January 28th, 2012

Bumper sticker for 2012

Tired of Obama, Gingrich, and Romney? I certainly am.

Here’s bumper sticker that offers an interesting alternative candidate for this election year. At least you can’t accuse him of lying:

[NOTE: If you don't know who "Cthulhu" is, see this.]

[UPDATE: Bumped up.]

52 Responses to “Bumper sticker for 2012”

  1. davisbr Says:

    We’re totally in sync on this one.

  2. LAG Says:

    Hey, no late-entry candy-dates. Let him show up for the debates and take his (its?) lumps just like the rest. Besides, I’m pretty sure this is how Newt looks without the makeup.

  3. mutecypher Says:

    Vote Cthulhu: Why go to Hell in a handcart when you can take the express elevator?

  4. D. B. Light Says:

    Ah yessss, the mythosss returnsss.

    Your readers might be interested to know that all of Lovecraft’s fiction is free online at http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/fiction/chrono.asp.

    His followers have a website — http://www.cthulhulives.org/toc.html. And they have a songbook — http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/cthulhu-hymnal.html. Ghod only knows what else they have.

  5. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Shouldn’t that just be “Obama for President”?

  6. vanderleun Says:

    You mean he’s not already president? I feel like Rick who went to Casablanca for the waters.

  7. Mac Says:

    Notice he’s making the classic Nixon victory sign. Gahhhh…!

  8. rickl Says:

    After the 1996 election, I made a homemade bumper sticker that read, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”

  9. Brian J. Says:

    I wore that as a button in 1992.

    And look where it got us.

  10. PA Cat Says:

    I used to have a bumper sticker that read “Republicans for J.S. Bach.” My music-loving Democrat friends couldn’t quarrel with that one.

  11. foxmarks Says:

    If you try running away, you’re just gonna die tired. Embrace the Rombamalypse.

  12. Occam's Beard Says:

    Ham Sandwich 2012

  13. pst314 Says:

    If we’re going to genre references, how about this guy?

  14. KLSmith Says:

    Tired of Gingrich and Romney. Obama is too dangerous to get tired about; I imagine I’ll be energized enough on election day.

  15. Beverly Says:

    Hey, I’m plumping for “Hastur the Unspeakable” myself. But any old eldritch horror will do.

  16. Sergey Says:

    If you want to win, root for a guy who made his pact with the Devil. He will be unstoppable. And will incure less harm than any benevolent idealist. Do-gooders are true Satanic spawn.

  17. james Says:

    Lovecraft, the only writer to scare me in broad damn daylight.

  18. Conrad Says:

    Random observation: When GWB was deeply despised by liberals, they were always labeling him as the “worst president in U.S. history.” They used to repeat that line constantly, and often even tried to back it up with a survey of history professors (as if academia could be counted on to give an objective assessment!).

    Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that, as much as conservatives loathe Obama and what he’s doing to the country, you don’t very often hear the specific claim that he’s the “worst president in U.S. history.”

    Similary, Bush was always “lying” about everything. Anything he did that the left didn’t like invariably related to the fact that he was “lying.” Again, however, much as conservatives despise Obama, we don’t tend to go after him on the specific basis of dishonesty all that much.

    Is the difference in how the two sides go after the other’s president simply a matter of rhetorical strategy, or is there something essentially ideological at work here?

  19. Don Carlos Says:

    No, Conrad, the failures of the right side are rooted in cowardice and PC.

  20. rickl Says:

    Off topic, but I just put up a new post at Ticker Forum.

    Gingrich vs. Romney on Space Policy

    You have to register to see it, but I included a number of good links to make it worth your while.

  21. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    “If you want to win, root for a guy who made his pact with the Devil. He will be unstoppable.”
    Revelation 19:20
    And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
    Of course, you knew that.

  22. thomass Says:

    Conrad Says:

    Don’t know. Liberals use so much double-think. It is hard to sort the conscious lies out from the lies they’ve adopted as true (for the time being).

