.

  15. neo-neocon Says:

    Occam’s Beard: those actions of hers may have exacerbated their reaction. But I noticed the ferocity of the reaction from the start—virtually from the moment she was nominated.

  16. Occam's Beard Says:

    neo, perhaps they observed the galvanic response she induced in many Republicans who’d written off McCain, but on her selection suddenly thought McCain might have a chance.

    I must be the only person in America who doesn’t have strong feelings about her either way, but for a while there she looked like a game-changer. That might be what caused their reaction.

  17. rickl Says:

    PA Cat Says:
    August 25th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    “Repubican”? Paging Dr. Freud . . .

    That’s what Mark Levin calls RINOs.

  18. rickl Says:

    Occam’s Beard Says:
    August 25th, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    What is it exactly about Palin that drives Reds so nuts? The very mention of her name absolutely drives them bat-sh*t crazy, causing them to rant and take a frothing bite out of the carpet. It’s an amazing phenomenon.

    She has their number, that’s what, and they know it. I saw it right away. Back in mid-September 2008, I commented on another blog: “PDS has already gotten worse in two weeks than BDS did in eight years.”

    Bluntly put, it’s the reaction of a vampire to sunlight, or of evil when faced by good. I mean that literally. It really is a visceral reaction.

  19. SteveH Says:

    A T-shirt i’d love to see Sarah wear to a rally… “Fighting the Amy Bishopization of America”

  20. ELC Says:

    So, is this primary election going to be alfrankenized? Or does that only happen in general elections?

  21. Occam's Beard Says:

    It occurs to me that a driver might be the left’s tendency to worship its leaders, which leads them to presume that Americans worship theirs too.

    A case in point is that hopelessly lame and powerfully emetic “O” salute the comrades gave Obama. Another is that when Obama said “we (i.e., He) was the One we’ve (i.e., you’ve) waiting for,” no one laughed.

    Similarly, no one laughed when he talked about making the seas recede, or healing the earth, or how a light would “shine down from somewhere above” telling the Elect to vote for Him.

    Any of those pronouncements made in front of grownups would guarantee there wouldn’t be a dry seat in the house.

    In that context, therefore, leftists naturally presume that Palin must be also be figure of cult worship, and what’s worse, of a competing cult. In essence, it’s probably a religious offense as they see it.

  22. Occam's Beard Says:

    So, is this primary election going to be alfrankenized? Or does that only happen in general elections?

    I think you need a Dem involved either to Franken or Gregoire an election.

  23. strcpy Says:

    “She has their number, that’s what, and they know it. I saw it right away.”

    That’s my general opinion. I do not think it has much to do with her ideas or what she represents.

    I note that the vast majority of people who rant about her mainly focus that she is *successful*. Most are also people who recall Reagan and I think they see another one of those coming up – or even worse if she decides to keep the course she is on then there will not be a time when she “leaves office” and goes into retirement.

    I guess that she is the antitheses of their ideas *does* play a part (if she was on their side they would be rushing to replace Obama) but there are other successful women that do that too and they do not get that instant visceral hate. However I think they see that if she were to so choose too that she will be a dominate force.

    I still think it is way too early for her to run for office, indeed I’m not even sure I want her too. I think she would tear great rips in our society just because of the raw visceral hatred by getting that position (and I do not know that she could – you couldn’t come up with something that would energize the liberals to vote for Obama than this and I just do not see her energizing the middle enough to counter that). I think that it would ultimately be a pyrrhic victory even if it is deserving of victory.

    However, where she is currently at and what she is currently doing will have a *far* greater impact than if she started making another political office run. Were I her it is where I would stay too.

  24. Vieux Charles Says:

    Charles Krauthammer gobbled down a big piece of humble pie today on Bret Baier’s Fox News program.

    Governor Palin is hard to understand and easy to underestimate even for the good guys.

  25. rickl Says:

    strcpy:
    Yeah, it’s recently occurred to me that if she was elected President, the Left would become truly unhinged. Eight years of BDS would be trivial compared to that. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Such is the depth of their hate for America, and the values and principles that made this country great.

  26. betsybounds Says:

    Forget “Paging Dr. Freud.”

    It’s getting to be more like, “Paging Dr. Howard! Dr. Fine! Dr. Howard!”

  27. Mike Mc. Says:

    Here’s a Fox interview of Palin, and two congressional candidates. These three are the future of America, or there is no America.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/trifecta-sarah-palin-allen-west-and-jesse-kelly

    Palin is a fighter. She gets so much credit from me for being the lone voice in the wilderness against the evil empire. If she ran for anything, she’d have my vote without a question.

