The Elephant’s Graveyard


I’ve gotten a lot of guff for my post last week handicapping the Republican congressional primary field here in the 11th…not for what I predicted so much as the fact that the prediction appeared here in this pinko e-rag and under my own shiny new byline. You see, for today’s Republicans, this is a betrayal of the first order: “Thou shalt not lie with liberals as with conservatives: it is an abomination!”

Of course, there are so many orders of betrayal among local Republicans these days it’s kind of hard to keep track anymore.

Having worked for Republican candidates all my life and professionally for the last three years here in Asheville — heck, above my screen hangs a picture of me and President Reagan at a White House Christmas Party and another of me and President George H.W. Bush at a private BBQ on the south lawn of the White House; I could go on, but you get the idea — I can honestly say that I can’t see this happening again anytime soon. The Republican Party I knew for so many years has gone off the rails — effectively destroyed here locally from within — by sanctimonious bigots, religious zealots, misanthropic doctrinaire Randians, and most importantly by piss-poor, unelectable candidates.

And they see none of it. They’ll have none of it. For many Republicans, it’s not even about winning elections anymore (which they have increasingly no clue how to do). It’s about being right, at least it their own minds. It’s about the self-satisfaction of going down with the ship. It’s about wagging their cold bony fingers at anyone who doesn’t agree…and condemning them as RINOs and Sinners and Socialists. Oh my.

And speaking of predictions, as it’s currently constituted, the Republican Party won’t win any local elections in at least the next decade. Among other things, they are plagued by Perpetual Candidate Syndrome (think Don Yelton, who has run for more offices and lost than I own pairs of shoes). And besides, they lack the infrastructure. They lack the technology. They lack the donors. They lack the volunteers. They lack….I could go on, but you get the idea.

This blog post by Andrew Sullivan, called Leaving the Right, is worth a read. He’s come up with his own manifesto of sorts, all of which I (and more and more of us in the modern world) agree with. Will the Right-Wing listen? Not likely. Today’s Republicans are all-too-often stubborn creatures of their own self-destructive habits. And nevermind what they call “conservatism” is really nothing of the sort.

But Andrew says it better than I ever could, so here goes:

  • I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.
  • I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.
  • I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government’s minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008.
  • I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value.
  • I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
  • I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
  • I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
  • I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.
  • I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs.
  • I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.
  • I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.
  • I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
  • I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.
  • I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending.
  • I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
  • I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

To further quote Andrew, who paraphrases Reagan: “I didn’t leave the conservative movement. It left me.”

I invite your thoughts.


  1. Tom Sullivan says:

    Stone him! Stone him! (Okay, not.)

    And these:

    I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in democracy while actively working to suppress people’s right to vote under the guise of election “integrity”.

    I cannot support a movement that believes that having “In God We Trust” on our money trumps “e pluribus unum,” which appears there too.

  2. Michael Muller says:

    I read that earlier today, Tom.

    For many on the extreme right, all it means is that we’ve been corrupted and co-opted by the left. They see the world in terms of black and white: there is no compromise. (As an interesting aside, I chose black & white to be the dominant visual flavor on all of Carl’s primary campaign materials for just this reason).

    For the Theocrat, it’s about sin: Jesus was persecuted and betrayed, so persecution and betrayal fits nicely into their self-fulfilling political worldview. For the Randian, it’s about selfishness as the highest form of morality. For them, there is no such thing as the “common good” beyond the Fire House.

    In either case, the more they are martyred, the more they are proved right in their own minds.

    Oh well. It’s not like they’re actually going to win elections around here anytime soon…and the way I see it, time is not on their side (shrinking demographics and all that).

    But on an encouraging note, the re-animated corpse of Ronald Reagan has been tapped to lead the GOP!

  3. LiberT says:

    Michael Muller is a fool. The left-right paradigm is a fallacy.

