Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be. -- John Wayne
The 25 Most Influential People On The Right According To Conservative Bloggers
Right Wing News emailed more than 235 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be the most influential people on the right. Representatives from the following 54 blogs responded...
All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-12 unranked selections and were allowed to choose anybody on the right or generally perceived to be on the right that they liked: Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, politician, preacher, blogger, columnist, radio host, you name it!
Without further ado, here are their selections with the number of votes beside of each selection:
#25: Mark Levin: 6
#21) Hugh Hewitt: 7
#21) George Will: 7
#21) John Roberts: 7
#21) Ronald Reagan: 7
#20) Victor David Hanson: 8
#19) Antonin Scalia: 9
#18) John McCain: 10
#14) Glenn Beck: 11
#14) George W. Bush: 11
#14) Glenn Reynolds: 11
#14) Matt Drudge: 11
#13) Bill Kristol: 12
#10) Charles Krauthammer: 13
#10) Thomas Sowell: 13
#10) Laura Ingraham: 13
#9) Karl Rove: 14
#8) Jonah Goldberg: 15
#7) Bill O'Reilly: 17
#5) Newt Gingrich: 21
#5) Ann Coulter: 21
#3) Mark Steyn: 23
#3) Sean Hannity: 23
#2) Michelle Malkin: 24
#1) Rush Limbaugh: 49
Cassy Fiano: "God, you're a whale. ROFL. Hate to break it to you, hunny, but liberals don't WANT to date you." (W/ hot pic)
Cracked: The 6 creepiest comic book characters of all time
Rittenhouse: The worst Honeymoon story evah!
Rachel Lucas: How about 8 things he hates about you?
Hollywood Tuna: Marisa Miller bikini pictures
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
John Hawkins | 06:30 AM |
(0)
(0)
My Latest Townhall Column: The Republican Party's Real Problem In A Nutshell
How do you win elections when your supporters are unenthusiastic, people are sick of your political party, and money is in short supply? Unfortunately, in 2006, the answer was, "You don't."
In 2006, Republicans lost 6 seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House. Although it's far too early to say for sure, judging by the direction the political winds are blowing, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the GOP loses another 4-6 seats in the Senate and an additional 10-15 House seats this time around.
So, why does the GOP seem to be trapped in this recurring political nightmare?
There are a plethora of different reasons for it: the war in Iraq, gas prices, a soft economy, George Bush's lack of communication skills, corruption scandals, the illegal immigration brouhaha, nominee John McCain, out-of-control spending -- you can go on and on.
However, there is one overriding problem that dwarfs all the others, a problem that few people in the leadership of the Republican Party seem to have come to grips with. That problem is...
The RWN List Of 19 Things Every Man Should Be Able To Do
Esquire has a list of the The 75 Skills Every Man Should Master. Although it's a fun list, they left out a few essentials and went heavy on the fluff. Here's the RWN list of the 19 things every man should be able to do,
1) Shoot a gun.
2) Catch a fish.
3) Throw a punch.
4) Take a punch.
5) Know how to deal with a dog that is acting aggressively.
6) Know what to do if a tornado or hurricane hits.
7) Cook a steak and a baked potato.
8) Jump-start a car.
9) Change a tire.
10) Drive a stick shift.
11) Give a firm handshake.
12) Read a map.
13) Handle a budget.
14) Swim.
15) Tie a tie.
16) Give a 5 minute speech.
17) Comfort someone who has just had a loved one die.
18) Negotiate a raise or a price on something he's going to buy.
19) Tell a pushy salesman "no."
John Hawkins | 06:25 AM |
(34)
(0)
Advertising Promo
Hey, it would be really great if you could click on a few of my advertisers to show them that advertising on Right Wing News pays off for them. The more clicks they get, the better value they get for their money, the more likely they are to advertise here again...
PS: If you'd like to purchase a banner ad on Right Wing News for a month, you can get it for $60. If you're interested, click here and follow the instructions.
John Hawkins | 06:24 AM |
(0)
(0)
Irony Alert: A Democrat Complains About People Being Split Into Groups?
