Patterico's Pontifications

9/28/2010

Christine O’Donnell Has More ‘Splainin’ To Do

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:32 pm

On her LinkedIn page, Christine O’Donnell lists “Claremont Graduate University” and “Oxford University” in the “Education” section of her bio:

Tonight it is looking as though she will have to explain questions about both. Greg Sargent:

O’Donnell’s LinkedIn bio page lists “University of Oxford” as one of the schools she attended, claiming she studied “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.” But it turns out that was just a course conducted by an institution known as the Phoenix Institute, which merely rented space at Oxford.

What’s more, the woman who oversaw Phoenix Institute’s summer program at Oxford tells me O’Donnell’s claim about studying at Oxford is “misleading.”

By itself, O’Donnell’s Oxford claim might not matter too much. But the larger context is that O’Donnell has already been nabbed fudging her education record not once, but twice. She claimed for several years to have graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson Un[i]versity, but she actually obtained her bachelor’s degree last summer. And in a lawsuit she suggested she was trying for a Master’s degree courses at Princeton — but subsequently acknowledged she hadn’t taken a single Princeton graduate course.

And then there is the listing of “Claremont Graduate University.” Gary Scott, producer for Warren Olney’s shows Which Way, L.A.? and To the Point, says:

I asked CGU’s public relations officer, Rod Leveque, if the school had any record of O’Donnell attending classes there. His response:

In short, no. Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O’Donnell.

In 2002, O’Donnell was listed as a “Lincoln Fellow” at the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank also based in Claremont. However, the institute is not affiliated with the Claremont Graduate University or any of the other Claremont Colleges.

TPMDC reports the same quote from Leveque.

So there you have it then.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m still lovin’ the “idea” of Christine O’Donnell.

But the actual person has a lot to address here, to put it mildly.

UPDATE: Ben Domenech rises to the defense. (H/t Crank in comments.)

UPDATE x2: O’Donnell says she neither set up the LinkedIn entry nor authorized anyone else to.

Fascinating.  If true, someone independently went to great lengths to set up a flattering profile, without her knowledge or acquiescence, that subtly exaggerated her educational accomplishments.  It would certainly be interesting to learn who would do such a thing and why.

121 Comments

  1. I wonder how many digits she can do pi I can only do 3.141 then I forget except for I know it rounds up to 3.142

    Comment by happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:43 pm

  2. Looks like Greg Sargent, as usual, may just not know how LinkedIn works.

    Comment by Crank (a5d228) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:44 pm

  3. Happyfeet, just remember the following phrase: May I have a large container of coffee? The number of letters in each word represents the first 8 digits of pi.

    Hope this helps.

    Comment by Some chump (e84e27) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:50 pm

  4. Is it worse to lie about your education or be honest about being a marxist?

    Don’t deflect about the issues. As long as the focus can be on O’Donnell, they can avoid focusing on electing another communist, like obama.

    Comment by Jim (844377) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:52 pm

  5. that’s wicked cool I can do a lot with that like figure out circumferences and stuff and even figure out Mike Castle fanboy Chris Christie’s belt size

    Comment by happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:56 pm

  6. This chick is toast.

    Comment by Dave Surls (7c585e) — 9/28/2010 @ 9:59 pm

  7. crank, interesting link.

    The author states,“Since a month-long course is hardly the same as a degree, I just stuck the mention in the bullet-point section — O’Donnell obviously didn’t do that, but that’s her choice.”

    It’s not clear when O’Donnell created the profile or if she knew about the options (she could have investigated this), but it’s troubling to me that as it was indeed her choice what to put on the profile, she chose not to alleviate any potential misrepresentation and opt for clarity by following the author’s example.

    At the least, I would think she would take the time to find out from the site how it worked in order to be as accurate and non-misleading as possible. If she wanted to be as accurate and non-misleading, that is…

    This, on top of other misrepresentations, keeps me furrowing my brow.

    But hey, UNITY!

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:05 pm

  8. IOW, why didn’t she opt to err on the side of caution? And why has her campaign staff not caught these things and righted them *before* being found out? You’d think after the first double-take with her, they would have dug deep re, well, everything to do with her.

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:11 pm

  9. It’s not clear when O’Donnell created the profile or if she knew about the options (she could have investigated this), but it’s troubling to me that as it was indeed her choice what to put on the profile, she chose not to alleviate any potential misrepresentation and opt for clarity by following the author’s example.

    Great point, Dana. And yeah, it’s her choice if she wants to eschew the potential confusion by being exact in her profile. And it’s Ben Domenech’s choice if he wants to be literal or relaxed in representing his post-graduate work. When you choose to run for public office, however, you ought to be damn sure that you can justify every part of your record, and it seems that Ms. O’Donnell fails on that count.

    Comment by JVW (eccfd6) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:19 pm

  10. Speaking of dishonesty, patterico, nothing beats this one from grayson.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/28/video-grayson-taken-to-the-woodshed-by-msnbc/

    The most amazing part of this video is that msnbc is calling him out for it.

    Yeah, you read that right. Msnbc. not a typo. yep, the same network that has olbermann and matthews. i admit its hard for me to believe, too.

    Basically grayson calls his opponent in the add “Taliban Daniel Webster.” He then takes audio from Webster where he tells a group of married men to pick out a verse from the bible on marriage. “Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’” he says.

    So grayson cuts that audio so it says only “she should submit to me.”

    Its literally that bad. hot air has a link to fact check which goes through other half truths.

