|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bias at Publishers Weekly?
July 26, 2007 on 12:12 pmNanny State recently received a short review from the trade publication Publishers Weekly. It was unfriendly. I came away with the feeling that the reviewer hadn’t actually read the book. (I won’t bore you with the specifics.) But then again, who knows, perhaps the review was deserved.
As this is my first book, though, I decided to investigate other Publisher Weekly reviews on Amazon.com. Did a negative review effect sales? Did the reviewer typically betray a ideological position as this one had? This curiosity led to non-scientific stroll around Amazon.com and a discovery. One that Tammy Bruce had already noted. (Update: And Dr. Helen.) I work in mainstream media. Though I’m not someone who buys into the widespread liberal media meme, the one-sidedness of the PW reviews was inescapable. After all, a provocative or combative political book can be well written and worth reading even if you disagree with the central thesis. I’ve reviewed books for almost a decade. I know this can happen.
Yet…
Michelle Malkin’s book Unhinged, PW says, “overextends her analytical prowess by offering shallow, shoddy critiques.”
Libertarian television personality John Stossel, in his book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, offers us “frequently tendentious challenges to conventional wisdom.” His libertarian convictions “lead inexorably to blanket denunciations of “monster government” and sermons on the wisdom of the market.” ”The author’s complacent glosses … are especially glib and one-sided.”
Tammy Bruce’s The New American Revolution is, “Mostly a stage upon which to beat her stridently individualist chest.” Her thesis, we’re told, is “buried beneath mountains of dismissible rhetoric.”
Radio personality Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up and Sing is “vociferous but ill-supported right wing screed…”
Mona Charen’s Do-Gooders is “largely a cherry-picking exercise rather than a more thoughtful attempt to evaluate the core assumptions and values that guide liberal policy makers.”
Peter Schweizer’s Do As I Say (Not As I Do) is “egregiously hyperbolic” and, in the end, “reads less like a critique of liberal philosophy than a catalogue of ammunition for ad hominem bloggers.”
Culture Warrior by Bill O’Reilly is more “resentful and self-pitying than feisty.”
On David Horowitz’s The Professors, PW states that, ” Horowitz, it would appear” doesn’t want ”professors who disagree with his personal political opinions to continue teaching. (I read this book, and though I disagree with Horowitz’s recommendations, the author says nothing of the sort.)
Thomas DiLorenzo’s excellent How Capitalism Saved America is “rather than a work of history, it’s a work of ideology cross-dressing as history.”
With all this negativity towards bias and historical cross-dressing, would PW have a similar take on liberal screeds?
I was surprised to find that American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America, a truly angry and irrational book, received a starred review from PW.
Frank Rich’s well-written but “blistering” The Greatest Story Ever Sold also received starred review.
Al Franken’s The Truth (with jokes) received a starred review.
Keith Olbermann’s shrill and over-the-top The Worst Person In the World is “smart” and a collection that “makes a fine book for flipping.”
Arianna Huffington’s Pigs at the Trough (in which Arianna accuses U.S. drug companies of allowing the African AIDS epidemic to rage in the interests of corporate profits) is a “powerful book, brimming with wit and sulphurous satire that connects the dots among politicians, lobbyists and corporations, and demonstrates their destructive effect on the well-being of average Americans.”
The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder is “a sharp-edged polemic questioning the wisdom of how we elect our leaders.”
Conspiracy theorist Greg Palast’s book Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans–Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild is “well-reasoned and the outrage “makes a convincing case.”
This goes on and on. Another trend I noticed with Publisher Weekly reviews is that right-wing books are meant only for other regressive conservatives.
Malkins’s Unhinged is for “Right-wingers looking for affirmation …”
Mark Levin’s Men in Black is for “likeminded critics are certain to be galvanized by this spirited “clarion call…”
Stossel’s fans “will eat up this new book, but other readers may wince when the author’s ideology overshadows the facts.”
DiLorenzo’s book will “prove bracing for those similarly minded.”
The arguments in Diana West’s new book, The Death of the Grown-up, are “compelling only to those already in her corner. ”
And my book is one in which “fellow libertarians may enjoy getting carried away by the flood of Harsanyi’s outrage.”