    Most of what Obama says is untrue… but I don’t know how much of that he realizes is untrue. He might really think we can tax the wealthy 90% and it would fix budget shortfalls. He might really think government run healthcare is better than a private market system with private companies pulling most of the shots (but he was lying when claiming his bill was not a huge push towards government healthcare and that you’d keep your doctor). I don’t know.

    In the end, while I dislike his tone I think Mark Levin’s got it right. Stop trying to figure them out and just defeat them. They’re less than 20% of the population.

  23. Don Carlos Says:

    thomass:
    Hussein is just The Mouth, The Mouth That Keeps On Flying (in AF One). You don’t need to know anything except how to agitate to be a community organizer. He is The Mouth for the snakes in and out of gov’t that craftily crafted Obamacare, etc. etc.
    Trouble is, if you cut off the head, erh, The Mouth, the tens of thousands of tenured (academe, civil service, media, etc.) will survive, prosper, and secrete their poisons still, whilst recruiting into their ranks.

  24. Mike Mc. Says:

    Your ennui is misplaced. The moral equivalence of your trio I will put down to fatigue.

    Cheer up.

    At about this time next year, Obamacare will be a memory, the Ryan team will be working on Congress to undo decades of liberal misrule, and misregulation.

    Obama will be in Hawaii on his way to oblivion.

    And President NewtRomneyOrum will be leading us out of this miserable hole of liberalism.

  25. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    I’m with Don Carlos–Republicans would never in a million years throw one tenth of the shit at Obama-that they have already thrown at Newt.

    Obama is wide open to attack one dozens of things yet, Republicans never exploit these openings for fear of looking “mean” or being “impolite,” or not being “cooperative.”

    To which I say, the hell with that, go at ‘ em.

    Republicans should have been constantly on the attack from day one of the 2008 campaign and every day since Inauguration–attacks intensifying and multiplying the more Obama & Cos actions rolled forward–Obama’s birth certificate, paper trail, citizenship status, and eligibility for office. Obama’s associations– Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi. Obama’s Muslim roots-his mysterious trip to Pakistan during his college years. Obama and Ayers working together for years at the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, and its failure, The Marxist and amoral tactics of Saul Alinsky and what Obama’s “community organizing ” really was all about, and its results. Unconstitutional Czar appointments, Fast and Furious and over 399 deaths, Hell, Larry Sinclair if need be. Everything including the kitchen sink

    Not paying attention to the inevitable sneers and mockery from the MSM and commentators, not heeding calls for more respect for Obama, not heeding the derision of a Bill Maher, Hollywood, or the supposed “Intelligentsia,” but just hammering away, day after day, 24/7.

    But what do we do? We Republicans are respectful, we are polite, we do not rock the boat, or become nasty or unpleasant, we are timid, and easily controlled, and intimidated–we want to be liked.

    And what happens? We continually get our asses kicked., and no wonder.

  26. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Make that” over 300 deaths.”

  27. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    How about one example since Obama became President, say, his Czars.

    They are plainly un-Constitutional, yet aside from some initial fuss by Republicans, they have simply dropped from sight as an issue. Why?

    Do we even know how many of them their are, all of the Czar’s names, much less what their duties and scope of operations are, and what they have been doing– very busily I am sure–since they have been appointed, and how they have been undermining the Republic? No.

    Republicans should have been publicizing and hammering away at this unconstitutional action and the Czars, singly and as a group, day after day on the floor of Congress, in the media, in statements and newsletters and broadcasts, and hearing after hearing.

    Yet, we do nothing for fear, I guess, of seeming too aggressive, or “picky.” Result, Obama has gotten away with it, thumbs his nose at us and the Constitution, and we just pretend that everything is fine and that nothing out of the ordinary has really happened.

    Crudely put, if we don’t mind getting a little dirty–and winning–if we hit Obama with enough shit, soon he will stink. But, right now, with apparently most of the country, he is smelling like a rose.

  28. Baklava Says:

    Wolla,

    Here’s the way I look at it.

