The Big People's Table

I'm just watching Hillary in her latest Chairman Mao-with-an-upholstery-pattern jacket give her victory speech. Her victory, she tells us, is really one for the people stupid enough to buy adjustable rate mortgages. Yep, that's where she went first.

Ah, the Democrats are back.

Is it a dangerous world out there that requires us to have a strong Commander-in-Chief? It is if you're house shopping armed with nothing more than public school math skills, according to the Democrats.

Did terrorism rate a mention in The Madame's top five? Nope. The mortgage bailout was followed by Evil Oil, Evil Insurance, Evil Pharmaceuticals and "predatory" college loan people. The victims of the above were assured that they weren't invisible to Mrs. C. At that, I brought up a little bit of my dinner and shut her off.

At least she didn't invoke the horror of climate change right away. The Clinton dislike for Al Gore still trumps all.

The Madame's talking points are yet another perfect illustration of why we shouldn't let a Democrat get close enough to the White House to even take pictures of it any time soon. They continue to look inward for all of America's enemies. Al Qaeda's got nothing on Exxon, MetLife and Merck as far as the Democrats are concerned.

On the Republican side, the guy with the most to bring to the table as a Commander-in-Chief began his comeback. While the Democrats were planning a protracted war against American businesspeople John McCain was promising to pursue Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell" if he had to. While other conservatives want to focus on a few issues that McCain's gotten weird about I prefer to focus on the fact that he's always known who the bad guys are and what we should do about them. He's not going to waste a lot of time and taxpayer money trying to open a can of whoop-ass on the CEO of an American oil company. I'm not old fashioned about too many things but I do like the thought of a war hero being in charge during a war.

Yeah, I like Fred Thompson too, but he finished behind "Other" in New Hampshire. I know that Fred didn't spend a lot of time or money in the state but I don't think "Other" did either. There may be some magic out there yet but banking on that seems about as sensible as saying that you're contributing to your 401k every time you buy a lottery ticket.

There's a lot of campaigning left but I am very glad that New Hampshire helped the GOP to begin moving away from its Huckafetish. Let's hope that Chuckles had his one moment in the frozen corn fields last week and is about to fade like the smile on Hillary's face whenever the cameras are turned off.

Tonight was also a reminder of how much fun politics is when it doesn't play out the way everyone has planned for so long. Surprises are always a blast in this age of incessant polling. Less than a week ago the media was agog over St. Obama of Nothing and King Gomer the Second. We heard the word "change" so often that I thought everyone had been dropped into a baby nursery full of poopy diapers. Now we have competition and choices again.

It's nice that the primary season will be relevant at least into the middle of January.

And I suppose we can all sleep better now knowing that Hillary Clinton is on the watch for any predators who are trying to send kids to college.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell

The First Tooth Is Pulled

Our long national nightmare, aka "The Early 2008 Primary Season", finally gets under way with some actual voting tonight. Michelle Malkin, Wake Up America and A Newt One have already done the heavy lifting on the speculation derby leading up to the circuses caucuses. I'll just weigh in with my two cents which isn't worth much after being adjusted for inflation and having the taxes taken out of it. Still, pontificate I must, because it's kind of like breathing for an egomaniacal wingnut like me.

This drawn-out extra year on the campaign has cheapened the political process more than Dennis Kucinich (D-Pluto) and Ron Paul (R-Bong Hit) could do if they bred with each other in a lab and created a hybrid political ass thorn. That we're rewarded with the first votes being cast by fringe representatives of each party in the weird Iowa caucus process makes the pain of the season more unbearable. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in everyone participating but having a bunch of frozen subsidy addicts hold sway over the national debate for this long gets annoying after a while. Mitt Romney (R-Coifed) doesn't deserve to be president just because he spent roughly the equivalent to the GNP of Portugal there in the last year. Likewise, Mike Huckabee (R-Shucks Folks) doesn't deserve it simply because the twelve Iowa Republicans who will caucus are willing to overlook his laundry list of negatives and pay attention only to the fact that he's a Baptist preacher. We're not electing Best Guy To Run The Tent Revival Mission.

I will admit that saying "caucus" all the time is fun in an extraordinarily juvenile way. That the Democrats and Republicans each caucus differently makes it creepier. I don't mind that the state gets to have a different way of doing things. I grew up in Arizona, where contrariness was a birthright. However, shouldn't election related matters be the same for each party?

What's really got me to ready find a brick wall that's compatible with my head this year is that Romney and Huckabee are getting all of this attention because of Iowa. Although I'm a big fan of the two party system (they tried having just one in the Soviet Union and that sucked) I truly believe that any of the current Democratic candidates would be a disaster as president at this point in history. The last thing this country needs is a Commander-in-Chief who thinks that a one degree spike in temperature over the last 150 years is more dangerous than rogue nuclear states or Islamic terrorism. The Democratic field is loaded with candidates who are going to end up battling terrorism by crying, "Be nice to me, I drive a hybrid!"

The Republicans have only two serious candidates to handle any of this: Fred Thompson and John McCain. Sorry, Rudy fans, he's a train wreck of scandals that the Dems are just salivating at the prospect of picking apart in the general. So we have two great candidates for the job but we're talking about Slick Mitt and Aw Shucks Huck.

Romney has done a 180 on just about everything but his hairstyle. Somehow, serious conservatives take him at face value but still say McCain, who is solid on all the things Romney's flip-flopped on, isn't conservative enough. I don't believe any candidate who shows up to an election with a whole new set of ideals. I have no reason to believe he won't trade those in once elected. Romney seems like the kind of guy who won't exhale unless the polls say it's popular with the voters. We have another name for poll-driven politicians who shift positions a lot: Democrats.

Social conservatives love Huckabee because he's solid on pro-life issues. Go ahead, vote for him, you won't be able to afford a baby based on his record of taxation as governor. Oh wait, we're not supposed to talk about his record.

Hopefully, the GOP can weather this inane first round of voting and let the big people step to the fore. If not, you can look forward to trying to outrun a terrorist attack while listening to President Obama on the radio in your federally mandated Toyota Prius.

I don't know about you all, but I'm going to use Al Gore as a shield if that ever happens.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Democrats' Nightmare: Americans Are Happy!

Nothing terrifies a modern Democratic politician more than a happy American. A recent Gallup Poll found that 84% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in their lives now. One would wonder how this could possibly be in light of the Democrats' message that the middle class is desperately poor, the planet is dying, the whole world hates us and we'll never, ever be able to afford a doctor again. How could anyone be happy in such a miserable place?

