He’s got Michael Anthony eyes

In the beginning there were the brothers. There was Eddie Van Halen, the flashy guitarist, and the propulsive drumming of his brother Alex Van Halen. Then there came flamboyant singer David Lee Roth. And they were called Van Halen and many records (those were what CD’s were called way back in the day) were sold. And it was good… if you liked that kind of thing.

Oh wait. There was that other guy, the pudgy bass player who looked like he didn’t belong and nobody knew his name and if a session player replaced him nobody would have even noticed. Even when Roth left and was replaced by Sammy Hagar he was still, you know, that…guy. Whatsisname.

That was Michael Anthony. Rich and famous and unknown…all at the same time.

We find ourselves thinking of Michael Anthony these days because we’ve been checking out Power Line (Coming Soon! Miss Universe pageant! Stock upon hand lotion now!) and have noticed in increase in postings from Paul.
You know, Paul. Paul?
The Deacon?
That guy.

As part of les trois imbéciles that make up Power Line, we think that Paul hasn’t really established a personality online yet (and we’re being generous and assuming that he has one in real life). I mean we all know that the Hindrocket is the Imperial Pottymouth who has never ever ever ever been wrong. And then there is the Big Trunk, that Dylan-quoting (okay, it’s only one song, but he really likes it a lot) madman who gives off a middle-school vice principal vibe only less cool. As for Paul…eh. We got nothing. Maybe it’s because his nom de blog wasn’t homoerotic enough.

But we did enjoy his post today where he tried to do what Norm Coleman couldn’t do (no, not cut his own meat) and smack around George Galloway:

And what was it about that performance that so impressed our leftist fringe element, and apparently Chris Matthews? It must have been his claims that Bush lied, coupled with his attacks on “Zionists” and “neo-conservatives.” I don’t see how it could have been his defense on the merits to the charge that he illegally received oil-for-food money. That defense consisted of his statement that he was innocent, coupled with his assertion that Senator Coleman has nothing on him. What about the fact that his name appears on Iraqi documents indicating the identity of those on the take? They are forgeries. What about the statement of a captured Iraqi leader that Galloway was on the take. It was the product of torture. Can you imagine an administration official, or indeed any ordinary witness, being toasted for such a defense?

Hmmmm. A document of dubious origin?

A statement from an antogonist that should be taken with a grain of salt?

Nope. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

When you think about it, the Muslims should really be rioting over that Time Magazine award…

Previous post

Oregon homo-bigots said OK to civil unions -- until after the marriage ban passed

Next post

Freep wingnut Michael Medved's Star Wars poll



Yeah. Like I would tell you....