Wonkette goes to some trouble to thoroughly debunk rumors (from Page Six of the New York Post, no less!) that Senator Kerry plans to give Terry McAuliffe the axe. I’m still trying to figure out whether she’s just making fun of Drudge’s often-hysterical (both of the major definitions apply here, actually) writing style or not. ‘Course, I’m also wondering why the Democrats are keeping a guy who orchestrated their disastrous showing in 2002 and came up with the primary schedule that ensured Kerry the nomination, but then I’m just a VRWC Death Beast and a noted philistine.
No, really: we’re number one for Google Searches for definition philistine. Am I proud of this little bit of referrer log trivia? Ya, you betcha.
Well darn it, congratulations on being number one!! As for McAuliffe, what’s the benefit in removing him? He’s a great go-to guy for low-road politicking (you remember the Nat’l Guard story, yes?), and like it or not, there will be plenty of opportunities for same in the coming election. (Becuz the only thing meaner than a cornered rattlensnake is a Bush who thinks he’s about to lose an election.)
Seems to me these guys are never the sort you’d like to have a couple drinks with (Charlie Black? Not a chance.) And while that need not necessarily be the best way to define a person’s value. Well, close enuf, says me.
“Well darn it, congratulations on being number one!!”
Thankyew. Thankyewvurrymuch.
“As for McAuliffe, what’s the benefit in removing him?”
Fair enough: if you think that you can some sort of use out of him, far be it from me to get in your way. Just thought I’d give that alternate viewpoint, and all. 🙂
I thought McAuliffe’s main virtue was as a money magnet, don’t know he does it, but I thought it was his rep.
After 2002 Florida, I sure wouldn’t keep him as a strategist.