If there isn't something broken that the Democrats can promise to belch money on and fix, they've got nothing to offer. It's not so much a political ideology they espouse as much as it is political pimping. Count how many times Obie, the Missus and Fluffy Edwards say "I will fund..." in a speech and you'll see what I mean. Rather than thinking through problems they prefer to throw cash around like a drug dealer at a strip club. 

This is one reason I've never wavered in my political thinking. My unchecked ego won't allow me to be a member of a political party that tells me I can't find happiness without its help. I don't know what the Democrats used to be like but in my lifetime their message has always been this: "Your life sucks, you sad little American. Now give us all your money and we promise to spend more money on you. Don't ask how it works. Just trust us." 

So what are we to make of these happy Americans? Are they all drunk? Does Gallup only poll people living in the mansions around John Edwards' palace? 

Or could it be that the Democrats are, once again, just plain wrong?

Back to the battle against chronic "funding"...

 

Run Along Now, 2007...

Travel, illness and a new Nintendo Wii have kept ANM quiet for a week or so. Little things like that won't get in the way as we move into an election year and expand our horizons. Even if I should find myself alone on a melting glacier with only Al Gore's blubber to use for fuel I promise to deliver.

December 31st is a godsend to anyone who writes about topical things. It provides an opportunity to do a "Year In Review" piece which is much easier than thinking of new stuff. So, with my sore Wii elbow, here I go with the recap.

• An election year shouldn't be longer than a year. We Americans pride ourselves on demonstrating a peaceful transfer of power to the world every four or eight years. It's so peaceful that we've now turned it into a never ending transfer of power. This campaign for a new president began shortly after lunch on Inauguration Day 2005. Well according to The Madame, it began in kindergarten for Barack Obama. Still, just days away from the Iowa caucuses we find ourselves with no clear picture of how it's all going to shake out. So this painfully protracted campaign season did nothing more than keep Ron Paul supporters from downloading too much porn and making the rest of us long for the brevity of a military coup. 
• Al Gore may be a bigger threat to freedom than Osama bin Laden. When I said things like this at the beginning of the year I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about them. Unfortunately, events of the year have propelled the Bloated One ever closer to convincing our own lawmakers to hijack the U.S. economy with "cap and trade" schemes. In classic terrorist fashion, he wields power by whipping up as much fear as possible. If Prince Albert the Hysterical has his way, we will have a dysfunctional hybrid ('cause the Eco-Stalins love their hybrids!) socialist economy that will leave us more vulnerable than at any time since the beginning of the Revolutionary War. For once, it's time to go after the messenger. How prevalent has this brainwashing become? While looking for airfares online the other day I was prompted to "Go Green" and purchase a "Terra Pass". Terra Pass is a scam that ranks right up there with psychic hotlines. You give them free money, they pass it on to support crap that can't compete in an open marketplace and you get your hippie conscience eased in return. I think my first bumper sticker of 2008 will be "Terra Pass Can Kiss My Ass". 
• Libertarians seem to only be able to deliver their message via fruitcake. Make no mistake, the Libertarians do have some good ideas. They want to overhaul the tax code, get us out of the UN and nuke the Dept. of Education. It's a system that has a lot of good ideas for domestic problems but turns rather juvenile when applied to international relations ("I'm going to go to my room and lock the door...don't bother me!). For several elections now, the Libertarian star has been Ron Paul, who they've recently dressed up as a Republican. He has developed huge support among younger cyber geeks. This can probably be attributed to the fact that Libertarians are also big on legalizing marijuana. The problem with Paul, like most Libertarian point men from the past, is that he seems like the kind of guy you really wouldn't want to leave alone with any sharp dining utensils. We're over a year into this thing and I'm not sure I've heard him directly answer a question yet. His eyes dart around a lot and he always appears to be listening to the voices in his head for commands from the Mother Ship. Fortunately, a lot of Libertarian support is absent on election day because most of its fans are too stoned to remember to vote. If you simply give a bag of Doritos to a Paul supporter he'll be too distracted to get to the polls.
• We may soon elect our first non-human president. Sorry kids, I'm going to need to see some medical records because I'm still not convinced that Mrs. Clinton is breathing. When I first saw her smile and laugh the monsters from "Alien vs. Predator" seemed like cuddly Disney characters in comparison. What she has proven most adept at since being spawned into the spotlight all those years ago is destroying people who dare interfere with her political ambition. Yet there are people who appear to be very devoted to Her Missusness. I'm sure that their loved ones will be returned to them safely once the election is in hand. 
• The Lynne Spears book on parenting was probably a bad idea. Finally, a family to make the Lohans feel morally superior! Lynne Spears gives a whole new meaning to "getting the girls ready for bed". There is, however, something very old fashioned about Jamie Lynn wanting to have three or four kids before she's old enough to drink. 
• All celebrity plane tickets to visit Hugo Chavez should be one-way. Let Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and any other celeb who wants to hang with Hugo do it on a permanent basis. They can form an "artists collective", grow their own weed and blame the United States for everything all day long. Oh wait, that's really no different from their lives in LA. Never mind. 
• Oprah needs to hush. She doesn't even pick very good books most of the time and she's responsible for Dr. Phil. Seriously people, let's not let her help pick a president. 
• Even in an off year, being an American still kicks ass. You have to admit, this is still a pretty good gig. We have that rare blend of superpower swagger, affordable beer and and an abundance of convenience stores that make this the place to be. The NFL is still ours too. At least until the New England Patriots suck all the fun out of it. 

Happy New Year everyone. Be safe and, for Heaven's sake, don't let any girls from the Spears family kiss you at midnight.

Pulling Harry's Head Out

Harry Reid (D-George Bush's Fault!) is whining again. Now, his scowling tantrums really aren't any more surprising than finding out one of the Spears sisters is knocked up but there was one little moment in a recent interview that made it appear as if Reid had decided to end the year by thinking for the first time since coming to power. 

In an interview with The Online News Hour Reid kind of/sort of admitted that the surge in Iraq was working. This is significant because Reid has thus far proven himself to be the most fact-resistant politician in America. He's so unfamiliar with the obvious that one can easily imagine him standing at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and saying "It's not wet at all down here."

Of course, Reid didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement of the surge saying, "it certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that." Then, as if he feared an allergic reaction to saying something positive about the United States Reid went right back into his psychotically disconnected diatribe mode. 

Harry Reid suffers from a vocabulary problem. He seems to understand the words "Senate" and "Majority" in his title but is completely confounded by the word "Leader". If you follow "Leader" with "by example" he gets all kinds of perplexed.

