OK, I'll admit she was already a monster, but thanks to Mr. Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton now has a human face. She's got pluck. She's persevering. She's an everyman. She's tough. She's a Tonka Everyman. El Rushbo made it all possible.
Remember the olden days when many people thought that Barack Obama was the Messiah? Man, things happen fast in the computer age. Take yesterday for example - "PLEASE," as the Obama camp is saying. Their candidate wasn't expected to do well in West Virginia, but nobody expected a chad-free lynching?! The boy got a quarter of the votes! A quarter of the DEMOCRAT votes! Fifty percent of the people who voted for Clinton said they wouldn't vote for him! Half of the voters think Obama shares Reverend Wright's views! 53% of college grads voted for Clinton! 46% of Clinton voters didn't know what an Obama was!
Here's how bad it is - 63% of West Virginians think a gas tax holiday is a good idea, while half of Obama voters think it's a bad idea - and they're the ones who are right!
Call me crazy, but I bet Democrats think that picture of Dukakis in a tank looks great compared to the box score of yesterday's vote. Well, at least to the Democrats who matter - Dean, Kennedy, Kerry... and Michelle Obama is reportedly so bitter that she's now only proud of the states her husband won. Which reminds me, doesn't Florida and Michigan take on new significance?
Barack Obama still has to be their nominee. He just has to be. Even if the man himself agreed to be Hill's butler.. er... Veep, lots-o-people would be disaffected. And speaking of Veeps, doesn't Hillary now have to be IBM's Vice President? And doesn't absolutely nobody want that, not me, not you, not Hillary - or Obama. make that, especially Obama? Biliary will simply overshadow if not overwhelm him for four years.
That's assuming, of course, that an Obama-Clinton ticket could win... but it's the only Dem combo that has a chance now, it seems. I was the first to say that Clinton-Obama would be the most formidable, but how does that happen?
Obama has been shown himself to be the featherweight some of us knew he was, and there is no running mate other than Hillary who can begin to alter that perception, is there? Without her he's probably fatally flawed. With her, it's four years of hell for everyone except Hill and Bill... and maybe eight!?
Wow, maybe an Obama-Clinton ticket could win after all? Because, I mean, I might vote for them...it's almost worth it to watch the country disintegrate right before our eyes! Never would complete ruination be so fun! I'm sorry to say that I drove through the State once, and I didn't notice, but as it turns out, West Virginia IS almost heaven.
]]>Today John McCain made his strongest statements yet about his intent to regulate the "global warming" scam.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. McCain doesn't intend to regulate the scam, he plans to fully participate in it.
The one thing the senator and I agree on about this issue is that it's potentially the most serious one America faces.
Where we disagree is why.
McCain actually thinks that "greenhouse gases" play some role in something.
So do I - I think he's been breathing in too much CO2, for too long.
Consequently, I will not be voting for him.
He's by far the least of three evils.
But he's still very evil.
This is the first time in my adult life that I'm not proud of America.
Over the weekend, I was referred to a "carbon footprint test."
I took it.
Our "footprint" is under four tons - 3.7 to be exact
My wife and I agree we could easily reduce it further.
That makes us better than just about everyone.
If you disagree, you're worse than John McCain
But better than Barack and Hillary.
In all probability.
Now please, go help save energy - burn a cornfield
]]>It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of racists...
Identity politics is finally bringing its just desserts to the Democratic Party, and as a result, those of us on the outside are treated to a delightful spectacle, the likes of which we've never seen before.
Liberals were gleeful each time Bill Clinton slipped through unscathed after seemingly being in a Republican career death grip, and they applauded as he flaunted laws and used deceit and the power of his office to foil those who sought to uphold the rule of law.
Those same people aren't so gleeful now, as they see the heavy hand of the Clintons try to, as they see it, manipulate the nomination process in favor of Hillary. No matter than Clinton would be the better candidate (I didn't say "good"), they see the Clinton campaign not in political terms, but in racial terms, and the victim of Hillary's racism as not just Barack Obama, but all liberal people of color.
And it's important to say "liberal," because black Republicans feel neither victimized nor insulted. At least they haven't said so, and that's because blacks attain their standing in the Republican Party based more on ability than color.
