October 17th, 2012

Candy Crowley’s Big Lie of a “fact-check”

[NOTE: I couldn't post last night during the debate because I was driving home from New York City and listening to it on the radio. So I'm a bit late to the non-party.]

First, the debate: seemingly a draw. But perhaps Romney further proved himself “presidential” rather than the cruelly rapacious top-hatted murderer he’s been made out to be by Obama, and perhaps Obama further proved himself a mean-spirited guy with no answer to the questions that plague his failed presidency.

Perhaps. The debate I see (or in this case, hear) is never the debate other people seem to see and hear, and it is especially not the one the MSM sees.

And the MSM is still a huge player in this, despite the fact that fewer and fewer people trust it every year. The press has labored long and hard to earn that distrust.

Last night was a case in point. It’s tiresome and infuriating to spend so much time railing against the moderator, and I usually don’t get into that angle (it would be more newsworthy to point out the rare times the moderator does not openly shill for Obama). But CNN’s Candy Crowley has distinguished herself (if “distinguished” is the proper word) by displaying the most egregious and intrusive favoritism I’ve ever seen or heard by a moderator in a debate, as well as the most mendacious.

Crowley should be made to issue a public apology to Mitt Romney and then summarily fired, and a correction to her Orwellian “fact-checking” in last night’s debate should be prominently featured in every major newspaper in America.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

And that, perhaps, is why Crowley did it—so that she could wreak the maximum damage on Romney, carry the largest bucket of water possible for Obama, and count on the fact that any corrections that emerged would reach only a small fraction of the number her lie did.

Well played, Ms. Crowley, well-played.

When the exchange first happened, it should have been obvious to anyone who has followed the Benghazi story that there was something wrong with Crowley’s correction. For one thing, a moderator should not be fact-checking a presidential debate as it transpires, even if he/she is correct; it violates the agreement under which he/she signs on to moderate. For another thing, the “fact” Crowley inserted into the debate was incorrect.

But that didn’t stop Crowley—or Obama. In case you don’t know what I’m referring to, here’s the text of the relevant portion of the debate:

OBAMA: The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime…

ROMNEY: I — I think interesting the president just said something which — which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That’s what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror…

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

I wonder whether this was a preplanned set-up, if the topic happened to come up (which of course it was likely to do). Obama demanding “get the transcript” is very, very odd. Are instant transcripts usually available on demand during debates? And why didn’t Crowley actually read the transcript aloud if the idea was to refer to it? Is she doing this from memory? How audacious of her! Because the transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden speech proves her wrong; Obama did not call the Benghazi violence an act of terror. He was carefully equivocal on the subject [emphasis mine]:

…Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

The speech is longer than that. But if you read the whole thing, you will see that Obama is very careful not to label the violence in Benghazi at all, except as an “attack.” Having spoken about the original 9/11 attack as well as the sacrifice of members of the military who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan, he then says “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”—a general statement of fortitude.

One could infer that he might be thinking the Benghazi attack was terrorism, but Obama certainly does not say so. And subsequent statements emanating from the administration and its spokespeople were quite united in putting forth a competing message: that it was a spontaneous demonstration against the video (a demonstration that in fact never happened in Benghazi).

But as I said, perhaps what Crowley did will backfire, or perhaps it just won’t matter much. Any Republican must anticipate this sort of thing and factor in the influence of an increasingly biased media. I sincerely hope the American people can factor it in as well, and pay attention to what matters: Obama is unworthy of re-election, as he demonstrated last night and nearly every day for the last four years.

[NOTE: And forget Crowley's half-assed admmission later on CNN, during which she ignores the fact that she was wrong about what Obama actually said in the Rose Garden:

Meaningless blather.]

[ADDENDUM: Bryan Preston puts it quite well at PJ's Tatler:

This is the moment that debate moderator Candy Crowley jumped up from behind her desk and tackled Mitt Romney just as he was striding toward a game-changing touchdown. The replacement refs of the NFL had nothing on Crowley. They merely got calls wrong. I don’t recall them ever slipping into a linebacker role and making a game-saving tackle for any team.

Indeed; exactly correct.

Preston also points out that one of the perpetrators of the supposedly-forbidden audience applause in response to Crowley's act was none other than: Michelle Obama.]

46 Responses to “Candy Crowley’s Big Lie of a “fact-check””

  1. Paul A'Barge Says:

    Filth.

    These MSM people are pure filth.