The man has proven adept at nothing more than blaming Republicans for everything. He probably sees a GOP conspiracy when he runs out of toilet paper at home. He spends much of the rest of this interview doing the Democrat Dance of Irony in which be blames Republicans for everything but the Peloponnesian War then says the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan manner. Naturally, "bipartisan" means "Republicans caving into every lunatic socialist idea we have..." in this case. 

Honesty is another hallmark most people like in their leaders. In this interview, Reid flat-out lies about what President Bush thinks about global warming. 

Harry Reid suffers from the same confusion that the other Democratic leaders do in that he confuses "the American People" with "my Democratic supporters".  They speak with an authority about what the American people want while almost half of said people are sitting here screaming "Shut up!"

As with every other interview I've seen with not-so-honest Harry, he seems to keep pulling things out of his ass to support his twisted fantasy of what the American public wants to hear. The only thing he never pulls out of there is his head. 

I don't think that's a very good look for a leader.

Huckenstein

The (insert appropriate adjective here-"meteoric"/"stunning"/"creepy") rise of Mike Huckabee (R-Yuk-Yuk) is playing out like the scene in "Frankenstein" where the newly created monster sends the villagers into a panic. The villagers in this case are represented by GOP voters who actually want to win the general election. 

Everyone expected this to be a wild race for the nomination but the escape of Huckenstein to the top of the polls has voters considering all kinds of doomsday scenarios. 

Tony Blankley writes today about the Republicans heading to a brokered convention now because of the Huckfest. Part two of a brilliant imagining of such a scenario is posted at Rightwing Nuthouse today. Apparently, we were guaranteed having a true front runner emerge from the previous top tier GOP candidates but the sheer randomness of Aw-Shucks Mike's emergence is a harbinger of certain chaos. 

I'm not so sure.

I have hope that a different scenario will emerge now and I have no real reason to believe that it will other than my gut telling me that it could. Bear in mind that I use my gut to pick lottery numbers too and that hasn't worked out so well yet. 

Here's my political Christmas wish. It's obvious that Huckabee is scaring sentient Republican voters. These voters have spent the endless pre-primary season whining about not knowing who to get behind. Bloggers seem to be largely united behind Fred Thompson. Evangelicals are glomming on to Huckabee now. Those with easy access to a bong love Ron Paul. There are, unfortunately, a lot of GOP voters who don't fall into any of those categories and they need to have their heads take a trip out of whatever dark places they've shoved them. If we're lucky, the news of Huckabee's disturbing surge will reach those dark recesses and spur them into action.

A little indecision is OK. Jumping off the side of a tall building in a panic because you can't make up your mind is the kind of thing that gets people like Hillary Clinton elected. It's time for the GOP to unite behind an electable candidate (sorry, Mitt fans) and prove that it can't be hijacked by one fringe wing of the party. 

Let's fire up the torches and go after this monster once and for all.

Because there is a bigger, scarier one waiting in the Democratic shadows after Huckenstein is dispatched. 

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (VOTE for it!)

Nutroots roasting on an open fire...

OK, I need a little palate cleansing after spewing vinegar at Mike Huckabee (R-You Wish) for much of the week. I'm bored with Al Gore and and the hazard he poses to the intellectual environment. Writing about Mitt Romney puts me to sleep almost as quickly as listening to him. I guess it's time to check in with our subversive little irritants over at the Daily Kos. 

Spend five minutes perusing the offerings of the nutroots over at the DK and you can see why both they and rapidly worsening mental diseases are referred to as progressive. You'll witness an orgy of illogic the likes of which the world has never seen. The average Kosmonaut feigns intellectual superiority by proving points based on nonexistent or false premises which are asserted to be facts. Quite a large choir is assembled there and they preach to it. 

A perfect example is this article linked to in a DK "Open Thread". It laments that liberals are "losing the war of ideas" when it comes to illegal immigration. The author posits that those opposed to illegal immigration are merely "anti" immigration, which is patently untrue. When the illegal aspect is finally addressed it gets dismissed with the customary lefty sleight of hand renaming of illegals as "unauthorized" immigrants. That's how it's done with the progressives: start from a false premise ("anti-immigration"), move full throttle into a semantic circle-jerk ("unauthorized") and-Presto!-you're a liberal genius.  Anyone can win an argument when given the option to arbitrarily redefine the position of one's opponent.  

A post titled "Are Democrats letting Republicans define 2008?" shows exactly why the goofy neocommies don't like to let reality muddy up an ideological debate. The problem, according to "UpstateDem", isn't that the Democrats in congress have turned their "mandate" into approval ratings lower than the self esteem of a pimply adolescent who has just wet himself in front of the whole school, it's that the Republicans are mentioning it. I guess when you're used to making it up as you go along a statement of obvious truth can be so different that it's terribly upsetting. 

If that's getting to them I'd hate to be around when they find out carbon trading isn't going to save the planet.  

To summarize:

1) Even when given the opportunity to fabricate all positions in a debate, progressive ideas still can't win.

2) If you get caught sucking at your job, tell everyone the real problem isn't you but the guy who first pointed out the fact that you sucked. 

It's bound to get you a job with Crazy Howard at the Democratic National Committee. 

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

 

News I Can Use

Weary of the Republican party Hucking up its chances next year, I spent the day doing fun Christmas stuff with my kid. I had hoped that by avoiding the news all day I could come back and find that the Huckabee/Romney nightmare I've been having would be gone. Alas, I waited until after midnight to check anything out but the two are still hanging around like STDs at a Tijuana whorehouse, which, coincidentally, is where Bill Clinton is scheduled to appear first if his life partner becomes president.

After whipping through my usual news sites I had one thought: if Huckabee wins those damn caucuses we should seriously think about trading Iowa to the Canadians for some beer. People shouldn't be allowed to have a significant say in choosing the leader of the free world when they're frozen, pissed off and drinking all day to combat Seasonal Affective Disorder. 

Rather than subject myself to any more Huckobamaney fawning from the breathless American media I decided to see what our closest allies across the pond were writing about. I was rewarded almost immediately for my efforts with this headline from the BBC News site:

"Flatulent cow puts wind up locals..."

No, it's not about a Hillary Clinton joke that's being forwarded in emails.

It's just a lot nicer to think about than the title "President" in front of the names Clinton or Obama.  

A Bad Blessing For Pastor Mike

Here we are finishing up Week One of the Mike Huckabee (R-Um, Kind Of) juggernaut and he's already surrounded by so many red flags that it's hard to see his folksy grin. Of course, the red flags are only visible to discerning, real Republican voters who would rather win in the general election than make an ideological fetish statement in the primaries. 