    And this is following a previous ad that proclaimed Webster a draft dodger and unpatriotic. yes, really. As for the draft dodger claim, you can talk about his educational deferments, but i will make it simple. Eventually the deferments ran out and he reported for service. And the military examined him, and determined they didn’t want him. There is no record on why but webster says there is something screwy with his feet so that literally he cannot stand for very much time. He is apparently handicapped. From fact check on that issue:

    > Records don’t indicate what medical problems led to Webster’s rejection from service, but Webster said it was due to problems with his feet. According to Schlueb’s September 17 article, Webster said: “I remember them pulling me out of line because I’d had problems with my feet when I was a kid. They used these corrective shoes on me with steel plates in them, but it really never fixed them — they’re weird-looking. I can’t really stand a long time on my feet.”

    If that account is accurate, there is no way he could have served in the military. and i say that as a person who generally would like to see the military be less uptight about this sort of thing.

    So grayson was in essence attacking him for having a disability. shameful.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:36 pm

  11. Why don’t you leave this to the Democrats to investigate and uncover? Why is this your task? There are always details and subtleties and complex explanations that can’t be communicated in one sentence. Maybe she is flawed, but she is a conservative not a squish. Is it your role to force the issues regarding her? What if she loses by one point, and you played a part in that? Will you feel or admit any regret? The democrats sure don’t do this to their candidates..

    Comment by william wilson (f6deac) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:46 pm

  12. I think I read somewhere that Grayson is a very wealthy self-made man. How is it possible a successful man like that can be so madly deranged?

    Comment by Gazzer (c062b1) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:46 pm

  13. In a sense, O’Donnell is applying for the job of Senator, and the people of Delaware are the hiring managers. It seems that O’Donnell has been less than honest on her resume.

    If you were a hiring manager, what would you do with such an applicant?

    Comment by Some chump (e84e27) — 9/28/2010 @ 10:49 pm

  14. Some of this information about O’Donnell must have been out there well before the voters in Delaware cast their ballot not long ago. So I blame them for being so foolish and idiotic in selecting her, and I then blame O’Donnell for being such a flake and egotist to not realize she has no business running for public office.

    I’ve heard it said that a good person is less likely to go into politics nowadays because of the glare of publicity and the snooping by the media (and others) into a candidate’s private life. That’s why I suspect O’Donnell has to have an ego the size of Mount Everest and all the good sense of, well, a nitwit liberal.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:13 pm

  15. Now, I seem to remember a certain Vice Presidential candidate who had some interesting bits of background that, um, were not accurate.

    Does that mean that COD is doing things honestly? No.

    But let’s have BOTH sides insist that their candidates be honest. If one side insists on honesty, and the other hides and covers up and carries water…well, that puts a particular side at an advantage.

    But that shouldn’t matter. Right?

    Speaking of which. When will we see POTUS’ transcripts? I’m very interested in seeing if my predictions are correct.

    But that isn’t important, oddly. Nor Biden’s background.

    Besides, making jokes about belt sizes is much more important than, well, preventing four more years of Team O. Right?

    Comment by Eric Blair (9ed73e) — 9/28/2010 @ 11:14 pm

  16. Real change is never easy. I am encouraged that new people are running. Are they all perfect? No! Should some of them not have run? Sure! I am of the opinion that we need to begin to make changes in 2010 and continue to make them again in 2012. And so on. The point is that folks are becoming engaged in the process where before they were dozing. We need term limits and we need to abolish pensions that encourage career pols. These things will come but it will atke time.
    Is COD worse than a Barney Frank or a Chris Dodd or a Maxine Walters or a Nancy Pelosi? Prolly not,as she likely is not smart enough, or hasn’t been around long enough, to know enough of their stealing ways but let’s not let her, or anyone else, get that entrenched in the future.
    I have no problem electing people who do not know their way around DC for single terms while we sort this thing out and wait for honest pols to emerge. At least they won’t have the ability to work and game the system like the current carrer criminals that infest DC.

    Comment by Gazzer (c062b1) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:14 am

  17. Dave Surls, and others, should be reminded that she is running for — I know this is true because Chris Coons declared it to be so — Joe “Plagiarist” Biden’s seat. The idea that she has to be mistake-free in order to win is simply not true.
    [See: '08, Obama, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, voted "present", not punished w/ a baby, bitter clingers, 1st time proud of country.]

    Comment by Icy Texan (1cdac1) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:37 am

  18. She is going to win in November.

    Comment by ml (fc559b) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:58 am

  19. Well,

    Weird, here we go again…

    You’d think she would have deleted it after all that’s happened…

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5295cd) — 9/29/2010 @ 3:28 am

  20. I’ll give Rico credit for putting prinicple above pragmatics.

    Delaware, pop. 870K, Senate race probably out of reach for Republicans.

    California, pop. 37Million, many, many races in hot contention. Plight of world’s 8th largest economy on brink.

    If you don’t like this particular principle, he has others.

    Comment by gary gulrud (790d43) — 9/29/2010 @ 4:34 am

  21. I don’t know much about Christine O’Donnell, just what I have seen and read online. The same holds true for her competition. Based on that he is for Cap and Trade, he is Harry Reid’s Pet, according to Reid, Obama likes his, a good reason not to, and a track record available on line.
    http://freedomist.com/2010/09/20/good-government-democrat-accuses-chris-coons-of-corruption/
    If I have to choose, I’ll take O’Donnell based on just those Google checks.
    Just the ramblings of a 70 year old conservative vet.

    Comment by Lew (4155da) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:13 am

  22. “UPDATE: Ben Domenech rises to the defense. (H/t Crank in comments.)”

    I like this explanation. We’re sympathetic with people who try to detail all their adult ed 1 month courselets on their linked in profiles.

