…the subject being just how awesome a Senator Princess Caroline of Kennedy would be because, well, did you know that she’s a Kennedy???

Incidentally, if there is one thing that His Majesty has never quite understood about his adopted country, it’s this utterly baffling and unwarranted royalty-worship of the Kennedys. Perhaps it’s because we come from a continent where we have actual royalty and we know a bit about the standards that they’re held to, as opposed to the standards that the Kennedys are held to, which are best described as “none whatsoever.”

We mean, if a Kennedy were to dump a huge, steaming turd on the sidewalk somewhere, idiots would be stampeding each other to get to it first, sporks in hand and bibs ’round their scrawny necks.

But we digress. It’s obvious to us that the Obamessiah’s preference for Her Royal Kennedyness for Hillary’s seat is based entirely upon his relief that he’s finally found somebody who is even less qualified for public office than His Submediocrity Himself, and that is actually something of an accomplishment.

Back to the subject of the post:

When Scarborough asked Andrea [Mitchell] if [Princess Caroline of Kennedy] was conversant with the issues, Harold Ford Jr. jumped in to say that she shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than other senators. Agreed Andrea: “how many hearings have you guys watched? I mean, you’ve watched them every day. You know it.”

First of all, we weren’t aware that Joe Scarborough was running for the Senate, but we could have missed something along the way. More importantly, we’re happy to see that liberal journaljizzmers have finally come to the realization that most Americans with an IQ above lettuce arrived at shortly after they watched their first five minutes of C-SPAN coverage, namely that the U.S. Senate is the most ridiculously overpriced nursing home for terminally mentally deficient old folks who never could hack it in a real job and therefore had to turn to politics for their daily bread.

What we continue to be baffled about is how those very same journaljizzmers could come to the conclusion that a lady with years’ worth of experience as a CEO of the largest state of the Union was dangerously inexperienced compared to a ticket made up of two of aforementioned imbeciles of the Senator class, one of whom hadn’t even been one for any measurable amount of time.

But he did, admittedly, have some experience as a Chicago ward heeler in his CV.

It’s funny how perspectives change depending on the letter after a name, isn’t it?

As to the Princess Caroline of Kennedy’s credentials as a hard worker fighting for the little guy, we have this:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) made the rounds on Today and Morning Joe, where on the latter he made no bones about his interest in running for the Senate seat in 2010. He made an interesting revelation about Caroline’s much-vaunted work at an educational non-profit. She apparently toiled to the tune of an average of . . . one-to-two hours a week.

OK, we take it back. She’s perfectly suited for a Senate seat.

Given that she’s obviously not suited for anything else.

Hey, we’ve got to put them somewhere, and euthanasia isn’t politically correct nowadays.

Thatisall.

In a surprising moment of candor, The Obamabortion’s recycled Klintoonista Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, spells out, in three sentences, exactly why his fellow Communists have been working on destroying the U.S.’s capitalist system for the last 50+ years.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

Yeeeeeeeeeah… Like taking over the entire banking and housing markets; instituting Socialist, government-run health care; bankrupting energy producers with idiotically insane environmental policies; taking over the auto industry through blackmail loans “bail-outs”; taxing businesses into bankruptcy (ensuring even more people end up on the government teat through welfare and/or unemployment); amnesty for illegals (ensuring even MORE 3-D’s [Dumb, Donk & Dependent]); outlawing the private ownership of firearms, etc., ad nauseum…

Keep your powder dry, folks. They aren’t even pretending to hide their intentions anymore.

F.E.T.E.

…and the demonization of that mythological, Christian fundamentalist known as the “social conservative” continues apace (h/t LGF)

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans” embrace of the religious “social conservative” agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Excuse me? OK, let’s go over this again, shall we? Even though I am sick unto death of trying to explain it to people with their fingers stuck in their ears going “la-la-la-la-LAAAA.” But hey, since I’m apparently single-handedly responsible for McDumbass and the RINO Party’s defeat, being the horrid Taliban-like Christian that I am, I suppose I have some sort of duty here.