    Conservative or Liberal: Pick Your Poison

    Human nature and history teach us that political labels are used to influence society to accomplish a certain political end. Many times, words used to describe original principles are somehow conquered or hijacked and then proclaimed to be a part of those original principles, but are realistically far from them. As I was growing up, I remember thinking this: “‘liberal’ equals bad and ‘conservative’ equals good.” “Conservative” was proposed to be a word purely describing the principles believed and proclaimed by America’s founding fathers. “Liberal” was proposed to describe those whose only goal was to bring Americans under the control and dominion of the federal government. As it turns out, these words and descriptions were not only misleading and narrow-minded in their application, but they were also incorrect in their origin. Today, neither “conservative” nor “liberal” accurately describe the philosophy and principles they purport to advocate. Consequently, freedom suffers because of America’s ignorance of and infatuation with these labels, contrary to George Washington’s warning of this very tragedy.

    The United States were born and raised on the principles of a constitutionally limited government, (state) powers checking (federal) powers, federalism, natural rights, natural laws of God, individual liberty, self-government, consent of the governed, state and individual sovereignty, and meaningful checks and balances, just to name a few. With these ideas, America threw off the enslaving chains of Great Britain’s national and centralized government control in the individual, familial, commercial and religious affairs of the people, to the point that most of our constitution’s framers and ratifiers believed that the government which governs least, governs best. So, were these principles advocated by conservatives or liberals from 1776 to 1787? Perhaps those who call themselves conservatives today should understand the original application of that word before being proud of it. Same goes for liberals.

    Conservatives in the 1700 and 1800’s preferred government controls, privileges, monopolies, cartels and subsidies in the areas in which the revolutionary Americans believed government had no business whatsoever. Conservatives were those who wanted America to be the “British system without Great Britain.” (Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd Ed. [Auburn, AL, Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2006], 8. These conservatives unsuccessfully attempted to interject their ideas for a centralized/national and monarchical government at the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. These conservatives attempted to annihilate the existence, sovereignty and power of the states in the union. (Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1, [New York, NY, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904], 397-398, 400: “We must establish a general and national government, completely sovereign, and annihilate the State distinctions and State operations; and, unless we do this, no good purpose can be answered. . . I believe the British government forms the best model.”) These conservatives possessed Old World ideas completely contrary to the foundations of American Revolution during the 1700 and early 1800s. For this, the Federalist Party died (another example of a deceptive use of a word: in this case, “Federalist”). However, their kind, agenda and philosophy did not die, but still thrives today under different labels, even under the label, “conservative”.

    Conversely, liberals of the 1700 and 1800s were those who believed that government was to leave individuals, families, commerce and religion alone; that the freedom of the people to produce and prosper was more important than government sustainability and energy; and that the natural rights of man were to be protected, preferred and secured at the cost of government power and control. It was this freedom movement that led us from victory during the American Revolution in the 1700s to the Industrial revolution in the 1800s. Classic liberal leaders like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and John Randolph fought vigorously to keep Old World conservatives like John Adams, Henry Clay, and Alexander Hamilton from creating in America through subversive constitutional (de)construction what they could not accomplish through transparent constitutional debates and ratification in 1787. From Jefferson’s Presidential election in 1801 to James Buchanan’s election in 1857, classic liberal concepts, such as laissez-faire, individual and natural rights, state sovereignty and limited and divided government, prevailed in public opinion, believing that “the ideal government. . . is one which barely escapes being no government at all.” (Henry Louis Mencken, Prejudices: Third Series, [New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1922], 292.)

    Over time, the labels, “conservative” and “liberal”, changed meaning and application. You hear the word “liberal” today, and every notion contrary to classic liberalism comes to mind. Liberalism’s ideals of freedom were distorted, through the government-controlled education systems, into socialistic and fascist forms and masquerades, where “individual rights” are obtained through government force, control and regulation. Through duplicity and deceit, classic liberalism was replaced with social liberalism, whereby the “[government] must regulate industry for the public good; substitute organized cooperation for the dog-eat-dog of the free and competitive marketplace; and above all, substitute for the nation-destroying liberal tenets of peace and free trade the nation-glorifying measures of war, protectionism, empire and military prowess.” Rothbard, For A New Liberty, 12.

