A Weighty Issue!!

I have no doubt that if we did a poll just here we would see that there are plenty of both democrats and republicans who have been overweight. My mother was a democrat, my father was a republican. (boy that was interesting around the house at election time!) Both had a weight problem. It would be interesting to know how each party felt about issues regarding obesity. Making fun of obese people is done every day because the ones doing it think they're being funny due to their ignorance, many people who hear it will keep quiet so as not to draw attention to themselves, others will actually laugh along with them. I for one would much rather have someone who was obese working for this country and my concerns than someone skinny and so narrow minded they can't see the real issues. After all, we all know when you're obese you have to work twice as hard to prove yourself!!! Lulu -89

Some folks' Momma just didn't raise them right....I'm glad to see, Dex, that yours did... Smoochies & Hugs Arlies

Well, I can certainly understand yours and the others disillusionment with commentators that would be so base as to feel the need to make such crass comments on an anyone's weight... I simply can't stand either of the two talk show host you cited for more reasons than I could possibly have time to go into at this moment. As a conservative, I feel these two are anathema to our cause. To state categorically that these two are an embarrassment is to be too generous indeed. Be in no doubt, sir, I will likely get flamed and probably some hate mail for this, but I just can't stay silent here. I have sufficient ego strength to weather the storm. I would argue there are far more weighty issues at hand. Such insensitive comments by a couple of blowhards won't matter much if we are DEAD, and that this election will likely be the most IMPORTANT in ourLIFETIME. Trusting a party that would place our decision making of national security ENTIRELY at the hands of what we now fully know is a CORRUPT body like the UN will likely get us killed. Might I suggest you give a wonderfully thoughtful, fair minded talk show host Hugh Hewitt a try. To hear such POLITE INTELLIGENT, thoughtful political discourse is truly a refreshing change from some of the hate mongering that emanates from both sides of the aisle. He's a nationally syndicated talk show host on the Salem network. In the event you cannot hear him in your market you can stream his broadcast via his site. Please See HughHewitt.com I think one reviewer demonstrates some of your overall disappointment in the talk show circuit quite well in reviewing Hugh's newest book at Amazon.com ... Short title: "IF IT'S NOT CLOSE THEY CAN'T CHEAT..." "Reviewer: Mike Hertz (Temple City) A few years ago early on a Tuesday morning, I'm driving to work listening to the radio. When the host of the show returned from break w/out the usual "bumper music" I knew something was up. My bubble of a world was popped. My first "JFK/what were you doing when you heard...." experience had just occurred, and since then, unlike so many Americans, I have not forgotten. Hugh Hewitt was the radio voice who broke the news of 911 to me. I listen to a lot of talk radio but eventually, I get tired of hearing the usual group of conservative hosts out there, even though I agree with them on most everything. Michael Medved is a horrible movie critic. Michael Savage is nothing more than a crazy man. Imus needs his ass kicked. Pragers not as smart as some people think. Rush is right, but he's an ass. But Hugh Hewitt is a man so decent, funny and so intelligent, on talk radio he stands alone. IF IT'S NOT CLOSE THEY CAN'T CHEAT... has all the talking points and gives them in the most concise way. This book nails it. In it, Hugh includes the texts of Dubya's great speeches and he highlights the most powerful parts. And by the way, anyone who thinks President Bush is just reading what speech writers have written for him, you're wrong. Read Karen Hugh's "Ten Minutes From Normal", or David Frum's "The Right Man", or even liberal journalist Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" and you'll see he's really the one in charge. Stick with "it's all about the oil!!!" Idiots. Also, there's a history of voting corruption that's fascinating, and as someone who appreciates great quotes from great men, the book has many. I am a proud UNION iron worker. Because of our training and hard fought wage I make a decent living, enough to support a wife and 4 kids. However, I'll go dig ditches or ride my bike and hang out in front the Home Depot before I'll vote for a worm like John Kerry and....[redacted] Edwards. Get the book, read it, take notes and then give it away. HURRY. Our lives really may depend on it." It's must read regardless of your political persuasions. Rock

