I received a fund-raising e-mail from the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago, specifically attributed to, and signed by, Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman.  Now, that is not so surprising, as we all get these relatively harmless missives from time to time.   

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I very seldom read these things, and I haven’t, to the best of my memory, ever sent any money to the RNC, either in response to one of these letters or any other request.  You see, I happen to believe that the RNC has no business taking our money and shoveling it like so much fertilizer to the candidates or groups that they (the NRC) choose to support (fairly analogous to what the Government does with our taxes, I guess).  They apparently base their selections on perceived electability as an (R), regardless of whether those candidates are aware of, let alone strong advocates for, the conservative values that the Republican Party theoretically stands for (and that I definitely stand for!). 

Tell me if I am wrong, but did the RNC not strongly back Arlen Specter (spit!) in his last election?  Heck, even all the way down here in Texas, one could see that he has been a traitor to conservative values for several years now. Could those smart cookies at the RNC not see such an obvious thing, or did they not care because he was electable as an (R)?  Either way, they rank right up there with the Government on the list of organizations to which I am willing to hand my money for re-distribution.  At least with the RNC, I can make the decision to exercise a choice without being hounded by the law.

But I did read this one, mainly because Mr. Steele had piqued my interest by showing a little backbone a week or so ago and I thought that we might actually be seeing some real conservative leadership.  Alas, I was fated to reinforce my developing view that the Republican Party and I have almost nothing in common anymore. 

The talking points that were addressed in this email were predictable and, frankly, insulting to the (presumed) target audience.  The only positive aspect was that they didn’t point out how smart Obama supposedly is, even though the evidence seems to suggest that he reads a teleprompter very well (an admirable talent, for sure) but in no way takes those words and converts them into coherent, logical thoughts.  I am struck by the similarity between logical thought/Obama’s teleprompter and logical thought/authors of this email.

Mr. Steele, you say that “last year the Democrats told voters they would bring "change" to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined,” and assert that that is why you believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before.  Are you kidding me? I am sorry, sir, to have to tell you that a lot of us not only imagined, but clearly understood, just how far and fast it would be done.  We just weren’t able to get it through to the “bright” guys who happen to have control of the reins.

You say that “some people who were willing to take Barack Obama at his word when he campaigned as a reasonable, moderate candidate are coming to realize the unfortunate truth.”  Why did you guys not find a way to get the message out about the lies Obama was telling while he was telling them? It is a little late now!

Come to think of it, where were you  when the MSM and the piddle-head Republicans were bashing Sarah Palin during this election you were so concerned about?  Oh, yeah!  I forgot!  Many of those cats were right in the middle of it!

Also, I will believe that you supported the Tea Parties as a “groundswell of popular grassroots opposition” when you can show me that you or your personal representatives helped to develop, fund and advertise them. Until then, I will continue to believe that you are just using the obvious popularity of those efforts to try to hang your fund-raising hat on.  That's another one of those things that we "dummies" can readily recognize -  the difference between sincerity and BS.

And this thing about chiding the Dimmocrats about lack of fiscal responsibility:  What a joke that is!  Have you paid any attention at all to the pork-grabbing, as well as other waste and fraud perpetuated by your Republican buddies?

If this was viewed on high as a stirring call to arms of the Republican proletariat (i.e. those of us whose opinions do not count, but whose votes and money are needed), I would suggest that your viewing device, like the Hubble telescope once did, needs a replacement lens.  Polish it with liberal doses of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Burt Prelutsky, Michelle Malkin, as well as many others who "get it."  Maybe if you actually listen to Rush and Laura and Glenn Beck and even Lou Dobbs, you might get some idea of what we stand for.  Instead, you try to gain favor with the press by taking potshots at those who reflect our real feelings.

Don’t waste your paper or band-width asking for money from me.  I will be looking to vote for and support the party that has a ticket of Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin, or philosophical equivalents.  I’m willing to bet that you and the powers-that-be of the Republican Party can’t even imagine why I feel that way, and very likely do not care.

Trust me!  That has become a mutual feeling.

I have never been a fan of the Saturn automobile line – lack of headroom and legroom having more to do with that than any aversion to the brand.  Nevertheless, I salute Roger Penske and wish him the absolute best in his effort to inject some sanity into this whirling dervish of socialism unleashed.