Perhaps I’ve missed the conservative book with a starred review? Or even one that deserves widespread consideration?
41 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Of course the MSM wants to delegitimize conservative and libertarian commentary!! Give it no foothold and no way to challenge orthodoxy!!
Comment by Michael Capaccio — July 27, 2007 #
David
You get a bad review on your first book and you go on a mission to discredit the reviewer? Ugh. Does the book reflect such immature thinking?
As for the reviews above: I can only say - Try to learn something from it.
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Thom, What can I learn from it? Should I switch ideological affiliations?
Comment by davidharsanyi — July 27, 2007 #
No, no, keep your affiliation. Just don’t write like a ten-year-old exposed bully having a playground temper tantrum, or, worse, an adult who can’t tell the difference between honestly and loyalty. (And not writing about how forcibly taking a hundred thousand or so people, including children, from their homes and confining them in a prison camp for years - solely because of their race - is an a-okay thing to do, just for a specific example, might be good too.)
Sometimes subject matter alone is all it takes to get a bad review, because subject matter born of shallow, bigoted, dishonest, defensive, and all-around loony thinking (i.e: RW writers listed above) can’t be written about well. It’s just the way it is. Blame God.
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Hey, you could say whether or not you agree with any of those reviews. Do you disagree with the Malkin review?
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Ah, I see. Conservative or libertarian positions are intrinsically “loony” so a book defending those positions can’t be written well. I understand. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s “How Capitalism Saved America” is just off the wall, but Keith Olbermann’s silly ‘The Worst Person In the World’ is the stuff of legend. Interesting.
Yes, I disagree with the PW review of Michelle’s ‘Unhinged.’ (Though, you seem to be referring to her book ‘In Defense of Internment.’)
Comment by davidharsanyi — July 27, 2007 #
I was referring to that book in that former comment, not the latter.
And no - not all conservative or Libertarian writings are loony, far from it: only the loony ones. And I guessed about DiLorenzo - never heard of him. (Don’t put him in a cage with twitching monkeys if you don’t want passersby to think he’s a twitching monkey.)
The rest I’m familiar with from writings, some from mentioned books, rants, and various nonsense they’ve unleashed on the public. Laura Ingram? John Stossell? The fact-hating Schweizer? Please. These are not deep thinkers or gifted writers by any stretch. These are Ann Coulters with less hair; Rush Limbaughs with fewer anal cysts (one would hope for them). Please tell me you aim for higher.
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Well, I certainly aim higher than making fun of someone’s anal cyst.
Comment by davidharsanyi — July 27, 2007 #
Dave,
I have news for our friend Thom, this country is one or two terrorist attacks away from the same thing (i.e., internment or something like it) happening to muslims.
While keeping the assets of those interned was clearly wrong (and some reparations were made), Thom does not know how many Japanese lives were saved (due to hate crimes) nor how many attacks prevented.
It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback. The point is, Michele wrote about it and the book should be judged on it’s merits, not whether you agree or disagree with the subject matter.
Comment by Kooray — July 27, 2007 #
Kooray, a book can be judged on subject matter. Think about it.
And Malkin was Monday-morning quarterbacking - in a ghastly fashion. “Keeping the assets” was wrong - are you saying stealing them from their homes and imprisoning them wasn’t? I don’t think you are, but if you could clear that up… And you can’t be defending interment on the grounds that it protected them, can you?
And Dave - sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Again: A writer for the Denver Post going after a reviewer? It doesn’t seem a little unseemly to you?
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Thom,
I’m not going to convince you that internment was the right thing to do, nor will you convince me that it was the wrong thing to do. It, like many decisions that must be made by those in power, had pros and cons that had to be weighed.
The point is, Michele wrote about it, attempted to capture the thoughts and feelings of the time period, and presented rationale and justification that many had never seen or understood. Was this mentioned in the review as well or was the reviewer’s “delicate sensibilities” and political ideology getting in the way of a legitimate review?