    Admittedly, conservatives today attempt to present themselves in a form similar with classic liberals of the 1700 and 1800s, but their substance is far removed from those ideals. Consider this: since Abraham Lincoln, more supposed conservative presidents have been elected than any other political or philosophical category; and yet, since Lincoln, the power of the federal government has become exponentially more centralized and powerful. Like social liberals, these conservatives claim to advocate freedom for society (and even the world!), only this freedom comes by government centralization, control, war and force. Consider the following few historical illustrations.

    Abraham Lincoln engaged in what became America’s most horrific war — against our own people, no less! And for what purpose? Most Americans have been taught Lincoln “had to, to save the union”? The truth is, Lincoln destroyed the union, by destroying the principles that formed the union. In Lincoln’s own words, the Civil War was to reform (replace) the original nature and character of the union from a federation of states to a nation of people, despite our original formation under the constitution. Lincoln says, “[T]he awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of national reformation as a whole People[.]” (Abraham Lincoln, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union, [Washington D.C., Government Printing Office, 1899], 106). Lincoln knew that for the ratified federal union to become a national system (which was rejected by the people and founders), the nature and character of the union must be reformed. For this cause, Lincoln waged war against the Confederate States of America, creating substantially the same national system of government that the colonies seceded from in 1776 and the states rejected in 1787. This is “saving the union”!? This is “American”!? This is “freedom”!?

    Shortly after the Lincoln administration, President William McKinley led a war against Spain in 1898, eventually giving the United States empirical control of former Spanish colonies, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. What was the driving force behind this “conservative” President? — well, in his own words, to commercialize and imperialize the Spanish territory. McKinley says, “I don’t know how it was, but it came [to me]: (1) that we could not give them [the islands] back to Spain. . .(2) that we could not turn over to France or Germany — our commercial rivals in the Orient — that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves — they were unfit for self-government — and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them. . . I told [the War Department] to put the Philippines on the map of the United States. . . and there they are and there they will stay while I am President!” If there is anything contrary to the American ideal of justice, it is empire-building, colonizing, foreign entanglements, and unjust wars. Yet, many conservative presidents have towed that line.

    Even modern conservatives’ model president, Ronald Reagan, adopted the imperialistic approach to the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs — a notion completely contrary to the laws of nations as expressed by our founders. Reagan describes the United States role as peace-giver to the world! He says,

    “Our dream, our challenge, and yes, our mission, is to make the golden age of peace, prosperity, and brotherhood a living reality in all countries of the Middle East. Let us remember that whether we be Christians or Jew or Moslem, we are all children of Abraham, we are all children of the same God. . . If you take away the belief in a greater future, you cannot explain America. . . that we’re a people who believed we were chosen by God to create a greater world.” (John W. Robbins, Freedom and Capitalism, [Unicoi, TN, The Trinity Foundation, 2006], 123).

    To these past conservative presidents, America has to force others to accept (their version of) peace, way of life and government. To do this, of course, America must entangle itself in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations and force the states in the union to participate in unconstitutional acts. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington despised and warned us about these very dangers: empire-building, military-industrial union, corporate statism, and foreign entanglement. Yet, somehow, many conservatives and liberals in America erroneously believe this philosophy to be what our forefathers accepted in principle.

    The immeasurable expansion, size and control of the federal government includes both foreign affairs and domestic society — at the hands of both conservative and liberal. Of course, we know that politicians can advocate for good causes, but these causes have been the distraction to the more important and fundamental matters of freedom. What good is it for those on a train heading over a cliff to enjoy the ride before falling? Do you want someone advocating that you have tastier food, more comfortable seats, and a better view on the train or do you want someone trying to stop and reverse the train before falling? Evidently, conservatives and liberals in America have not protected, preserved and defended the American ideals adopted by the people of the states from 1776 to 1787. How do we know? Well, they have had a Duopoly in America for the past 150 years. Yet , here we are!