What we need now is for more of the Penske and Ford approach to managing business affairs (and not just the car business, either).  However, my cynicism (about what Obama and the congressional troglodytes are willing and anxious to do to productive Americans) has reached the level at which I suspect there will soon be a Master of Capitalism Control position created by His Obama-ness.  Reid, Pelosi and the gutless RINO's will, of course, provide ample funding and vacuous verbiage in their continuing effort to bask in The Glow.

Do you really think that Obama and the troglodytes can, or will, allow any capitalistic efforts to succeed against their state-run “Lada mills”?   From Wikipedia (with links removed): 

The original Lada was a basic car, lacking in most luxuries expected in cars of its time and was patterned after the Fiat 124. Ladas were available in several Western countries during the 1970s and 1980s, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, though trade sanctions banned their export to the United States. Sales to Italy were forbidden by the agreement between the Soviet government and Fiat, to protect Fiat from cheap imports in its home market. Imports to Spain were also prohibited because the local Fiat subsidiary, SEAT, built a version of the same car.

Eerily familiar, isn’t it?  Fiat, low quality vehicles, trade sanctions, suppression of competition.  One wonders if Obama and his Socialist buddies are putting life to the old saying about taking over (literally, in this case) by “Fiat.”

If you are not afraid for our country’s future, it is because you are either:  totally ignorant of the depths to which these people are willing to take us (inexcusable if you can read and/or think for yourself), incapable of understanding what is really going on (understandable, but sad), or a willing and fervent supporter of the planned destruction of the greatest country in the history of mankind (in my mind, this defines the most insidious form of treason).

 

How can anyone with a brain have voted for this socialist administration?  Even more incomprehensible is how they can continue to worship Obama after seeing, in only 100 days, his plan and capacity for damage to our country.

They are in awe, giggling like schoolgirls, as they watch him fire that nasty old CEO of GM, never contemplating that we just got on a slippery slope to a point where the government will determine every aspect of our lives.  Do you really think, once these statists (as Mark Levin has so eloquently branded them) get in full swing, that they are going to concentrate on developing new video games, cars designed for comfort and convenience, new medicines to prolong your life, or other such foolish notions?  Do you think they are going to make sure we have a good national defense to keep at bay the despots of the world, who just happen to have the same philosophy that they do?  Sure they will, because we all want what's good for America, right?

If you think these guys want to do something to make life better for the little guy,  just ask yourself one question:  Instead of taking this $2-3 trillion porkulus and using it to take over private enterprises, why didn't they just send you, and every other American (man, woman and child), a check for $10,000 and let you use it to alleviate personal concerns or debts?  That would not be right, either, but I guarantee that a lot more stimulating would have occurred!  A hint:  they think they know how to spend our money better than we do.

I predict that, 10 or so years from now, a lot of formerly free Americans are going to be mumbling to themselves, "Why did they let this happen?"  Some will even understand that it is not they, but we, who let it happen.  It will, of course, be a crime against the state to say such things aloud.

I just saw one of those ads by another of the illustrious "big three" assuring me that I would be able to get one of their less-than-well-designed-and-built cars (my description, not theirs) for what they call their employee pricing rates.

Just wondering.  Why don't I get the owner pricing rates since I am now paying my hard-earned tax money to keep them in business?  It obviously matters not whether they make a profit or cover their costs, so why don't they increase sales by lowering the prices to those of us who subsidize them?

Also, is it true that Upchuck Shumer (Dem-NY), in the Senate grill room, asked the idiot CEO's what volume of sales it would take to break even, at a loss of $2,000-$3,000 a car?

Have you ever had one of those little nonsensical things that just nags at you and nags at you and ...?

Why is it that a member of the Republican Party is called a  Republican , but a Democrat proclaims membership in the Democratic Party?

I mean, if the name of the party is Democratic, shouldn't the proper noun for a member of that party be a Democratic?  Or, should members of the Republican Party more properly call themselves Republicanics?

Actually, I had never heard of the Democrat Party being referred to as the "Democratic Party" until, maybe, 8 or 10 years ago.  Now, it has virtually replaced the original name.  This year they even had that term on the Texas ballots, which I am fairly positive is a new development.