    Comment by imdw (603c39) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:20 am

  23. Here’s how I see it, and please correct me if I’m wrong…

    O’Donnell, if elected, would be the junior senator from an inconsequential state. She’s also an intellectual lightweight. What this means is that she won’t be sponsoring meaningful legislation; she won’t be chairing committees; her influence on any committees she even sits on will be limited.

    So what’s left? Well, a straight hard-R vote on every issue. Hell, if she wins, all she has to do really is sign an affidavit indicating that her vote on all questions will reflect the GOP consensus, (or a better way to put it, the anti-Dem consensus) and then she could just lounge by the pool for six years, who cares? A software program could handle her effective tenure.

    Character, education, depth, insight? It’s too late for all that, the primary is over.

    What are you buying? A consistent and reliable (we hope) R vote, the rest is gravy.

    Comment by d. in c. (379697) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:20 am

  24. They voted for a double plagiarism, with a history of fabrication, and bad policy judgements, and the team of Caroline K. Eric Holder, & co,

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:21 am

  25. re #10: Maybe we should start calling the Florida-8 race The Devil vs. Daniel Webster.

    Comment by Sean P (a82c1f) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:22 am

  26. Sean

    Lol!

    I am totally going to use that on my blog (with credit, of course).

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:47 am

  27. did you hook up with Kos? I swear you are working harder to ensure her defeat then anyone on the left! I guess then you can come back on November 3rd and say “told you so”. You make me sick!

    Comment by JadedByPolitcs (a74345) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:48 am

  28. [...] should be reminded that she is running for — I know this is true because Chris Coons declared it to be so — Joe “Plagiarist” Biden’s seat. The idea that she has to be mistake-free in order to win is simply not true.
    [See: '08, Obama, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, voted "present", not punished w/ a baby, bitter clingers, 1st time proud of country.]

    Comment by Icy Texan — 9/29/2010 @ 12:37 am

    This doesn’t mean that Joe “Plagarist” Biden should be the standard. Integrity matters – or should matter to Team R or we just become the Team D. I don’t wanna be a D!

    O’Donnell is a free agent and O’Donnell has “issues” that I would like cleared up. This should be of the utmost importance to her: to remove any doubt, suspicion, misrepresentation or anything that might not only give Team R pause, but anything (in her power) that might give Team D an opening. At the very least, make Team D have to make crap up because you’re clean as a whistle.

    Comment by Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:04 am

  29. What a shame that she felt she had to lie about her education. I suppose the golden ticket of associations with Oxford or Ivy League schools was too much temptation. Look how the Ivy credentials of our current President and First Wife (she’s no lady) are used to “prove” that they are first class intellects.

    This does bother me about O’Donnell, though. What other corners has she cut? I would go by my new rule, however, vote the incumbents out.

    Comment by Sad and sorry (e27326) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:13 am

  30. “(she’s no lady)”

    What?

    Comment by imdw (2946bf) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:20 am

  31. She looks hot in that Sarah Palinistic red blazers. ;)
    At least that ain’t fudged.

    Comment by The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:42 am

  32. as promised, i blogged on the grayson thing. even wrote a campaign ad for Webster.

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/09/devil-and-daniel-webster.html

    and yes, the title is credited to Sean.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:53 am

  33. The idea that she has to be mistake-free in order to win is simply not true.

    First, no one said she had to be mistake-free, so stop beating up that poor strawman.

    Second, if your position is that because Democrats are dishonest liars, it’s okay to elect Republicans who are dishonest liars, that’s a tough position to defend.

    Comment by Some chump (e84e27) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:06 am

  34. I suspect she is a Democrat plant, sent to embarrass the GOP. These evil Demonscraps!!

    Comment by The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:24 am

  35. Who said it was? This was uncovered by others.

    If she loses by one point because of this I will blame her for being dishonest, not myself for being honest about her dishonesty.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:36 am

  36. It looks to me as though those who supported O’Donnell did not seriously listen to what those who opposed her were saying.

    I thought it was the establishment that put forward candidates that were not vetted.

    Comment by Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:52 am

  37. Here’s a big part of the problem with this — in a year when it’s Democrats who are ducking away from interviews and trying to avoid scrutiny for their records, O’Donnell’s decision to make herself into the female Commander McBragg when it comes to her education history leaves her as the one ducking away from interviews and avoiding press scrutiny (Christine already has said she’s not doing any more national interviews; we’ll see if she does anything with Delaware media now to try and explain this latest problem, or just lets it sit out there and fester for the next five weeks).

    Comment by John (e3fdad) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:57 am

  38. I think I read somewhere that Grayson is a very wealthy self-made man. How is it possible a successful man like that can be so madly deranged?

    Comment by Gazzer

    He’s a lawyer.

    Comment by Mike K (568408) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:02 am

  39. When I see the college records of Obama, I will start worrying about O’Donnell.

    Comment by Wayne (7dd4e0) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:02 am

  40. Patterico’s only “problem” is that he is so damn freaking honest! :)
    Good job, host.

    Comment by The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:22 am

  41. Clearly O’Donnell is a lightweight.But she is better than any Marxist.

    Comment by Dennis D (e0b996) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:31 am

  42. Ted Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating and later readmitted through pressure from his powerful family. His dishonesty did not stop him from being a hero on the left did it?

    Comment by Dennis D (e0b996) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:33 am

  43. Despite your hypocritical jihad against Christine, we’ll still allow you to be a member of the Right. However, we’d prefer that, from now on, you mainly STFU about everything since you misunderstand what either conservatism or rightist libertarianism is. Other than that, STFU.