It was a big week for me too as I broke out my first conspiracy theory to explain the media frenzy surrounding Aw Shucks Huck and JFK Romney.  

My none-too-fragile ego and I learned years ago that the universe seems hell-bent on proving me right so I've just sort of relaxed and accepted the responsibility. This week's validation came from the official publication of the Democratic National Committee, The New York Times. That the Times is unwittingly helping to support my theory should be enough for the rest of you to accept the verity of my pontification. 

Frank Rich, which is the name Maureen Dowd goes by when she's wearing men's clothing, spent several paragraphs comparing Mike Huckabee to St. Obama in Sunday's Opinion section. 

While not effusive in his praise of Huckabee, Rich wasn't the condescending one-note prick ex-theater critic to whom we're most often treated. I apologize for using the word "prick" to describe Rich but my spell-check always gives me grief for "peckerhead". 

Sunday's article was notable because Rich has never written an entire paragraph about any Republican without leveling charges of racism, insensitivity or mental retardation. He's one of those guys who you can just tell was pulling for the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After the Soviet demise he had to settle for writing for the Opinion page of the Times, which is the next best thing to actually working for Stalin. 

Lincoln was the last Republican the Times had anything nice to say about so why is Huckabee getting the soft treatment? Ah, we're back to my conspiracy theory now. I can only conclude that he's the guy who they think would be the easiest for any Democrat to trounce in the general election. Their thinking goes like this: if the MSM tells us he's our star we'll believe he's our star. 

If you don't buy that the MSM believes it can dictate opinion just look at Rich's tortured logic explaining Huckabee's rise. It's not really about his social conservative credentials, it's because he was nicer about immigration during the YouTube debate. Be honest, Frank. The Times has a meth lab where most companies put the coffee room, doesn't it?

Rich also attributes Huckabee's popularity to an "uplifting" message that would transcend the partisan bickering that plagues Washington. Yeah, that made me throw up in my mouth a little too. 

Knee-jerk partisanship occurs when a party is devoid of ideas, much like the modern Democrats. "We hate this administration!" isn't a platform, it's a hissy fit. I'm a big fan of the good kind of principled partisanship that's kept John Edwards' hand out of my wallet so far.

I asked last week who you wanted picking our nominee, us or MSNBC? Do you really want the New York Times sticking their leftist little fingers into the process? 

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Huck Puts On His Big Boy Pants

First, this headline:

Huckabee rises to 2nd in GOP race

It's easy to sneak up out of nowhere because no one is paying close attention to you. Mike's a player now and he might find the scrutiny to be somewhat, um, taxing. The Huckster's got solid social conservative credentials but the rest is a lot of "golly-gee" fluff hiding positions that crumble like Bill Clinton's willpower at a cheerleader competition. So, if the other former Governor from Hope, AR wants to run with the big boys we might want to take a closer look. That leads us to this headline:

Huckabee is Far From Reagan's Heir

Let's see how "Aw Shucks Huck" holds up under the spotlight.

I Want My Mike TV

If alternative universes are real, I've been bouncing between two of them like a ping-pong ball the last couple of weeks. 

Despite the fact that I live in West L.A. I do talk to a lot of Republicans, just not face-to-face in my own neighborhood. Between online networking, blogging, friends and family I keep in pretty regular contact with GOP voters. I also go on the road a lot to places where they still allow a two party system. I meet and speak with a lot of faithful Republicans that way too. 

Given that and the MSM coverage of the Republican presidential campaign, you would think I'd be running into Romney and Huckabee supporters everywhere, right? Here's the tally so far:

Romney-1 (just yesterday)

Huckabee-0

When I'm not talking to real Republicans I wander through the alternative universe of the MSM and guess what I find there? 

"The Mike And Mitt Show" coming at me live 24/7.

I wrote about the media love affair with Romney yesterday. It's clear, however, that this has become one big political threesome with him, Huck and our buddies in the press. 

The manure was put down on the lawn here a couple of months ago so that's not what I'm smelling. Something definitely stinks though.

Just take a look at Real Clear Politics today. There's more talk about Romney there than on his campaign site. It's been like this since yesterday. That followed a week or so of breathless Huckabee swooning. 

I'm not saying that neither of them is newsworthy, it's just that there may be something else on GOP voters' minds besides where the candidate is going for Christmas services. 

This can't really be called a conspiracy on the part of the media, that would be giving too much credit to the intellects of the MSMers. It is more than likely a fervent hope that we'll look away from real issues and focus on the candidates' religions. The obviously liberal MSM could be trying to cherry pick a candidate for us who might match up more favorably against Her Missusness or Saint Obama. 

Guess who among the GOP big guys poll the worst against Hilly and Obie? The media's own omnipresent governor Romney. 

Mike Huckabee is so new to the upper tier dance that RCP hasn't even been tracking head-to-head polls for him and the Democrats, if they exist at all. He may keep up this ascendance up but he's one of those guys whose record doesn't hold up well at all to scrutiny. Any Republican who votes for him solely because he is a preacher isn't thinking much like a Republican at all.

Here are the things that are talked about among real Republicans when considering a candidate:

A) National Security

B) Border Security

C) Controlling Spending

D) Taxes

E) What a useless waste of Capitol Hill office space Harry Reid is.

It's nice that Huckabee is a man of God. It's scary that he taxed like a crazed Kennedy when he was governor. 

And Mitt? His faith does impress. It's also admirable how he keeps in such great shape by doing backflips on issues to fit the election cycle du jour. 

Real Republicans need to decide who will pick the nominee: us or MSNBC?

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!) 

The Mitt Fit

Finally, Mitt Romney (R-Sort Of) gave his "Oh crap I'm falling behind!" "Mormon" speech to clear up his position regarding the influence of one's religion on presidential decision making. This is Romney, remember, so his position on the subject could change after some careful consideration.

For those of you that missed the speech, let me summarize:

"Hey, I love Jesus just as much as Mike Huckabee!"

Romney faced the challenge of having to prove that he was deeply religious to suck up to the evangelical wing of the GOP while also saying those deep convictions wouldn't influence his decision making.

Good luck with that, Governor.

I've grown weary of the media fascination with Mitt Romney. He's spent enough money in Iowa to purchase the state ten times over. As a result, he managed to get to the top of the polls there only to be threatened by Mike Huckabee (R-Aw Shucks), who has spent about eight cents on his campaign. We've heard for six months now that John McCain (R-Cojones) is in a free-fall yet Romney still trails him in national polls.