Comment by Kooray — July 27, 2007 #
Anybody that thinks Al Franken or Keith Olbermann actually wrote good books needs to be examined by a professional psychiatrist. Their “books” are the worst of the worst; and quite frankly it makes me wonder about Thom’s sanity that he defends them. Also hard to believe that he does not at the very least accept the premise of DiLorenzo’s book. There is really no valid argument against it. Have you even read some of these books Thom? Or did you just drink the kool aid?
Comment by Zach — July 27, 2007 #
Kooray
If you can’t be convinced that interning 110,000 or so people guilty of nothing but being of a particular race is a bad thing, and if especially you don’t already think it was a bad thing, you have problems. The world is really that simple. It’s a view that is shared by a vast majority of people that even you would say are good, reasonable, couraegeous, and even conservative people. Ronald Reagan apologized, as president, for it. It is nearing cowardice, not to mention embarrassingly un-indivualistic, to use such flimsy escapism as “it was the past, people in power had decisions to make…” What would you do? Would you today steal Muslim families from their homes and imprison them? Would you sit by and support such actions?
Malkin’s work should be found reprehensible to anyone who calls themself a proud American. It is profoundly unAmerican. You sound like a reasonable person; you should be able to say that about her, even if you do like other things she writes or stands for.
Comment by Thom — July 27, 2007 #
Thom:
You make much of people being locked up “because of their race”. Supposedly, that is racism. And yet, there are examples of some of those same people deciding that their allegiance was with Japan… because of their race - and subsequently attempting to assist Japan instead of the country that according to you had no legitimate right to suspect them. I guess that doesn’t ‘count’ as racism in your mind. I wonder why?
I’m not sure why I even wrote this comment. I mean, its not like you are ever going to see the irony of someone standing up for bigotry against conservatives who otherwise might spread badthink while decrying bigotry against Japanese during wartime against Japan, who might otherwise pass intel to the enemy and get a few thousand sailors killed.
Just because your particular brand of bigotry is currently fashionable doesn’t excuse you: After all, anti-Japanese bigotry was fashionable back then, and that didn’t make it right.
Comment by Ryan Waxx — July 27, 2007 #
Has it ever occurred to you that most right wing books really are crap?
Also, it might have helped your cause if you had spent more time getting up excerpts of your book and less time, well, acting like a child and complaining about how mean everyone is to you.
Comment by tbogg — July 28, 2007 #
Ah, the old “Right wing equals crap” meme. Very intelligent argument, that.
Thom, you had me thinking you might bereasonable up to the point that you started invoking Coulter, Limbaugh and anal cysts. Is a little reasoning too much to call for in polite society?
Comment by tugboat — July 28, 2007 #
My sympathies on your work not getting a fair review. But I have a question regarding your remark below.
“I’m not someone who buys into the widespread liberal media meme.”
How do you explain the kid gloves treatment that the John Kerry campaign received from all the major media outlets? To be specific, how is it possible for a controversial anti-Vietnam War figure to run a “war hero” campaign without any of the major outlets demanding that he reveal his discharge status prior to the Carter amnesty? Or discussing the irony (some would say hypocrisy).
How is it possible for someone who is running for Commander-in-Chief to get through a campaign without a respectable media effort to discover what his original discharge from the military was?
Comment by Mike Maddox — July 28, 2007 #
The whole internment matter can be boiled down to the fact that there was a Democrat in the White House, and thus an opportunity for the Democrats’ inherent fascist tendencies to arise. We see evidence that these tendencies haven’t disappeared in the recent calls for a “Fairness Doctrine” to shut up conservative talk radio.
Comment by Jimbouie — July 28, 2007 #
Nice attempt by Thom to set up a straw man but again, no, these people were not interred because of their “race”. They were interred because of their nationality and because of their very widespread allegiance to a foreign potentate who was maniacally attempting to destroy us and our country.
Get your history straight, Thom, before shooting your mouth off. The staggering arrogance that tells you that you know better than those tasked with this critical problem AT THE TIME should not surprise me coming from of leftist loon. Staggering arrogance comes naturally to your crowd. But indeed it does take me off guard sometimes, because I just lack that chromosome that tells me I’m so f—–g grand that I know better not just than everybody else, but than everybody else EVER.
Comment by Matt Sullivan — July 28, 2007 #
I’m a conservative.