I found this quote from Democratic strategist Donna Brazile to be deliciously ironic,
"Paul, baby, we need to not divide and polarize the Democratic Party. . . . So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups, Paul, because you and I know . . . how Democrats win, and to simply suggest that Hillary's coalition is better than Obama's, Obama's is better than Hillary's -- no. We have a big party, Paul." And: "Just don't divide me and tell me I cannot stand in Hillary's camp because I'm black, and I can't stand in Obama's camp because I'm female. Because I'm both. . . . Don't start with me, baby." Finally: "It's our party, Paul. Don't say my party. It's our party. Because it's time that we bring the party back together, Paul."
"So stop the divisions. Stop trying to split us into these groups..." -- you've got to be kidding me. The Democratic Party is all about identity politics and so splitting people into groups is at the core of what the Democratic Party does.
It's black vs. white, women vs. men, North vs. South, atheists vs. Christians, successful people vs. unsuccessful people, the poor vs. businesses, on and on and on. Heck, both of their candidates? Barack Obama wouldn't be a contender is he wasn't black and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a contender if she wasn't a woman.
So, of course they're dividing and splitting each other into groups; promoting envy, jealousy, and hatred between different groups of Americans is the bread and butter of the Democratic Party.
John Hawkins | 05:30 AM |
(14)
(0)
Why We Need Gitmo
If you want to see a great example of why Gitmo is absolutely necessary and why it would be a disaster to feed the terrorists we capture through our justice system, this story is it,
An extremist Muslim cleric regarded as "Osama bin Laden's spiritual ambassador in Europe" must be released on bail, a judge ruled today.
Abu Qatada, 48, who won his legal fight against deportation to Jordan last month, will be freed from prison under strict bail conditions amounting to 22-hour house arrest despite the fact that he is still deemed to be a threat to national security.
The cleric applied to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) for bail on the grounds that it was inhumane to detain him indefinitely if there was no prospect of his being deported.
The order to release him is the latest in a series of judicial decisions which undermine the Government's stance on terrorism.
In the past year, the courts have effectively rewritten sections of terrorism legislation and ruled that financial sanctions on terror suspects were absurd and unlawful.
The earlier judgment on Abu Qatada's deportation wrecked the policy of drawing up "memoranda of understanding" for the return of suspects to Middle East countries with poor human rights records.
Further embarrassments are likely to follow. The Times understands that the head of an Algerian terrorist network which plotted bomb attacks in Europe and north America is also seeking to be released because the courts have thwarted attempts to deport him.
Get ready, folks, because whether we end up with McCain, Obama, or Hillary in the White House, this is probably what our future looks like.
The Daily Kos Post Of The Day: Am I Supposed To Love America?
If you want to know why Barack Obama didn't hold his hand over his heart while the National Anthem was playing or why he made such a big deal out of not wearing a flag pin, it was so he could appeal to the sort of people who read the Daily Kos.
Is that a stretch? Well, read this excerpt from a post by Daily Kos diarist Tsukasa Buddha,
Am I supposed to love America? I mean, I think it is rather silly when politicians say it is the greatest country in the world.
...Now, of course I realize that politicians are merely engaging in fluffy, feel good hyperbole, but it is just a pet peeve of mine.
...But I don't understand how you are expected to love your country. It really just doesn't make any sense to me; it is like dividing by zero.
Patriotism also seems largely irrational to me.
...I am not quite sure why it would be a bad thing that a person did not love America, or was not proud of it (Of course, pride is another matter entirely, but I disagree with it in general).
And then there is the whole "sharing American values", that both sides use, which I just completely don't get.
Is that a common sentiment at the Daily Kos? Indeed, it is and there's a poll up at the Daily Kos that confirms it. There aren't a lot of responses yet, but so far 67% of the Kossacks when asked, "Do you love America (If not American, use your own country)?" say either, "I am annoyed by America, but I'll stick with it," or, "I want to plan to pack my bags and leave."
My friend, there is a reason why liberals get accused of being unpatriotic -- it's because so many of them are unpatriotic. There's also a reason why conservatives are generally considered to be more patriotic than liberals -- it's because we are.
John Hawkins | 09:39 AM |
(171)
(0)
Scientists Baffled By Concept Of Personal Responsibility
Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."