    A country does not go from good to bad over night. It takes decades. A country does not go from libertarian to fascist, communist or socialist in a matter of months. It takes generations. You think Obama has caused all of our problems? How ludicrous! By chance, to those who now criticize Obama’s enormous federal spending, did you criticize G.W. Bush for his 4 Trillion dollar debt increase, setting a federal spending record at that time? Wake up! Slavery is accomplished by the gradual sink method, not by the mere election of a democrat or republican president. And if these presidents in fact make this determination, then we no longer live in a confederate republic, but a despotic monarchy; and this whole system is just a matrix of lies and deceit to make the people think they have anything whatsoever to do with the outcome of political, social and individual freedom.

    Could I agree with certain ideas advocated by conservatives and liberals? Certainly. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every so often, and talk is cheap. You cannot dump every American into the red-blue, republican-democrat, conservative-liberal pigeon holes — despite the politicians’ and media’s attempt to do so (because it gives them monopolistic control over all public debate and perception).

    However, conservatism and liberalism today are missing the ultimate goal for which our forefathers fought and died, and serve only to place those in power who perpetuate the very form and substance of government that continues to deny us our contractual and natural rights derived from God and secured by our Constitution. If that is what being a conservative and liberal is, I do not classify myself as either. Rather, call me a Freedomist! If you agree, join me!

  4. Michael Muller says:


    It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. (Okay, it would still be funny).

    This is what political scientists refer to as the Yelton Mutual Exclusivity Curve (that would be “WhyME?” for short): the fortunes of the local GOP are inversely proportional to the frequency with which Don Yelton and his sycophants participate in the Republican Party.

    Some quick figures:

    Back when Don was a Democrat and busying himself attacking Republicans, Buncombe County elected:

    • 2 Republican Members of Congress
    • 2 Republican State Assemblymen
    • 2 Republican State Senators
    • Several Republican Asheville City Councilmen and a Mayor
    • An entire Republican Buncombe County Commission
    • Republican Sheriffs
    • Republicans in virtually every state-wide and national race

    Since Don was kicked out of the Democratic Party became active in the Republican Party (and a TV star to boot — gotta love them green screens), Buncombe County Republicans have elected:

    • 0 Members of Congress
    • 0 Members of the State House
    • 0 Members of the State Senate
    • 0 Members on the Buncombe County Commission
    • 0 Members of the Asheville City Council
    • and suffered some of the worst defeats ever for Republican candidates

    Coincidence? Perhaps. But let me share a telling story: back during a candidates’ forum in 2008 when I ran Nathan Ramsey’s campaign for County Chairman, I had a candid discussion with some of my counterparts — who all agreed that Don Yelton was the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party here in Buncombe County.

    Buncombe Democrats don’t need a strategy. All they need is Don Yelton and his band of crazies to stay active in the GOP.


  5. Michael Muller says:


    Thanks for chiming in and proving my point about doctrinaire (and, I’d add, long-winded) Randians. Perhaps y’all didn’t get the memo at your latest Ron Paul meet-up, but people don’t appreciate a pedantic and sanctimonious lecture on how they should think.

    Or haven’t the results of the last few elections been convincing enough for you?


    “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Albert Einstein

  6. Gordon Smith says:


    That long blockquote is from where? Or is it something you wrote? If it’s from a source other than yourself, consider next time maybe linking us to the article and providing a trenchant excerpt. This will make folks more likely to take interest.


    I haven’t seen that many zeroes since the last time I went bowling.

  7. Tom Sullivan says:

    FYI: Unless LiberT’s name is Timothy Baldwin, it is customary to cite authorship or at least provide hyperlinks for quoted articles authored by someone else.