  28. ghost707 Says:

    Semi-related, this made me laugh:

    Now that we’ve been doing this whole democracy/republic thing for a few hundred years, it’s time to assess where things didn’t work out as planned. I mean, having all these useless, arrogant people spending like a third of all our incomes is obviously not what the Founding Fathers intended. If they found out about it, they’d probably just start firing their muskets everywhere in a total rage. And if they got their hands on some modern weaponry, who knows what damage they could do; just think of the lobby scene from The Matrix, but instead of Keanu Reeves, it’s a royally pissed Ben Franklin. So it’s probably good that the Founding Fathers are all dead, because we need cool heads to figure out how to fix things.

    From Frank Fleming over at Pajamas Media.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/suggestions-on-how-we-should-treat-our-congressmen/

  29. T Says:

    strcpy (at 11:46 above) and rickl (at 1:40 above) agree that

    “. . . if she was elected President, the Left would become truly unhinged. Eight years of BDS would be trivial compared to that.”

    While I believe that this is true, we must also recognize that things are different now. Under Bush, the left was still operating under a commonly accepted aura of moral righteousness and superiority. For example, Cindy Sheehan was often defended as the grieving mother of a lost son, not a staunch anti-American anti-war protestress. This always gave leftist derangement some underlying validity.

    The left has lost that credibility now; the mask has slipped and more people than ever before are aware of the anti-American anti-capitalist motivations of the left.

    Yes, I believe that the left would be come virulently deranged, and yes I believe that the state-run media would continue to push that meme, but I strongly suspect that the message might well backfire, just like the little boy who cried wolf once too often. We now know that they, themselves, are the wolf at the door.

  30. strcpy Says:

    The problem with that theory is the same one that said that Obama would be the best thing that happened to our country because it would clear up they eyes of everyone and he couldn’t get anything done – it requires you to have control of things you do not. Further it requires a *more complicated* process than many many many other ones.

    At best we are going to gain the house, not the senate, and still have Obama for at least another two years. Further it is going to require that the Republicans do not run their version of Kerry, there is a distinct possibility of another *six* years of Obama. At worse they are going to have a simple majority in both houses and the presidency.

    In either case we have health care reform, lots of smaller but just as bad legislation that we are stuck with, and a deficit that is going to most likely take *centuries* to pay off (and before it is done we will most likely spend more in four years than the govt has in it previous 200+ years).

    We may even end up in another 4-8 years with the Dems being a permanent minority party (but I doubt it) but the cost is going to be our deaths too. In other words a Pyrrhic victory.

    I had hoped that some people would learn that hoping for bad things so they can turn good usually just ends up with you getting bad things but for whatever reason that is a recurrent theme.

  31. strcpy Says:

    I guess I’ll say it another way too:

    I agree with “but I strongly suspect that the message might well backfire,” but I also strongly suspect it might well *not* and we end up in flames.

    OTOH if she stays where she is at and builds a strong small govt group I *KNOW* we will not go up in flames, don’t have to hope something will backfire, and have a real chance at things working out better than in the previous cases best scenario.

    I’ll pick the latter.

  32. T Says:

    strcpy,

    The fact the the left has lost credibility gives them less media power and less media power means that they are less likely to control the narrative the way they did during the last 4 years of the Bush administration.

    I disagree w/ you about the best that can happen (the best is that Repubs take both the house and the Senate and don’t repeat their “now we get to spend like the Democrats” meme from 2004).

    I agree that we could be stuck w/ Obama for another 6 years; not very likely given current circumstances, but things could change radically in 2 years.

    As for the national debt (you said “deficit”, but your comment addresses the national debt). I think it is important to be concerned about it, but it is not the end of the American way of life. As an example, consider a family with a gross income of $50,00 that is $50,000 in debt (100% of income). The next year that family increases it’s income to $150,000, now it’s debt is only 30% of income. Likewise, one way to manage the national debt is to increase GDP (the equivalent of the country’s gross income). The debt then becomes a more manageable portion of goods and services.

    The real questions are 1) what kind of power to create change (from Obamanomics) will the Republicans have in 2011 and 2) have they learned their lesson? We’ll be able to answer #1 on Nov 3rd; #2, we’ll just have to wait and see.

