Stuart Carlson for January 30, 2012

  1. Missing large
    Prof_Bleen  over 10 years ago

    There’ll be more of them if you’d stop naming your children Cody and Tyler.

     •  Reply
  2. E067 169 48
    Darsan54 Premium Member over 10 years ago

    They lost.

     •  Reply
  3. Nebulous100
    Nebulous Premium Member over 10 years ago

    Bob’s on the Dole.

     •  Reply
  4. Cat7
    rockngolfer  over 10 years ago

    Silent Bob for President!

     •  Reply
  5. 181963 10150403407290214 84362875213 17424814 5846484 n
    metropolitan gnome  over 10 years ago

    I’ve noticed people are conveniently overlooking Ron Paul. despite his lack of attention, he’s also pretty high in the standings.

     •  Reply
  6. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  over 10 years ago

    I agree. If this keeps up, next thing you know, we’ll have candidates running for President with REALLY weird names Names like Milliard, or Dwight, or Grover, or Rutherford, or Ulysses, or Warren, or Woodrow. or…or….

    Uhhhh, never mind.

     •  Reply
  7. Androidify 1453615949677
    Jason Allen  over 10 years ago

    I’m not that thrilled with the Robert(s) on the SCOTUS. I’m not sure I want one in the White House.

     •  Reply
  8. Klinger1
    walruscarver2000  over 10 years ago

    Even your most right wing historians regard them as near the top in quality performance (see ANY presidential rankinglist). Once again, all you do is embarass yourself via your prejudice.

     •  Reply
  9. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 10 years ago

    What Bob? We’ve never had a Bob as president, despite Dole’s best efforts. And let’s not forget that while we have had Tom, Dick and Harry, we’ve also had Rutherford, Ulysses, Woodrow, Franklin (twice!), Teddy, Martin, Grover, Warren, Calvin, Lyndon, and, of course, Millard!

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Stuart Carlson