To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.
If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.
...The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.
The same rationalizing phenomena could apply to personal situations as well.
"There is no reason to think that the effects we have identified here are unique to economic forms of inequality," the researchers write. "Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor."
The current study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
It's not called "rationalization," it's called a belief in personal responsibility, and it's the biggest, but not the only factor in being a happy person.
People who take responsibility for their own lives and believe that other people need to do the same tend to be much happier people.
Why? Because if you have a problem, you don't wait for someone else to fix it for you, you take care of it yourself. Similarly, if someone else has a problem, you may try to help him out because you're a decent person, but ultimately, you feel like it's his responsibility.
Not only is taking responsibility empowering, it's much more in line with how the world really works. That's because the government is slow, stupid, and inefficient while other people and countries are much more interested in themselves than you.
So, if you blame other people for how your life is turning out or wait for other people to solve your problems, you're disempowering yourself and setting yourself up to have an unhappy life.
PS: This may be a bit unintuitive to some people, but it's also people who believe in personal responsibility who tend to do more good in the world and give more to charity (Yes, studies show that conservatives are not just happier, they give more). Why is that? Because if you take personal responsibility and get your own life together, you are in a position to contribute to others if you so desire, you feel like it's your personal responsibility to help, and you have more compassion for people who are struggling because you have done it yourself to succeed.
John Hawkins | 09:29 AM |
(33)
(0)
Rush Limbaugh Is Encouraging Violence?
Over at the HuffPo, Jeffrey Feldman is actually accusing Rush Limbaugh of trying to incite violence with Operation Chaos,
For weeks, now, Rush Limbaugh has been trying to incite political violence by giving on-air military-sounding orders, effectively 'commanding' his listeners to wage war against the U.S. electoral system.
The right-wing pundit's 'orders' to his Republican listeners have been clear: vote in the Democratic primaries as a coordinated tactic for sewing division in the opposition party. The goal of such 'chaos,' Limbaugh has stated explicitly, is to foment hatred between different parts of the Democratic Party leading, ultimately, to street riots during the Denver convention.
...Most Americans would agree that using radio to incite political violence is not only wrong, but the attempt itself represents a massive failure in our democracy. How Limbaugh's broadcasts differ from, say, radio broadcasts that incited violence in Rwanda and Kenya, for example, can help us to understand exactly what Limbaugh was doing and the exact danger it poses.
...The violence in Limbaugh's broadcasts, in other words, is not just the attempt to incite riots, but also a way of defining the Left as destructive murderers of children--as a violent threat to the American people.
In Rwanda, the radio broadcasts did not just invoke Hutu to kill Tutsi's, but did so by claiming falsely that Tutsi's had killed large numbers of Hutu and that, therefore, Hutu must form self-defense groups to prevent Tutsi from killing again. Defining Tutsi as murderers, in other words, was a crucial part of violent Hutu broadcasts that led to the genocide of Tutsi.
So, encouraging Republicans to vote with an eye towards extending the Democratic primary is the equivalent of Hutus encouraging other Hutus to go into the street and butcher Tutsis with machetes.
That's an intriguing argument, especially given the sort of regular arguments that are made by liberals in these days and times. If you read liberal blogs and forums, you will regularly come across posts:
* Accusing conservatives of being Nazis.
* Accusing Bush of being worse than Hitler.
* Accusing Bush of going to war just to enrich his oil buddies.
* Accusing conservatives of being fascists.
* Accusing conservatives of wanting to round up liberals and put them in camps.
* Accusing conservatives of wanting to replace the government with a theocracy.
* Accusing Bush of being behind 9/11.
* Cheering the deaths of conservatives.
Now, ask yourself: would it be morally wrong to kill someone who's "worse than Hitler?" How about killing the person behind the WTC attacks, Osama Bin Laden? Would you be morally OK with putting a gun to his head and shooting him? What if someone were going to round you up and take you to a death camp based on your political beliefs? Would it be immoral to murder him? Point being, standard liberal rhetoric that you hear every day would logically lead towards violence if they believed their own BS.
