August 31, 2004

You Know . . .

He really is quite an ugly man. Is it wrong to say that? I guess it's unkind. Of course, it was unkind of him to suggest that any President—much less this one—would send young men and women into harm's way to fatten his friends' wallets.

moore_l.jpg

Is that "L" for "lumpenproletariat"?

Via James, who thought Giuliani did well and McCain, less so (except for the Micheal Moore moment). But I've heard some good reviews of both speeches, so I'll have to read the transcripts and let you know what I think. (Yes, I was working all day, and had an evening commitment. This is cutting into my convention coverage, though I guess I could simply post Goldstein-style missives "from New York." Or I could buy a teensy TV and take it to work, sneaking looks at it every now and again, so I could be brilliant about it all when I get home at night.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I was thinking that maybe the 'L' was really an attempt to show four fingers...as in 'Four More Years!' and he just botched it on accident. Ok, maybe not.

Posted by: King of Fools at August 31, 2004 02:39 AM (ktIW6)

2 I've noticed over the years that some people who might be considered physically ugly become quite attractive upon closer acquaintance. I suspect the opposite would be true of Michael Moore. Not just because his politics. I've also heard some nasty things about his personality.

Posted by: Kathy K at August 31, 2004 06:40 AM (AuBsr)

3 He looks like Steven Spielberg with gout.

Posted by: Jeff G at August 31, 2004 01:10 PM (cGOzp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
24kb generated in CPU 0.0313, elapsed 0.1759 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.162 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.