Republicans welcome blacks into their fold, but not because, as some may think, they are pandering, but because Republicans are pleased when each black individual sheds the yoke of race and embraces individuality.
Back on the Democratic side, Barack Obama whines about the allegedly racist comments of Geraldine Ferrare while at the same time attending and contributing to a church for twenty years pastored by a overt racist who specifically urges his flock to vote Obama because white America is bad.
As Obama decries Ferraro whose comments, by the way, were not the least bit racist, he not only fails to denounce Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he has him as a campaign advisor, and those blacks the reverend exhorts to support Obama have been voting for him nine to one, and no one will call that racist.
Yet not only would Obama not be a candidate were he not somewhat black, but blacks are voting for him because he is. What a lovely quilt the Dems have patched together.
Perhaps this is ultimately why more blacks haven't migrated to the Republican camp - they likely, hopefully, won't be able to maintain their group identity and won't be catered to as a block.
That's the very kind of thing that is good for America.
Meanwhile, I urge you to just sit back and enjoy this election season's featured presentation titled: Eliot Comes To Harlot.
-----
Update: O'Reilly had more tape of this so-called reverend tonight, and it was far more shocking than the initial clips I saw. Wright even blames the government, presumably our government, for creating AIDS.
Catch the replay. Obama has plenty of explaining to do about why he's been a loyal follower of this guy for decades - something he won't be able to do satisfactorily. I mean, can you think of any suitable justification?
]]>Nine to one! That's the margin of black votes that Barry Obama got over Hillary Clinton among black voters in Mississippi. What if that same margin existed for whites voting in favor of Clinton? Wouldn't the media be all over that story?
Yet they think nothing of merely mentioning the disparity for Obama.
I've said previously that Clinton is getting the sort of treatment from black voters that is normally reserved for Republicans, and today, Geraldine Ferraro called something for what it is: she said that Obama would be nowhere in the picture if he weren't black.
That truth seems to have made Democrats crazier, but the fact is, no white guy named Barry' would even have the audacity to run for President with the sort of experience Obama has "ammasses," so the fact that said white guy would never have been taken seriously doesn't even enter into it.
And let's get something else on the table: not only is Obama not qualified, he's not even that great a speaker, much less an orator. He's merely, as Joe Biden described him,: "clean and articulate." All the other qualities that have been attributed to him are desirously imagined by his supporters.
That doesn't mean it will evaporate. The same sort of imaginary qualities were once accorded Bill Clinton and it took liberals sixteen years to see what conservatives saw in 1992, so Obama might get lucky as well. However, the other possibility is that scrutiny may be greater for him than it was for Clinton and for several reasons:
1) His inexperience not only can't be camouflaged, it is becoming more apparent.
2) Ditto his immaturity
3) Half of his own party is not on board, and it has nothing to do with prejudice
4) Independents are fickle. If they start to see the real Obama, a lot of his support could veaporate
And the system the Dems have crafted is a thing of beauty. Even a significant Obama victory in Mississippi doesn't necessarily give him substantially more delegates than Hillary. That's gotta eat at his black and young supporters, one would think.
The super-delegates are another matter altogether. They're there to make sure "democracy" doesn't run amok, and if they do their job right, it could rip the Democratic Party apart.
In theory, the super-Ds would get behind the people's clear choice, which, when this all started, they thought would be Hillary Clinton Now that there is no clear choice, and an entire constituency is ripe for disenfranchisement, well, it doesn't get any better... unless it happens
And did you see Ferraro on Fox? She was not only unapologetic, she forcefully said that Clinton couldn't rein her in, and she actually warned Obama not to alienate her because he was going need her later.
None of this is a surprise to conservatives who always knew the Dems were playing with fire in their pandering to racial and ethnic groups, but who could have expected such delightful manifestations of those consequences, much less imagine where they might still lead?
You keep thinking, oh the Dems will eventually reconcile and all will be forgotten, but will they? and will it? Hasn't a certain amount of damage already been done? Not only are they fighting amongst themselves, but they are exposing flaws in the individual candidates that the Republicans must have thought they'd have trouble getting the voters to consider on their own.