“Banning abortion?” That’s a bit harsh. Yes, I would like to see the practice abandoned except in especially grave and exceptional circumstances, but that’s because it’s murder. Even as a hedonistic atheist, I was well aware of that fact, but apparently opposition to murder is no longer common sense and decency, it’s Theocratic dogma. I’m not sure that the author of the above as well as other like him intend to indicate that Christians now have a monopoly on being opposed to infanticide, but that’s what he’s saying.

Yes, it is against my religion too but hey, us Christians are funny that way with our outdated dogma and superstitions, being against adultery, murder, theft and burglary. If only we’d stop being so damned religious about it.

As to “banning” it, for now I’d be perfectly content with removing the issue from the federal government since it in no way, shape, form or fashion falls under their jurisdiction. Return it to the States where the Founders intended for it to belong. We’ll take it from there.

“Banning embryonic stem cell research?” Damn, there’s a new one for me too. As far as I know, but I do have the unfair advantage of an overabundance of book learning, the only thing the GOP under Bush “banned” was the use of federal funds for it. And, guess what? I’m fine with that. Not because I’m a Christian, I don’t see a word about embryonic stem cell research in the Bible, but because I’m a bit hung up about the whole sanctity of life thing and find it more than a little bit distasteful to breed human beings for spare parts. But apparently only Christians feel that way. There we go again with our dogmatic resistance to, well, icky shit.

Besides, if embryonic stem cell research is such a smashing and promising idea, then how come we haven’t heard anything out of it? Not to mention that one would think that money would be chasing it around the block like a Clinton after an intern if it were that great, yet somehow it isn’t the case. That’s how markets work. Good money follow good ideas, and if an idea has no money willing to follow it, then it probably isn’t all that bloody hot to begin with.

And gay marriage? How many times do we have to say it? Gays can form any number of civil unions with the same rights and obligations as marriage as far as we’re concerned, just don’t call it “marriage.” We could have their pet issue settled next week if only they weren’t childishly throwing tantrums and insisting on calling it something that has an entirely different meaning. So who’s the baby now?

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Whenever the non-existent “wall of separation” comes up, you can rest assured that the writer isn’t in any way a “conservative”, because any conservative knows the context of Jefferson’s comment and it has nothing to do with banning religious people from public life. That would be kind of difficult to do back then and, for that matter, now. Not to mention that there’s this whole “no religious test for office” thing that Jefferson et al actually did include in the Constitution.

Not to mention the ludicrous “public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.”

Oh? So now public figures such as politicians are supposed to detach themselves from their religious identity when proposing policy, even required to? Fine, then. Socialists should then be forced to detach themselves from their cherished beliefs and, just to be fair, conservatives too should be barred forever from letting their conservative beliefs influence their politics.

Or would somebody care to explain why only one particular belief system should be barred, banned and driven from the public square and public politics? “Oh, but those other belief systems are anchored in facts!”

O RLY? Socialism? Thanks for the laugh.

Fact is: The faith or non-faith of a person is as much a part of him as any other of the parts that make up the sum of his being. Care to tell me how you’d propose excising one particular piece of that puzzle without it being a “religious test for office?” Not to mention wholly undemocratic.

But by all means, go right ahead with your hysterical crusade against any mention of religion in the public square of opinion, go right ahead and form the Wholly Secular and Definitely NOT Influenced by Any Sort of Faith GOP and then enjoy joining the Libertarians, Greens and Constitution Party at the bottom of the vote pool forever and ever amen.

Perhaps a cold, wet slap of reality smack dab in the face is what it’ll take for you incredibly smarterer people to realize that your delusions of adequacy are wholly unjustified.

Thatisall.

(Awww, fuckit, I might as well Fisk the rest of the drivel…)

Give us more, O Emperor! »« AIIIEEEE! My EYES!