This has nothing to do with religion. As a practicing Catholic I think I'm more disturbed by the fact that Rudy Giuliani trades in his wife every five years. I don't think the nation can handle the trauma of multiple First Ladies in one administration.

Romney was a one term governor of a liberal state so out of touch with reality that it keeps reelecting Ted Kennedy (D-Liver Damage) and John Kerry (D-I'm Still Talking). His one term was a study in political expediency. He caved into the will of the liberals when that was the path of least resistance. I don't buy the sincerity of his position changes any more than Giuliani's promise to appoint the right kind of judges. When did the GOP become the party of "just tell us what we want to hear"? That's a political philosophy already perfected by the Democrats.

Enough of Romney, already. If we need to organize another Olympics we'll call him.

Coffee's brewing. Time for the Republicans to take a whiff and snap out of it.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Cirque du CNN

So, CNN hooked up with YouTube to blindside the Republican candidates with a truckload of biased, juvenile drivel. Gosh, who would have seen that coming?

By now we all know about the gay general who trotted out a question from the 1992 primaries and was "outed" as a Clinton staffer. CNN apparently employed "don't ask, don't tell" when vetting the questioners. Michelle Malkin unearths more suspicious questioners today because, unlike the MSM, she smelled a rat as soon as Brig. Gen. Undecided was revealed. The MSM, for the most part, ignored the story altogether or were satisfied with believing the retired general to be an aberration. Gee golly, if you can't trust CNN who can you...

Anyway...

The Republicans walked right into this one. Why? Because they collectively possess some male anatomy associated with risk taking that the Democrats don't. A CNN/YouTube pairing had far more potential ticking bombs for the GOP candidates than did the Fox News debate that the Democrats gathered up their skirts and ran away from.

Madame Clinton spent the days leading up to the Democrat debate on CNN teaching Wolf Blitzer how to fetch and heel. Only when she was sure that he was under control and wouldn't embarrass her did she relax and proceed. CNN's biggest error of omission that night was having James Carville doing post debate analysis for them. The nutroots over at The Daily Kos were on suicide watch for the next few days because Carville didn't state up front that he was a Clinton staffer (Ms. Clinton is a bit conservative for the Kosmonauts). Is there anyone in America with an IQ over fourteen who doesn't know Carville works for the Clintons? As secrets go, this ranks right up there with OJ being a murderer. Face it, every CNN employee is a de facto Clinton staffer.

I am only surprised because others are surprised by this. It's sort of like going to a Jackie Chan movie and being disappointed by the acting. The powers that be at CNN wouldn't pass an objectivity test even if we graded them on a public school curve. The only reason it even calls itself CNN any more is because "American Al-Jazeera" takes up too much space on the graphics at the bottom of the screen.

The Republicans aren't going to get a fair shake from CNN, The New York Times or Hollywood. It's that simple. I was actually shocked at the relative softball nature of the biased questions. I fully expected this one to start with a video of some of the children weeping and asking how many puppies each candidate planned to kill with his big carbon footprint if elected. Instead, they attempted to highlight the difficulties that gays in the military face using a gay man who made it all the way to Brigadier General. That just made the policy seem like "Don't ask, don't tell, give me a helluva pension!"

The bias will continue unabated. A debate recap in the New York Times bemoaned "the lack of diversity on the stage..." and whined that "Most of the videos were from white men..." See how it works kids? The Democrats are suddenly representative of America because they have one African-American and four boobs (Hillary's two plus Kucinich and Dodd) running.

The fault lies more with us rolling over and allowing these sham debates that have more audience plants than a TV evangelist trying to raise money for a new Learjet. Each format revision seems to suck more than the last. Serious followers of politics on both sides should get angry and protest (we could call ourselves "youths") until some candidates agree to air it out for real.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

What Fred Said

There was a time, long before things like September 11th, climate hysteria and Hillary Clinton's disturbing pant suits of androgyny when I wouldn't seriously listen to a presidential candidate who didn't talk about overhauling the tax code. (Can I get a little Jack Kemp "Amen!" in here?)

Republican candidates have, at best, been paying a small amount of lip service to taxes in recent years. Republican candidates have also gotten their heads handed to them in recent elections. Blame the war all you want but, as I've said before, the party lost last year because it didn't pay enough attention to taxes and fiscal responsibility.

The sad thing for Republicans thus far in this race is that Ron Paul is the only candidate who has tried to address taxes. Even the Village Idiot can have a few lucid moments but when they're sandwiched between all the crazy talk they are hard to listen to. His army of flying cyberspam monkeys have helped Paul morph into the Dennis Kucinich of the right. All we can do is stare at them, wonder how they got here and hope that the mother ship returns for them soon.

Until this week, Fred Thompson has looked like he's running to be nominated by the Apathetic American party. When I've had trouble sleeping all I had to do was watch Thompson on TV and I'd be out like Keith Richards after a night in a hot tub filled with Jack Daniels.

Fred finally decided to start speaking in specific terms this week and he started with a proposal about taxes that he trotted out on Fox News Sunday. It's a hybrid system that would allow people to free themselves and file using a flat rate. Those who are enamored of the current oppressive system (Democrats and the clinically insane) can continue to file that way.

Thompson is the opposite of most of the other candidates (on either side) in that he is better speaking in detail than he is blathering on about broad generalities. To date we've had the GOP candidates vaguely discussing saving us from evil and the Democrats promising everything but free puppies to every American who isn't part of "The Rich". Of course, I'm dismissing the absurd detail that Rudy Giuliani (R-9/11) goes into by narrowing his record down to one day in history. This proposal, coupled with his emphasis on Rudy's awful gun rights record could be the beginning of a sort of second entry into the race for Thompson.

All I want for Christmas is a GOP candidate I can get excited about again. One who will send both Rudy and Hillary back to New York for good. Let's get Freddy a couple shots of espresso and see if he can do the trick.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Dear Hillobamaedwards: Socialism Still Sucks

American politics has taken some weird turns in the past several years. The two dominant parties, once defined by clear core principles, have now become defined by their reigning personalities. Whenever it gets brought up around my oh-so-tolerant entertainment industry colleagues that I'm a Republican the first thing I usually hear is, "So you like George Bush?!?" As if that's all that being a Republican is about.

By my non-scientific method of calculation, one out of about every fifty liberals actually believes in the First Amendment and will engage me in a reasonable, adult political discussion. The rest tend to be of the "Bush lied, people died!" toddler thinking variety. As long as they can finish a sentence with "...for the children," they fancy themselves intellectuals.