    There are folks who threw at Sarah, Cain and now Newt.

    I don’t care.

    I can’t support Newt given his OWN SELF. I don’t care what anybody said about Sarah or Cain. I supported Sarah and Cain vociferously.

    Newt is an embarrassment and he is NOT the answer.

    He is the answer to lose.
    Not the answer to win.

    I am happy he was speaker and led welfare reform and the balanced budgets of 1997 – 1999.

    I saw with my own eyes the Florida debates.

    Newt is NOT a good debater and I’m hoping that you can come to support Santorum and or Romney.

    Gingrich cannot win, will not win, and this whole conversation is an embarrassment on the party.

  29. Mike Mc. Says:

    The Gingrich hatred is whacked. I think you people are afraid of what the big bad media will do to him. I’m not. I think they are afraid of what he might do to them.

    Gingrich is a conservative hero. He was probably the second most important Republican since Reagan, Dubya being the first.

    It is beyond bizarre; it is quite frankly demented that people say he is not conservative.

    And he is not my candidate. But he will be if he gets the nod. it’s up to the voters.

    This is not the Super Bowl yet. You fight your divisional and conference opponents first. All of that is like practice for the big game once you get there.

    Polls mean nothing until roughly late July or early August.

    Obama’s numbers are scary. Once the R nominee is trained on him exclusively like a laser he will tear him to pieces. All the Kings Horses and All the King’s men will never put that fraud together again.

    Don’t worry. You guys could do the self-fulfilling prophecy thing if you aren’t careful. You are MUCH HARDER on our guys than on Obama too. You respect him more. You shouldn’t.

    Take your own advice. And you are much harder on select Rs than on any of the Dems have been yet.

    There is no R I would not vote for over Obama. There are something like a grand total of 7 Indies who are on the fence but would pick Obama over any of the Rs. No one picks misery because of the aesthetics of the better choice. No one except those 7 crazed Indies.

  30. Baklava Says:

    Mike Mc,

    It isn’t people like me who ‘hate’ Gingrich.

    It is people like me saying that Gingrich can’t win based on our own observations.

    His arguments during the Florida debate were wack.

    I’m not asking for Gingrich to leave the race. Gingrich sharpened Romney and it was Romeny out debating Gingrich in Florida repeatedly.

    I want Gingrich to stay in. I just don’t want people BELIEVING that Gingrich can win. He can’t.

    Again. i’m glad he came in and did all he did as Speaker in 1994. That was an exciting time.

    Let’s move forward to what we saw in the Florida debate.

    Somebody who can’t beat Obama. That’s my opinion and many others opinions not based on Bill Kristol or Krauthammer. It’s mine based on my observations.

  31. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Factoid (just in case someone forgot); at one time Gingrich was the most uncommon politician in America (maybe a bad sign for a potential presidential run).

  32. expat Says:

    The question is whether America is ready for big dreams and schemes right now. Or do we need to get our finances stabilized first and move some responsibilities back to the states so that people like Scott Walker and Chris Christie can remind people about the costs of those dreams. I take the second position.

    Global warming has taken a hit this weekend. This can give us a little time to practice thinking rationally about energy, in relation to both its future generation and our wise use of it. Maybe we will become a bit less hysterical as a result.

  33. Mike Mc. Says:

    Baklava,

    You have no evidence base for saying Gingrich can’t win. None.

    On the other hand there is some evidence he certainly could win.

    1. He won the House back for Republicans for the FIRST TIME IN OVER 50 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sorry for the Caps but let’s get real here. My goodness.

    2. He then enacted the Contract for America and changed the State of the Nation and economy for the next 15 years, until what? Until the Dems took the House back again.

    3. He was been counted out already three times in this campaign. He is running on next to nothing. He’s now in 2nd place.

    4. He is a fighter who will hammer Obama ruthlessly. He will hound him and never let him rest. The media will try to savage him but he, unlike the rest, will hit them back hard and it will hurt them. The media is every bully there ever was. When you hit them back, they will run away and hide. Trust me.