Gonzo’s fed up with the bullshit and he’s written a little love letter to express his feelings.

We’ll give you a short teaser, but you’re going to have to go over and read the entire thing for yourselves.

And I detest you, and hold you in the deepest contempt. I resent having to breathe the same air as you. You and I are not brothers, friends, or countrymen - in fact, you’re not even the same species as me, you subhuman oxygen thieves. I wonder why there isn’t a bounty on you, but probably because to pay what you are worth wouldn’t cover the cost of the bullet it would take to put you out of respectable people’s misery, you immoral filth. If you were on fire, I would step around you rather than waste the time to piss on you and put it out, and I’d charge your relatives for the disposal of your body, as well as fine your estate because your screams of pain were noise pollution.

*Sniff* We tend to get all misty-eyed when gazing upon such truly beautiful prose.

Now, head on over and give The Gonz some love, would ya’?

F.E.T.E.

Ed Morrissey warns against the onset of Obama Derangement Syndrome, a sentiment we can certainly agree with to a point, even though it’s not like the Anointed One and his Nutroots don’t deserve a taste of their own medicine.

But he uses some mightily strange examples to prove his point.

For one thing, he (and Jake Tapper) uses these comments from Congressman Broun (R-GA) as a perfect example of it. Granted, Congressman Broun may be extrapolating a bit here based on what precious little evidence we have, thanks to Obambi and his minions in the Obamedia’s successful disinformation campaign, but Ed’s visceral response to this “canard”, as he calls it, is certainly not based on reality:

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

To which Ed responds:

No, he wasn’t. Hitler was never elected to any office. He became Chancellor because of a deal struck between political factions warring with each other in the twilight of Weimar Germany, appointed to the position by President von Hindenburg. The Nazis never even won a majority in the Reichstag, and in fact lost seats in the last free elections before Hitler became Chancellor.

Why yes, Ed, but that’s a big whopping non sequitur right there. You can be forgiven for not knowing how parliamentary systems work, though, so allow me to enlighten you since I’m intimately familiar with how they work, having grown up under one: That is the case for pretty much any leader selected under such a system. They’re all appointed by getting together a sufficiently large coalition to push the appointment through. I may have missed one, but I think I’m on pretty safe ground when I say that if your criterion for being “democratically elected” is a majority of the vote, then there has never been a democratically elected leader of a parliamentarian government. Which, I guess, means that they were all “a lot like Hitler” in your book. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Furthermore, what Congressman Broun is saying isn’t that, because Obambi was democratically elected just like Hitler, then it logically follows that he is a lot like Hitler. That would leave a whole lot of Hitlers walking around out there, and I honestly don’t believe that anybody would be daft enough to say that.

What he is doing is deflecting the usual canard, and this really is a canard, that “because he was democratically elected, then he can’t be like Hitler, because Hitler wasn’t.”

Bzzzzt… Wrong. Because Hitler was, under the rules of a parliamentary system. That he later usurped all power for himself under the Enabling Act is irrelevant. He got to a position where he could do so purely through democratic means. Which is perhaps one of the strongest arguments against democracy that you can make, if it wasn’t because all of the alternatives are infinitely worse.

I agree with Ed that one should think long and carefully before drawing out Hitler parallels, lest one end up in Kostard territory, but I would like to remind him that Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply when the parallels are actually there. Cult of personality, animosity toward free speech, required oops, airbrush time, “encouraged” participation in a massive youth organization, shared socialist ideology and much, much more.

This is not saying that he is Hitler, but that’s not what Congressman Broun is saying either. He’s merely pointing out that it would be folly to become complacent, that seemingly perfectly innocuous and democratically elected people have taken their peoples by surprise before.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion that the Germans were by nature a bunch of bloodthirsty, Jew-hating Nazis who knew exactly what they were getting into all along and loved every minute of it. One might want to present that theory to a survivor of Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin. If one could find one.