When I do meet the reasonable people, it reminds me of why I used to enjoy politics so much. We get to discuss why we believe what we believe. I have an overriding belief about the role of government which has guided my voting choices since I was young. This belief will keep me from ever being a Democrat but it's also made me disillusioned with many post-1994 Republican leaders. Here it is:

Even if I believed that the federal government should be involved in curing social ills (which I don't), I don't believe it can.

Here's something I remember my very Republican mother telling me when I was young regarding the government and its funding of various things: "There is no such thing as 'the government'. It's our money."

She's right, of course. Unless the government extorts money from its citizenry, it can't scrape together enough to buy a Happy Meal, let alone pay for every kid in America to go to college (Shout out to Fluffy Edwards!).

While most on the left view the government as a benevolent cash-spewing angel here to right every wrong, I tend to see it as a bloated, inefficient monster that screws up everything it touches.

My image of it is something like this: every tax dollar that's sent to Washington to help someone gets touched by so many filthy hands that it becomes disease ridden and shrinks down to about a dime by the time it gets back to do all that helping.

I don't blame Republicans or Democrats for this, I blame the nature of bureaucracy itself. Like a marathon runner who keeps putting on fat, the larger a centralized government grows, the more impossible it becomes to achieve its initial goals. The Catch-22 with a centralized power structure is this: it can't possibly achieve all of its goals unless it grows larger.

Thomas Jefferson, a quotable fave for the Democrats when speaking about organized religion, said this about federal "helping": "I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." (Italics mine)

A rather curious sentiment for the man most Democrats view as their ideological father, wouldn't you say?

Now, let us imagine a group of bloated, centralized and hyperactive governments getting together to form an even bigger bloated, centralized and hyperactive government. You're right, we don't need to imagine, the European Union is already here. Today's Wall Street Journal Opinion page has this concise piece about what happens when this kind of bureaucratic circle-jerk breaks out. It's a nice little holiday story about fraudulent accounting, incompetence and wasteful spending.

In short, it's everything I expect from "a very energetic government" and the people who would run it.

Naturally, if you say that "the government" shouldn't attempt to right a wrong, you're told by the modern American liberal that you're personally against righting wrongs. I say the government doesn't do a good job with public schools so I'm told that I'm against education.

Nope. I'm against a bloated federal government giving me a financial colonoscopy every April for its own amusement. Always have been. Always will be. Don't care who the president is.

Sorry about all this serious adult stuff, I'll get back to being infantile as soon as I can.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote!)

Politburo Thursday: What the Kosmonauts are blogging in between bong hits.

(This is going to be a semi-regular-maybe daily-feature on this blog for now. Here is the first one of these I posted. It gives a little intro to the idea. SDK)

Proving once again that the Extraterrestrial Left (the "ELs") believes that freedom of speech applies only to the hysterically seditious, the Daily Che Guevara is whining about Don Imus being back on the air. Not only that, they also have their metrosexual man-panties in a wad over the fact that James Carville made an appearance on his show. Sure, they hate Republicans over there but they act like scorned lovers whenever a Democrat doesn't pee where they tell him to. Here's their little snippet about Jimmy C:

"Loyalty to friends is good. But Carville sure keeps finding his loyalty to his friends and his loyalty to what should be basic principles in conflict."

Principles. Carville. Somebody forgot to take her Compazine today!

The gals are also chirping about Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein not heeling when ordered to. Neither made a mess on the rug but they did vote to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. Expect an outcry over there soon to bring Cesar Milan in and train these bitches right.

There's even a cute little poll about the California Dems attempt to censure Feinstein. No need, kiddies. She's from San Francisco, I believe they have laws allowing for the execution of any resident who supports the President of the United States in any way.

A piece yesterday (bad A.D.H.D. here-sometimes I miss things) questioned why conservatives "deny global warming." I'm sure there may be some who do, but most only question the causes behind it. This isn't even a subtle distinction yet it's still impossible for the average Kosmonaut to grasp. Why? Because that would require admitting that conservatives can think, which is a no-no for the lefty brain trust and free speech lovers over there. The very essence of Kos-hood can best be described as a bunch of people sitting in a room and taking turns saying, "No, you're the smartest," with a round of giggles following each affirmation. It's the biggest virtual group hug on the planet.

Here's one (sadly) typical comment on the issue:

"Since their knowledge of science and technology is barely at the ox-cart level..."

On the far left, "science" means "an unquestioning devotion to Al Gore." What you have over there are people who abhor religion but are indistinguishable from any religious fundamentalist ("fundies" to the clever Mensa kids at TDK) once Al Gore begins droning on and on. As I (and other ox-carters) have written before, the lefties have even taken a page from the 16th century Roman Catholic Church (and they call themselves progressives!). Their "carbon credit" scheme is a repackaging of the sale of plenary indulgences. Do something wrong, purchase an imaginary do-over and-hey!-it's all better now. What kind of progressive "science" are they going to give us next-greater fuel efficiency by burning witches?

Oh-oh, my ox-cart wheels seem to have become mired in some b.s. Can I buy a "dung credit" and pretend it's not here?

Lady Gets The Vapors

My, my...what a difference a fortnight makes. Prior to Halloween, Madame Fright had a seemingly untouchable lead over her rival Democrats. The whole thing had become so laughable that they were still letting Dennis Kucinich (D-Nowhere) hang around to play chimp to Hillary's organ grinder.

By now we all know what happened in the Philadelphia debate: Mrs. "Definition of 'Is', Is" attempted to give a straight answer without consulting the polls first. That was dangerous territory for a woman who calls Rasmussen before scheduling her first bowel movement each day. Her decision making process consists largely of sticking her finger in the air to check the prevailing winds. (If elected, she'll be sticking that finger elsewhere to see if you have any money left that the IRS hasn't found yet.)

We also know that the missus doesn't possess any of her-um-husband's folksy charm. Heck, she doesn't possess any of Dan Rather's charm. Whenever Hillary Clinton smiles and attempts sincerity I have flashbacks to every Charles Manson interview I've ever seen. Manson has the slightly more feminine hair, of course.

What happened after the debate is the one thing I'll admit I never saw coming: Hillary Clinton started acting chicky. Yeah, I thought the pant suits were hiding the same thing you did.

Today's incident involving the Madame can't even be called a flip-flop. The phrase "brain fart" entered the vernacular several years ago and Hillary Clinton just became its poster girl. After leading an extraordinarily charmed political life for seven years, Mrs. C. just spent fifteen days with a rabid pack of dogs leaving something for her to step in no matter where she turned.