    Comment by George Mikos (3a0f68) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:08 am

  44. I think it would help if some people would be willing to admit that O’Donnell is a fairly flawed candidate.

    Comment by JD (a99479) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:13 am

  45. Comment by George Mikos — 9/29/2010 @ 9:08 am

    You sound like one of those jerks who go about fudging their academic record to get laid. The GOP is bigger than Christine O Donnell. Surely they have other qualified, proven and well-read individuals who can be supported. Your hypocrisy is disgusting.
    One more thing, go start your own blog!

    Comment by The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:20 am

  46. Sorry, Patterico, you may want a marxist elected in Delaware, but I would choose a stone over a marxist as Senator, any day of the week.

    Comment by eaglewingz08 (74f660) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:29 am

  47. You have got to be kidding me… this is a problem with LinkedIn not O’Donnell… and I don’t think anyone reading the LinkedIn Profile would get the impression she graduated from either of those two schools… give me a break…

    Comment by yarrrr (09b325) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:55 am

  48. Like Christine O’Donnell our friend Andrew Breitbart was a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute. Does he list “Claremont Graduate University” as a place he attended school?

    No.

    The strange thing is that being a Lincoln Fellow is actually something to be proud of, and she has every right to claim that as a credential to her seriousness as a journalist/political thinker.

    She should be bragging about the program and not misrepresenting herself.

    Is this a simple “the name came up first” error, or is it an attempt to pad a resume.

    Comment by Christian (2852e9) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:00 am

  49. BTW, have you actually tried reading the bio on her webpage… she isn’t trying to mislead anyone… this story has been blown completely out of proportion…

    Comment by yarrrr (09b325) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:00 am

  50. Hmmmm… now the O’Donnell campaigns says the LinkedIn profile is fake… I didn’t think the LinkedIn profile was that big of a deal, but if they’re lying about this then stick a fork in her…

    Comment by yarrrr (09b325) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:27 am

  51. “She is going to win in November.”

    I wouldn’t bet real money on that, if I was you.

    Comment by Dave Surls (c9a2bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:31 am

  52. That woman is a disgrace and she is REALLY a principled Republican then she should step down so that a better candidate may try to regain what may be regained. But since she her principles seem to have gone the way of dodos – assuming she ever had any – and that she lots of drones ready to defend her whatever she says and/or does, she’ll spout some nonsense and then resume her way to defeat, until next “mishap”.
    Pathetic.

    Comment by Triumph (0692b1) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:10 am

  53. Ted Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating and later readmitted through pressure from his powerful family. His dishonesty did not stop him from being a hero on the left did it?

    So, the right should make a hero out of a liar? I’d rather not vote at all than do that.

    Seriously, this notion that we should ignore deep flaws in a candidate because she might vote our way will produce the equivalents of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

    Comment by Some chump (4c6c0c) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:24 am

  54. This doesn’t mean that Joe “Plagarist” Biden should be the standard. Integrity matters – or should matter to Team R or we just become the Team D. I don’t wanna be a D!
    Comment by Dana — 9/29/2010 @ 6:04 am

    – Dana, I was responding to Dave Surls, “6.This chick is toast.” My point is that she is still electable. And she remains preferable to the bearded-Marxist fan. Frankly, I could care less about where she went to school; I care about how she is going to vote.

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:38 am

  55. Some chump, there’s an additional concern than just making a dishonest conservative counterpart to Ted Kennedy.

    There are not nearly as many incentives to reduce the size of government and reform it than there are to pump out federal cash and permit corruption.

    I’ve long been worried that O’Donnell would see that the easy path as a Delaware Senator would be to trade some principles for personal wealth and electoral success (frankly, much as Castle is compellingly accused of doing).

    If she craves power so much as to run repeated unsuccessful campaigns while promising voters credentials that aren’t real, what’s to stop her from becoming part of the problem?

    Coons isn’t marxist. Rush makes jokes like the bearded marxist one all the time to illustrate something absurd. The reason Coons is called one is because even a lying nut is better than a marxist. He is a very bad candidate, a pet to Reid and sure to send the country in the wrong direction in many ways. O’Donnell probably won’t be that bad. Probably.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:39 am

  56. And she remains preferable to the bearded-Marxist fan.

    Her opponent is better than a bearded-marxist fan, too.

    I care about how she is going to vote.

    How is she going to vote, and how did you come to that conclusion? Note that you can’t rely on anything her campaign said or she said, and the strong pressure for a Delaware senator to vote for terrible policies.

    That is all I care about, too. Is O’donnell one of those strong souls who will put their integrity ahead of their political future? You seem to be saying she is.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:43 am

  57. Patterico, on her defense (She claims the Linkedin is fake.), it would be nice to found out when the profile was created. Because no one would have had a reason to fake it, say, a year ago.

    Comment by rdbrewer (570758) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:16 pm

  58. UPDATE x2: O’Donnell says she neither set up the LinkedIn entry nor authorized anyone else to.

    Fascinating.  If true, someone independently went to great lengths to set up a flattering profile, without her knowledge or acquiescence, that subtly exaggerated her educational accomplishments.  It would certainly be interesting to learn who would do such a thing and why.

    Comment by Patterico (984c77) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:20 pm

  59. Patterico, remember Rosie Ruiz?

    Comment by rdbrewer (570758) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:29 pm

  60. Christine O’Donnell;

    Charlie Rangel with less opportunity.

    But looks like “value” voters are going to give her a shot!

    Yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrgh!