No, let’s not go off the deep end, but let’s not put on blindfolds and become ignorant of history simply because it wouldn’t be “nice” to point out the parallels.

Eternal vigilance.

Thatisall.

[Update from a different location: I ran this short article tonight on-air. While it reeked of a direct connection between the two, I failed miserably to point out the differences in government (I was up against the time clock) and the parliamentary procedures unlike our own. For that I was wrong not to amplify the remarks a bit further, instilling the truth to our loyal listeners. My humble and sincere apologies since I profess to bring the "Truth" to the airwaves. I bow to the Emperor's better graces, analysis and concur, completely-JB ]

Naturally, there’s a whole lot of talk about running Governor Palin in 2012, if we can talk her into it.

His Imperial Majesty is not at all opposed to that idea, as a matter of fact he’d welcome it, but let’s not get too wed to one candidate at this point in time. 4 years is a long time, and who knows what other candidates might pop up between now and then.

Not to mention that we just went through a 2 year campaign season, which was about 1 1/2 years too much. We’re not about to wed ourself to one candidate at this point and make the next one a 4 year one.

So we’d rather say “let’s run somebody like Governor Palin.” If that turns out to be Governor Palin when the time comes to pick one, then that’s fine. If it’s somebody else like, say Jindal, Steele or who knows who else, then that’s equally fine. But let’s not fixate so much on individuals as on what type of candidate we want.

So what’s that type? Well, for one thing Reaganism isn’t dead, no matter what George Will, David Brooks and other establishment “conservatives” would have you believe. At least not according to the people who actually matter, which is to say the voters.

Amazing, isn’t it? The voters who brought the Obamessiah over the top (not the nutroots, they couldn’t win an election on their own outside of North Korea, and we’re not even sure that they could pull it off there) were voting, or thought they were voting for:

Smaller government.
Tax cuts.
Optimism. (”Yes we can.”)

That sounds an awful lot like somebody we remember. Sure, it was all a lie, but that matters not. What matters is what the voter believes when he’s in the ballot box. And why did they buy the lie? Obviously because the Obamedia utterly and completely refused to print anything that in the slightest questioned that this was what their Anointed One stood for, but also, and just as importantly, because that was exactly everything that the Bush Administration (and McCain) was not about. Except for the tax cuts, but those were so long ago that nobody remembers anymore and, besides, McLame never could quite figure out if he was for them, against them, or against them before he was for them.

So we know now what kind of philosophy our new front runner needs. Only we need one who actually does believe in it rather than just pay lip service to it in order to get elected.

What we also need is somebody who can deliver that message in a clear, unambiguous and very much un-”nuanced” way. A communicator, if you will. We need somebody who “connects” with the only people who matter. The voters. The Hell with what the Noonans and Parkers of the world think about such “plebeian” and “base” people, because they don’t matter. We can do nicely without their handful of votes. We can’t do without the votes of Main Street America. We need somebody with a stage presence, somebody who isn’t going to triangulate endlessly when asked a question and who can deliver a verbal jab on his or her feet without a teleprompter. We don’t need anybody who, impressive though it may be to wordsmiths and college professors, will launch into a philosophical dissertation about Thoreau, Voltaire or Rousseau and their influence on their political philosophy.

We need a leader, not an intellectual. Granted, we do need somebody who knows the background for their philosophy and who is familiar with just why that philosophy is the right one, but we don’t need a blabber-mouthing snorefest putting everybody to sleep while communicating those ideas.

Intellectuals are great. Every political philosophy, if it is to endure for long, needs its thinkers who sit around and think deep thoughts, critiquing and coming up with remedies until the wee hours of the morning. But you don’t need them on the front line. That would be like jerking Oppenheimer out of the Manhattan Project, giving him a commission and putting him in charge of a company of infantry on D-Day. If you can find somebody who is a leader and an intellectual then great, but those are exceedingly rare. The traits needed in either type are seldom compatible.

Who is that leader going to be in 2012? Who knows? We’ll find out when we get there, but at least we know who and what to look for.

Thatisall.

UPDATE: Or not. The Imperial Educational Advisor points out that I’m basically saying that we should keep intellectuals and leaders separate and, looking at the above, that does indeed seem to be what I’m saying, doesn’t it? My bad. My maximum bad.

I do not at all intend to advocate that we should rally behind somebody who has not the slightest knowledge of history. Heaven knows we’ve had enough of that, particularly in the voting booths. If you don’t know your history, then you will repeat it, and you can’t communicate an idea effectively if you aren’t familiar with the background and history of it. It’s no good telling somebody what we need to do if you can’t tell them WHY it’s a good idea. Because they’re bound to ask, as well they should.

My mistake was using the “new” definition of “intellectual”, which seems to be “anybody who has a large library and can quote a hummingbird to sleep with elegant and florid words, yet has not the faintest clue about how to communicate that idea, much less how to turn it into action.”

Which is, of course, a wholly incorrect definition, but it certainly seems to me to be what the illiterati of the GOP establishment are prioritizing. “The Hell with the candidate’s ability to connect with the voter or condense his or her thinking into concise messages, as long as they can quote Ulysses from cover to cover. Oh, and stick out their pinky when they drink tea.”

So let me clarify my clumsy wording a bit: We need to prioritize leadership and communication skills, but that mustn’t mean that we forget that there has to be substance, knowledge and awareness behind those two skills. Most of all, it means that we have to start working on reversing four decades of teaching kids NOT to think and NOT to know history, but that’s the long run. In the short run, we need to find somebody who is A) a born leader and B) hasn’t been damaged by the “education” system.

Now I’ll go remind myself to practice what I preach and not use new “definitions” when I know the correct ones damn good and well and oughta know better. Words mean things.

In which we were, once again, to lay out in minute details just how insufferably stupid it is to be more concerned with being “nice” than with the archaic notion of “winning”, particularly when you’re fighting an enemy who wouldn’t know “nice” if it jumped up and bit his Marxist nose off.

But then we found out that LC & IB Mike had already said all that needs to be said on the subject, so why don’t you go read that instead?

So where do we go from here? I take it that quite a few among us are still shell-shocked, which is understandable, but we need to get started eventually. Suggestions have already been made in this post. Not nearly enough, but I’m confident that more will start rolling in at an ever more furious pace as we pick up steam. Yes, yes, I know that some are impatient, but throwing yourself at the enemy’s entrenched positions before you’ve rallied and made a plan isn’t going to work.

Another idea, and I’m sure you’re all going to think that I’ve lost my ever-loving Imperial mind but hear me out, is to read this book.

Put down the crucifix and the garlic, please. (But do keep the Brain Bleach handy).

Why should you read that book?

1) Because if you’ve found yourself thinking “how did it come to this?” over the last few days, that book will answer all of your questions. That is the manual that the radicals in this country have been following to the letter since it was written, and it explains in detail exactly how they pulled it off and how they managed to subvert, undermine and suppress everything that our nation once stood for. All while conservatives obsessed with “playing nice” obediently looked the other way.

If you’re going to beat an enemy, it behooves you to find out what makes him tick first.

2) Who knows, you just might find some ideas in there. Re-calibrate, flush out the Marxist drivel and… It worked for them, didn’t it? At the very least, you’ll be prepared for anything that comes and you’ll know ahead of time how best to sabotage it.

No, I’m not “nice.”

“Nice” is for losers. Such as McCain. And I don’t like losing. Particularly not when what I, what we all stand to lose is the only thing in this world worth having: Our liberty.

You want to point fingers, you feckless RINO fucks?

Alright, let’s do it (h/t LC & IB Mike)

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

There’s what “reaching across the aisle”, “mavericky”, “let’s out-Democrat the Democrats” gets you, you submoronic country club RINO fuckwads. And the only reason that the decline wasn’t even bigger was because of Governor Palin. I’m evidence of that, because I wouldn’t even have thought about getting off my arse for McFeingold if it hadn’t been for her.