It all began, of course, with her ladyship doing her best impersonation of someone who had just sustained severe head trauma when asked about NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D-Clueless) "Break The Law-Get Extra Privileges" plan. Mike Tyson sounded more sensible when he still had Evander Holyfield's ear in his mouth. She even tried to resort to the standard Democrat battle cry of "It's all George Bush's fault!" and that didn't work for her. Quickly spotting a wounded idiot, her rivals pounced.

Up until this point, the Mrs. Clinton campaign had been a model of locked-down, KGB-like, ruthless efficiency. One expected it to shoo her opponents back to the lightweight division where they belonged. The campaign's response to the debate hiccup was stunning. It can best be summed up like this: "Mommy, the boys are being mean to me!" It wasn't her fault for wilting under a miniscule amount of pressure, it was Tim Russert's for asking tough questions. Or Barack Obama's for smelling blood. Or John Edwards for choosing a more flattering shade of lip gloss than she.

After that, it got weirder than reading a Thomas Pynchon novel while 'shrooming. Mrs. Clinton sent Mr. Clinton out to defend her honor. The reasons for this being remarkable are twofold. First, it was basically an admission by her camp that she was willing to bring Willy the Zipper in at the first sign of trouble. Years of establishing her own identity had suddenly become Monica Lewinsky's blue dress: yes, you could wash the stain out but everyone is going to remember it was there. Second, bringing Bill Clinton in for a dash of chivalry and damage control is not unlike calling in OJ Simpson for conflict resolution.

Oh, for the record, the aspiring First Husband's response to the problem was, "The boys are being mean to her."

Next, the Woman Who Would Be Queen was caught planting softball questions in her audience. Why? Because the best thing to do when people accuse you of being a controlling bitch is to prove it, I guess. And probably to prevent the boys from being mean to you.

And now, after yielding to pressure from every sane person in America, Gov. Spitzer has decided that only the law abiding citizens of New York should have driver's licenses. Many are saying that the future Madame President pressured noble Comrade Spitzer into doing this. If so, it really didn't help because her response made her look like the concussion hasn't worn off yet. She supported Spitzer when he was for the licensing. Now she says, ""I support Governor Spitzer's decision today..." when decides to drop the plan. He must be the one boy who hasn't ever been mean to her.

Immigration is an issue that looms large in the next presidential election. Her first attempt at staking out a position on it left her looking like Keith Richards giving a lecture on calculus. One would hope that the smartest woman in the history of the known universe (according to Democrats, anyway) would be able to formulate a thought of her own in a debate this important. From what we've seen so far, her position seems to be pointing at Eliot Spitzer and whining, "What he said!"

If she's elected president she will have to make up her own mind during times of crisis.

And the boys will be a lot meaner.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it, people!) and Grizzly Groundswell

Shouldn't They Buy Us Dinner First?

I was reading this post at Wake Up America about the $606 billion dollar spending bill that President Bush, in perhaps his first moment of fiscal clarity since his tax cuts, vetoed and was so stunned by every aspect of it that I went numb for hours before I could write anything about it.

First, I'd like to say to President Bush: Welcome back to the GOP. I've supported him on the war on terror but he's been spending money on other things as if he was Teddy Kennedy at a Moroccan whore house. It's one of the big reasons Republicans like me couldn't seem to find our checkbooks to support the party during last year's elections. If he and the other Republicans back in Washington don't get a grip on this issue soon they can all practice saying "Madame Comrade President". It's nice to see these lines drawn again. It is the job of the Democrats to promise to fund everything forever (see: John "A Pony For Every American" Edwards ). It used to be the job of the Republicans to say "Whoa there, Sparky, back away from the taxpayers." It would be very nice to see this issue become a focal point of the GOP platform next year.

Next, I painstakingly went through the pork items listed in the post before checking out reaction in the MSM. My first stop was my local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times (a big city paper with a circulation of about fourteen), and found its article titled, "Bush vetoes education, spending bill." A quick check of some of the other usual suspects found that this was the general theme of the story now. According to the MSM, it wasn't a bloated bill with more pork than a new Britney Spears video, it was a bill that would have funded "education" and "health." This is a convenient ploy which enables the Democrats to avoid discussion of the $10 billion or so in pork by focusing on things we need to do for the children.

Here are some of the health and education items in the bill.

Chuck Schumer (D-Tantrum) and Mrs. Clinton wanted almost half a million bucks for "Jazz At Lincoln Center." I kind of feel good when listening to jazz so I guess that makes it "health" spending.

Occasional Republican Arlen Spector (R-Back Stab) wanted almost $900,000 for "abstinence education and related services." Sen. Spector is invited to my house any time. I'll show him how easily I can say "Don't have sex," to my daughter at a cost of $0.00. It's ironic, spending almost a million dollars on abstinence can make you feel like you've just been screwed.

This one really caught my eye: "$1,000,000 for Bismarck State College for an instrumentation and control training program for the energy industry." This is about as vague as Christopher Dodd's (D-No Shot) reasons for still being in the race. I believe it's a fancy way of saying "We want to teach people how to work the 'On/Off' switches at the windmills." They'll no doubt seek additional funding next year to teach workers where the sun is when installing solar panels.

The list goes on, with Republican and Democrat offenders sprinkled throughout. Heads up people, this is the kind of crap Congress pulls when they think we're not paying attention. They take a bill that has necessary funding as its purpose, sneak in ten billion dollars worth of "No Sex Jazz at the Energy Industry" and pray that you won't notice. Since this particular bill has Medicare and Medicaid funding in it they were sure the president wouldn't veto it. They're not merely playing politics with your money, they're doing it with your health this time.

My hope is that every member of Congress attached to this porky mess gets voted out of office so he or she can find something in the private sector they're good at.

Like bank fraud.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Our Worst Ex-Everything

James Earl Carter, the little peanut farmer who could, is at it again. His single biggest achievement as an elder statesman these days is making Bill Clinton look like the classy ex-president from the Democratic party.

Whenever I meet some foaming-at-the-mouth liberal who says that George W. Bush is "our worst president" I do one of two things. If they've come of political age since 1980, I explain the Carter years to them. When you describe them out loud it sounds like a horrible reality show that was ahead of its time. If they're older than that I suggest several clinics where selective amnesia is treated and wish them the best.

Face it, one of Carter's most enduring legacies was having the drunk brother (Billy Carter) who paved the way for a future Democratic drunk brother (Roger Clinton).