So, for Feldman to make this convoluted argument that Limbaugh is actually encouraging violence by encouraging conservatives to help keep the Democratic race going is amazingly hypocritical when you have liberals declaring that Bush is behind 9/11 and worse than Hitler every day.
Over at USA Today, Don Campbell wrote a pretty good column called the "Wright story: What took so long?" Well, it was good except for one thing -- the author didn't answer his own question,
Barring some really strange math or a lot of second thoughts, the Democrats seem poised to nominate for president a man with the fewest credentials and least familiarity to the American people of anyone in modern history. It's just one more way that Barack Obama is breaking the mold, and barring a major shift, he should give some of the credit to the news media.
...The record shows that publications such as the Chicago Tribune newspaper and Rolling Stone magazine had detected the controversial nature of Obama's church about the time he entered the presidential race, in early 2007. Soon after the announcement speech, moreover, Wright himself volunteered to The New York Times that he had been disinvited to give the invocation at Obama's presidential launch because of the baggage he would bring to the podium. That set off conservative bloggers and talkers, but little or no follow-up in the regular or so-called mainstream news media.
More than a year passed before ABC News' Brian Ross had the clever idea to purchase videos of Wright's sermons to review them. The most incendiary clips quickly landed on YouTube, and the rest is history. The news media were dragged into the controversy holding their noses, but by then Obama had the goal line in sight.
...Speculation aside, Obama has been ill-served by a press corps that seemingly was mesmerized by the large, frenzied crowds who turn out to see the Democratic rock star. Crowds can be deceiving: McGovern, nobody's idea of a rock star, attracted huge and exuberant crowds throughout the fall of 1972 — on his way to losing 49 states to Richard Nixon.
...More than two years ago, at a Gridiron Club news media dinner in Washington, Obama poked fun at his meager accomplishments when he told his audience: "I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know."
But the joke was on the journalists then, and now that Obama is about to actually do something, it still is.
See? There are a lot of great lines in there, but no answer to the very obvious question: "What took so long?"
Well, we could just as easily ask, "What took the press so long to cover the allegations by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth back in 2004?"
After all, the Swifties formed before Kerry captured the nomination and his anti-war protesting wasn't exactly a secret. Moreover, the Swift Boat Vets were veterans, many of them had served with Kerry, they were credible -- moreso than Kerry himself -- and they actually blew huge holes in some of Kerry's stories.
Yet, despite the fact that they were getting enormous coverage on talk radio and in the blogosphere, the mainstream media almost completely ignored them until Kerry responded to them publicly and then they simply aped the Democratic line, "Their allegations have been disproven," without ever giving their arguments a serious looksie.
Another clue that may help answer Don Campbell's question was the huge outcry on the Left after the ABC debate, where Obama bombed when he had to actually answer some tough questions about Jeremiah Wright, his refusal to wear a flag pin, and his connections to terrorist William Ayers.
So, why didn't the media hit Obama on Wright earlier? Why didn't they cover the Swift Boat Vets for Truth earlier? Why was there such a protest over Barack Obama being asked tough questions in a debate?
It's the same answer to every question: the mainstream media is mostly comprised of liberals, they do what they can to try to help their candidate win, and they generally think it helps to give Democrats a pass on tough issues. Are they right? I'm not sure that they are, especially in an age where the new media makes sure that these issues eventually come to people's attention.
Republicans are used to tough vetting and being treated unfairly by the media, so when the hammer drops -- and eventually, it almost always does even for liberals -- GOP candidates are usually well prepared. That's often not the case for liberals. They often have weaknesses exposed late in the game and do a poor job of handling it because they're simply not used to getting really tough questions from the press.
When the Republicans were picking a candidate, I was happy to see Mitt's Mormonism, McCain's age, Huckabee's sermons, and Rudy's marital trysts getting attention -- because you can be sure that all of those things would be discussed ad nauseum during a long campaign.
Had the Wright story broken earlier in the game, Hillary, who is the stronger candidate of the two, would probably now be in the catbird's seat instead of Barack. Maybe that won't make a difference in a year where the Democrats have a wind at their back, but if Obama gets the nomination and goes down to defeat, the MSM's aborted attempt to protect him for so long will have a lot to do with it.
