…Otherwise, there’s just really no explanation for the lengths his campaign is going to talk around the obvious. — Well, unless we’ve been taking his whole “I’d really like to win this thing” business far too literally.

Kim Crawford, whose O’Connor-inspired post I linked here a week or so back, responds to his liberal “critics” — most notably James Wolcott and Andrew Sullivan. — Both of whom, let’s face it, are approaching the latter Truman Capote-does-the-Merv-Griffin-show-in-the-hopes-someone-of-note-will-come-to-his-parties portions of their professional lives. May their fine terrycloth housecoats absorb their weepy despair in cool cotton comfort, is all I can offer them by way of commiseration. Though in a

Give Jack Cashill credit: attempts to get him off this story by progressive “intellectuals” intent on declaring it absurd on its face have done nothing to dissuade the professor from continuing his investigation. In my first post on the subject, I noted that I was unconvinced, at least to that point, by what Cashill had uncovered. Still, were his charges true, I noted that, under the conditions of such a

**fresh posts below this most recent feeble attempt to get money**