McBride remarks that she laughed when she saw a headline saying "Clinton vows to improve healthcare". She then asks "Didn't she have her chance, circa 1993?"
We at Whallah can appreciate where she is coming from. We are still laughing from from this headline, thinking didn't Paul have his chance at a state seat, circa 2006?
And of course, Whallah would also like to remind the gentle reader of Rule #83: Paul Bucher has never been a judge, not even for one day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
see if you can spot the bias in the Sentinel article, not just what's on the page, but what's not. If Bucher wins the nomination, which is unlikely given how much he has alienated mainstream Republicans (not to mention his nutjob of a wife), he can count on the throaty support of the Sentinel news pages. Also, if Van Hollen is "well-heeled," is Bucher merely a heel?
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my blog, I'd love to see Bucher v. Butler. I think it'd be tremendously entertaining to see Bucher get his ass handed to him in yet another statewide election.
ReplyDeleteIf Bucher ran again (please, God, let it be so), the press corps would be obligated to ask how he would interpret Lawrence v. Texas in relation to the laws on the books about adultery, and how his serial adultery (and that of the likes of McBride and Sykes and Belling-well, not him) relates to his interpretation. If these people want to get into the bedroom, then let their hyocrisy be exposed as well. (Though I'd rather the McBuchers keep their clothes on.)
ReplyDelete