John Hawkins | 07:44 AM |
(10)
(0)
The New York Times On Judges
Some people believe that liberals and conservatives are just flip sides of the same coin when it comes to the judiciary, but that's not so. Conservatives believe judges should adhere to the original intent of the Constitution and not try to usurp the role of the legislature. On the other hand most liberals care little about the Constitution and view judges as just another way to advance left-wing policies.
Quotes like the following, from the New York Times, help give the game away,
"Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need." -- The New York Times via Newsbusters
So, among other things, judges with "strict adherence to the Founders’ views" are "just what the country does not need?" That's like saying, "Umpires who impartially do their job, without favor to either team, are just what this sport doesn't need."
Mark Ambinder: 7 reasons why Clinton should stay in the race
Cassy Fiano: Hollywood insults Christianity... again
Popoholic: More Elisha Cuthbert bikini goodness
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
John Hawkins | 07:14 AM |
(5)
(0)
Video Of The Day: Cobra Commander's Yes We Shall!
This ad, which makes fun of Obama's "Yes We Can" video, is the best political parody I have ever seen and it's hella funny.
Update #1: Just in case you haven't seen the famous "Yes We Can" video this is parodying, here it is,
John Hawkins | 06:34 AM |
(11)
(0)
May 07, 2008
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: Detention Camp Being Set Up In Iowa?
Liberals have been beating the "they're going to round us up and stick us in camps" bongo drum, on and off, since back in the sixties -- at least.
Federal officials have imposed a news blackout at the National Cattle Congress fairgrounds in Waterloo, where they have leased almost the entire property through May 25.
Tim Counts, a Midwest spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, declined to say Monday whether an immigration raid is pending that would use the fairgrounds as a detention center.
Advertisement
"ICE never talks about our investigative activity or possible future enforcement actions," Counts said. "Regarding the exercise in Waterloo, there is currently no publicly releasable information about that, so we aren't releasing any."
Personally, I'd be thrilled if ICE actually did their job and rounded up and detained enough illegals to fill up the entire fairgrounds, but the reaction at the DU was, let us see, just a touch different.
zonmoy: They are more likely to cause a false flag attack to blame either on iran or on the anti war movement so they can declare martial law and round up all dissenters.
smoogatz: Immigration may just be the cover. Looks more and more like Cheney's preparing to impose martial law.
nichomachus: But they didn't have the resources to help the people of New Orleans
This just shows that they can do this sort of thing when they want to, telling us that in New Orleans they just didn't want to.
It also shows how quickly they can move to set up detention centers if they want to impose some kind of martial law.
Wiley50: Prison planet is one thing, but the DesMoines Register is something else entirely
Any rumors of anything like this going on elsewhere in the country?
It could be immigration
But, then again
It could be prep for possible riots if we attack Iran
or
Maybe they plan some obviously stolen primaries to fix the nomination.
They sure seem like they really want to run against Hil and, considering who they're running, they may even want her to win in November
Strange Days Indeed!
TwoSparkles: Just my gut feeling...?
Our government is slowly getting us used to the "rounding up" of people and also the detention of people in camps.
First, they start with "illegals" that they have worked so diligently to dehumanize and incite hate against.
They figure, if we see these people as less-than-human--we won't care so much when they are rounded up and put in closed-off camps.
Then, when our brains are accustomed to this happening--others will be rounded up--dissenters, anti-war activists, etc.
Are people in this country, really so slovenly and ignorant? Do they not realize what is happening? After what happened with the Jewish people and the detention camps there---no country should ever be allowed to
create circumstances that are similar. No groups of people should be "rounded up." No groups of people should be detained in camps, in situations where they are closed off from the public.
That's just sick.
Why would our government even want to behave in this inhumane way?
These actions are the precursors to a concentration-camp-type situation. This shouldn't be happening.
Does anyone trust that the thugs in charge now...are doing nothing wrong and that this is all very innocent?
warren pease: What makes you think the Bushies have any intention of leaving next January...
...peacefully and on schedule just because the 22nd amendment says they have to? Which other parts of the Constitution have they obeyed to the letter? The part about how it's OK to use signing statements in place of the usual legislative process? The part that specifies that rule by executive fiat is the ultimate form of egalitarian government? The part prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment?...