As I said, this is not a big deal in the total scheme of national politics, but it does tend to grate.  It is just not consistent with the natural order of things.  It is probably one of the unintended consequences of Algore's invention of the internet.  It could, of course, be a conspiracy by some of the Democratics to subliminally suggest that the other parties are not little-d democratic, but, they wouldn't be that dumb.  Would they?

Wikipedia is, of course, no help.  The articles are most likely written by historians.  Enough said?

Anyway, it is not likely to be a concern for me much longer.  We Republicans are quickly center-lefting ourselves into oblivion, and the Democratics are speeding toward becoming The Global American Socialist Party. 

I guess we will then call them the Repugnants and the GASP's.

I was reading some of the comments in response to one of the Town Hall articles and found a comment by some liberal idiot (I know, redundant!) who calls himself Science Avenger.  I could only assume that SA considered himself to be a scientist, or at least to know about science.

SA was on a mini-tirade about, among other things, how stupid it is to deny global warming.

Well, Avenger, I truly believe that the human-generated impact to our planet's environment (throughout the sum of our existence, including our time as monkeys, as you also assert) is significantly smaller than the correllation between logical thought and the liberal brain (i.e., infinitesmal).  The next time you talk to Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy, ask them what their fellow dinosaurs thought about a couple of those volcano eruptions.  Now, that was what I call impact to the environment!

But, with that said, I will promise you that I can be persuaded to change my mind.  All you have to do is show me how the so-called "consensus" on global warming can be proven through application of the scientific method.  Once you can do that, there is no longer consensus, there is irrefutable proof.

Surely, as a "scientist," you are familiar with the scientific method. 

Or, maybe not!

NOTE:  Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.


Do you think I am racist just because...I don't respect Barack Obama and am never likely to, and it is not all due to his shady associations.  I reserve the right to change my mind, and will gleefully do so, if he turns out to be a president who governs in a manner that preserves and protects our Constitution.

I have seen absolutely nothing from Barack Obama that gives me any reason to respect him.  There is the matter of being a smooth talker, but all of the great con men of the world are smooth talkers (e.g., Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even Al Gore at times).  As it has with those others, only time will tell if the smooth talk is backed up by wisdom and insight, or just by some brains and a lot of cunning.

I don't respect him because of his penchant for using people and then leaving them by the wayside, particularly members of his own family.  He has the temerity to talk in terms of waking up to family responsibilities, and yet he doesn't make even minimal attempts to better life for his own flesh and blood.  To me, this reveals a certain shallowness of soul. 

I don't respect him for deviously bringing race into the campaign, just to get an edge. 

I don't respect him for agreeing to use matching funds, and then backing out.  Very cunning move, that, and it worked well for him, but it was not the act of an honorable man.

Most of all, I don't respect him because I perceive that he and the Dems are going to make every effort to lead this country down a path to socialism.  God help us, and moreso, our future generations!

NOTE:  Please refer to my previous post, Do You Think I am a Racist Just Because..., for the background and context of this post.


Do you think I am racist just because... I believe that, in this day and age, black leaders are more to blame for their current social and economic situations than any overt racist activities by individuals or groups?

Oh, yes, there are a lot of racists out there who are delighted at any opportunity to put down a black person, directly or indirectly.  Thankfully, our country has made great strides in condemning and suppressing those people, who now have to scurry into their rat-holes when the light is turned on them.  We are two or three generations into that particular cleansing process.  Why is it still used as a crutch?
 
I do understand that there are a lot of people who are stuck in places and situations which they have neither the knowledge nor resources to control.  I am not pointing fingers and saying that they should just get up and move on to better things.  I am saying that they should look around and question their leaders (church, community, political, etc.) about what new approaches can be tried to break with the failed efforts.  A perfect example is the almost total adherence to the Democrat Party, despite irrefutable evidence that it uses them for elections and ignores them between elections.  Let's see, the Dems gather them up to go vote, and then how long is it before the Dems are seen again?  Answer:  next election. 

That party has done nothing for at least forty years to actually improve their living and educational conditions (and, in truth, it was Republicans and Conservative Democrats who did anything then), and yet the leaders keep accepting whatever the poverty pimps push on them. 

One would think that one of those leaders would one day say, "Well, forty years is proof to me.  We might as well see what some other group has to offer.  Can it be any worse?"