But of course all of you incumbent, dimwitted, outspend-even-fucking-Clinton moldy goat-twats are going to spin it as “we need to reach even further to the left to succeed.” Great. Here’s a better idea: Why don’t you lame-arsed, phony “conservatives” just pack up and leave the party altogether? We’re sure that they’ll welcome you with open arms in the Democrat party and then the rest of us can start rebuilding. Because, really, if every election is going to be between the Democrat party and the pretend Democrat party, then what’s the bloody point in the first place?

You have failed time and time again with your proven recipe for election beatdowns. You have failed us, and you have failed the nation. Time for your dumb arses to go into retirement and leave the leading to people who actually know how to, I don’t know, lead, perhaps?

As we’re sure you’re aware, disgruntled McCain staffers have been leaking various smears about Governor Palin, one more incredibly incredulous than the other, over the last couple of days.

What kinds of smears? Well, there’s the “she doesn’t know Africa is a continent“, for one. Or how about her scandalous “uncommon” behavior when she, running a bit late, got out of the shower in a bathrobe and let her staffers into the hotel suite rather than leaving them in the hallway.

Why, why… The shameless HUSSY!

It’d be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

But where is the “Maverick” in all of this? Nowhere to be found. His staffers are spreading lies about his VP pick like crazy, but the “brave” Maverick can’t find it in himself to tell his own employees to shut up already and quit character assassinating his own pick. As a matter of fact, the only person in the McCain camp who stood up for her, one Randy Scheunemann, was first reported to have been fired for “disloyalty” and then, later on, claimed that he hadn’t been. Who knows?

All we know is that our Imperial Mother told us to stand up for ladies when they are attacked, but obviously that’s not something that appears in the McCain family curriculum.

Call us when you find your balls, you clown.

Of course, what’s going on here is obvious: The RNCC clownshoes are gearing up for a repeat in 2012. Once more, they’ll do their damndest to foist some limpdick “moderate conservative” on us so we can get beaten again. Heaven forbid that the only party offering an option different from Socialism should actually run a conservative like, *shudder!*, Reagan. Because we all know what a miserable failure he was, don’t we?

No, let’s have another McBushCain begging for votes he’ll never get while pissing off the only reliable voters the GOP has.

That, and they need a scapegoat for their own blithering, aimless, incompetent three-ring circus of a campaign. So why not go after Governor Palin? That way you get to stomp on yet another conservative while simultaneously avoiding the horror of somebody noticing that the blundering buttskates running the McCain campaign were the ones that led us to this result.

And meanwhile, the “honorable” McCain hides in his room while the lady without whom his loss would have looked like Carter’s is being savaged by his lackeys.

You stay classy, “Maverick.”

And stay the fuck away. Forever.

For the second day in a row, Wall Street celebrated its renewed faith now that the Coming of Hope! and Change! is assured.

Having shed another 443 points, the DOW expressed its supreme confidence in the Age of Unicorn and Rainbows by reporting its biggest two-day slump since 1987.

“The result of the election has been a real eye-opener to selfish bastards like me, hoarding our ill-gotten earnings rather than spreading the wealth to everyone”, one capitalist Enemy of the People said as he enthusiastically unloaded every asset he could get rid of in anticipation of the Time of Plenty that surely lies ahead of our great nation.

LC & IB John Hawkins lays out seven very good reasons for it. Great read.

Of course, being the much more simplisme Emperor that I am, although I agree with John’s points completely, all I need is to look back on the last 8 years.

Bush, followed by McCain, were the very epitome of “moderate” with their ever more left-lurching policies.

So how did that work out for us again?

We’re here today because of “compassionate conservatism.” Bush managed to squeak by in 2000 mainly because everybody were sick and tired of the Clintons and anybody associated with them, not because he was a “conservative.”