...Do you get the faintest hint that they're really not f*cking around anymore? Or is this all just one big bizarre coincidence and there's really no sinister pattern at all. There nothing to indicate that the legal and physical infrastructures necessary to implement a full blown national security state are all in place and just waiting for the Bushies to flip the switch.
On the one hand, this stuff is so pathetic and out of touch with reality that you almost want to go, "Are you people out of your minds? Do you really think Bush is going to try to stay in power and throw people in camps for disagreeing with him? How in the would could you believe that is going to happen?"
On the other hand, it's not unusual to see liberals on the net that want to see Bush, Rove, Cheney, and their other political enemies actually thrown in jail for disagreeing with them. So, at least a few of these people probably think Bush will implement martial law and start throwing people in camps because it's what they would do if they were in his place. That puts some of this wackiness into a slightly different perspective.
Best Week Ever: The top 10 most questionable stars on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame
Popoholic: Elisha Cuthbert's bikini pics
You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!
PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.
John Hawkins | 08:59 AM |
(3)
(0)
Wal-Mart: The Poor Americans' Best Friend
The Left loves to attack Wal-Mart because...
Fake Reasons
1) They don't pay their employees enough.
2) Their health care plans are insufficiently generous.
3) They drive inefficient small shops out of business.
Real Reasons
1) They despise successful people and corporations.
2) Wal-Mart refuses to ruin their business by knuckling in to the unions.
However, the truth is that Wal-Mart has been an enormous boon to poor Americans because it has saved them so much money.
Wal-Mart Stores said Monday it will offer 90-day prescriptions of some generics for $10, add several women's medications at a discount and lower the prices of more than 1,000 over-the-counter medications to $4 or less.
The move marks the third phase of $4 prescription program, which began in 2006 and has saved customers more than $1 billion, Wal-Mart said.
With the expansion, the company began filling prescriptions Monday for up to 350 generic medications at $10 for a 90-day supply at Wal-Mart, Neighborhood Market and Sam's Club pharmacies in the U.S.
In addition, the company will add several women's medications to its list of prescriptions available for $9, including drugs to treat breast cancer and hormone deficiency.
For instance, alendronate, the generic version of osteoporosis medication Fosamax, will be added to the list. Company pharmacies will fill 30-day prescriptions of alendronate for $9 and a 90-day supply for $24 at a comparison of $54 and $102, respectively, that women previously paid for the same amounts, the company said.
Wal-Mart also will lower the prices of more than 1,000 over-the-counter medications to $4 or less in its pharmacies, company officials said. The over-the-counter medication price rollbacks represent about one-third of the retailer's over-the-counter medicines. Included in the program are generic versions of versions of Zantac, Pepcid and Claritin.
I shop at Wal-Mart about once a week on average and I've bought everything from groceries, to the TV in my office, to my vacuum cleaner there. Over the course of my lifetime, I've had thousands of dollars extra to spend because Wal-Mart's prices are so much lower than those of their competitors. I have also gotten to take advantage of their drug program.
Early last year, I had to buy some antibiotics. Online? They cost $50. At the local pharmacy? Roughly $30. At Wal-Mart? $4. Moreover, my doctor recently wrote me a precription for drugs that just a few months ago would have cost -- I kid you not -- $600 out of pocket. But now, thanks to Wal-Mart, I will be buying those exact same drugs for $18.
If the Left really cared about the poor, as opposed to seeing them as living, breathing vanity projects that exist primarily so that liberals can pump up their own self-esteem by handing them other people's money, then libs would be the biggest supporters Wal-Mart could ever hope to have.
John Hawkins | 07:10 AM |
(151)
(0)
Quote Of The Day #2: Teresa Heinz Obama Strikes Again!
"Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairytale" to describe her husband's characterization of his position on the Iraq war, (Michelle Obama) first responded: "No."
But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: "I want to rip his eyes out!"
Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: "Kidding! See, this is what gets me into trouble." -- WorldNetDaily
John Hawkins | 07:03 AM |
(15)
(0)
Analysis Of The Democratic Race Post-Indiana/North Carolina
Yesterday, Hillary won a squeaker in Indiana while Obama blew her out in North Carolina.
What does that mean?
It is being spun by Obama's supporters in the mainstream media as a huge "Game Over" moment, but the truth is that the situation essentially remains unchanged unless Hillary shocks everyone and decides to drop out of the race or a large number of superdelegates use this as an excuse to come out en masse for Obama.
Clinton received the support of 60 percent of white voters in both states, while Obama got 40 percent of the white vote in Indiana and 36 percent in North Carolina. Obama won the overwhelming majority of black voters: 92 percent in Indiana and 91 percent in North Carolina.
...Looking ahead to the general election, CBS News exit polling showed that the majority of voters said that they would not be satisfied if the Democratic candidate they did not support were to become the nominee. Only 35 percent of Clinton voters in Indiana and 34 percent in North Carolina said they would be satisfied with Obama. Forty percent of Obama voters in Indiana and 45 percent in North Carolina would be satisfied if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.
So, once again, it's Hillary's supporters, not Obama's, that are more likely to sit at home or vote for McCain in November if their candidate doesn't get the nod. Moreover, Obama is still losing the white vote by a landslide and since, unlike the black vote, white voters are actually up for grabs in November, that's a big deal.
Those are very troubling trends for the Democrats indeed, if, as expected, Obama ends up as their nominee.
John Hawkins | 06:15 AM |
(51)
(0)
Quote Of The Day: All That Stuff I Said About Security First? Forget It!
"We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform." -- John McCain
Despite the fact that John McCain has spent months saying that he learned his lesson from the immigration debacle, absolutely nobody seems to believe him when he says that he's going to secure the border before pursuing an amnesty.
So, when he says something like the above quote, which I expect to see frantic "clarifying" press releases from his campaign on later today, it just reinforces the impression that everyone already has: you can't believe what he has to say about immigration.
PS: Could this be McCain floating a trial balloon? Could he be getting ready to openly switch back to a pro-comprehensive immigration position? That's possible because I think that's what McCain really wants to do in his heart of hearts, but I doubt if he'll go through with it. I mean, even George Bush, Sr. didn't break his "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" pledge until AFTER he got elected. If McCain were to support any sort of comprehensive immigration bill at this point, after spending months on the campaign trail saying we need security before a path-to-citizenship, it would torpedo his presidential run -- and deservedly so.
Just as a little change of pace, I thought I'd post my current 40 favorite songs. If I had to cut the number of songs on my MP3 player down to 40 for the next week, these are the ones that would get the nod,
Asian Dub Foundation: Fortress Europe
Ben Folds: B*tches Ain't Sh*t
Brooks & Dunn: Hillbilly Deluxe
Chris Brown: Wall to Wall
Disturbed: Down With the Sickness
DMX: Bring Your Whole Crew
Dynamite Hack: Boyz in the Hood
Dynamite Hack: Gin and Juice
Evanescence: Wake Me Up Inside
Gin Blossoms: Hey Jealousy
Gnarls Barkley: Crazy
Hinder: Lips Of An Angel
Hurricane: Ay Bay Bay
John Cena: Bad Bad Man
Kill Hannah: Lips Like Morphine
Kayne West: Stronger
Lil Wayne: Stunting Like My Daddy
Lily Allen: Oh My God
Ludacris: Stand Up
Lupe Fiasco: Superstar
Mims: This is Why I'm Hot
Nickelback: I Wanna Be A Rockstar
Nickelback: If Everyone Cared
Pink: Who Knew
Plain White T's: Hey There Delilah
P.O.D.: Boom
Rammstein: Reise Reise
Regina Spektor: Fidelity
Rob Zombie: Dragula
Rodney Adkins: If You're Going Through Hell
Saliva: Click Click Boom
Saliva: Ladies and Gentlemen
Seether: Out of My Way
Snow Patrol: Chasing Cars
Snow Patrol: Chocolate
The Last Goodnight: Pictures of You
The White Stripes: You Don't Know What Love Is
The White Stripes: Icky Thump
Yael Naim: New Soul
Zacariah: Worst Dressed
The website of the day is 