    You people do what you want. I never enjoyed bashing fellow Rs. Paul does not count since he is not an R, and even he has some good ideas.

    It is not that Newt couldn’t win. It is that there really are not that many people who can beat him. The Rs might have one, Romney. The Ds probably have no one who can beat him.

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike Mc.: I would say there’s plenty of evidence that Gingrich can’t win. His unfavorables, and the polls that show he is likely to lose big time in a matchup with Obama. You may not accept that evidence, or you may think the evidence is temporary and that 25 years of high unfavorables will somehow dissipate as Gingrich turns it on in the heat of battle, or you may not care. But to say there’s no evidence is incorrect—and in fact, the evidence seems quite compelling to me.

  35. Mike Mc. Says:

    Unfavorables don’t vote. In elections Gingrich has a good record. Right in front of our eyes we have seen the unfavorables are a nothing.

    Who do you know who lost an election due to high unfavorables? I never heard the thing until last week when Gingrich WON AND ELECTION.

    It must be me.

    I am sure the rest of the universe is sane and I am the insane one who looks at actual facts and votes. My mistake is looking at actual track records of era-changing quality.

    Romney, who I basically favor at this point, is 6 and 19 in elections I think. His unfavorables are low.

    But it doesn’t matter.

    “I don’t like Gingrich; he’s mean” is not going to defeat “I don’t want to be miserable, broke, unemployed, hated and abused” in this coming election.

    If Gingrich wins the nomination we will have the most effective and unfavorable President in a generation next year I guess.

    Unfavorable? Bring it on. I hope he is unfavorable. People know in their guts that unfavorable is what they need and what the country needs.

  36. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike Mc.: Gingrich has not won an election since 1998. All of his elections were in a district in which the only choice was whether it would be a conservative Democrat or a conservative Republican who would represent it. He won his seat for the first time in 1978 when the Democrat incumbent (a conservative Dixiecrat type) retired.

    More recently, Newt lost the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, and won the South Carolina primary. He has no experience in an election where he has to appeal to anything other than true-red conservatives, and he’s managed to offend many of them in the ensuing years.

    You’ve never seen unfavorables lose an election? How would you measure such a thing? I don’t believe polls have been taken for all that long on the favorable/unfavorable scale for presidential candidates. But from memory, I would say how about 1964 (Goldwater)? What about 1980 (Carter)? Usually, however, the principle isn’t put to that much of a test, because usually a Party knows better than to nominate someone with such high unfavorables as Gingrich has. I think, in fact, it would be unprecedented to do so.

    What’s more, you said there was no evidence Gingrich would lose. I offered plenty of evidence in polls of a matchup between Obama and Gingrich. Again, you may not think the evidence is correct for whatever reason. But that’s not the point I was making, which is that there’s evidence (and in fact there’s more evidence that he’d lose than that he would win).

  37. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike Mc.: oh, and that little trick of counting each state primary as an election doesn’t cut it.

    Romney lost one election in 1994 and won one in 2002. That’s it. Both in Massachusetts. And he did better against Ted Kennedy than any Republican had before him.

    But if you do want to talk about primaries (which are very different than general elections), Romney actually had a pretty decent record in 2008.

  38. Bob From Virginia Says:

    oops, I meant “unpopular”.

  39. Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove Says:

    [...] neo-neocon has someone different in mind for 2012- Cthulhu! Though, I think Dagon might suffice (lots of references in Simon Green’s Nightside books) [...]

  40. Baklava Says:

    Mike Mc wrote, “1. He won the House back for Republicans for the FIRST TIME IN OVER 50 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    um.. no..

    Each and every Republican who won in 1994 won the House back for the first time in over 40 years at the time. There were other historic points dating back 48 years and such.

    Yes, All of the Republicans who were running, stood up on the steps of the capitol pledging to enact the Contract with America. I grant you most or many of the points there were Newt’s ideas.

    I would never have written item #1 though as you wrote it.

