« Political Judo, Part Two: Reciprocity is a female canine | Main | GDP »

Stupidity As A Way of Life: Why The Democrats Will Lose In 2008

[-- Jay Tea and I seem to be locked on the same wavelength. I wrote this piece this morning, but while it is similar in tone to Jay's, mine has enough of my uniqiue lack of brevity and tact that I chose to post it anyway. --]

Humorist Dave Barry once guessed that there was a huge, secret "stupid ray" beamed at the White House. Barry said this, because throughout recent history, while the men who have attained the Oval Office have all been intelligent, thoughtful men, at some point all of them have said or done moronic things, so often that one begins to wonder about the cause. If such a beam exists, however, it would appear that its scope has increased. My case for today is that the Democrats, having regained control of both the House and Senate and enjoying good prospects for the Presidential race in 2008, appear to have arranged a meeting, wherein they agreed to compel their candidates to abandon reasoned debate and constructive planning, in favor of screeching hate speech and mindlessly rehashing of long-dead feuds. Having done their utmost to defeat our troops fighting in Iraq, the Democrats appear to be embracing defeatism in every aspect of their decisions.

It may come as a shock to Democrats to learn that President George W. Bush will not, in fact, be running again in 2008. I should not be surprised that the Democrats' comprehension of the U.S. Constitution is so poor, given their illucid interpretation on what sort of rights Americans enjoy, indeed even who should be considered an American. Yet even so, it is remarkably thick-headed to establish the base issue of your campaign against the one person you know will not be an opponent. The utter hysteria of Bush-Hate which pervades every major campaign among Democrats, will prove in the end to be a waste of attention and noise, and drives away more reasonable voters than it gains by appeasing the vicious extremists on the Left. Not merely because the Democrats have forgotten that 62 million voters supported Bush in the 2004 election, but also because most Americans have an innate sense of balance, and when a major political party adopts the stance of its most vicious fanatics a lot of folks are going to balk.


The next point is Iraq. Democrats have a bad habit of lying, you know. They say they support the troops (Don't question their patriotism!), but they won't let them do their job. They had the same information as President Bush and in large numbers voted to approve military action in Iraq, yet they now want to pretend they were "misled". They agreed, almost to a man, that a specific timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would only help the terrorists win, yet that is precisely what they voted for this week. So it should come as no surprise, that Democrats have also been lying to themselves about Iraq. They have told themselves that abandoning Iraq will somehow improve our allies' confidence in our commitment and responsibilities. They have told themselves that the most outrageous lies screamed by Leftist extremists are somehow the national sentiment. They have told themselves that the 2004 election they lost was not about Iraq, while the 2006 election they won was clearly a referendum on Iraq. And now they believe that attacking America's goals and work in the war in Iraq is somehow going to impress the mainstream voter in America, and that vicious attacks on Republican candidates because of Iraq will be the way to gain the public trust. This particular conceit is a bad decision, for many reasons, but the obvious fact lost on the Democrats is that conditions in Iraq a year from now, and the relevance of that issue to the 2008 election will be very different then than it is now. The Democrats' plan to focus attention to Iraq is therefore desperate and ill-considered, since it is unlikely that conditions will gravitate towards an optimal result by chance. If things in Iraq succeed, Democrats may suffer from their obvious attempts to derail U.S. efforts now. If things in Iraq fail, however, the current defeatism by the Left may also come back to haunt them. This is not to say that Republicans are doing everything right or that Iraq will not present problems for them as well politically, but the Republicans have not set Iraq as their base issue, nor are the leading 2008 candidates other than McCain seen as directly linked to the Iraq war. The Democrats have signed on, therefore, to a high-risk-low-yield gamble.

Up next, poor math skills. The two leading Democrats in the 'I Wanna Be President' rally, 2008 edition, are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The reasons these two lead the pack are varied, but one important reason often cited by "strategists" is that Hillary and Barack hail from states with large Electoral Vote counts. This is true, but really, does anyone expect the Democrats to lose either New York or Illinois? If not, why emphasize those states when the last several elections have shown that other states, specifically those in the Midwest and South, are often more critical battlegrounds. Yet we see Hillary and Barack continue to push as if they would win the nation by winning their "home" states, even though it should be obvious that what sells in New York may fail in Florida, that what people in Illinois find right on the mark, may not be anywhere close to what people in Missouri expect. For all the best evidence that winning the election comes down to winning the 270 Electoral Votes threshold, there is scant attention in the Left to battlegrounds of historical significance. At first glance, the Republican candidates may appear to be making the same mistake, yet all of the GOP candidates seem to me to have noted salient issues on more levels than the Democrats have cared to do. And the field of Republicans in the race is far more varied in state size and regional source than the Democrats can claim.

That's not to say, of course, that the Republicans have locked up the 2008 election. Republicans have said and done any number of stupid, venal things (yes McCain, that includes you!), and it's likely that more than one leading Republican will destroy his POTUS chances through sheer arrogance (yes McCain, even you), but in the main it appears that the Democrats have been working far more feverishly at trying to lose. The "leadership" we have seen from Pelosi, Reid, and Dean, the absolute ignorance of Middle America by the likes of Clinton and Edwards, and the spirit of Class Warfare embraced by the core decision-makers at the DNC, combine to make it all too simple for any reasonable person to reject the Jackass in '08, even if that means accepting a certain amount of pachyderm poop (yes McCain, that includes you).


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stupidity As A Way of Life: Why The Democrats Will Lose In 2008:

» Bill's Bites linked with 2007.04.28 Decision '08 Roundup

Comments (54)

Your assessment of the Dems... (Below threshold)

Your assessment of the Dems, and to a lesser extent the Republicans, are spot-on, DJ. I didn't watch the Democratic Candidates' debate in South Carolina last night, but I did spend my lunch hour reading the Chicago Sun-Times rap up, which was hardly glowing in its review (considering the artile was written by Lynn Sweet, who regularly performs the journalistic eqivalent of f*ll*tio on Obama, it's a pretty amazing pice).

During the debate (http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/360750,CST-NWS-sweet27.article ) Obama committed two serious gaffes:

Obama neglected to mention Israel as a close ally without prompting. And when asked what he would do if two U.S. cities were under attack, Obama said, "Review how we operate."
Seriously: if we were attacked again a la 9/11, Obama would empanel a committee to react to a terrorist attack! And that makes us safer exactly how, Oh "Great *so-called* Black Hope"?

As for those of you who will try to call me a Hater for that last question, I assure you I am anything but: my problem with Obama is his political and racial opportunism, as well as his remarkably inept grasp of foreign policy. I would vote for a presidential candidate along the lines of conservative former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) before the cynical, insincere Obama any day.

The GOP would have a slam-d... (Below threshold)

The GOP would have a slam-dunk provided everybody made the same assumptions and held the same world view as they...any you...do.

That's not the case.

Of course, the Dems certainly may lose. And that will happen, if it does, because voters can't see that the troops and the war policy are different things. And one can oppose the war and be a patriot.

BTW - how can we ever oppose ANY war if the standard is...once the troops are on the ground...that's the end of debate?

Dems Lose?1. Preside... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Dems Lose?
1. Presidential election
I love Irony..in 2004 it was all about Kerry flip-flop (part of it was true)..looking at the top tier Republican Candidates..serious flip-flop..

2. Iraq..Iraq..Iraq..
Republicans are not just for staying the course..but surging the course...whatever the KIA/WIA are now it will more significant by November 2008..whatever the failure of the Iraqi Govt to step up now..will be even more significant in November 2008.

3. Health Care...only the major Dem Candidates are addressing this.. You don't believe this is a significant concern for most Americans?

4. Corruption..more stuff that will spotlight more Republicans than Dems..

...again..this place tends to ignore the weakness of Republican Candidates...
if you all truly really believe the voters are going to support Republicans...just because they are Republicans..well..that's cool..

Sheesh. What a mess.... (Below threshold)

Sheesh. What a mess.

Clean up needed in Aisles Two and Three, please!
but while it is similar ... (Below threshold)

but while it is similar in tone to Jay's

This piece has no similarity to Jay's whatsoever in tone, style, or cleverness. Your piece is simply a string of insults against Democrats. You're just calling them stupid and liars (you say you support the troops, but since I disagree with what that phrase actually means, then you lie!). Jay's post at least contained some creativity and snark, and wasn't just a mouth-spittling rant.

The Republicans have little... (Below threshold)

The Republicans have little chance of winning in 2008 because the Republican nominee will end up as damaged goods well before November 2008. The demographic trends are also against the Republicans, lower down on the ticket is a total disaster for the Republicans, and the Republicans candidates all seem to have incompetent staffs.

It seems that every Republican candidates has a speech writer who cannot even do a google search so see what the candidates has said on the record.

The Republicans also have no crediblity on any issue such as fiscal responsbility, good government, foreign affairs, or managing to pass legislation.

In the end, the Republicans are on the road to becoming irrelevent to politics. American in going to become a single party state much like the current political conditions in places like Mass, Ill, NY, NJ, MD, or DC.

I love the bitter spite ooo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

I love the bitter spite ooooooooozing from the lib-commenter posts.

Tells me I hit the nerve!

Right on Jay. Throwing rock... (Below threshold)

Right on Jay. Throwing rocks is becoming a two party sport.

I wonder if the propaganda media will still be around for the next election, they seem to be fading fast.

As for health care, I would rather get my health care from Walmart as some fascists Democrat government controlled program.

Raise taxes, fund socialism and gun control, it's all Democraps know.

...reject the Jackass in... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

...reject the Jackass in '08

DJ, you might want to register this with the copyright office now. I see sumper stickers, t-shirts, buttons, and a bit of extra income in your future. Nice!

er, "bumper"...... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

er, "bumper"...

I love the bitter spite ... (Below threshold)

I love the bitter spite ooooooooozing from the lib-commenter posts.

Tells me I hit the nerve!

Oh yes, of course. And when your posts get zero responses from the left, you love that too because it means you hit a nerve! I guess you are just so amazing and wonderful that you always hit a nerve, aren't you? I mean, no one would ridicule a post or stay silent about it simply because it was lame, would they? Oooh! Rosie O'Donnell hit a nerve! Harry Reid hit a nerve! Keith Olbermann hit a nerve!

From a political perspectiv... (Below threshold)

From a political perspective, overcoming his veto might be the best thing that could happen to Bush.

Democrats are chomping at the bit to take ownership of the war and having that happen could only help the GOP as Iraq crashes and burns.

But then, there's the little detail of oil going to $100 a barrel once Iraq breaks apart.

Nogo,The Republica... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:


The Republican's do have plans for health care reform but unlike the democrats who's only plan is socializing the system which has proven to be monumentlly regressive everywhere it's been tried, the Republican's are suggesting trying things that might actually work like tort reform and bring competition and free market ideas into the system--you know those things that are heresy to your average leftist.

By the way, what exactly IS... (Below threshold)

By the way, what exactly IS the Democratic plan for Iraq?

Withdraw the troops, sure, but to where?

Are ALL of them leaving or some?

Can someone be so kind as to provide us with a link?

Thank you!

Yep...Rudi..in a Dre... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Rudi..in a Dress..
and make-up
Mitt..great white Hunter
John McCain..shopping in Iraq..

You folks created "Flip-flop..Flip Flop"
..c'mon anyone here want to move beyond the Dems?

Anyone here truly believe the chant "flip-flop" won't be repeated...????

say what you will..and you will about the Dem Candidates...but these three are the top 3?

Brian in brief:... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Brian in brief:


Not that anyone reading his drivel wouldn't have already figured that out.

The Democrats losing the 20... (Below threshold)

The Democrats losing the 2008 election is just wishful thinking, and the fantasy reasons you've concocted, DJ, nothing more than flights of fancy.

For example:

"Yet even so, it is remarkably thick-headed to establish the base issue of your campaign against the one person you know will not be an opponent. The utter hysteria of Bush-Hate which pervades every major campaign among Democrats, will prove in the end to be a waste of attention and noise, and drives away more reasonable voters than it gains by appeasing the vicious extremists on the Left."

Utter hysteria? You must be one of those conservatives who cringe every time you're reminded that you voted for a fatheaded liar who will, I repeat will, go down in history as one of the worst presidents this nation has ever seen. To you, and the walking wounded like you, the mere mention of Bush''s incompetency is an "attack", and if it happens more than once in a day it's "utter hysteria."

It's just that you are sensitive to it because it hurts you so much to realize that you elected and re-elected a failure who's actions has cost this nation dearly.

As long as the current Republican candidates support the President's position - and all of them are just plain stupid enough to do that right up to the end, your President is "the gift that keeps on giving" for the Democrats --

-- and he will continue to give us the ability to defeat any Republican candidate for President in 2008 just as he gave us the ability to sweep out the House and Senate in 2006.

Spin your attack fantasies all you want - just as Bush and Cheney are doing every day now -- but wishing that the facts weren't against you isn't going to make it so.

So Lee, I - what - voted 62... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

So Lee, I - what - voted 62 million times, in all 50 states?


... and Lee, thanks for pro... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

... and Lee, thanks for proving that all you can do is think about Bush. Even when he's not running, the election is STILl - for you - all about Bush!


The best candidate (from ei... (Below threshold)

The best candidate (from either party) was there, and though he didn't get much traction poll-wise (yet), I liked his answers so far.

Lee- I believe that you are... (Below threshold)

Lee- I believe that you are wrong about Bush and the (lack of) support by the American public for the war. The American public doesn't want to lose and the Democrat(ic) candidates are all now out of the closet and anti-war, cut and run defeatocrats. The Dhimmi primary winner will be framed as a LOSER. Come November of '08, we will see if you are as smart as you think you are.

all you can do is think ... (Below threshold)

all you can do is think about Bush. Even when he's not running, the election is STILl - for you - all about Bush!

You do remember 2000, don't you? When Bush ran against Bill Clinton instead of Al Gore?

And you do realize that there is no Republican candidate yet for the Democrats to run against?

And you do realize that Bush's policies, and whether they live on after him or not, will be central to the 2008 election, right?


Kat- Please show where the ... (Below threshold)

Kat- Please show where the American people support this war, the current strategy, and those who insist on prosecuting it. The numbers do not lie. If Bush persists on his current plan (or lack thereof) what little support he might have now will have disappeared altogether. Might as well face it, you are currently living in a country that is predominantly anti-war, defeatist cut and run Americans.

drjohn:<blockq... (Below threshold)


By the way, what exactly IS the Democratic plan for Iraq? Withdraw the troops, sure, but to where? Are ALL of them leaving or some? Can someone be so kind as to provide us with a link? Thank you!

Didn't Murtha say that troops would be redeployed to Okinawa?

Not that he asked the Japanese about that or anything.

Look at how dems have ruine... (Below threshold)

Look at how dems have ruined states like NJ, Mass, LA, etc.

Look at how dems have ruined cities like Philly, Detriot, Newark, Chicago, DC, Oakland, St Louis, etc etc.

How many murders so far this yr in those big blue liberal cities, and how come libs and the media fails to address all of the inner city murders?? Arent kids being killed more relevant than comments by some hateful old liberal windbag like Imus?

God help the US if dems get in total control for any length of time, we'll become another NJ, or Philly, or Nawlins.

Nice to see so many Dems co... (Below threshold)

Nice to see so many Dems commenting. Every time I hear them, the more committed I am to be a conservative.

The dimmers hate GW's actio... (Below threshold)

The dimmers hate GW's actions in Iraq yet they do not define a plan. Howard Dean, DNC Chair said to Chris Matthews, "We don't need a plan." The dimmers say they hate the war but support our troops. How is that? How do you support the troops if not by getting behind their mission?
GW did run against Clinton in 2000 because ALGORE was running on the same policies. Jeesh, you got to type slower for dimmers to get it.
Oh yeah! For anyone to say the dimmers don't get hysterical when the name of President Bush comes up is simply delusional. DJ, an excellent companion piece to JT's. Thanks. ww

Lee,Wasn't it John K... (Below threshold)

Wasn't it John Kerry in 04 who coined the phrase, "they live in a fantasy world of spin" when speaking of conservatives.

Didn't the righties on wizbang predict just before the 06 elections that not only would republicans hold the house and senate that they would pick up seats?

Looks like the conservatives here are proving Kerry was spot on.

Look at how dems have ru... (Below threshold)

Look at how dems have ruined states like NJ, Mass, LA, etc.

Somehow the Dems you call incompetent are running their states so well, that blue states are net *givers* to Federal funds, and red states are net *receivers*.

God save the Red States if they really got the 'small government' the GOP claims would be good for you: you'd be on your own without our Blue State taxes to help you out.


Brian in brief: <... (Below threshold)

Brian in brief:


Guess I hit a nerve, eh?

And it's "Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!" to you.

The Al Qaedacrats have y... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

The Al Qaedacrats have yet to send their treason bill to get its big V. They are going to wait intil the aniversary of "Mission Accomplished" , treasonous frauds.

If things in Iraq succee... (Below threshold)

If things in Iraq succeed, Democrats may suffer from their obvious attempts to derail U.S. efforts now.

Don't think so. Once we are no longer taking casualties in Iraq it will immediately cease to be an issue. American do not have long memories. If (by some miracle) our nationbuilding effort succeeds, Iraq is stabilized and a good majority of our troops are out of there then the election will all about the economy, health care, etc.

If things in Iraq fail, however, the current defeatism by the Left may also come back to haunt them.

Are you kidding? The Dems will simply say that they "tried" to stop the war but Bush wouldn't let them.

Iraq is a win-win for the Democrats. They can't lose either way.

And I disagree with you that they should not be running against Bush/Cheney in 2008. Exactly the opposite, they want to convince the voters that Bush and Cheney ARE on the ballot in 2008. Bush/Cheney dragged the Republicans down to defeat in 2006 so why not try to repeat that in 2008?

This strategy will be especially damaging against McCain since he has married himself at the hip to GW. Not so much against Romney and Guiliani since they are essentially outsiders.

The Republican's do have... (Below threshold)

The Republican's do have plans for health care reform

Really? Well gee, it sure is too bad they never had the opportunity to do anything about it, like if they had control of both houses of Congress for 12 straight years.

Trying to make predictions ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Trying to make predictions on Party victories..with the election so far away..is like following Mock NFL Drafts..
...yeah we can all state our preferences and justify them...but it still so far away..
In the Primary..candidates will rise and fall..rumors of health and character will be tossed about...
Trades..some last minute Deal...

I don't know who will be the Candidates in the final...but I do know J.R. will be drafted #1 tomorrow...

I did not watch the "press ... (Below threshold)

I did not watch the "press conference" last night, but what I read....God Help Us! The demo party is running against Bush so they do not have to tell us what they will do....because they do not have a plan. This technique worked in 2006 and, when they won, they interpreted the results to suit their aims. They are a pathetic bunch. I loved Clinton's answer to how she would protect us. Superwoman will act with prudence after ascertaining (what, in a court of law?) who the perpatrators are that have attacked us! What a gal.

"when a major political par... (Below threshold)

"when a major political party adopts the stance of its most vicious fanatics a lot of folks are going to balk."

Holy Moly. Key issue for you and yours Drummond:
Never misunderestimate your adversary.

It is rank temerity, for those disposed to support
this Prez AT ANY COST, to presume the target is
Bush himself. He is a tiny, infinitesimal tapeworm in the bowels of the Conservative Mind and has no relevence in the broad scheme of things. The villification of our beloved Prez
has it's purpose through the alienation of every
politically expedient ally the NeoCons would employ to ameliorate the damage to public perception of their craven
agenda. Bush has done more damage to the Conservative movement than Herbert Hoover, and their fate will languish in the tradition of Bonaparte and his beloved Elba. Hubris in the extremus is no antidote for wrongheadedness. You might as well wait for the Phoenix to rise from the ashes. That event will require the minimum of 60 years it takes for a generation to pass. Good luck to you and yours.

Didn't Murtha say that t... (Below threshold)

Didn't Murtha say that troops would be redeployed to Okinawa?

Not that he asked the Japanese about that or anything.

Yeah, huh.

A rapid deployment force in Okinawa.

Isn't it amazing that no one - and I mean no one- can tell us what the Democratic plan really is?

After Tenet's book is fully... (Below threshold)

After Tenet's book is fully digested, your premise, DJ, will look like the fecal pile that it is.

While Bush will not be running in 2008, his legacy of thousands of needless American deaths in Iraq and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of needless Iraqi deaths will leave the GOP saddled with a legacy of death and a looming Shia crescent in the Middle East, casting a darkening shadow over the future of the 21st century.

The Republicans will be seen as the Grinches who stole the brightness & promise of the new century. What a platform for the future that the Republicans have to offer!

Iraq is a win-win for th... (Below threshold)

Iraq is a win-win for the Democrats. They can't lose either way.


For the day Iraq falls and gets torn apart, and oil goes to $100 a barrel.

Lefties live in that ether where all things reside disconnected and disembodied.

Too bad the real world does not.

drjohn;The price o... (Below threshold)


The price of oil is the least of our troubles.

That is the bitch of it, isn't it?


Man DJ Drummond must have a... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Man DJ Drummond must have a lot of spare time.

Dr John:Democratic... (Below threshold)

Dr John:

Democratic Plan:

Make up good sounding solutions as problems appear, proclaim them loudly, then 'forget' their implementation when the media goes on to the next crisis. Give the appearance of doing something constructive, but never, ever the actuality. A crisis will solve itself one way or another, while a chronic problem can always be miked for votes because you're 'doing something' about it - even if all you ever do is make speeches.

I think the Republicans hav... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

I think the Republicans have a good shot at 3008.

All any Republican need do,... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

All any Republican need do, if Hillary is the Democratic candidate, and by hook or crook, she will be, is to ask two simple questions. Three if they want to get nasty. First, how much is she going to charge to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom this tour. Second, what she plans to do to protect the femaie staff at the Whitehouse from her husband and third, what technology is she planning to sell to Red China for financial support? Will she order the C-5s to be loaded with goodies again?

Never misunderestimate the ... (Below threshold)

Never misunderestimate the fickleness of the American voting public. I predict a Dem President in Nov '08. You can say you read it here first, and that you knew me back when.

Obama said that if two citi... (Below threshold)

Obama said that if two cities were targeted and bombed by terrorists and there were thousands of casualties what would he do? "Find out how well our disaster team performed." Wow. The dimmers should be so proud. ww

Barry - your an idiot and y... (Below threshold)

Barry - your an idiot and you can saythat you first heard that here.

Dream on broomstick cowboys... (Below threshold)

Dream on broomstick cowboys! I'll bet my house today that there will be a dem in the whitehouse in 08.

So what all you Dimo's are ... (Below threshold)

So what all you Dimo's are saying that if the Dimo's nominate Mickey Mouse he will win because he is a Dimo? It is not the party
that is going to be elected it is the individual and the Dimos have
a sorry lot of those. So jeff go and lose your house.

GUYS! Check out Kucinich's ... (Below threshold)

GUYS! Check out Kucinich's wife! ("Dimos"???)
Warrior Princess!

Democrats are generally dim... (Below threshold)

Democrats are generally dim...so hence Dimo...like yourself Bryan.

You do remember 2000, don't... (Below threshold)

You do remember 2000, don't you? When Bush ran against Bill Clinton instead of Al Gore?

--Watch out, this guy is a history major!

I don't know all the big wo... (Below threshold)
Jerry Robertson:

I don't know all the big words some of these folks use....sometimes it's a mask for being plain ignorant....but, I do know I don't want a peacenik president...this is a dangerous world..and I want a MAN....one who has served his country...one who will protect my family and my country....
So, if the democrats have such a person...SHOW ME!!
Right now all I see are cowards and folks bent on the defeat of their own country....I call them STUPID....and scary......

--Watch out, this g... (Below threshold)

--Watch out, this guy is a history major!

Watch out, red is too stupid to understand that post was not literal!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy