[Bob J]

I have to disagree somewhat. The facts as they have been presented are actually quite compelling...if you're inclined to wild leaps of faith and judgement.

What we have is a consortium of barely related facts, he said she said anecdotes and a few odds and ends that when combined with a fair amount of Crazy Glue leads us to the inevitable conclusion that Grover Norquist is a traitor who has been selling this nation out for a few plates of latinum.

The problem is, Norquist has been a stalwart and tireless defender of conservative principles for decades and there are not a few that are unwilling to be convinced on what appears to be a collection of circumstantial tidbits and personal rivalries.

[general_re]

What we have is a consortium of barely related facts, he said she said anecdotes and a few odds and ends that when combined with a fair amount of Crazy Glue leads us to the inevitable conclusion that Grover Norquist is a traitor who has been selling this nation out for a few plates of latinum.

Inevitably, yes indeed. I particularly like how our Obligatory Insider is hammering on the "facts", when crackpot logic doesn't really rely on the facts per se anyway. You know the drill, I'm sure. The government owns satellites. Yesterday my car got a flat tire. Therefore, government satellites made my tire go flat. Well, wassamatter - you're not questioning the FACTS, are you? Just try to point out anything wrong with my facts, bub - you can't, so I'm right.

Beautiful, eh? Nevermind that the problem really isn't the facts in the first place - it's the ridiculous conclusion they're being pressed into serving that's the problem.

[Trollstomper]

"What we have is a consortium of barely related facts, "

No, What we have here is a failure to Comprehend. Or, possibly, an overweaning infatuation with hirsute tax heroes of days past (i.e., before the above-mentioned record spending phase).

Please list ten of this "constortium" and provide proof that they are unrelated, specious, etc.

Then list 10 facts of your own that exonerate Grover on the main allegations which you find to be "circumstantial."

"Problem is" as you like to say: you can't. You have been asked regularly through these 500 postings to do so. Everytime you now repeat the same assertions they become less and less excusable.

Alternately, how about trying to sustain any of Norquist's attacks on Gaffney as a "racist and bigot," (this would help assuage your sensitivity toward "personal attacks," "hits" and "personal rivalries" etc.)

Or you can attempt to excuse away any of the lies Grover's recently told -- starting with the Hewitt show assertion that Al Arian "has never been in the WH" and the WH just told Grover so on the magic phone.

Hurry, because when you finish that last one, you can join up with Sami and Grover and get rich suing the Washington Post, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, et al for lying and defaming Sami and Grover's fine reputation.

Then maybe you could spend that money on a trip to Washington to meet your hero, and join a Close Up class to learn how your government works. We could have some Domino's and make sure you're very comfortable. Later, maybe we could go to down to the range and shoot some Gaffney targets. You game? for anything?