  8. shadmarsh says:

    Sweet Jesus someone want to give me the cliff-notes of the above post. This is the internet, if I want to read I’ll get a book.

  9. barry says:

    Cheer up, MM. The GOP has resurrected the corpse of Ronald Reagan to lead the party:

  10. Jim Reeves says:

    Andrew Sullivan seems rather libertarian in his views and many of his political dislikes apply to BOTH parties. “climate change” may not be a “hoax” but “global warming” most certainly is as the East Anglia climate research unit e-mails [] demonstrate an agenda based not on science but on a political agenda of creating a world government with carbon taxes as a mechanism to fund it. [] Note UNEP document’s stated desire for “strengthing the role, authority and financial situation of UNEP”and “That country policymakers and negotiators,civil society and the private sector have access to relevant climate change science and information for decision making”. By the way your choice of Republican heroes is strange considering that while both enthusiasticly endorsed the war on [Americans who use] drugs and “just say no” while using large scale drug trafficers to facilitate covert U.S. policy.

  11. Michael Muller says:


    Oddly enough, I’m the happiest I’ve been in years. But that news about Reagan’s corpse is rather thrilling: as the winner of the coveted “Best Male Zombie” award back in 2008, it really resonates with me.

    Funny story…the night of the Asheville Zombie Walk (that’s me and my boyfriend in the red letterman jacket at 0:16) coincided with Sarah Palin’s visit to Asheville last year. I wrote Nathan Ramsey’s speech introducing the governor, but rather being inside the Civic Center, I was outside on Haywood Street in full Zombie regalia (including a “Mumpower for Congress” button!) taunting the folks who were waiting in line to see Mrs. Palin with all kinda scary noises. It was great fun.

    A bunch of us met afterwards at a bar to yuck it up, including County Commission Chairman Ramsey, City Councilman Bill Russell, and the Man-Who-Would-Be City Councilman Gordon Smith.

    Ah, memories. It’s about all I got these days.


    P.S. I’m doing my level-best to make this other prediction of mine come true (the one at the very end). By the way, any updates from Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego on the “Impossible Dream” thing?

  12. Michael Muller says:

    Hey Jim,

    I think we all have a little libertarian in us. I mean, who doesn’t like to prance around in a wig and kneesocks from time to time?

    Unlike many other conservatives though, I refuse to traffick in conspiracy theories. Ron Paulers for some reason seem to really dig them. I remember being at a meeting last year when a local libertarian told me that the real problem was that a Jewish cabal controlled all the banks and they were plotting with their socialist shills to take over the world.

    And then there’s all the nonsense that the Theocrats seem so obsessed with: Obama being a foreigner, Obama being a secret Muslim, Obama being the Antichrist, Obama being seen at Weather Underground key parties. You know the stuff.

    As far as my heroes go…none of my heroes have anything to do with politics; I only keep those pictures around because I still had a great head of hair.


  13. John says:

    “I mean, who doesn’t like to prance around in a wig and kneesocks from time to time?”

    What party did I miss?

  14. Michael Muller says:

    That would be the Republican Party, John:

    John Armor channels Benjamin Franklin

  15. John says:

    Ok. That was creepy. And could you warn me about the acting next time?

  16. Jim Reeves says:

    What “conspiracy Theory” the sites mentioned where to the searchable database of ACTUAL e-Mails to and from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia [Including Asheville] regarding manipulation of data and withholding/destruction of FOIA requested data and methods proving global warming or showing 10 years of global cooling and efforts to dismiss/exclude other scientists who disagree with their contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC].The article contains links to the actual United Nations Environmental Program [UNEP] showing the organization’s efforts to promote the IPCC’s agenda as national policy among it;s member countries

  17. Michael Muller says:

    Sorry, Jim. I didn’t address your initial question. But honestly, I don’t know enough about the issue to make an informed comment.

    i will say that any suppression of data, cover-up, or other shady business is certainly troubling…and the top dog at East Anglia has in fact resigned over it. But I’m not sure the unethical (or even illegal) actions of a few poltically-motivated scientists necessarily discredits the whole theory of Global Warming, however. But then again, Climate Change has never really been my thing. So I don’t know.