    On your point #4. Gingrich showed in the Florida debates that he might hammer Obama ruthlessly AND without perspective.

    My own observations is that time after time in those florida debates (did you watch them) my jaw was dropping from the absolute lack of perspective from Newt. And… Romney showed better perspective and showed how much he had a command of the facts and the ability to piece together a cogent argument and quickly.

    Newt was stubborn.. not very evasive, fast or manueverable. He kept on with the grandmas being deported (showing how stuck in the mud he was), he kept on with the investments in Freddie and Fannie and on and on. Newt basically tore to shreds the idea/notion that he was quick on his feet and a good debater. He turned that upside down

  41. Baklava Says:

    Along with the high unfavorables and the favorables that dropped (by his own performance) I can’t see anybody buying the notion that Newt can win except for people who are stuck in the mud.

    Let’s put our cleats on, and make a cut, juke, jive, figure this run to the endzone out.

    If it’s Santorum ok.
    If it’s Romney ok.

    But it won’t be William Refrigerator Perry Gingrich. He keep going with the grandmas until he has 11 guys tackling him, having never moved from his position, he’ll drop to his knees and then go face down in the mud – never to rise for another play. Or.. if he does.. he’ll run the same play again.

    In my job, I have to be smart, make quick executive decisions, I can’t see Newt making good executive decisions after thinking we need to man the moon.

    I can’t see Newt making good decisions after calling anything ghetto language. He didn’t mention one specific language but he shouldn’t have said it.

    Yes we need one language as the official language of government and that should be English. But he should’ve left it at that. Hispanics agree with that by a wide margin. Stop right there. Don’t go further with the ghetto talk.

    He doesn’t have the temperment.
    He doesn’t have perspective.
    He can’t out debate Romney for sure.
    He hasn’t looked in the mirror lately. My girlfriend is a guage (whether you like it or not) and she would never look at or even listen to the guy.

    She’s studies Romney. She loves his family. She loves his sons.

    She’ll watch entertainment tonight. She’ll study the Romney family. She’s hispanic. She has not listened to one word of Gingrich.

    Guess what?
    I have listened to Gingrich’s words. They are irresponsible, without perspective and after looking in the mirror he should never ever think hmmm. I think one day I’ll be president.

    It won’t happen. Whether you like it or not – that’s how it works for a percentage of voters.

    I liked:
    Cain
    Bachmann
    Santorum
    then Romney

    but guess what – I KNOW that Gingrich can’t win and he wasn’t on my list and after the FL debates I know he’ll never get there.

  42. Baklava Says:

    Can I ask you why Mike Mc…. why did Gingrich bash the Paul Ryan plan?

    I’ve listened to Gingrich many times on the Bill Bennett show explain why – yet I still can’t understand why.

    He was without perspective.
    He basically talked at length about the dramatic shift that was in the right direction (the Paul Ryan plan) but – and then he lost me.

    He apologized.
    He knew it hurt him.

    And then he still looked in the mirror and felt he could be president.

    He won’t!

    Maybe before the age of TV. But we are in a multimedia world Mike!

    Help me convince others that Ron Paul and Gingrich should stay in the debates and show everybody how much sharper Romney is – he he that last sentence was a jab.

    Love ya Mike :)

  43. Baklava Says:

    btw Neo,

    With this Facebook IPO (and me being in IT for 24 years) I cannot understand this article

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/46181589

    I understand that Facebook is popular and generates ad revenue.

    What I don’t understand is – what does Facebook produce? They keep people in touch. So does the mobile phone. There is additional value over the phone – people who haven’t seen you in years can contact you without knowing your phone number.

    But what is the article stating that Facebook has 3,000 employees and has created over 450,000 jobs in the US and Europe for?

    Where does that claim come from?

    I understand a car company who has 10,000 employees then has a ripple effect for local businesses near the plant, etc. and helps by a 10 fold ripple. But a factor of 10 over 3,000 is 30,000…

  44. Baklava Says:

    Gingrich also claims he’s created over 11 million new jobs. I understand why he says it. It just isn’t true.