I don't really know for a fact, but I gather that the most influential leaders in  Black communities and neighborhoods are pastors.  I wonder just what percentage of those pastors point out to their church members the amazing accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, J.  C. Watts, Condileeza Rice, or Thomas Sowell and establish them as models for the community.  Or do they brand them as traitors to their race, or worse, because they happen to be of the conservative persuasion.  What an absolute travesty!

I have heard it said that white people have no right to tell blacks who their leaders should be.  That is undoubtedly true, but I  do have the right to tell them they are not being very smart about it, IF their interest is to help their followers to adapt to, and embrace, the modern world.

To me, that is a leadership problem, not a racism problem

We are seeing a number of post-election articles extolling the sudden advancement of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency.  The tone and intent of these articles vary widely, for instance, Harry R. Jackson, Jr. (Race Still Matters, Townhall.com, Nov 10, 2008) presents a positive suggestion for the coming together of churches to effect a faith-based approach to closing the racial divide.  On the other hand, Ken Connor (Still a Long Way to Go for Equality, Townhall.com, Nov 9, 2008) lectures us about how we have now shown that we are no longer a racist nation by this election.  I am afraid that Mr. Connor is being a little devious, in that the real purpose of his article seems to be to get us to give up our bigotry towards other areas of human rights.  You should read his article, as he makes some valid points.  Indeed, his concerns are, to me, much more valid than his introductory point.  I may be a little sensitive here, but it seems that his use of the "racism" term to bring attention to his real agenda smacks of – racism.
    
These particular articles are, by no means, being questioned as to the intent or sincerity of the authors.  They are simply convenient examples based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away.  Racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we should all be better off for it.  Those of us who understand and applaud the fact ARE better off for it.  

Those individuals and groups, black and white, who perpetuate, and try to profit from, the practice of systematic racism need to look deep within themselves and learn to accept people on their merits, not use or mis-use them because of skin color.  Will this election put to rest the prejudices and abuses of these people, who truly are racist, no matter their color?  Left to their own devices, probably not.  After all, even racists have most of the rights in our country.  Ironically, it seems that the black proponents of racism (the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons) will likely be more affected by this election than the hate-mongers on the white side.  It may be a little harder for them to sell their “snake oil” in the light of facts, such as we have elected a black president.  I would suggest to the new president and his old party that, rather than pass a lot of new laws to control the white racists, just ignore them and let that particular brand of hate die with them.  It is dying out, you know?

So, all of the above is provided to set the stage for a series of questions and/or comments that I plan to introduce, and hopefully to get some feedback,  detailing those things that I think many people attribute as racist attitudes simply because they in some way are connected to a minority.  I will define the point and then try to give you my thoughts on the “racial” connotations.  I am, obviously, hoping to generate some good discussion, but, if that does not occur, I will have gotten my thoughts down in writing  

I am doing this as an informal poll.  If you choose to participate, just give me your answer and add any comments you may have.  Instead of trying to cram all of the questions into a single post, I will present additional questions in subsequent posts.  In that way, we can give each of the subjects its appropriate level of attention.

Do not be mis-led by the seemingly lighthearted approach to my poll.  Rest assured that the specific questions or points raised in this effort have been of major concern to me for many years.   

For the sake of limiting the tedium, there are a few guidelines on participation:  

1. I, and other readers, do not know you and are, therefore, likely to judge your intelligence by the clarity and civility of your writing.  Only you know how you want to be viewed by others, but I will appreciate everyone keeping it clean and civil.

2. Remember, we would like to have the benefits of your own thoughts, so no cheating or referring to Talking Points from either party.  That will keep us from having to read through the same boring “intellectual stimuli” over and over;

3. Please do not read just the first few words and jump straight to a conclusion.  The idea is to generate some thought and maybe even a little discussion;

4. Likewise, maintain a little intellectual honesty in your thought processes.  Unless you are using group-think, the only person you will be lying to is yourself;  

a. According to exit polls, 47% of Americans think it is pretty dumb to do that (lie to yourself, that is), 33% asked if there was any alternative, 15% said that sounded racist to them and 5% voted “present”  

b. The margin for error is impossible to calculate because a number of self-proclaimed moderates changed their responses several times.

c. I used the Washington Ethical Behavior Standard  (WEBS) in developing these statistics, so don’t waste your time trying to verify them, or my time (and that of the other readers, if we have any) in trying to refute them