I read a Hannity book, Deliver Us From Evil, and thought it was fluff. I like Hannity well enough, too.
See, liberals, thats all it takes. Just a teeny, teeny bit of intellectual honesty.
You could read a conservative book and say “The author’s command of language is impressive, as is her historical research. It offers an unusual insight into the motivations of certain generally condemned actions in the past. One will come away with much to think about. But in the end, my personal views were unchanged, and I found the position of the book to be rephrehensible.”
See…thats evaluating the book on its own terms, and fairly. And then ending with your own personal opinion instead of just dumping the review and giving your opinion.
Comment by Tennwriter — July 28, 2007 #
Matt, I can hardly come up with words to respond. It wasn’t their race, it was their “nationality.”
You deserve to have a schoolmarm wag her finger at you for ten straight years. Matt - they were Americans. That was their “nationality,” you completely dense and insufferably self-important small piece of opossum feces stuck to the bottom of a stupid person’s shoe.
Well. That was rude. I take it back. (At least the opossum part - I love opossums. Did you know they have forked penises? Two heads! Swear to god! And the she-possums have bifocal vaginas. Too much, I tell you, too much.)
Here’s some history for you:
“Yes, the Nation was then at war, struggling for its survival and it’s not for us today to pass judgment upon those who may have made mistakes while engaged in that great struggle. Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese-Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese-Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping forward in the internment camps themselves. The 442d Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese-Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation. Yet back at home, the soldier’s families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.”
President Ronald Reagan, 1988, as he signed legislation that would authorize restitution payments to the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the twice as many who were “elocated,” to put it much too nicely.
And Tennwriter - I’m trying to read your piece without it sounding like Cartman - but I can’t.
And Jimbou, are you saying that Michelle Malkin is a Fascist?
Comment by Thom — July 28, 2007 #
Folks, to borrow a phrase from a fellow commenter, “let’s stop feeding the troll.”
Comment by Kooray — July 28, 2007 #
David, after reading thom’s comments it should be a little clearer why liberals are so prone to bias and so unable to acknowlege it. Anything outside thier world-view is “crazy” or “stupid” and therefore unworthy of anything but insults and screed.
Comment by colin — July 28, 2007 #
Thom
how do you feel about the Italians and Germans that were also interned during WWII?
You’re grasp of history of the era is a little wanting… I wonder how far it goes.
For instance, do you know that the first slaves in the New World were NOT black Africans?
Comment by Darleen — July 28, 2007 #
David
As Thom and tbogg clearly demonstrate, anything that challenges the Left cult cannot be written/said/discussed/posited in good faith. Non-leftists are not merely mistaken, they are malevolent and are, thusly, not to be afforded the respect of being treated with honesty even in disagreement.
I’m sure you heard the deepthroated, hysterical screaming of RFK jr about people who question Anthropomorphic Global Warming … “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
Leftists are illiberal, and that is why you see efforts … macro as in threatening ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″ or trying to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine], or micro as in skewing book/movie/fashion reviews into politically correct screeds … to dismiss, denigrate or marginalize any non-leftist idea.
It really is a kind of secularized Sharia.
Comment by Darleen — July 28, 2007 #
1. At some subconscious level, I already knew this, but it’s a pleasure to see the documentation.
2. Something worth investigating: The impact of increasingly liberal bias among librarians on book sales.
FACT: There are more than 100,000 libraries in America.
OK, suppose that a liberal magazine like The Nation or The New Republic publishes a fawning review of some liberal author’s book. Now, suppose that one-fifth of American librarians regularly read those magazines. That’s a guaranteed 20,000 in sales before any John Q. Customer ever buys it in a bookstore.
And the bonus payoff for liberals, of course, is that nearly all libraries are taxpayer-supported, so that your are forced to subsidize the careers of liberal writers you can’t stand!
Comment by Robert Stacy McCain — July 28, 2007 #
Darleen - How do I feel about… Would it make a difference about how I feel about the japanese?
And HIGHFIVE! on whipping that headspinningly irrelevant fact out of you ossuary. HIGHFIVE!