    What is true is that during the time he was speaker – the economy grew because of a number of factors:
    1) Lower tax rates
    2) Less burdensome government
    3) The spending on IT due to the Y2K bug which then led to the collapse of the tech sector when spending came back down to reality in jan 2000.

    On item #3. Gingrich was in the right place at the right time. ALL companies including GM, Insurance companies, banks, etc had to spend more money than necessary in IT –

    Then afterwards the amount of spending had to realign.

  45. JTW Says:

    Obama doesn’t lie either, it’s just that people are incapable of correctly interpreting what he’s saying.
    “Hope and Change” for example. But noone questioned him as to WHAT he Hopes for and WHAT he would change (and in what ways). He of course hopes for the demise of the USA and is changing things left and right to bring that about. See, no lie.

    The problem with O’Chutlhu is that he says nothing, yet people interpret that nothing to mean what they think will be in their own best interest. That’s why he won in ’08, and that’s why he’ll win again in ’12.

  46. Baklava Says:

    Mike, I hope you can answer my question above at 1:20AM.

    Also see this

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/swing-states-poll/52871890/1

    shellack or no shellack. that is the question.

  47. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Cthulhu? Fine. Anyone but Obama is acceptable.

  48. SteveH Says:

    I see a pattern in Presidential elections. Democrats nominate authoritarian assholes that ratchet the country ever leftward and republicans nominate nice guys who get run over and ratchet the country ever leftward.

    Somethings terrbly wrong with this strategy. And it boils down to a republican fear of nominating a non status quo candidate.

    I forget who said…”The trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt”.

  49. Artfldgr Says:

    Cthulhu CThucks say Gardernarians… :)

  50. foxmarks Says:

    Baklava: FB produces incredibly fine-grained demographic information and they deliver focused eyeballs to advertisers. If you can’t see the product, you are the product.

    I hold that all claims of jobs created or helped to create are fraudulent. The only jobs any entity creates are their direct hires. “Jobs” is a crappy metric, anyway. But that rant can wait…

  51. Artfldgr Says:

    Jesus Saves
    Buddha Recycles
    Cthulhu Saves for Later

    A Servitor of the Outer Gods slithers into a pub. Its a friendly place, so the locals strike up a conversation. Eventually one of the locals asks the Servitor what it does for a living.

    “I’m a musician” relies the Servitor. “I can play any instrument known to man, and any other race come to think of it. I’ve done gigs for Azathoth at the centre of the Universe!”

    The locals take this as a challenge. “Prove it! Drinks all night if you can play any three instruments we give you to play. Otherwise you’ll but a round for the whole bar!”

    Relishing the challenge the Servitor says “You’re on.”

    The first instrument the locals produce is a flute. “Too easy!” says the Servitor. Its tentacles wrap around the instrument, and it pipes away. Discordant sounds and outré rhythms issue forth. As a result a couple of the locals curl up into the foetal position, and one or two gibber in the corner. But in the end those that remain standing are suitably impressed.

    The next instrument is a guitar. The Servitor looks at it carefully, picked it up and turns it over once or twice. But really, it is no challenge. Plucking sounds that a human with a mere ten fingers could never hope to do, sounds issue forth that challenged the very sanity of the drunkest bar patron. Again however, the locals have to admit the Servitor was damn good.

    The last instrument is a set of bagpipes. For moment the Servitor contemplates it. It picks it up, and its tentacles and pseudopods ooze over the intrument. It turns it around and goes through the same process.

    This carries on for a few minutes, the Servitor becoming more and mystified. Eventually the locals start getting a bit restless, “Come on” one wag calls out. “You said you can play anything! Give us our beer if you can’t. Can you play it or not?”

    “Play it” replies the Servitor. “What do you mean play it? I’m too busy trying to work out how to have sex with it.”

  52. davisbr Says:

    LOL, artfldgr …you are the total Lovecraft dweeb.

    Thread winnner.

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