  2. Baltimoron Says:

    I didn’t watch that part of the debate. Although the part I did see it seemed quite clear that the moderator was biased against Romney. I didn’t think much of it. If the guy can’t handle a CNN reporter, he doesn’t deserve to be president.
    When I read about the dust up over the embassy attack this morning, I wondered if Crowley had preplanned it with the Obama folks. The fact the the president said “acts of terror” in a speech hasn’t been part of the Democrat’s talking points over the last few weeks. Instead they’ve been saying that they got bad intelligence.
    I doubt even Obama would have remembered he said “acts of terror” if someone on his staff hadn’t told him. You certainly don’t hang the Secretary of State out to dry like he did if you know you have an easy out.
    I figure either Crowley talked with someone in the Obama campaign before the debate, or she reflexively agreed with Obama despite not knowing what he actually said.

  3. CV Says:

    The least Candy could have done after she opened her big mouth was remind the audience that applause was verboten.

    But she didn’t even do that much, did she?

    I don’t know why I’m surprised that Michelle was involved with the forbidden clapping. Nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the least worthy, least presidential first couple.

  4. Steve Says:

    Romney could turn lemons into lemonade by featuring Obama and madam moderator in an ad. He might start the ad by saying ‘President Obama was wrong. Madam moderator was wrong.’

  5. SteveH Says:

    What’s amazing is how in the tank the MSM is for Obama 24/7 and the guy’s on the ropes.

    I just don’t see Fox News, the internet and talk radio accounting for the unraveling we’re witnessing. Maybe we’ve reached a tipping point of disgust where the MSM support has become a net drain on Obama.

  6. LisaM Says:

    I was angry, and I still am. But I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he’s making me feel much better. If Obama won on points, why is everyone today talking about Libya and how long it took him to stop blaming the video? Why is everyone talking about the moderator helping him? Why did the focus groups of undecided voters swing decisively to Romney last night?

    He also said that if there was any journalistic integrity left, Crowley’s career would be over.

  7. Capn Rusty Says:

    Assume that Obama is telling the truth (!) and that he knew on 9/12 in the Rose Garden that a US consulate had been attacked by Islamic terrorists who murdered 4 Americans, on American soil. What did he do in response? He skipped his intelligence briefing, said a few words in the Rose Garden, left Washington DC in the throes of a potential developing crises, and flew off to a fund-raiser in Vegas – a/k/a “dereliction of duty.”

    Maybe he would have been smarter to say that he didn’t think it was a terrorist attack?

  8. Bilwick Says:

    Ellsworth Toohey would no doubt proud of his spiritual grandchildren in the MSM.

  9. DonS Says:

    Didn’t Crowley also stop Mitt from talking about Fast and Furious?

  10. CharlieSays Says:

    “Didn’t Crowley also stop Mitt from talking about Fast and Furious?”

    Yes, Don. Yes she did.

  11. Ira Says:

    One could infer that he [Obama] might be thinking the Benghazi attack was terrorism, but Obama certainly does not say so.

    You’re way too kind here to Obama, neo-neocon. 1. He KNEW it was terrorism. 2. However, he was SAYING something else about the Benghazi attack.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    Ira: my point is NOT about what Obama was thinking, or about what he knew. So I’m not being kind or unkind. I’m talking only about what he said in the Rose Garden, and what a listener might logically infer from his words versus what he actually said. During the debate, the argument and “fact-checking” was about what he said.

  13. Ira Says:

    I think we may be saying the same thing, while we are arguing about you’re being to kind here. In any event, I do not believe that anyone being both objective and reasonable could infer from what Obama said in the Rose Garden that the Obama or his administration might be thinking that the Benghazi attack was terrorism (as in a pre-planned assault on US personnel). As both you and I pointed out, Obama’s Rose Garden speech linked our resolve to stand by our principles even in the face of terrorism to the events of 9/11/2001. The “four more” who died, died in service to our country, but his speech strongly implied that they died in an attack incited by a movie.

  14. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    The most important factor regarding last nights debate is the focus groups of undecided voters, both Fox’s and MSNBC’s (!) swung decisively to Romney last night.

    Yes, Crowley is an partisan advocate who uses her ‘profession’ to dishonestly assist democrats and Obama.

    Yes, she cheated with her ‘thumb on the scale’ as much as possible.

    Overall, Obama ‘won on points’ because he’s an unapologetic liar. Romney however won on the economy and effectively used his business experience to support his assertion that he knows what to do to get the economy moving again and create jobs and THAT is all that really counts because this election is about the economy.

    All Libya does is prove that Obama is incompetent in foreign policy too.

    Yes, Romney could have done better. But. He did well enough.

    This election, barring a decisive ‘wild card’ is over. Romney will win.