And thinking that the Obama youth and race vote would gravitate to Hillary if Barry isn't nominated is sheer fantasy. However, it does seem clear now that if Hillary is the nominee, she absolutely will ask Obama to be her VP, and I believe that despite the animosity, he'd accept, and that could be the Republicans' worst nightmare.
But don't get me wrong, even that nightmare isn't insurmountable, it's simply the best ticket the Dems can put forth, and as Rush Limbaugh has said, "They don't have a prayer." I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that there are unknown negatives in such a ticket.
We tend to concentrate on the apparent positives - woman, black... that's about it. But those are also the ticket's negatives. At least its main negatives, and there are more - inexperience, Hillary's unlikeability... Bill Clinton, not to mention the horrible positions and plans such a ticket would advance.
Of course, McCain has his own negatives, and I don't see anyone other than Romney who can possibly solve the VP problem, not that Romney is a stellar choice.
But I'm rooting for the Democrats right now - to self-destruct. It seems easy enough to avoid, but then I can't think like a Democrat, and I certainly don't want to be responsible for putting a rational thought in their heads. Where's the fun in that?
]]>You may have heard that Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham were urging their listeners to vote Clinton in Ohio and Texas in hopes of continuing the chaos in the Democratic Party.
But as Hillary told Fox News, "Be careful what you wish for, Rush." And for his part, Limbaugh was already backing off his own urging last Monday, after apparently having realizd that if there were to be a President Clinton, there might be a Limbaugh Flambé.
Well, keep hope alive, it worked. Now you've done it, Rush, you've forced me to add to my Simple Rules I Don't Have To Follow List:
1) If you're a woman, don't marry and Arab
2) When you have a chance to deal the Clintons a knockout punch, you take it!
The thinking among most conservatives is that Hillary is easier to beat, and indeed, Karl Rove produced a chart last night that Showed McCain easily beating her State by State, while he would likely lose to Obama if the election were held now.
But that fails to take at least two important things into account:
1) Obama is vulnerable to criticism. he couldn't even answer elementary questions from the press the other day, and then he whined about it afterward, There's so much he hasn't done or failed to do, and there's so much he's said that's ridiculous and dangerous that the general electorate isn't aware of that once he's called to account, he's going to have a very difficult time. Obama has a glass jaw.
2) For all the hype and hysteria surrounding and accompanying Obama, you'd expect he'd be invincible. Yet he only leads Clinton by a hundred delegates and he can't even win big States in his own party. So you get the idea - his support may be far less than it appears.
And some of that support was on display this morning, again on Fox News. They went to Ohio University and interviewed his "youth vote" - idiots to a man... er... person. Literally not a single one knew anything much about his record or his plans. Now they won't care once it becomes well known that Obama has neither, but real Americans will
And by the way, wouldn't it be delightful to witness these students receive a big dose of good old American disillusionment en masse instead of having to experience it individually, in private, as we all did?
Hillary, on the other hand, can't go lower.She's hit rock bottom and is now on the way up again. That's good news for Republicans? I didn't like what Limbaugh was doing in exhorting Republicans to vote for her, and I like it a whole lot less today.
Republicans certainly didn't win Ohio for Hillary, but they may have won her Texas, and so she's still in the race. The numbers are against her, but where there's a will, there's a way, and the Clintons always have the first and usually find the other.
And as I've been saying, an Obama-Clinton ticket is less likely than a Clinton-Obama ticket, and the latter seems very formidable.
Dem analyst, Kirsten Powers said Clinton-Obama that might be too much change for the electorate to accept, and she could be right, but if I'm right, we could have sixteen years of horror whereas if Obama took Hillary as his VP, at worst, we'd probably have only eight.
Then again, knowing Hillary, she just might want to have another go at it at age 68... just in case, anybody got any age progression software?
]]>What's the one thing you can't fault John McCain on?
What am I saying, let me put it another way: What's the one thing in which John McCain is indisputably more courageous than 99.9% of Americans?
What's the one thing you'd think liberals would consider to be off-limits in this campaign?
So can you imagine the filthiest feminist saying this:
"Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. 'What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years,'" Gloria Steinem claims the media would demand to know?
Every time you think liberals can't go lower, they surprise you.