And Colin - and you too Darllen - if your arguments were math, 2 + 2 would equal foreplay. The fact that I think those books are cross-eyed loony nuthack nonsense isn’t because they’re written by and of conservatism - it’s because those writers can’t think - or write - well. Your conclusions reveal your own bias and your ignorance of how revealing you are.
Comment by Thom — July 28, 2007 #
Thom, I’m curious. Since you’re so open minded, in your opinion, which conservative pundit or author writes well or thinks well, or thinks at all, for that matter? Given that the authors I point out — former Supreme Court clerks, lawyers, folks with doctorates, Ivy Leaguers and editorial writers – are loony and all, point me in the right direction.
Really, your posts just prove Darleen correct (and yes Darleen, as someone who sees usefulness in true dissent , I found RFK’s remarks despicable.) Other than Michelle’s book on interment — which was controversial even among conservatives — you bring no substantive arguments only ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I’m misreading you. So please let me know which conservative turns you on. Intellectually, of course.
Comment by davidharsanyi — July 28, 2007 #
Dear Thom,you can be kinda witty and funny in your writing, perhaps its ok writing, but you can also be wrong and are. Are you saying all the books listed have been read by you, and others not even mentioned here have been read by you, and that none contain/ed your high standards or anything of value, almost by default? You believe there is no Left/Liberal bias in media/entertainment? That’s a disingenuous default position, sporty.
I’m a musician/writer/Uni Grad & I know that these areas naturally do tend to attract certain types of people. I’m a Conservative, Libertarian, free individual, iconoclast, humourist/comedian, junior Plato, guitar player and things. But man, you’re not curious about other views, shades of grey? Seems so and why?
Comment by gmakepiece — July 29, 2007 #
The well-documented mistatements of fact and omissions in Jimmy Carter’s recent book did not prevent it from being reviewed positively - the voices raised against its blatant historical revisionism (not to mention the author’s clear financial conflicts of interest) were relatively few, and Carter was given the automatic liberal pass from being forced to debate his critics in any venue that makes so much of the left intellectually flabby.
Comment by sherlock — July 29, 2007 #
If Thom wrote a book, it would be called Because I Say So.
And the reviews would be stellar, provided he said the “right” things and pleased the progressive collective.
Sadly, I suspect the irony of his success would be lost on him.
Comment by Jeff G — July 29, 2007 #
Ok thom, ill bite. In what way do you think the authors cant think or write well? No, wait, let me guess, you think the authors cant think or write well because you disagree with thier thesis. That is the point weve been trying to get across to you, that you cant look past your ideology.
By all means, prove me wrong, but its going to take more then clever insults.
Comment by colin — July 29, 2007 #
gmakepiece
Guitar player and (NF) writer here too - pleasure to make your acquaintance. No Uni grad - – I went for the Naknek Nablus Langtang degree. (I can’t remember a damn thing about it.)
We obviously have very different political beliefs. The problem here, IMV, is that you, or some YOU here, you can decide for yourself if you belong, go beyond political difference. I have political differences with lots of people I know, including most of my good redneck family. They don’t think I want Al Qaeda to take over America. They don’t think, and accuse me - constantly - of being a “traitor” or a “terrorist sympathizer” or some such ludicrous and, if I cared what idiots thought, truly offensive nonsense. They know better, and you should too about your political adversaries. You really, really, really should, and even if you truly had such fears (and that’s what they would be) you would by the simple rules of good driving, carpentry, or conversation handle them in a constructive fashion. If you don’t, and many of you don’t, then you are exposed. Malkin, Bruce, Ingram, Horowitz, Charon, Schweizer - they all not only employ such destructive and ugly idiocy, they do little else. They are one-trick ponies with ugly tricks.
And please, don’t do the “That’s what you’re doing right now!” thing. When someone’s throwing hammers at you, throwing knives back at them doesn’t mean you’re like them - it means you’re using your head. I thought and think going to war with Iraq was wrong and that we should get out and be a more constructive and intelligent and generous, more so than we already are and in a more constructive way, nation. I think going to war with Iraq was, on the part of the administration, an act of ignorance and cowardice. For that - I had hammers thrown at me. By idiots.