Carter is a dizzying study in contrasts. A devout Christian, he made his biggest campaign splash in Playboy magazine. A true big-government Democrat, he's shown that real change is best affected through the private sector by founding Habitat for Humanity. Even ardent detractors used to refer to him a "nice guy." Now he spends his time spewing as much vitriol as he can when speaking publicly about the current administration.

It was sort of assumed (again, even by his detractors) that this somewhat quiet man would contribute to the dignity of the very small ex-president club. How he became the Rosie O'Donnell of the bunch remains a mystery.

One of Carter's more disgusting recent habits is bad-mouthing America and the current administration in the foreign press. Shove a BBC microphone in his face and he instantly becomes Hugo Chavez with a Georgia accent. His latest bout of verbal diarrhea found him referring to a sitting Vice-President as a "disaster" in an interview with our British friends.

Once more, the bitter irony whenever Carter starts babbling is that his choice of words make you swear he's describing his own tenure in the White House. This is the same man who earlier in the year proved he's never stood in front of a mirror by declaring President Bush the "worst in history."

There's almost something pathological about the current crop of Democratic elder statesmen. Al Gore at least has the decency to outwardly look and act like a lunatic so people can see his true colors (or his leopard stripes, as he would say). Sure, he's revered by the Climate Commies but I still know plenty of people on the left who would lock away all the sharp stuff if Gore were coming to dinner.

With Carter it's more disturbing. He still has that quiet Southern gentleman aura about him that can lull people into believing that he's reasonable. Gosh heck, he's the smiling peanut farmer granddaddy! But he seems to be driven by a compulsion to make his horrible presidential legacy look good by comparison so he begins spewing garbage about the current administration. Worse yet, it's as if he knows that he won't win this battle in history here so he wants to take it overseas where America-bashing is always in season (until, of course, they need disaster relief or military assistance). One minute he's sweet ol' Jimmy then the camera turns on and he shows all the measured calmness of a MoveOn.org staffer who has just been given the chance to dry off George Soros after a bath.

Unable to make his mark on America as president, it seems that James Earl Carter wants to redefine being an ex-president. It's a fraternity so unique that it's made friends out of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. If you'd told anyone eight years ago that those two would be palling around you would have been handed a Dixie cup for your drug test. The former chief execs tend to stick together though. They also try to be restrained in their public assessments of current presidents. Until Jimmy the Mouth hit the scene, that is. Even Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his-um-wife, has been more muted in his criticism of Bush than Peanut Jim.

Wow, twice in one post I've been moved by Jimmy Carter to remark on Bill Clinton's class. That crafty old farmer really is making a difference in the world, isn't he?

The Liberal Army Of Idiots

The increasingly nonsensical American Left has spent the post-Viet Nam era defining itself as peace loving and only willing to fight "just" wars. Defining a just war can get a little tricky sometimes. The War on Terror seems very just to those of us who, you know, read and keep our blood alcohol contents low at work. To others, it's merely a slogan to scare people or a good reason to move to France and forgo bathing. But, hey, it's America and we're all entitled to our beliefs. That is, of course, until we lose something like a War on Terror and our enemies inform us that they're removing our rights along with our heads. They're focused that way, the terror guys.

These notorious peace lovers over there at Nancy Pelosi's house don't exactly embrace the whole concept of peace. It doesn't simply mean an absence of war, it also implies harmonious relations all around. Oops, that doesn't sound like anything Harry Reid's unstoppable mouth has ever endorsed.

The fact is that the Democrats absolutely love wars, just not the kind that are fought with guns. Against real enemies. Who have publicly stated that they would like to kill us.

A quick look around this week and you can see the Liberal Army of Idiots engaged in battle on several fronts. Their enemies? Other Americans, of course. Oh, and that pesky Truth stuff.

The most recent targets include Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, among others. You don't have to like all of these guys, I don't (you'd probably be surprised at which one it is), but a critical (key word here) look at what's being done to each of them reveals just how bloodthirsty these war mongering libs really are.

The continued war on Justice Thomas is by far the most shameful as he can't continually defend himself. He's too busy engaged in the monumental struggle to ensure that the courts don't take over America before the terrorists do.

Justice Thomas has finally gone public about the circus surrounding his nomination. How can anyone forget the bloated Senator from Massachusetts grilling Thomas about sexual harassment? ("Excuse me, Senator Kennedy, your question got kind of drowned out.") So, after sixteen years, Thomas has decided to avail himself of his right to defend himself.

The Left won't have any of that. You see, the "right to choose" that's spoken of over there doesn't extend to choosing to vote Republican, especially if you're an African-American. Threaten to destroy our civilization or blow up a bunch of our citizens and the Left would prefer to give you a free pass. Try to be a Black Republican, however, and they're coming after you. There won't be a draw-down of their media troops until you're destroyed.

The execrable New York Times could barely contain its glee at having a reason to trot Anita Hill out again (I think she lives there). (I'm investigating a rumor that nine out of ten dog breeds will begin crapping immediately upon seeing any section of the Times on the floor.) They gave her some space today over on their Opinion page. Apparently Maureen Dowd gets Tuesdays off to practice actually sounding bitchy in print.

In the editorial, Professor Hill vowed not to "stand by silently" while Justice Thomas "in his anger" reinvents her. Another quick search of the Times archives shows that she's in no danger of being silent any time soon. In her defense, she hasn't gotten a shout out on the Opinion page since June of this year so she may have been feeling a little muzzled. I think the word processing software at the Times automatically inserts "Anita Hill" and "sexual harassment" after any mention of Clarence Thomas.

As long as the New York Times remains the scum of record in this country, your silence will be almost impossible, Prof. Hill.

The two other battle fronts for the Army of Idiots this week involve taking things out of context and letting those little Che Guevaras at MoveOn.org and Media Matters distort them. These particular idiots deal almost solely in out of context stories that are turned into complete lies. Why? Because that's easier than original thought. You know why they need a Fairness Doctrine? Because talk radio is a free-market airing of ideas and you can't survive there if you don't have any. So they need the government (or George Soros-same thing if any Democrat wins the White House now) to ensure that they can broadcast a bunch of dead air that no one was listening to in the first place.

It was a relief to see Harry Reid all over the place condemning Rush. He was so silent during the MoveOn.org/Gen. Petraeus controversy that I thought he'd taken ill.

That's not really sarcasm. I truly don't want anyone on the Left to get sick or die. I just want them to start thinking. After they do that for a while they might open their eyes and identify our real enemies. After that we might, just might, start winning the actual wars with the blessing of our elected leaders.

I know, it sounds crazy. But then, I am.

I don't think I'm done with this one yet.