More morsels from Hewitt. An illustrative interview by K-Lo from NRO. Pay particular attention to the final question posed at interview's end. "NRO: Why does my life depend on W. winning?" "InstaDNC Hugh Hewitt on the Dems, the Net & more. Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, blogger, and author of the new book If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It. He e-mailed with NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez from the Fleet Center on the final night of the Democratic convention about the Democrats, the Internet, and the November election. National Review Online:You've spent the week in the Fleet Center, among bloggers. How did that work? Was there enough for people to be blogging on? Was it your sense it was an opportunity well used by the blogosphere? HUGH HEWITT: My radio show airs from 6 to 9 pm EST, so I blogged from the blogger WiFi area on the 7th floor from the morning until late afternoon. It wasn't crowded during that period, but those bloggers that showed up during those early hours -- Command Post, CampaignDesk, The Librarian, Opinions You Should Have, and Technorati -- made for great company and excellent conversation. Facilities were inadequate, and the television signal kept covering the WiFi and dropping the connection as a result. Blogging from the radio set was much easier as I had a direct connection. Bloggers acquitted themselves well because they are a very smart group. In fact, I think it is hard to overstate how much better informed Matt Yglesias, Matt Welch, Mickey Kaus, and Tim Blair -- all of whom I interviewed on air -- are than every elected official I interviewed. These are serious thinkers though with good humor mixed in, and the blogosphere is simply the democratization of punditry, with the result that talent wins. The arrival of the bloggers is a big deal. They'll never not be here in the future, and now the question is who gets to blog the debates? That's a very big credential, and I think the Bush and Kerry campaigns ought to give some serious thought to whom they want in the front row, providing the instant spin from the room. I nominate myself, Lileks, Tim Blair, Insty, and, of course, a Corner representative. That would allow for five Lefties, making it a sort of Olympics of blogging. The election cycle is not far off when a candidate debate is moderated by bloggers. Does anyone doubt that any of the bloggers I list would ask far more interesting, provocative, and revealing questions than the debate questioners of the past? NRO:There's a lot of dishonesty at these conventions. It's a marketing show. What is the point of any of us covering it? HEWITT: As Virginia Postrel might say: look and feel. It is all about look and feel. The podium speakers are acting the part of Penelope in the Odyssey -- unraveling all that has been woven by the delegates during the day, or in this case, by Michael Moore during the day. It is a hard-Left group of delegates, and Moore's their crown prince even if Kerry's king for a day. Moore's speech on Tuesday was remarkable -- I have transcribed and posted it at HughHewitt.com. Folks should read it, and do so with the shot of Moore and Carter together in mind. So being here gives you a very good sense of the nature and scale of the deception and an opportunity to report it. NRO:Who was the worst speaker of the week, in your estimation, and why? HEWITT: Pass. I was on the air too much of the primetime to see many of the nominees in this category. NRO:Who was the best speaker of the week, and why? HEWITT: As noted above, I missed a lot. The reflected glow of the Barack Obama debut is pretty hard to escape, of course, but Bill Clinton is fully rehabbed after his disbarment and pardons scandal. I wouldn't have been surprised to run into Marc Rich on the 6th floor. NRO: What does Bush need to do to win this election? HEWITT: Speak clearly and repeatedly about the central issue of the campaign: Which candidate will better lead the nation in the war on terror? It is a war -- not as Kerry's senior foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said yesterday, a struggle -- and it will go on for a very long time. On any given day, the U.S. might find itself devastated by an attack the Dems seem to spend a lot of time trying not to imagine. The views of Bush and Kerry are so radically different on how the war ought to be conducted -- indeed, on the question of whether it really is a war or a law enforcement matter -- that the campaign needs to remind Americans again and again that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Islamists would gladly kill as many Americans as come within range of their knife, gun, bomb