Now understand, that's not a direct slap at John McCain, it's directed toward Steinem's warped image of the media and society, and there's some truth to it, though not the sort the likes of Steinem would admit to. because when she talks about "the media," she's referring (unknowingly) to the liberal media which minimizes and maximizes whatever it pleases without concern for accuracy or relevance.
And the celebrity worship that's going on on the left could go from horrific to dangerous in November.
In that respect then, Steinem is criticizing herself, since she's certainly done her share of distorting in her lifetime. Would you like an example from the same article?
"A majority of Americans want redemption for racism... I don’t think as many want redemption for the gynocide. They acknowledge racism... They would probably be less likely to acknowledge that the most likely way a pregnant woman is to die is murder from her male partner. There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female."
What's next for Gloria, an Academy Award?
Here's a few more Steinemisms:
"A woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual."
"America is an enormous frosted cupcake in the middle of millions of starving people."
"We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters."
"What has the women's movement learned from Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy for vice president? Never get married."
Here's my favorite:
"Hope is a very unruly emotion."
Say goodnight, Gloria.
Not only are Steinem's McCain remarks outrageous, but you can picture liberal's trying to defend them, and Clinton hasn't denounced Steinem, she's merely said that Steinem's comments were not the campaign's position.
Well, when it comes to the positions of both Clinton and Obama, you'd need a political Kama Sutra to begin to sort them all out.
]]>Whether the lights are on or off, is anybody home?
It should be billed as the Battle of the Lightweights, although Hillary Clinton is clearly right at the top of their weight class, and the question should be, not if Barack Obama is fit to answer that hypothetical 3am phone call (it could come at 3;10), but whether he can rise above the ranks of amateur. He's clearly the least qualified candidate ever to make a serious run for the Presidency in modern history (mine), and that means he's the least qualified ever, because no one as inexperienced as he would have even dared run in earlier times.
Of course, that says even more about the electorate than it does the candidate.
But the cracks are stating to show.
In an Ohio debate, Obama vowed to change NAFTA. Later, it was alleged that he had pre-qualified his remarks with Canadian officials when a CTV report said Obama told the officials well ahead of time that it would be just "campaign rhetoric." Obama denied doing such a thing.
Except that he did.
It turns out that some Canadians do something that's a bit old-fashioned - they take notes and write memos. Now the Obama campaign is saying that Canadians misinterpreted what they were told.
What happened to that grand eloquence?
And today, the Canadian Prime Minister, whose name is being withheld pending official lookup, told Parliament directly that Obama is sending mixed signals.
So clearly, they were told something. And we can assume that it wasn't "I'm going to scrap NAFTA forthwith so get used to it," because, well, that would be real news in Canada's capital, Snowville, Ont. (I think).
So from there, it hardly matters what was said (except to Canadians), because at the very least, it was ambiguous, and intentionally so. Is this the sort of new diplomacy Obama is going to bring to the Presidency?
And lest you think that's only one minor mistake, consider the following from the Associated press:
"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation the decision to invade Iraq Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.
He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and had voted against the war resolution.
Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.
Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.
Just one slight problem with that brilliant preparedness, Jay, and it's a problem which the AP's Tom Raum outrageously failed to report: Rockefeller not only voted FOR the authorization of force, he urged his colleagues to do so in a speech.
Now it's true that Rockefeller urged that war be the last resort after all other avenues have failed, but that's a judgment call on the part of the President, and there can be no doubt that Jay Rocking authorized force.
And there's a new Clinton ad which alleges that Obama, as chairman of a Senate subcommittee set up to monitor al-Qaida activities in Afghanistan has never convened it - because he's too busy campaigning, and Obama appears to confirm it.
There's something about Barry
Finally, the new buzzwords in the Clinton camp are "buyer's remorse." Those words will become a battle cry if Hillary manages to win both Ohio and Texas. I'm not sure her double victory would be a good thing because it would certainly restore a lot of her footing, but the thrill of contemplating what would happen next is alluring.
Now I leave you with this question: Has Gloria Steinem always been insane?
]]>I've been thinking about Obama's response to John McCain that al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq before Bush and McCain invaded, and the more I do, the more juvenile and dangerous it seems. Now Angelina Jolie, writing in the Washington Post has done a great service while at the same time proving that not all liberals are blinded by ideology.