5. Main stream media types, there is no need for you to use your valuable Palin research time (and/or Obama worship time) to participate in our little project.  I have already written down your collective “yes” simply because I am a white male, born and raised in an extremely small Southern town;

6. Bill O’Reilly should not vote because it will not sell any books for him.  If you want to know the depths of my admiration for this court jester, you can read a couple of my previous posts;

7. Carl Cameron should not vote because no one will be whispering in his excitable little ears for a “major” scoop (see the next item).  Need to vet those sources a little better, Carl.  You are dangerously close to being grouped with Chrissie Matthews in the “tingly-leg media,” and

8. McCain campaign staff twerps will not be blamed or credited with the results here, so there is no need to clutter Carl’s telephone with whispered un-sourced accusations that Governor Palin is funding this with her lingerie allowance.

Otherwise, all Americans, including those who let themselves be hyphenated and are proud of it, those who abandoned their party and conservative principles when the going got a little tough, and those narrow-minded liberals who never open their thought processes to anything that moveon.org doesn’t tell them, are welcome to interject their Two Cents’ Worth, as it were, into the discussion.
    
We will, of course, be willing to provide the results to Bill Ayers for inclusion in his soon-to-be-award-winning education reform efforts for the Chicago schools.  One only has to look at the state of education in Chicago schools to see that his endeavors are at least as deserving as Al Gore (his personal carbon footprint is growing at an astounding rate) and Jimmy
Rabbits-are-meaner-than-Iranians Carter.

So, here we go:

How many of you think I am racist  just because…I voted for John McCain (actually, of course, I voted for Sarah Palin but it has the same force and effect) instead of Barack Obama (and the piteous Joe the Biden)?

The prevailing theory in Democrat circles (including the msm) and the Republican turncoats such as Colin Powell seems to be that everyone who did not take this historic opportunity to vote for Obama did so only because of overt racism (isn't that racist in itself?  Oh, of course not, blacks can't be racists, can they?). 

However, let me clue you in on a dirty little secret - if Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Lynn Swann or J. C. Watts were running for national office, I would support them in a heartbeat.

You see, it has to do with the agreement that you have, or do not have, with their core beliefs.

In "Top 10 Recipients of Fannie and Freddie Cash," theWire, page 16, Townhall magazine, November 2008, the information is revealing and frankly, disgusting!

It has been fairly widely trumpeted by everyone in the country except John McCain, his campaign, and the main stream media that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recipients of bribe money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wealth distribution officials.  Even Bill O'Reilly managed to work up some indignation over that until the cameras were turned off (and he realized that it was not going to sell any books).  It was somewhat lesser known that John Kerry is number three.  Disgusting, but not the least bit surprising, I would say.

What did surprise, and absolutely infuriate, me is the fact that three Republicans (Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Spencer Baucus and Rep. Roy Blunt) are numbers four, five and six on that list.  In addition, Republican Senators Christopher Bond and Richard Shelby have the dubious honor of filling the eighth and ninth slots on this distinguished list of scumbags.

It reveals more than a little about why there was no hue and cry to tree the perpetraitors (new word that) and pick them off one by one. 

I was not the least bit surprised about the Democrats.  In fact, until I saw the Townhall article, I just assumed that the remainder of the Top 10 would be populated with less accomplished Dem grifters.

But, hold on, Mabel!  That was a dumb assumption!  I feel absolutely ashamed by the presence of five Republicans on this list.   I am not a generally a naive person, and would not have been surprised at one, or even two, but I did think that there were some limits on such behavior, and that we could depend on our party to hold its members to a higher standard.  The only difference between this bunch and William Jefferson is that he owns a freezer.

I personally will never see or hear one of those five names again without gagging.

Out with such trash!

Buffoon!

While you and Luntz are sitting there preening and slapping each other on the back, your supposed journalistic credentials are falling down around your ankles.

Indeed, Obama scored high with the little group of "independent voters."  And you high-fived one another that he hit a home run with his promise to give all citizens the same insurance coverage that Congress has.  Well, as a retired civil servant, I paid, and still pay, about $400 a month for my insurance coverage.  The Government pays some amount (probably about the same) as their share of the benefits package that was a part of my total compensation for my work for 30 years.