    Whether Palin’s unappreciated efforts in the Congressional races and whether voter disgust results in handing Romney a Senate majority, so that he has the leverage needed to make necessary changes is now the real question remaining.

  15. kaba Says:

    The media have abandoned even the pretense of balance at this point. They are squandering what little credibility they may have had remaining in an attempt to push Obama across the line once again.

    I wonder how they sleep at night or look at themselves in the mirror each morning. Does lying and misleading a public reliant on you become so common place that it loses it’s bite? Do we sell our reputations, our credibility, our souls so cheaply?

  16. Ira Says:

    What WE all know, but we should repeat, is that the Obama administration is trying to cover the One’s butt in view of the administration’s failure to protect the Benghazi consulate after several prior attacks on US interests in the area and the oft-mentioned denials of requests for more security. By saying or implying that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to a movie as opposed to a planned attack, the Obama administration seeks a pass on its failure

  17. stan Says:

    I think the most incredible part of the whole episode is that Candy admitted that she jumped in to save BO because BO gave her a look which she saw as asking her to defend him.

    I mean, her leader gave her a look. What else could she do?

  18. Steve D Says:

    ‘And the MSM is still a huge player in this, despite the fact that fewer and fewer people trust it every year.’

    Maybe. But like the right wing media, they are mainly preaching to the choir. The question is not whether or not a liberal gets all his news from the New York Times. The question is whether or not an independent does.

  19. Steve D Says:

    ‘And the MSM is still a huge player in this, despite the fact that fewer and fewer people trust it every year.’
    Maybe. But like the right wing media, they are mainly preaching to the choir. The question is not whether or not a liberal gets all his news from the New York Times, MSNBC or the St. Louis Post Dispatch. The question is whether or not an independent (especially an undecided independent) does.
    And anyone who does get their news from the liberal media is probably already decided for Obama. Anyone who watches both Fox and CNN well…is probably still reachable.

  20. parker Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says, “The most important factor regarding last nights debate is the focus groups of undecided voters, both Fox’s and MSNBC’s (!) swung decisively to Romney last night.”

    If Obama-Candy can not win over an MSNBC focus group Obama is going to lose. Obama-Candy played to those who would never vote for anyone other than a democrat. The audience Candy-Obama should have played to were those who are still undecided. I think they made a big mistake.

  21. southpaw Says:

    As always, I take the high road and can’t help notice this:
    “Candy Crowley jumped up from behind her desk and tackled Mitt Romney just as he was striding toward a game-changing touchdown”
    I’m clearly not alone in my pre-debate observations about Candy’s alter-ego, NFL all-pro defensive tackle. And Neo, if you had titled the post “Candy’s Big Fat Lie”, it would have been icing on the cake.
    Now that I have that out of my system, I totally agree a republican candidate should expect this, and given that she indicated she fully intended to participate in the debate, I think the Romney people did the best they could given the circumstances.
    But now that she’s set a new precedent for objectivity and fairness, it will be easier to prepare for the next media professional. When you know this coming, you should have a few prepared lines to call them out.
    “Excuse me Candy, I understand you have an opinion, which is understandable, but I would appreciate it if you let he and me debate the issues without interruption. A better format for you might be to schedule a 90 minute townhall without us, and answer the questions and speak on out behalf. Sort of like your news show”.

    “Since you’ve obviously got an opinion about this Candy, what do you think we should do about Iran? If I were to name you secretary of state in my cabinet, what would be your best advice on stopping Iran from obtaining a nuke, and assuming that failed, what would you recommend as a backup plan for containment? I can’t help notice you are highly informed on the issue, as well as critical of my comments, so I’m assuming you have a workable option. Please share it with us because whoever wins would benefit” etc.
    I’m not good at this, but a lot of people are, and could shut these people down, or put them off balance.
    Or just not agree to a 3 way debate in the first place.
    Anyway my gut tells me most Americans don’t find Candy Crowley to be an appealing personality, and the fact she aligned herself with BO didn’t help him. And there’s something disturbing about a sitting president who needs (and expects) someone to his come to his rescue when he’s backed into a corner. On some level, people sense this; a guy who can dish out the criticism, but can’t take it. A snotty little boy who likes to start trouble, but then runs for an adult when he’s about to get punched in the nose. The obvious rush to defend BO makes him look like he’s a victim of some kind. The most impressive thing Obama can do would be to speak up and tell the moderator — “It’s ok, i appreciate the support, but can handle this”. Everyone would respect that.