    Comment by madawaskan (565543) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:30 pm

  61. Patterico

    And now the profile is down, apparently. i don’t know if they took it down, or it is getting so many hits its overwhelming the system, or what. obviously if you know how to use google’s caching, you can see it in the original form.

    i will say that one thing leapt out at me as odd when i first read it, which was it claiming that she was in the greater phil. area. i mean if you are planning to run for senator in del., you would tend to portray yourself as a resident of del. now of course, i think some of del. counts as the greater Phil. area, but still…

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:32 pm

  62. Dustin, support of a candidate, especially one without a track record of actual votes as a member of an elected body, does wind up being based on — for lack of a better term — faith. The policy positions that she is running on are out there, on her website and in statements & speeches that she has made throughout her campaign.

    I don’t see the correlation between “she may have fudged parts of her resume” and “you can’t rely on anything her campaign said or she said”. One does not necessarily beget the other.

    And where, exactly, is “the strong pressure for a Delaware senator to vote for terrible policies” going to come from?

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:32 pm

  63. I have doubts that electing a known liar and con artist to the Senate is anyway to get more honest government. I know that people will call me a RINO for saying that, but I kind of resent being told I have to support someone I would not buy a used car off of.

    Comment by Terrye (9d8507) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:32 pm

  64. WHO told you that you have to support her?

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:36 pm

  65. In all likelihood she did post the profile, and in all certainty she has lied about her education. It was entirely predictable that she would respond to this in the same way she has responded to accurate attacks in the past.

    This is why Palin and Rush should have vetted her before endorsing her. More will probably come out. It’s not the end of the world. She will lose, so the risks with her are very limited. But I hope they’ve learned their lesson. Joe Miller is not just a better candidate because he was more conservative than Murkowski. He has a solid background, honest credentials, proof of devotion to his nation.

    Fair or not, a career politicians like O’Donnell (she’s been running for office for over a decade) usually do not have such a background. We can find people approximately like Joe Miller in all 50 states. That takes a lot more work than whatever process was behind the O’Donnell endorsements.

    It’s really a matter of deciding if you want to lead and reform the USA, or just be a prominent pundit.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:36 pm

  66. I don’t see the correlation between “she may have fudged parts of her resume” and “you can’t rely on anything her campaign said or she said”. One does not necessarily beget the other.

    In my opinion, the level of fudging and the way O’Donnell handled that radio interview (my first impression of her, to be honest) have led me to conclude she will lie at the drop of the hat for any reason.

    But you’re right. To some extent, she has to rely on conservatives for her political future. She would probably be more conservative than Coons. I doubt she would be as conservative as Castle, based on what I perceive to be a total lack of character. Castle’s 50% right:wrong ratio is nothing to be impressed with, but it took some backbone.

    And where, exactly, is “the strong pressure for a Delaware senator to vote for terrible policies” going to come from?

    That’s a good question. Why would Republicans in states like Mass or Delaware or Maine feel pressure to vote for huge and intrusive government? Because those that don’t have a difficult time keeping power.

    Can you name a Republican who has won a statewide race in Delaware after WWII, whose name isn’t Castle? I can’t. The reason is that people in that state actually believe in an intrusive government, fall prey to populism, etc.

    The one strong positive I see in this race is that conservatism has a champion in the O’Donnell campaign which will try to sell Delaware on limited government. It just isn’t attempted there enough. And my big disappointment isn’t that we’re losing this race, but that our champion is not someone I’ve proud of.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:44 pm

  67. Comment by Dustin — 9/29/2010 @ 12:36 pm

    Your certitude is mildly off-putting.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:49 pm

  68. AD, I’m not surprised. For some reason, I piss people off, or at least ‘offput’ quite a lot.

    Such is life. It’s not intended. I am not attempting to be the gatekeeper of morality, or pose as better than O’Donnell’s fans.

    I don’t think I’m asking for much from the reform movement or people who want to be Senators, that they simply tell the truth about themselves.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:52 pm

  69. Also, my certitude is limited to the proven fact that she did lie about her education. She posed as a graduate years before she was. Her lawsuit complains that she was prevented from going to Princeton as a graduate student, years before she completed an undergraduate education. Did she claim to be a graduate on her resume, for this same job? I have ‘certitude’ that she did.

    The reason I point this out is that it puts linkedin in context.

    It’s probably off-putting because I’m just piling on at this point. It certainly shouldn’t necessary to make this point. Her name should be mud.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:57 pm

  70. But, Dustin, for a pol to tell the truth – especially about themselves – would be….what….Un-American!
    It would rend the political fabric that exists in America; reducing us from our exhalted Progressive Democracy, to just another run-of-the-mill Republic.
    How can you Sir, in all honesty, advocate such a fate for this Country?

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 12:59 pm

  71. Her LinkedIn page, shows she attended FD, in order to be admitted to ISI, she would have had to submit
    both transcripts and/or copies of degrees, clearly
    the understanding was that she graduated. She was
    a Claremont Fellow, which is affiliated with the University. She did attend the institute, which
    was not Oxford U, please don’t be so picayune, will you

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:12 pm

  72. reducing us from our exhalted Progressive Democracy, to just another run-of-the-mill Republic.

    I realize you’re kidding around, but this is a great point. The difference between an all powerful progressive democracy and a Republic is partly one of pose. Are our leaders taking care of all our problems, and above us? Are they accountable to us, and staying out of our business as much as they can?

    It wouldn’t be fair to say O’donnell’s trying to take us further into progressivism, but she clouds this point.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:17 pm

  73. ian, you’re out of date. The current defense is that some lefty shill set up this linkedin profile from her bushes.

    Is it because he was gay?

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:18 pm

  74. Dustin, how I long for some of that “run-of-the-mill” republicanism; one of the rarest forms of paradise that will ever be found on Planet Earth!
    If Milton were writing today, he would have to say that the 19th-Century (or at least the period from 1865 to 1929) was, politically , “Paradise Lost“.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (4c7111) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:24 pm

  75. Dustin, you did not piss me off. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was refreshing to have a discussion that didn’t begin with “imdw/shooter/hooten the ad hom/non seq spew machine said [insert idiotic comment here]”

    Unfortunately, it only seems possible to have such a conversation with someone on the right with whom I partially disagree. Still waiting for that kind of reasoned debate with someone on the left.

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:32 pm

  76. Icy

    I am someone on the right who disagrees with you slightly, but i think you are a completely irresponsible wanker for what you just said. and stupid. and ugly! And so is yo momma!

    (yes, i am joking around)

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:39 pm

  77. Ian,

    The Claremont Institute is not affiliated with the Graduate University. Many professors who teach at CGU, but who are on the Claremont McKenna faculty, are affiliated with the Institute.

    They are separate organizations and to make a claim that you attended the Top Tier Graduate University, when you attended seminars at the Conservative Think Tank, is reprehensible.

    As I wrote above, the Fellowship at the Institute is in itself prestigious. Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review and Andrew Breitbart are former Fellows. This does not mean they attended CGU.

    I wonder what Charles Kesler would think of her claim, or any of the other CMC/CGU faculty for that matter.

    Comment by Christian (2852e9) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:45 pm

  78. I try to avoid a site, so directly affiliated with
    the Journolist, or did you forget, A site that actually not misrepresented or omitted, but flat out
    enabled a slander during those early days in September ’08. Which was in the forefront of tryingto take down the previous administration, for issues that ended up being trifles in retrospect. Sargent who was promoted to the Washington Post for his mendacity, Meanwhile, in a previous thread, we note a judge who is unwilling to enforce the current statutes on execution. But because Bill Clintonwas ‘ a good man’ his choice was given the benefit of the doubt

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:48 pm

  79. Mike K. #38– Really funny.

    Comment by Birdbath (8501d4) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:53 pm

  80. May a drawing of Mohammed’s junk have ‘relations’ with your sister.

    Comment by Cold Texas Carnac (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 1:58 pm

  81. Why is it so hard to believe that one of her supporters, seeing she had no linkedIn entry, thought it would be nice to create one for her?

    And that in doing so, the supporter would make the kind of minor errors we are seeing, for the reasons stated. A supporter might say “well, she had a class at Oxford, so I’ll put it in”.

    There are supporters all over the internet for candidates. They make blogs, they post and edit wikipedia entries, they make comments to news sites, they create facebook and twitter accounts, and probably update online databases like LinkedIn.

    Given the closeness of the entries to the truth, I would put my money on a misinformed supporter, not someone trying to make her look bad. Although obviously from Patterico’s response and the comments here, any democrat COULD have been smart enough to pull this off to hurt her.

    Comment by Charles (dce15e) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:01 pm

  82. Charles

    i think that is a valid point. i think its just as likely an opponent did that.

    Like remember the rathergate memos? Okay now if you looked at what they actually said it was pretty mild, not quite the slam dunk the left was looking for. because whoever faked it realized that if it was too sensational, it would be called out as fake quicker.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:04 pm

  83. But because Bill Clintonwas ‘ a good man’ his choice was given the benefit of the doubt

    Comment by ian cormac

    Wow, that’s pretty loaded.

    Are you suggesting that Clinton as president shouldn’t have been appointing judges because you think he was a bad man?

    Elections have consequences, and one of them is that Clinton got to pick judges, just as Obama does now, and people like Coons will get to approve of them, instead of people like Castle.

    As to the ‘good man’ bit, I never understand this. Everyone is a bad person if you seek out evidence in a certain way. Bill is a cheater and liar, O’Donnell is a liar and a weasel, Obama is a whiner and a demagogue.

    And everyone is a good person if you seek out evidence in a certain way. Obama believes in helping mankind via stupid progressivism. He honestly wants to help. Same with Bill Clinton. Same with W. Obama in particular employs Alinksy’s evil means to his mistaken end, but somewhere in there is an attempt to do good.

    I worry about people who don’t understand this essential component in almost everyone in politics and not in politics. There are actually evil people out there, and sometimes Obama even seems to be one (IG firings, fascism against Insurance that expresses the ‘wrong’ opinion, racism), but too many people stupidly equate being a democrat with being an evil soulness ‘bad person’. That kind of approach is not reasonable and makes it much harder to appeal to these very people.

    Also, it’s just a miserable way to see the world. IMO.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:07 pm

  84. And Aaron, I meant #80 as a gentle jibe, with all due respect to the man that called for more Mohammed drawings on the Internet. Praise Allah for your boldness and strength of character.

    But don’t talk about my momma. My momma’s a saint (to put up with my dumb a$$ for the past 45 years, she would have to be).

    [Trivia: at first I mistakenly typed "gentile jibe". Stupid subconscious!]

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:21 pm

  85. well, at least you didn’t accidentally type genital jibe.

    Joking aside, it is really hard to offend me so no worries. i just wasn’t sure if it was you because of the nick.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:24 pm

  86. If Milton were writing today, he would have to say that the 19th-Century (or at least the period from 1865 to 1929) was, politically , “Paradise Lost“.

    Yeah, daily lynchings, massive poverty and social violence, so fun ain’t it.

    Comment by Triumph (0692b1) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:27 pm

  87. “Why is it so hard to believe that one of her supporters, seeing she had no linkedIn entry, thought it would be nice to create one for her?”

    Charles – If the page is now down, who took it down?

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:30 pm

  88. No, there is not, not if one sees how he has gone about who he is willing to ally himself with. people
    like Ayers and Wright. but all that was whitewashed
    away by the Journolist and the major media. And they were the purveyors of garbage against decent
    people

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:32 pm

  89. Who took it down?

    Is triumptheinsultMoby still playing that tired act?

    Comment by JD (fc59fb) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:33 pm

  90. Is it possible to have a discussion about Obama without the likes of Ayers, Wright or Alinski popping up? And should we really hate BHO so much as to vote for lying half-wits? Looks like the Village Voice is onto something here.

    Comment by Triumph (0692b1) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:35 pm

  91. O’Donnell? Aint you guys excited about O’keefe being back in the news?

    Comment by imdw (017d51) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:36 pm

  92. JD,

    What is tired is the whining about the liberal media, JournoList, Ayers and others. What is tired is a “movement” that sides with its loony fringe and ends up endorsing dimwitted mythomaniacs.
    Drop O’Donnell by any legal means necessary and call back Castle if you want to keep that seat.

    Comment by Triumph (0692b1) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:38 pm

  93. No, it is what Obama is about, how Axelrod forced
    Ryan and Hull from the race, how they attempted the same result, four years later. Ayers figured out
    that the Gramscian path of education was more effective in the long run to undermining the system

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:38 pm

  94. The trolls have their talking points.

    Comment by JD (a30317) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:39 pm

  95. “What is tired is the whining about the liberal media, JournoList, Ayers and others.”

    Triumph – The truth never gets old. Deal.

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:40 pm

  96. Keep that seat? Joe Biden’s held this seat for almost 40 years. It is funny when Moby asshats reveal themselves so easily.

    Comment by JD (6ca166) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:43 pm

  97. Castle’s a dead horse, quit trying to ride him.
    Is there anyone reading this thread who doesn’t believe Castle would have flipped to Democrat for the right price?

    Comment by KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:47 pm

  98. Drop O’Donnell by any legal means necessary and call back Castle

    F that. The primary voters prefer O’donnell to Castle. The party’s leadership has no say in the matter. There’s a reason Castle lost, even to a candidate like O’Donnell, and learning that lesson is important. More important than winning this seat? It’s irrelevant now, but I think so.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:47 pm

  99. I want to make this perfectly clear:

    Don’t EVER jibe my genitals.

    There’s bound to be trouble, if you do.

    Comment by Dave Surls (c9a2bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:48 pm

  100. The dog ate Christine’s fake LinkedIn Profile.

    How’s that working for her?

    Comment by daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:51 pm

  101. Is there anyone reading this thread who doesn’t believe Castle would have flipped to Democrat for the right price?

    Comment by KobeClan

    /raises hand.

    As you said, Castle doesn’t matter, and now his career is over, but he isn’t Lindsey Graham or Arlen Spector.

    He has been a Republican for ages, despite it being easier for his career if he did switch parties. He’s been a pouty embarrassment since losing and I wish folks would just forget him.

    It’s O’Donnell who has to prove she can’t be bought.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:52 pm

  102. Ian has a point that good people don’t ordinarily consort with Ayers, but Ian was complaining that Bill Clinton isn’t a ‘good man’.

    That gives the game away, I think. The idea of ‘good man’ is someone who aligns closely with the louder mouths on the right, in politics. Bill Clinton was a jackass in many respects, and I dishonorable many times, but I respect his basic humanity. I think he was motivated by trying to do good, in a very self centered way.

    We need to get beyond ‘they are evil, we are good’ thinking. It’s a miserable way to see the world, where so many good people just disagree with us. It also is a stupid tactic for building a majority movement. Notice how the Tea Party is a negative reaction to angry and power-mad leftists. People are being pushed away from the left… this won’t last if we don’t pull people in with a more positive message than ‘they are bad men’.

    BTW, I missed the Patterico Good Man post and don’t really care about it. I think he said it had something to do with teaching his kids not to be miserable partisan kooks, but I could be wrong.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 2:57 pm

  103. #

    WHO told you that you have to support her?

    Comment by Icy Texan — 9/29/2010 @ 12:36 pm

    Who? Well for starters my own brother who seemed to think that I was a RINO traitor for doubting that Rush and Mark knew what was best…not to mention several other people who have given me a hard time because I was never crazy about Christine O’Donnell…I did not say you personally told me I had to support her, but then again Mark Levin made it plain what he thought about conservatives who did not support O’Donnell now didn’t he?

    I hear he is not sure about New Jersey Governor Christie anymore..it seems that Levin has doubts about whether he is a real conservative..that might have something to do with the fact that Christie supported Castle over O’Donnell.

    Comment by Terrye (2e6779) — 9/29/2010 @ 3:29 pm

  104. And his stance on the GZM, mind you the good Imam operates in his bailiwick, and tossing Schundler over the side, certainly counts for something, No, Terrye you have indefatigable in pursuing your argument here, and at may favorite blog, so take a bow

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 4:44 pm

  105. http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/09/terror-suspects-were-active-in-obamas.html

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 5:52 pm

  106. Seen the LinkedIn response yet?

    Comment by Diane Suffern (3fff24) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:01 pm

  107. And his stance on the GZM, mind you the good Imam operates in his bailiwick, and tossing Schundler over the side, certainly counts for something

    This doesn’t support your point.

    Good people honesty differ on the GZM. Your prior point doesn’t work well either. I don’t think sharing a political party with someone crazy means much.

    And what’s this got to do with Bill Clinton? It’s quite clear why you target Clinton and Obama as ‘bad men’, and it’s not because of terrorists. It’s because they are progressive democrat presidents.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:06 pm

  108. It is a continuation of the details about Obama, that were left out of the narrative, he has always
    been associated with radicals, some of a violent
    bent. One can say they didn’t know, but that was because one chose not to know.

    Clinton is being rehabilitated by the same press that puffed him up before, his impact is seen with
    with the weak response to Bin Laden, that Bush ultimately had to deal with, with the Enron acct,
    rules instituted by Raines, who went on to Fannie
    Mae, and helped select Joe Biden for VP. along with Jamie Gorelick, whose memo impaired the FBI/CIA from working together.

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:21 pm

  109. Castle is going to announce tomorrow if he is going to mount a write-in campaign so maybe the announcements of his
    death have been greatly exaggerated. If he wins (which IS possible) who will he caucus with? Why the highest bidder, of course.
    And that will be the Democrats cuz they will sell the souls of their children and grandchildren to maintain power.

    O’Donnell, for all her shortcomings, appears to have principles she will defend. Castle, not so much!
    Castle is a moderate, so, by definition, he has no core principles.

    Show me the money, baby!

    Comment by KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:24 pm

  110. Kobeclan, you have a good point. If Castle is such a bastard that he actually runs against his own party, I am pretty sure he’ll caucus with the democrats.

    What a POS.

    Ian, you point out many valid failures of the Clinton administration. He was a terrible president. And yet, for each of his failures, I understand his mistaken mindset. He actually thought he was wearing the white hat.

    I know he’s been quite aggressive in his commentary at times. He even was willing to link mere pundits to terrorism. In Clinton’s head, people who disagreed with him politically could be demonized because Clinton failed to recognize they were ‘good men’ too.

    I think the principle of trying to understand where progressives come from, mentally, is important to saving our country. And while there are evil men out there, for the most part, these folks are good people who have bought into a very sophisticated con.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 6:40 pm

  111. Don’t want to go Biblical and bore everybody. Lets just say that understanding “progressives” is easy:

    Intention equals action.
    Personal sacrifice not required.

    Comment by KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/29/2010 @ 7:30 pm

  112. That’s probably a reasonable analysis of many of them, kobeclan. Theyw ant someone else to fix all these problems (real or imagined) and want to fancy themselves as better than people who don’t support the government involving itself in all these issues.

    So, jackasses. Trying to wear the white hat, though.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:08 pm

  113. When was LinkedIn modified to include those particulars?

    Given her body of work before the current race, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that some Democrat hack sabotaged/poisoned a LinkedIn page from back before she decided to enter the Senate race.

    In the future though, everyone is going to have to monitor the hell out of any and all networking sites, lest they get tied up in knots by opponents.

    Comment by SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/29/2010 @ 8:30 pm

  114. ian cormac,

    You said:

    “But because Bill Clintonwas ‘ a good man’ his choice was given the benefit of the doubt”

    Why do you think Bill Clinton was a good man, ian cormac? I certainly don’t and have never said I did.

    That strikes me as a pretty dumb thing to say, given that he tried to destroy Monica Lewinsky for telling the truth; he lied under oath to a grand jury; and he obstructed justice.

    Then again, perhaps you are not saying that Bill Clinton is a good man. Perhaps you are merely insinuating that I have said or suggested that.

    In that case you would be either making a recklessly false statement, or you would be lying. Since I never said or suggested any such thing.

    I routinely put up with your sarcasm but I will not put up with falsehoods.

    Perhaps you can clarify what you meant.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:33 pm

  115. The same benefit of the doubt was extended to him, through out his administration, despite his history of philandering, and financial shortcuts, very little of his background was really revealed in the early years, hence there was much speculation, some of it unfounded, many real steps toward fiscal reform however slight, were demagogued, leading up to the ’96 election, Onecan’t really understand how the Congress acted subsequently, and even the unsuccessful move toward ‘compassionate conservatism’ without that context. We know this next effort, will be resisted a hundred fold, with all the slander
    and deception that entails, they will push for
    more judges in the Fogel mold,

    Comment by ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:41 pm

  116. ….Why would anyone believe that was her real page, when that image is(was) the stock photograph of her from all the leftist blogs?

    Who the heck uses stock photos of themselves going “meh”?

    Comment by Foxfier (24dddb) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:53 pm

  117. It’s nice to see you, Foxfier, and that’s a good point.

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:59 pm

  118. I did not say you personally told me I had to support her, but then again Mark Levin made it plain what he thought about conservatives who did not support O’Donnell now didn’t he?
    Comment by Terrye — 9/29/2010 @ 3:29 pm

    – You appeared to feel that the ‘official’ conservative line is “support her no matter what”. This, of course, is not true. My point in this is that the issue at hand is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to withdraw or withhold support for her. This controversy/gaffe/exaggeration is NOT her ‘jump the shark’ moment, as some (Dave Surls for instance) seem to think it is.

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:17 am

  119. #118

    I think the same thing I was thinking a couple of weeks ago.

    To quote myself:

    “Frankly, I think she’s one of the worst candidates I’ve ever seen.”–Me 9/13/10

    And, I haven’t seen anything since I said that that’s making me change my mind.

    On the contrary.

    Comment by Dave Surls (b44240) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:41 am

  120. Triumph, the insult to reasoned thought, pooped:
    Is it possible to have a discussion about Obama without the likes of Ayers, Wright or Alinski popping up?
    – It appears that Socialists also have roosting chickens.
    And should we really hate BHO so much as to vote for lying half-wits?
    – No. After all, it was the BeeHo lovers that did that.
    Looks like the Village Voice is onto something here.
    – Looks like somewhere there’s a village missing it’s [pledge to Patterico upheld].

    Comment by Icy Texan (9b7145) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:52 am

  121. *grin* Thanks, DRJ- I am still reading, sort of, just don’t have time to read the comments these days…

    Comment by Foxfier (24dddb) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3556 secs.