Jolie: "Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?"
Obama can. He's said so - that even genocide wouldn't deter him from his cut and run strategy. Can the United States afford to gamble that Obama will know the right thing to do and actually do it? He was looking to the past to save him from McCain's sarcasm because his initial faux pas was so glaring. More important, he was desperate to avoid having to deal with the implications of saying that he'd pull the troops and send them back in if and when it became necessary.
How is it possible that Angelina Jolie understands what Obama can't?
The thing that has long troubled me about Obama is not his lack of experience or his liberalism or his possible allegiances to the wrong people, all of which is terrible enough. But it's his immaturity that is so very ominous since it may portend a boy-President making critical decisions for the greatest country on Earth at a time that, it could be argued, is as precarious as any in our history.
A recent poll had 84% of respondents saying that they did not think Obama was too young to be President. What amazed me is that someone would ask that. They didn't for Kennedy or even Clinton. There's something about Barry. He seems much younger than his years, and not in a good way.
Obama's reply to McCain not only focused on his weaknesses, it magnified them by several orders of magnitude. Suddenly, the thing that every rational person feared about him was there on display. He really is clueless - his intelligence can't cover for his naiveté. He's a dangerous man, and now that danger is multi-faceted.
This serves as a wake up call for those on the right who say they can't support McCain, or worse, would consider voting for Obama. Things may be bad, but they can get a lot worse, and if you helped make an Obama Presidency possible and things went inevitably downhill, how could you live with yourself?
I know conservatives will continue to mutter about how un-conservative McCain is, and that's fine. It should actually help McCain. But when push comes to shove, I hope you'll be pulling that lever for the little old Senator from Arizona who, by the way is younger than his years in that good way and despite his torture wrenched body..
Obamanonsense is a product of loony left hysteria, youthful stupidity and alcoholic stupor. Here's hoping we won't have to rename the Democratic Party, the Democratic Cult.
When the campaign begins in earnest, barring some Invasion of the Body Snatchers action, the general electorate should be far more grounded..America has proven that a black man and a hideous woman can run for President and be taken seriously. There's no need for the country to commit suicide in order to prove it's not bigoted.
Mrs. O. hasn't been proud of her country until now, and Mr. O can't answer questions about the here and now. After the election, the name, Barack Obama, should retain no greater significance than as one of the sounds your parrot makes.
I'll leave with this edited version of what Joseph Farah recently had to say about Obama:
]]>Let's examine some of Obama's key votes:
On May 24, 2007, he voted against continued funding of our troops in Iraq.
On Jan. 11, 2007, he voted against reform on earmarks
On May 17, 2006, he voted against an increase in the amount of fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border...again contradicting the majority of his fellow Democrats.
On Sept. 29, 2005, he opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
On Aug. 3, 2007, he voted against expanding the power of U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects.
On April 26, 2007, he voted to set dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
On March 29, 2007, he voted to start withdrawing troops from Iraq last summer.
On May 11, 2006, he voted against extending President Bush's tax cuts.
On Jan. 31, 2006, he opposed confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
What is the single, solitary, lone vote Barack Obama regrets?
(That) he tried to save the life of a poor, handicapped woman who was being victimized in the most inhuman way by her estranged husband and a rogue local court.
This should give you some insight into the character of Barack Obama. It should give you a glimpse of his dark soul. It should give you a look into his hardened, politically correct heart. It should give you a picture of what this country has in store for it when he is elected president later this year.
Is Obama Unfit To Serve?
From the title, I know many of you will think I'm going to say yes, Barack Hussein Obama is unfit to serve. But it's not as simple as yes or no. The true, nuanced answer is: Obama may be too young to be President.
I know he meets the age requirement constitutionally, but that only pertains to his chronological age, and as I've said many times, most people today are at least a decade less mature than their actual age would normally indicate.
So Obama's new-age age is borderline, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Some things he said last night and today should give anyone pause - anyone that is who has the maturity to take a pause - anyone who is not sleepwalking to the tune of Hope and Change.- catchy, I know, but is it good to dance to? And really, has anyone ever seen a sleepwalker dance?
During last night's "debate," The Chosen One said that as President, he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."