  22. gcotharn Says:

    Newt Gingrich has the right idea: the two candidates ought sit together and talk. No moderator; maybe a timekeeper. The moderator comprises a second Democrat, and creates a two against one effect.

    Debate stats:

    –Barack spoke 3 minutes longer.
    –Candy interrupted Barack 9 times; Romney 28 times.
    –Candy gave Barack the last word 8 times, Romney 3 times.
    –Candy pre-selected 11 questions, which somebody (NRO?) broke down this way: 6 anti Romney; 3 anti Obama.

    In truth, I like Candy as a journalist. She is a lefty, but I think she believes in journalistic ethics. However, her moderator performance was definitively biased. She prodded Barack when he was in trouble: lighting a path by which he could escape. Quoting Jeff Goldstein on the VP moderator: “She cannot ‘moderate’ anything. She lefterates.”

  23. Sgt. Mom Says:

    For myself, when I look at Candy Crowley, all I can think of is how Sam Stone in the movie “Ruthless People” described his wife – as a squealing, corpulent little toad.

  24. gcotharn Says:

    BTW, re the debate winner:

    the candidates’ task was to move undecided voters in their direction. Romney moved some undecided voters in his direction. Obama did not. Ergo: Romney was the night’s winner.

    Something else: winners often experience good luck. The Benghazi debate kerfuffle will turn out to be a lucky thing for Romney. Feelin good!

  25. SteveH Says:

    These debates are devastating to Barak Obama. He’s not the same caliber of a man as Mitt Romney and people can’t help but notice the sharp contrast in demeanor and forthrightness. And the MSM shamelessly helping out Barak just amplifies what people see.

  26. gcotharn Says:

    Another fun quote, this time from John Nolte at Breitbart.com:

    “If these were undecided voters, they were apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party.”

  27. Papa Dan Says:

    There was something about Obama I had noticed before, but hadn’t thought about until I realized that maybe some people who weren’t pay attention until this debate and the last one, and that’s his normal speaking voice, which I think is weak and thin, almost a childish quality. The man is shrinking before our eyes, kind of like Fred Flintstone would when he was caught in one of his scams.

  28. NeoConScum Says:

    Candyland Crowley is the living poster girl for what a feisty, profane Irish lady friend of 30-years sums this way:”Neo, that B***h gives the Letter “C” to the word Woman.

    AMEN.

  29. Sam L. Says:

    And they wonder why their readership and viewer numbers keep going down. Not gonna figure it out. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

  30. holmes Says:

    Agree with Paul above. Rat filth.

  31. Baklava Says:

    I’m happy and sad that this next week of news is about the failure of Obama to deal with reality in Benghazi.

    Chalking it up to a video was the WORST quick idea of this government in a long time.

    Who had the idea?

    Who loved the idea and then carried the water on the idea? Hillary, Obama, Rice… etc.

    Who lost this debate. Obama.

    Who won the debate Romney.

    It’s sad because good men died from the hands of murderers.

  32. Patrick Says:

    That interruption didn’t do any favors for the impression more and more people are gaining of her profession – that the media is completely untrustworthy and almost totally in the tank for democrats in general and Obama in particular.

  33. parker Says:

    “… one of the perpetrators of the supposedly-forbidden audience applause in response to Crowley’s act was none other than: Michelle Obama.”

    Michelle is Barrack on testosterone injects. She has the bigger cojones in that match up. She’s not a bitch, she’s an evil woman.

  34. M J R Says:

    gcotharn says, in part, 5:48 pm:

    “In truth, I like Candy as a journalist. She is a lefty, but I think she believes in journalistic ethics.”

    I had a good friend (1970s,1980s) who was a front-page current events writer for The Christian Science Monitor. We’d have our conversations, and I was always very willing to spout off my view on the topic du jour when/if it arose. One day I asked him, “and [name], what do ^you^ think?”

    He replied that he never, ever offers an opinion on current events / political matters, because to do so would violate his sense of journalistic ethics. He would never suggest the slightest clue as to where he stood on the political spectrum, to maintain the appearance of absolute journalistic objectivity.

    Those were the days. To this day, I never got out of him where he actually stood on anything political.

    ^That^ was journalistic ethics. We’ve come a long way, Candy-baby.

  35. Oldflyer Says:

    Baltimoron, the issue is not whether Romeny can handle a CNN shill. There is no question that he could in a stand-up confrontation. But, first this was not Romeny vs Crowley; it was Romney vs Obama and Crowley. But, secondly, Romney had to be careful, because the Obama mud squad has worked very hard to paint him as mean, vicious, and a liar.
    So, he had to fight back to keep from getting steam rolled, but he had to do it with a lot of discretion.

