As I browse through the posts I realize that this is what I would call a classic blog. (Or at least what I thought a blog was when I first heard about them) We have here brief comments about an article and then a link to it. Our author seems to be a very prolific reader and there is no lack of material to draw from to support his political point of view. What commentary he does offer is well written and coherent, but in my opinion, there is not enough of it.
Truth to tell, when I read someone�s blog, my foremost motivation is to find out what the author is thinking about the world. How they see things from their perspective. And the more of that kind of thing there is, the better. When the author takes the time to dig deep and articulate their thoughts, the results can be enlightening. But it is all too easy to spend time taking pot shots or ranting instead. When I read political blogs, (it does not matter the persuasion) I don�t need more slogans and sound bytes. Those are everywhere. Here in the Blogosphere , we actually have the opportunity to persuade. Why not take that opportunity?
I do however give points to this author for a technically well done blog. As I said the writing is clear and the posts well ordered and made interesting by pictures, cartoons and charts. It almost has a magazine-like quality which is not unpleasant.
If I have one design gripe though, it is the incredibly long list of links on the left of the page. I mean sure, give me the link to World Net Daily, not a link to several separate articles on their site! This much volume is overwhelming and tends to make my eyes glaze over. When I want encyclopedic lists on a subject, I�ll go to Google. If you must link, at least give us the cream of the crop.
I am giving this site a 3.5 because I think it is above average in style and presentation. Though it has the potential to be so much more, if we heard more of substance from the author.