For one to utter something that astonishing, he'd either have to grossly ill-informed or he'd have to acknowledge that we've been successful in destroying al-Qaida in Iraq, and since he can't say the latter and he's certainly aware of al-Qaida in Iraq now, he's stuck with his absurdity as an indicator that he's not mature enough to deal with reality.
Today, John McCain was quick to reply in typical Republican fashion - he said that he wanted to inform the freshman Senator that al-Qaida was already in Iraq.
Yes, that's considered tough talk for a Republican.
Not content with his initial stupidity, Obama then shot back with: "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq." That's like SO mature!
Obama then launched into the canned and unproven and unprovable liberal line that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until President Bush made it a rallying point. Uh-huh. Time for my power nap.
In this short example, Obama first demonstrated a fundamental immaturity, and then he followed it with proof positive that he's unfit to be President, and he did it in twenty-five words or less.
What, you don't see it? OK, let's all take Barry's view. He's going to pull the troops and stand by if chaos ensues even if it turns into genocide, and that's not my imagination talking, he has actually said that. Then he would "act" if al-Qaida regrouped in Iraq? Can you imagine the economic and human cost of that scenario?
The war may be expensive now, but if we were to withdraw and then have to go back in, you know it would only be after a major disaster had already taken place in Iraq, and by "disaster," I'm not talking about what liberals call a disaster now, I'm talking the kind of scale that gives "disaster" a good name - massive death in Iraq in the sort of numbers that liberals have already been lying about for five years, where Iran may have established a presence along with al-Qaida, and where the concept of "civil war" seems positively quaint.
Not to mention the rest of the line Obama didn't finish - that the oil, you know, the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place, might have gone up in smoke and the price for what's left of it could leave economies sputtering all over the globe.
Although by then, presumably the Senator will have gained some maturity so it's just the price we'll have to pay for electing the second Democrat Boy-President in a row.
Here's Obama's complete statement: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
Then the sensible and mature course involves staying on the present course because that's the one that has a chance for stability. Anything else Obama would do is irresponsible precisely because it's rooted in the immaturity of hope and change.
Oh and speaking of the Boy-President, some feminist recently enumerated several points on which she said that Barack Obama was more feminist than Hillary. This begs the question: will Obama really be our first woman President?
]]>For the first time ever, I had to put down an Ann Coulter column. I did it because I was starting to feel that maybe it's better if she, herself, were put down - because she just won't give it up.
No, I don't mean give THAT up, I mean the McCain bashing. I mean, is McCain really the head of the Devil on the body of Kirstie Alley?
I understand that no one is thrilled with John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee, not even his black adopted daughter, but he's no Dole, and he's better than Nixon, and he happens to be the best candidate running.
Just to hear Hillary or Obama speak is so grating that I can't hit "mute" fast enough. Can you imagine having to listen to either for four years, much less having to look at them? Well then, how about eight?
Whether it's Hillary or Obama, for the first time ever I find myself hating a nominee before the election even takes place. I mean, I didn't hate Clinton for years, and I didn't hate Gore until he tried to steal the election, so I think it says something that I hate Hillary and Obama right out of the box.
Look, I realize that to the Coulters of the Republican Party, McCain is a lemon, but every inspirational book ever written says that when you have a lemon,, you exercise your rights under the Lemon Law and demand either reimbursement or a replacement. Or since that's not practical from a time standpoint, MAKE LEMONADE! For God's sake, in the same situation, Dole made pineapple!
Ann, I'm beggin' ya, and this is personal, find another note on that piano... or at least get it tuned. I only ask because when you become more irritating than Hillary, I'm not concerned about my eardrum shattering, I'm worried about knocking the Earth off its axis.
Today's column is (for about the fourth time in three minutes) all about McCain-Feingold. So I absolutely had to stop reading. But I did a search - not a single mention of George Bush as the McCain-Feingolder-in-Chief. It's too bad Spielberg isn't still doing Amazing Stories.
If McCain loses and Obama turns America into the world's newest socialist state with the help of a veto-proof Democratic Congress, I know conservatives won't blame Ann Coulter, just like they don't blame George Bush for the many and horrible things he's done. They'll just blame John McCain... as usual.
]]>