    Maybe one of the other folks who post here would be more qualified to address your concerns. Anyone?

  18. Jim Reeves says:

    What discredits global warming is the suppressed data of 10 years of cooling despite elevated CO2 levels, not the efforts to suppress it by “a few politcally motivated scientists”

  19. hr1207 says:

    what the f* is going on here?

    you guys want to attack someone for giving a detailed explanation that promotes liberty for EVERY ONE, banishes BOTH primary political parties, and accurately accounts historical significance in his argument?

    maybe if ‘LiberT’ felt as if you guys had done this homework in the first place he wouldn’t have to give such a detailed description in his attempt to REACH OUT to you…

    furthermore, could it be that ‘LiberT’ just knows this stuff and doesn’t have to provide hyperlinks to aid those of you who obviously lack these objective realizations?

    … ridiculous!

  20. shadmarsh says:

    …or he/she could just be an ass.

  21. LiberT says:

    Shadmarsh is correct. I am an ass. A stinky one at that.

  22. barry says:

    Coming to a stinky theater near you: Tea Party – the Movie

    Hopefully this’ll turn into a Rocky Horror type phenom, with people bringing props to throw and stuff. I can’t wait. I plan to go as the Mad Hatter.

  23. Good stuff, Michael and, alas all too true. I have been a conservative all my life but NEVER a Republican, albeit tempted during the Reagan years.

    The current Republican party – both nationally and locally – in great part is about as conservative as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin at the height of his power but much less effective.

    You mention Don Yelton. I’ve known Don for a great many years and like him personally but he and the others in the Buncombe GOP of the Stomper mentality have done tremendous damage to the conservative cause. Not to mention URTV, which they do not understand either.

    I can tell you this about the current state of the GOP , Gordon and Cecil will call themselves Republicans long before I will.

  24. Michael Muller says:

    Thanks for your comments Ralph. You are a gentleman & a scholar (and pretty darned talented with ping-pong balls, I might add).

    I like Don personally as well. He’s smart, he’s funny, and he can be quite charming when he takes his meds. But politically, he’s a festering pustule on the rump of the Buncombe elephant. It needs to be popped and drained for the healing to begin.


  25. “…festering pustule on the rump of the Buncombe elephant…”

    As Oscar Wilde once said something to the effect, concerning a witticism imparted by someone else, “I wish I had written that and eventually I will.” 😉


  26. Oh, thanks for the ping pong comment … I hereby challenge Gordon to a contest of virtual ping pong tossing… see the link below for an example of winning form:,1281.0.html

    The winner DOES NOT have to serve on city council. 😉


  27. shadmarsh says:

    Is this ping pong tossing a The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert reference?

  28. No, Shad, it is a reference to me tossing ping pong balls into a cup.

    Now if I had been tossing three drag queens into a cup while crossing the Australian desert THEN you might have some sort of reference.

    As it stands, you do not. Now, back to the ping pong tossing practice now in progress.

  29. Michael Muller says:

    I’ll join this conversation on the proviso that we stop bitching about people, talking about wigs, dresses, bust sizes, penises, drugs, night clubs, and bloody Abba!

  30. shadmarsh says:

    but those are my favorite topics of conversation (sans the Abba)…

  31. Michael Muller says:

    Last night, ThunderPig shot this video of Carl, Robin, and Kelly in Pack Square Park practicing a send-off number they have planned for Tuesday’s festivities. Don’t tell anyone because it’s a big surprise.

    And if you look closely, you can make out Tim Johnson…he’s over there by the Veteran’s Memorial.

  32. Gee, Michael… that’s pretty hard to top… of course, I can:,1364.0.html

    (especially for those of you who think I’m really an alien in disguise).