  33. Mike Mc. Says:

    Rush on Sarah Palin. More great stuff.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-defends-sarah-palin-and-tea-party-candidates

  34. gs Says:

    1. Joe Miller has an impressive CV. I hope he gets the nomination and wins the election.

    1a. Mike Huckabee is given a prominent place on the Miller Web site. That’s not a plus afaic, but I continue to respect Miller’s strong credentials.

    2. In multiple comments on this post, I have explained why I am no longer support Palin for national office.

  35. ELC Says:

    @ Occam’s Beard: I think you need a Dem involved either to Franken or Gregoire an election. That’s what I was implying by mentioning a general election. :)

    @ T: As an example, consider a family with a gross income of $50,00 that is $50,000 in debt (100% of income). The next year that family increases it’s income to $150,000, now it’s debt is only 30% of income. Likewise, one way to manage the national debt is to increase GDP (the equivalent of the country’s gross income). The debt then becomes a more manageable portion of goods and services.

    You call it the national debt (as most people do): but it’s not the national debt, it’s the federal debt. And, though GDP may be the “equivalent” of the country’s gross income, it sure isn’t the federal government’s gross income, as much as the feds would dearly like it to be so.

    Admittedly, I haven’t done a whole lot of analysis on your remarks, but it seems to me that you’re thinking as if what’s ours (that is, the people’s) is really the federal government’s. And I think it’s that kind of thinking that’s largely responsible for the $13T federal debt.* Which we have no chance whatever of discharging without the feds spending less than they take in, which will require drastic cutbacks in the size and scope of every branch, twig, and leaf of the federal government.

    * Important trivia: did you know that, since 2000, the federal government has spent $3.7T just paying the interest on the federal debt?

  36. ELC Says:

    Excuse me for following up on my own comment ;) but perhaps somebody could answer a question that’s been on my mind a while.

    We have the federal constitution, the federal government, federal judges, federal statutes, federal cases, federal taxes, federal marshals, et al.

    Why is it calleed the national debt rather than the federal debt?

  37. Scottie Says:

    ELC,

    Perhaps because the feds take from the citizens, then in multitudes of ways disburse a chunk of this money back to the states?

    Not saying it’s right, but that’s my impression….

  38. T Says:

    ELC,

    I think you misunderstand what I am trying to illustrate; perhaps i wasn’t clear enough (apologies for the length of this post).

    The GDP is like the nation’s gross income, the Federal Governments income (gross IS net for the Feds since they pay no income tax) is federal income tax and excise tax revenue. When you raise the GDP, the national debt becomes a smaller part of the whole as in my example above.

    The GDP represents money on the move (goods and services provided in the nation), and when money moves, it is taxed. Thus, by increasing the GDP (The “nation’s income”) you increase the fed’s tax revenue. Even if you don’t increase tax rates the govt taxes a larger pie and thus has more income than previously.

    Thus, one way to help control the federal debt (in addition to paying down the debt and also not borrowing against future tax revenues) is to increase business activity to increase money on the move and thus increase the size of the taxable pie (GDP) therefore govt income. This is why the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts contributed to an expansive economy, they encouraged business expansion, created more goods, products and jobs, and provided a larger base of money on the move on which to levy tax; a 15% tax on 1000 workers making $50,000 creates more govt income than a 25% tax on 500 workers making $50,000.

    Obama administration policies consistently threaten to interfere with business and therefore stunt the growth of the GDP. They want to increase federal income by raising taxes (both directly by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and indirectly though charges such as the Obamacare penalty/tax) and they have created an environment of uncertainty which discourages business growth which slows the growth of the GDP (or reduces it).

    Higher tax rates on a smaller taxable pie discourages GDP growth reducing the size of the GDP. As the taxable pie shrinks, more and more tax rate increases (or new taxes like the VAT) are necessary just to keep federal revenue stable–forget growing it. Rising tax rates beget a shrinking GDP which requires even higher tax rates which begets an even smaller GDP and on and on. This eventually creates a death spiral

    Obama policies are creating a massive deficit (which adds to the natl debt) by spending money the govt doesn’t have while simultaneously causing the national debt to assume greater importance because now the GDP is smaller than before (or at least not growing as rapidly as the debt).

    To return to my example above, if you gross$50,000/yr and have consumer debt of $50,000 you are in trouble. If you can raise your income to $150,000 you are in substantially less trouble. If, however, you have $50,000 in debt and your income falls to $25,000 you are in a world of hurt (you now must double your income just to get to where you were). It is this last example that is typical of what the Obama administration is crafting.