or WMD. NRO:What's the most interesting conversation you've had this week? HEWITT: Gray Davis sat down and talked on air with me about Michael Moore. He likes Michael Moore, respects him, and thinks there is a lot of truth in F911. It is astonishing to me that Democrat after Democrat, many of whom have held senior positions -- from Presidents Carter and Clinton, to Davis and of course Senator Kerry -- have embraced this bald-faced liar whose propaganda is virulently anti-American and whose paranoia and hate are so palpable. I have been saying all week that Moore is to this convention what Buchanan was to the GOP gathering of 1992, but that really understates the damage he is doing to a once great party. The Democrats have opened the door to a radical of breath-taking duplicity. It will not be rid of him for a very long time, and until it is, it will not be qualified to lead the country. NRO:Anyone's reception surprise you? HEWITT: Moore's. He's a nut. Obviously and repeatedly demonstrated to be a liar. And he's John Kerry's unofficial running mate. When Kerry took his shot at the Saudi Royal family, he blew a kiss to Moore. NRO:You write a lot about communication in your new book. Have the Democrats communicated their message this week? HEWITT: They tried to communicate a message of reliability on national security. They failed. NRO:Specifically, how did Kerry do? How much did that speech matter? HEWITT:I cannot imagine it will change many minds or inspire those who are not already committed to working on his behalf. "To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way." What an astonishing demand to make on the faith of the troops whose resupply he voted against last fall, and whose weapon systems he voted against time and time again over two decades. But he didn't bore people, which was a real concern. His timing was often off, but not fatally so. So he gets a B. Not a home run, but a solid single. He needed a home run. NRO: What's your impression of the GOP truthsquading this week? HEWITT: I didn't see much of it. I think it was understated, and that was wise tactically, as the time to rebut the Dems is at the GOP convention, not through piecemeal shots. Rudy's powerful statements on Thursday were excellent though. He's the biggest gun outside of the president and vice president, bigger than McCain and Rumsfeld. More Rudy. Lots more Rudy. NRO: Did the Dems cheat last time? Aren't they even more determined to win because they think we did? HEWITT: The attempt to suppress the lawfully cast ballots of military serving overseas was organized and implemented by Gore-Lieberman. It was the lowest moment in a long history of low, dishonest tactics by the Dems. They will do whatever they can and not look back. Sometimes it will be dressed up in absurd legal claims made to willing party hacks in robes -- think St. Louis. Sometimes it will be free smokes and booze as turnout incentives. Sometimes it will be non-citizens voting. And sometimes it will be claims about voting machines made to Ninth Circuit judges some of whom were willing to suspend a recall election in California in 2003 in order to try and save Gray Davis. Cheating is in the genes of the Democratic Party -- from Tammany, to Pendergast, to Daley to New Jersey's Senate race of 2002. It isn't going to stop in 2004. NRO: Why does my life depend on W. winning? HEWITT: Because hundreds of thousands of Islamists are trying to kill you. George W. Bush isn't going to try and stop them on the cheap or pray that we get lucky. He's committed to preemption when he believes it is necessary. John Kerry is not so committed. In his acceptance speech he said "[a]ny attack will be met with a swift and certain response." This is not the question, and by refusing explicitly to answer the question of when if ever he would act preemptively, we can only conclude that Kerry will not move preemptively against gathering threats. Like Clinton, he will judge the intelligence too vague, the country insufficiently prepared for battle, or the undeniable costs in the lives of Americans and American dollars too great. George Bush is trying to kill the terrorists before they kill more Americans. He will not always succeed. But I think fewer Americans will die from such attacks if Bush wins reelection, far fewer in fact." Submitted for your reading pleasure. Rock

this is not a political site and most of us aren't interested in your propaganda. i fail to see anything about this post that has to do with wl. i am old and my eyesight is failing so if I am wrong. Forgive me. I think you are trying to make a political statement. That is against the message board rules FYI.

Agreed...... Hugs Charlie