    Speaking of fact checking. When Obama told the bald faced lie that the Arizona law allows law enforcement to stop Hispanics “on suspicion that they are illegal” I yelled out loud. The law, of course, specifically prohibits that. If Obama is not aware of that, he is too ignorant to be in his position. More likely, he thought he could get away with it. Romney did not challenge him on that specifically. Sorry he didn’t.

    I read that Crowley interrupted Romney approximately 30 times. This farce has got to stop.

  36. thomass Says:

    Why do republicans allow people like this to be moderators in the debates.

  37. thomass Says:

    M J R Says:

    “He replied that he never, ever offers an opinion on current events / political matters, because to do so would violate his sense of journalistic ethics”

    I had one professor like that (of political science btw). I ended up cracking the code and revealing his affiliation because he gave too much detail about his participation with his party… ie; he didn’t say which but he gave too much away about his party’s process so I was able to go over the rules each party used at their conventions to figure out which he went to. But same deal, did his job right… he was a democrat but you wouldn’t know it just by being in his class.

  38. Heidi Jo Says:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you! I thought that I was the only one thinking it was a little odd that the President asked for transcripts and, suddenly, they appear in the hands of Candy Crowley! A little questionable! Hmmmm!?

  39. Wry Mouth Says:

    Neo: saw this. what did you think of Mr. Obama’s “Proceed, Governor.” ? The delivery of it, to me, was chilling. He seemed to be very seriously angered.

    Who was setting up whom, I wonder?

    Gov. Romney counter-punched Crowley, and then let the matter drop without pushing too hard. Did he plan on making the issue a talking-point for the week in the build up to next week’s foreign policy debate?

    Or did Mr. Obama drop the “terror” bait for Mr. Romney to fall on?

    I tend to think Mr. Romney played this as best as he had planned to, given the interruption. I guess we’ll find out next week: was he planting a seed?

    Meanwhile, the frozen, glowering “Proceed, Governor” joins my list of Mr. Obama’s glaring public displays of — what? immaturity? like giving Sen. Clinton the finger in public?

    I have often said in the last four years: I know this man, because I (the same age almost to the week) am much like him. And I won’t vote for him, because I don’t want somebody like me running the country. I want someone better than me.

  40. beverly Says:

    I have a theory about why Romney has agreed to the lopsided debate setup.

    We know he’s smart. We know that he knows all the stuff about the Left that we do. So why would he agree to this?

    It might be that he figures he’ll hit two goals: 1) By debating the lefty moderators as well as his ostensible opponent, Romney demonstrates to the vast audience just how biased they are. And 2), this gives him a golden opportunity to REBUT the EneMedia’s arguments, again in front of the vast audience, without the Enemedia filter.

    I’m liking that neologism: “Enemedia.” For a couple of reasons. ;-)
    Now I’m off to watch Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic” on Youtube. Ciao, all.

  41. JFM Says:

    Oldflyer:

    Another lame Obama moment in the debate came when Obama tried to rationalize his veto of the XL pipeline from Canada. Obama said that we already had enough pipelines in the US to circle the world.

    By this logic, the reason that a needed highway didn’t get built in your city is because the state that you live in already has enough highways.

    I think I’ll donate another $25 to the Romney campaign!

  42. SteveH Says:

    Lets just say Obama did call it terrorism from day one. Ok.

    But then he proceeded for weeks to tell Americans the cause of this terrorism. Free Americans and their free speech that is disrespectful of Islam.

    None of this act or any other act of terrorism is the fault of muslims dontcha know.

  43. LisaM Says:

    Thomass – I heard somewhere that each campaign could veto one debate proposal. Obama vetoed Fox News (of course) and Romney vetoed MSNBC (of course). That left all the other leftist networks free to do what they’ve been doing. The entire premise needs to change. Maybe each campaign gets to choose one network, and the third is not tied to a media outlet at all?

  44. holmes Says:

    If Lisa M is correct, it’s a stacked process (obviously). It would be like using the “strike method” that we use in LR for arbitrators, only one arbitrator is pro-management, and 6 are pro-Union, but hey, at least we get to strike 3 of them, right?

  45. Friday Free-for-All: Obama’s Falling Through His Own Trap « Nice Deb Says:

    [...] only mention of terrorist acts by Obama comes, as I wrote yesterday, in his generic statement of resolve after mentioning both the 9/11 attacks and the wars in [...]

  46. Eboni Mcclune Says:

    Wow! Very inspiring. I’ll be putting my photography to better use now.

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