Replies

Speaking of worms... did you hear Sen. McCain on Hannity today re: the Estrada nomination? Asked why they (republicans) didn't force a fillibuster on the dems, his answer was if they were to force a fillibuster

Mr. T and I are so mad at the spinless RINOS. They have no #alls. They're afarid of the dems I guess. What's up with that? Oh yeah, I just got a "Send us more money" letter. I'm gonna write them a letter instead.

What no one has come right out and said:

There's a good possibility there are members of the Senate Republican Caucus who really didn't want to cast that vote for the President.

I don't know this for fact, but I understand how this stuff works and I'm guessing such is the case.

That would explain why they haven't held their feet to the fire with a REAL filibuster,, because they might not have the votes anyway. Think how embarassing THAT would be.

I, too, will not give money for the Senate Republican efforts. Altho I have given a respectable check to Senator Grassley, and do not apologize for doing so.

The HoR (don't you love the sound of that accronymn?) is another matter. While I am comfortable with the tough stand the House took on several issues,,, I am less than happy with my CongressCritter Leach. A banking expert he might be, a conservative he isn't. None the less, I am pragmatic and understand he is probably the only Republican who could ever get elected with the existing registration numbers in this Congressional District. So, I shamefully cut a check to him, rationalizing that I am helping GWB.

Any additional check I cut for the upcoming election will go to the Bush effort. I realize they have plenty of money now, but I also realize my check may free up some money from the soft money account which the Bush/Cheney team can redirect to a race which needs additional funding in hopes of expanding the majority.

Good idea writing the sinators a letter, that's got to be more effective than what I do, toss it into the circular file...

Glad you're feeling better and your foot is on the mend!

Know any little Hillarys? Probably not....

The Social Security Administration has a fascinating Web page where it publishes data on popular baby names from 1880 to the present, and blogger Matt Evans has conducted a fascinating analysis of one famous name:

According to data published by the Social Security Administration, the name Hillary is the most severely poisoned baby name in history. Hillary had been steadily climbing the baby name charts since the 1960s, when it first graced the Top 1000, becoming the 136th most common name for baby girls in 1992. But the name sharply reversed course in 1993, smashing several longstanding records for name contamination in its plunge from the Top 1000 girl names last year.

The title for the most rapid case of name contamination had been held by Ebenezer and then Adolph, names that were shunned by parents after they became associated with Dickens's miserly banker and the Nazi dictator Hitler. But while Ebenezer and Adolph each took over 30 years to fall from the Top 1000 after they were negatively associated with their prominent name sakes, Hillary dropped off the charts in just 10 years, upsetting the prior records in less than 30% of the time. Besides this achievement, Hillary also set records for largest drop in a single year (295 places in 1994), two years (420 places in 1993-1994) and ten years (>864 from 1993 to 2002). These titles taken together represent the grand slam of name poisoning.

Evans adds: "The largest one-year drop of another tarnished name from the same period, Monica, was 53 places in 1999; the two-year drop was 73 (1998-1999). Monica's dip was short-lived as well, ending with an uptick in popularity in 2002." BestoftheWeb

*snicker!*