Over the next 8 years he and Congress then proceeded to govern like a “moderate”, spending like crazy and stuffing obscene amounts of pork everywhere they could find a crack to jam it in. In 2002, the GOP got a bump up, but that was almost entirely due to the war, and ever since then it was one long, slow inexorable slide towards the left with ever more disillusioned actual conservatives deserting the GOP in ever increasing numbers.

It culminated in the bitch slap of 2006 and then election 2008.

So tell me again how well this “reaching out” and “moderate” conservatism worked out for us?

The proof is in the pudding. If we don’t purge the GOP of “moderates” and start running conservatives, then this is just the beginning.

Exit polls don’t matter.

You know that already, or at least you SHOULD know that already, unless you’ve already forgotten 2004.

Just keep that in mind. The Obamedia will be calling even Texas for their beloved Führer if they think they can get away with it, and they’ll do so before the polls even close, based on their beloved “exit polls” along with their wet dreams of a totalitarian hellhole socialist state in which nobody but they are allowed to speak out.

But the ONLY poll that matters are the actual numbers, so get out there and add to them.

Unless you’d rather be slaves under a socialist dictator, that is.

Didn’t take long. Damn, she’s good!

Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin unleashed a new volley against Barack Obama on a four-city tour of Ohio on Sunday by touting newly released audio comments made by the Democratic presidential candidate promising to restrict the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

Actually, he’s not promising to “restrict” them, he’s promising to outright “bankrupt” them. Slight difference there.

About the “newly released” audio, it has actually been sitting at the San Fran Chron since January when they did the interview. They just omitted all of the stuff about “bankrupting the coal industry” and “making prices skyrocket” from the article that resulted from the interview.

Yes, we know. We’re shocked too.

We wonder how all of those as-of-yet undecided “bitter, Bible and gun-clinging” voters in coal-producing states will feel about this the latest revelation?

We’re winning. As if I needed to say so, because we’ve been winning for quite some time now.

Take a gander at this poll. Why this poll? Because it has the distinction of being the only one to have been right about the 2004 election, to within a fraction of a fraction of a percentage point.

Obameinführer’s lead is down to 2.1%, from 4.5% yesterday. Not bad for a day’s work, is it? And that’s with 8.7% undecided yet, and they haven’t been breaking for Black Racist Jesus according to, well, everybody. They’ve been breaking heavily for McCain/Palin.

Another point deserving of mention: That’s the national number. Why’s this important? Because Black Racist Jesus only seems to truly have it made in big, liberal states, and in those states the voters/elector ratio is much higher than elsewhere. What this means, mathematically speaking, is that if he, and he just might given past elections, carries for instance California, then he’s just pissed a large portion of his national vote away to do so. What this means is that races in OTHER states will be much narrower.

Put it another way: Let’s take a hypothetical where The Chosen One wins the popular vote by, say, 4,000,000. But he wins California massively, by, say, 3,000,000 votes. That means that he’s only got an advantage of 1,000,000 votes left for the other 49 states. His massive victory in California in this hypothetical doesn’t give him any more electors than if he’d squeaked by by 400 votes. That’s why even a lead in the national numbers doesn’t necessarily translate into an overall win.

Just ask Gore.

Not that it’s going to come down to the wire like that, it’s just an additional bit of encouragement informing you that even if it does, it still doesn’t mean that he wins.

Every single one of your votes count. Every single one. So get them out there.

And smile, dammit! We’re going to WIN this one!

UPDATE: Another important detail that Ed Morrissey brings up, looking at the breakdown of this poll as well as the breakdown of the same poll a week ago:

One week ago, independents were 43-38 in favor of Obameinführer, with 19% undecided.

In this poll, independents are 45-43 in favor of McCain, with 12% undecided. Every single one of those 7 percentage points of independents making up their minds broke for McCain/Palin.

Having difficulties closing the sale, Obameinführer?

Good, you totalitarian, communist piece of shit.

Well, we don’t have to be so dead serious all the time, do we?