So you are impressed with the popularity of his answer that potentially translates into about $10-12,000 a year of our tax money for each family which receives it.  I'm willing to bet there were no more than one or two people in the room who had a concept of the cost associated with that little promise.  And there are no journalists who would even think of questioning it.

Your claim to be looking out for the people is as shallow as your willingness to dig into the facts.  I never expect a straight answer from Obama, and I guess it's too much to expect you to try to get one.  But, he looked you in the eye and you know he would only speak the truth to you, right?

You, sir, are a buffoon.

By the way, where does your hard-hitting expose of B Franks and the other thieves stand?  Just more bloviating, I guess!

This from the November 6, 2008, Townhall column by Michael R. Blood, entitled "Can Palin Resurrect the GOP?  Does She Want To?"

"Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich."

A leading conservative, is Grover?  Is he a "leading conservative" in the mold of those who abandoned the party's candidate when the going got tough?  A suggestion, Grover.  Maybe you should look over your shoulder and see where the unwashed masses are heading, so you can run over and get in front of us.  If you try to force more of that elitest conservative claptrap on us, you may very well find that we have decided that a new party is the way to go. 

Sarah Palin has earned the right to be the leading candidate for the next election, if she feels like putting up with the "Democrat Press"  and the back-biters in the McCain staff (what a bunch of clowns!).  Frankly, I will not blame her if she decides to stay in Alaska to shoot moose.  That Grover dismisses her as one of five or six does not inspire much confidence in me that they learned anything.

Newt Gingrich is, to my mind, a true conservative hero, but, for whatever reason, he effectively chose to sit this one out.  He has some mending to do to get me interested in picking him over Sarah.

I don't know much about Romney, other than his religion.  I suspect that item alone will inspire enough divisiveness within the party to render him as less than a true force in a battle to unseat an incumbent, even a socialist.

Rick Perry is a grub!  An ultimate RINO!  He spearheaded a drive to add a new tax on the profits of businesses here in Texas, and, through his own personal leadership, got it passed.  I'll bet you $5.00 right now that he would not even carry Texas!

So, if you can find someone who is better than Sarah, and who convinces me that he is better, so be it.  I will be happy to support that person.  But beware of buying into the feeding frenzy that is trying desperately trying to discredit Sarah Palin, and be very cautious about trying to cut her legs from under her.  We, the non-leading conservatives, may not be nearly as stupid as you think.  The Independent Party (or some other) may find it's ranks swelling with dis-enfranchised Republicans.

It appears that there are going to be a lot of RINO's and campaign staff pukes pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as a millstone dragging John McCain down to defeat.

What a load of fresh horse manure!

A personal testimony concerning that:   I had been sending emails to all of my acquaintances from the day that McCain gained assurance of being the Republican nominee, detailing what I see as his political crimes against the conservative philosophy and urging them to think very hard before voting for him.  In fact, I flat out stated that there was no way I could forgive him of those sins and that I would not vote for him.  Period!

Well, guess what?  He selected Sarah Palin as his running mate and from the moment I heard her speak, I decided that I would hold my nose and vote for McCain just because of her.

If one shuts his mouth and listens, I suspect that there were at least a couple of million other conservatives who will tell you the same, or a similar, story.

Palin in '12!

Are these turncoats really supposed to influence me by their "defections" to support the biggest threat to our country's existence since the Civil War?  Colin Powell, somebody named Adelman, Christopher Hitchens, a couple of lily-livered columnists?

To me, the proffered reasons for their actions are as shallow as Powell's insight into the oil-for-food scandal that was going on right under his nose at the U.N.  I am left to draw the conclusion that, as some have speculated, the only logical reason for these people to do this is the fear of getting cut off from their social circles in Washington.

I guess one could speculate about the possibility that they are "sleepers," put in place by Moscow many years ago to be awakened by the voice of the Chosen One.  As silly as it sounds, that makes about as much sense as the logic they used.

I see where Obama The Charma is doing some community organizing.  He has asked that his followers take off on Election Day (to honor him, I suppose).  At least it would not result in a big loss of productivity, since approximately 40%* of his Kool-aid drinkers don't have a job, and another 42%* can't think for themselves well enough to be productive, anyway.

*Based on approximations provided by all the professional pollsters.