  39. T Says:

    ELC,

    “The Federal Debt.” I like that distinction. I’d like to use that from now on.

  40. strcpy Says:

    “I disagree w/ you about the best that can happen (the best is that Repubs take both the house and the Senate and don’t repeat their “now we get to spend like the Democrats” meme from 2004).”

    Well, actually the best that can happen is that the Tea Party wins every seat in congress, they impeach and remove both Obama and Biden, and finally put their speaker as president. That means that everything is 100% smaller govt.

    That’s about as likely as what you say is “best case”. That is – it isn’t going to happen. There are just not enough competitive seat in the senate to do so and marginally enough in the house. That is even assuming most competitive seats go to republicans (let alone if the republicans are conservative or another set of RINO’s).

    If they were going to all go to republicans they wouldn’t be competitive – they would be lost. It isn’t a totally leftist conglomerate calling them “competitive” or “in play” either – they are really that. If you win over 60% of those seats then there is a HUGE swing in thought – 60% is so rare it makes record books.

    It would take well over that to win what you call best case scenario – it isn’t a best case anymore than me expecting my pickup truck to win first place in an NHRA Top Fuel Class – yep it is *possible* that all the cars will crash or have failures it hasn’t happened yet and betting everything I own on it isn’t a good idea. However that it is possible doesn’t mean it is best case and should be what we go for.

    Indeed, taking the house is only moderately likely – that means do not count on it. Taking the senate is so unlikely that I would rather bet on winning at a track race. I’m not much into that. Yes, you have to take some risks but to cunt an that is crazy. As such truly expect to have neither house in the next election, but hope for one of them.

    The chances of the dems loosing the senate are so remote that you would be better off spending the money on a lottery ticket. Someone has to win sometime, but I wouldn’t stake much on it. The chances of winning the house are OK, good enough to plan on what to do if it occurs but not so much to expect it.

    The Presidency? Not so much – an ugly cantankerous mule could have beaten Bush in the second election yet they ran Kerry who was clearly worse (for much the same reason you espouse – not remotely looking at what was *probable* and hoping that things would be ignored or go their way when it was a close call – close calls do not go much outside of 50% your way otherwise they wouldn’t be close).

    So, no, I do not agree with you. But I’ll (sadly) be correct for a number of years to come. Sadly too many leave when they find the dream will not hold up, no it will not but giving up leaves us were we are now. So I’m not trying to discourage – indeed I’m trying to set high but realistic expectations and have us work towards them. But it is a loosing cause and most leave when they can’t have all their cookies and eat them too.

  41. T Says:

    If you all will tolerate one last clarification of my discussion.

    It’s not the 13 trillion debt that’s the problem, it’s the 13
    trillion debt in relation to the GDP we hve that causes problems.

    Let’s say the we could wave a magic wand and eliminate all federal regulatory policies: Eliminate all oil drilling prohibitions–drill where you can; no more agricultural subsidies for farmers keeping barren fields (grow what you want and however much you can); mine all the coal you can, etc.

    I guarantee you that the U.S. economy would instantly respond. The problem wouldn’t be unemployment, we suddenly wouldn’t have enough workers for the available jobs. We would be producing so much oil that the price of gasoline would drop, transportation would be come cheaper than before and cause the prices of many goods to reduce.

    Travel would become cheaper, too. People would be making and spending substantially more money than under regulation, and govt tax revenues would go through the roof. There would be so many goods and services produced, and therefore so much taxable money on the move that a 13 trillion dollar debt would look like a teenager’s allowance. No one would care because federal income would easily be able to make payments on the outstanding interest and principal of the federal debt.

    But govt doesn’t do that. It restricts the economy, spends against future income and then whines that higher taxes are necessary because there’s not enough federal income (no matter that it’s because congress’ spending would make a drunken sailor on shore leave look like Ebenezer Scrooge).

    Finally, my apologies for being so off-topic.–This blog began as a discussion of why Sarah Palin drives the left nuts.

  42. bfj248s Says:

    One thing for sure is with all of this right-wing this and that and left-wing this and that, we will one day surely see the break up of the United States just as we saw the break up of former colonialist and the former Soviet Union. Most empires fall or break up from within. No Arab or Muslim nation such as an Iran will ever defeat the United States if we stay united. Right now all we Americans seem to be able to do is say and do things to split up the country. All we do is argue. God bless and save America.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge