I woke up today at 6:45 to the following message on my phone from a teacher friend who "just had to say some things." Five points to any 1992 Bullis grad who can identify the caller based on the message alone:
Today is the greatest day on earth to be listening to conservative talk radio! [Unintelligible yelling]. I'm on my way to work! I'm listening to these [expletive deleted] complain and [expletive deleted] and moan and, and yell and (garbled) "WHAT WERE THESE PEOPLE THINKING?!" God I'm so happy! [expletive deleted] the conservatives, their kicking squirming moaning [expletive deleted] and they deserve to burn in hell!
[Deep breath] All right. Bye.
For the opposite end of the spectrum,
Peter Daou over at Salon has compiled some of the most hysteric posts from the conservative blogs. This doesn't quite fit the definition, but Hugh Hewitt, who also says Santorum's loss is good for conservatives because it frees him up for the Supreme Court, might take the cake for most
far-fetched rationalization:
[I]f you had told me in 1986 that 20 years later there would be a Republican president facing a 20 seat Democratic majority in the House and a two seat Democratic majority in the Senate --and that the Soviet Union had collapsed-- I'd have cheered long and loud.
Posts
3 comments:
Yeah, I hunted up Rush on my AM radio dial to see what he had to say. During the segment I listened to, he essentially claimed that Santorum lost because Pennsylvania has too many geriatric folks. Because they don't have much longer to live, they didn't value Santorum's vision for the future.
The Dems know that they better be on their best behavior or they'll get blamed for gridlock and take a pounding in '08. I hope this means K Street goes to slums.
I know quite a few people who would give credit to the Dems if they caused gridlock, but then I hang out with some pretty gubmn't-cursin' characters.
Post a Comment