You want my tips on conservative writers? How about Tom Wolfe? That shouldn’t count, since what I’ve read hasn’t been about politics, at least not explicitly. How about PastorDan on DailyKos? (Pa-Dum.) How about Andrew Sullivan? I haven’t read any books by him (I read and write, mostly at a computer, all day and it has withered my reading time), but I read his blog often. He drives me crazy, but he’s not ugly. He’s a smart thinker and he seems to listen and to question himself. I have a lot of respect for him. Steve Clemons at the Washington Note is a giant. He is far more conservative than I am, but he is smarter than myself about domestic and world affairs by several factors and is very generous of spirit.
Later
Comment by Thom — July 29, 2007 #
Ill be sure to use
“you completely dense and insufferably self-important small piece of opossum feces stuck to the bottom of a stupid person’s shoe.”
next time im trying to have a constuctive conversation.
Also, ” if your arguments were math, 2 + 2 would equal foreplay” seems likely to spur intelligent debate.
but seriously, WE go beyond political differences….. right.
Also, i missed the Iraq connection, wtf are talking about?
Comment by colin — July 29, 2007 #
Colin, reread the part that starts: “And please, don’t do the ‘That’s what you’re doing right now! thing.”
And you missed the Iraq connection? Me too!!! Good to see a RWer admit that.
Comment by Thom — July 29, 2007 #
Wow, you lash out at everyone who disagrees with you with invectives then hide behind some “they did it first” statement. Amazing, really. my fellow commenter was right, your a troll. Im sure i can find something better to do then argue with a foul mouthed 12 year old.
Comment by colin — July 29, 2007 #
Colin, Colin, Colin. There’s no lashing there - that was supposed to be FUN. And can you point to me your “constructive” phase during this forum? I missed it. For mine - go to my comments to the host, Kooray, and to that constructive person gmakepiece. The rest get in the manner they give - but with more fun.
Did you notice Matt opossumy shoes hasn’t returned? He’s the one who said the Japanese weren’t interred because of race, but because of their “nationality.” Good geeyad in Burbank - that is…unsmart. And I said so. Which was sorta fun, since Matt said that while being a great big meanie and scolding me. He must have realized that it was dumb and doesn’t want to show up again. Either that or he’s spent all this time constructing an enormous spit ball to shoot at me.
And who’s disagreeing with me with invectives?
And where was I foul mouthed?
Comment by Thom — July 29, 2007 #
Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative. He’s a liberal wolf in lamb’s clothing, maybe he claimed to be Right Wing but he is no longer.
Comment by Kat — July 29, 2007 #
Dave,
I haven’t read your book (sorry) so I don’t know if it deserves a good or poor review. But to get back on point, most critics are liberal, most journalists are liberal, and most media personnel are liberal. Numerous polls on political contributions, voting patterns, etc. will back up this fact.
And why not, certain kinds of people gravitate toward certain professions. So, I guess I’m saying don’t sweat the review. If your book is good, it will eventually stand on it’s own merits.
Comment by Kooray — July 30, 2007 #
Welcome to your rude awakening. Have you read Slander yet?
Wonder what PW has to say about that title!
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 30, 2007 #
I don’t watch South Park so I don’t understand your comment. But it does seem to be a trifle, an attempt to dodge a serious point, and not worthy.
I show you what intellectual honesty looks like, and you ignore the chance to demonstrate you have some as well. Tell me of a lefty writer you like for his policy, but think is stupid. Tell me of a popular, well known righty you disagree with, but admit is intelligent and well-spoken. Can you even show that minimal fairness, or are you so caught in your own ferocious partishanship that you’re nothing but a mouthpiece.
I show you what a minimally fair review could be, and you don’t seem to learn.
I suspect that reason is useless with you. You want to define reasonable behavior by me and mine as unreasonable. We don’t see it that way, and since we not only have the preponderance of ideas, brains, and numbers, and this is a democracy, well, you’re out of luck. If you choose to make this a simple contest of power, you lose.
Of course you’ll deny that, but the last thirty years of the Conservative Revolution boom louder than you can yell. Its ‘liberal’ thats a curse word, after all.
Tennwriter
Comment by Tennwriter — August 1, 2007 #