The DEFEAT Of The "CONSERVATIVES"

Writing in the middle 1960's Ayn Rand predicted the defeat of the "'conservatives'", saying that the liberals would blow them off the stage, to be then beaten by the socialists who will in turn fall to the Communists. Make no mistike, Marxism is alive and well on the college campi. Can you spell "globull warming"? Just what the secqunece of events would be, she did not say, nor was it presented as a certainty, only the most likely sequence given the nature of the two sides, which was and is not immutable. Now I understand how this will happen. In "The Anatomy Of Compromise" she stated three principles:

In any cooperation between two parties, the more consistent one wins.

In anycompetition between two parties, the more consisent one wons.

In any competition between two parties the one that states its principles more openly wins

Before going on, I must note that Senator M^cGore has said that he wishes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and secure the borders. He voted against the former and crafted legislation with the Fat Lying Drunk to see to it that the latter never happens. You don't suppose that being crowned as the nominee for president had anything to do with this, do you? Nah; that would be flip-flopping and only Kerry and Democrats do that: Come to think of it, Didn't M^cCain almost leave the Republican party to be Kerry's running mate?...Hmmm. But M^cCain is an honorable man: So are they all; all honerable men! I had to read Julius Ceasar in 1961 and the finer points fell on deaf eyes. NOW I get it. To show what dumb or dishonesty is, in castigationg Obama recently, M^cCain identified Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq as one in the same. Don't tell them that. Bin Laden considers them a bunch of ham and eggers with mickey mouse rigs and wants no part of them save as useful idiots. He is keeping them at arms' length. Hey John, wake up and smell the camel bleep!

But what of the conservatives? Well when M^cGore spoke at what has been the Conservatives' Academy Awards: CPAC, The scene reminded me of the Jim Jones suicide speech at Jonestown as presented on the History Channel. And when Big Spender Bush speaks at this same CPAC and gets rousing cheers, ya' gotta say "lemmings".

The way that the phoneycons have lined up with their knee pads and blue dresses has been a sight to see. Not three weeks after Mike Reagan wrote a bitter diatribe against the Arizona Senator titled "Mc^cCain Hates Me" he wrote one with equal fervor endorsing the same Senator as though they had been a**hole buddies. Hey Mike put that tongue over here, willya? I was witness to the event that turned Reagan against M^cCain and Mike was justified in despising him and ought be supporting any Democrat. Instead he knuckles under like a bitchslapped ho. Ditto Howie Carr and a couple of others, when, to hear them speak less than a month earlier, this guy is Satan with a Q-tip. Well what is an honest person to believe? Of course the excuse is usually a whining "well what are you going to do?" and the self-righteous "Better a RINO [Republican In Name Only] who will win the War on Terror and stand strong in Iraq than [name the Democrat]" The latest line of manure is "You can't separate the War in Iraq for the War on Terror" Desperate perosns do deparate things. I wonder if these Giabronis know how tired the American people are of this endless warfare? Particularly spending 7 years fighting a bunch that a tired boy scout could have rolled up in a Persian rug and tossed in a dumpster. But can you belive any of these clowns after they do a 180 with such speed and agility that we should have a dogfight aircraft of such maneuverability: Turning on a dime, pointing their nose at M^cGore's posterior and accelerating to lightspeed at lightspeed. and acting like the Senator hadn't just put a diaper, pink rubber panties and a short pink dress on them in 1.39630 seconds? Can you say "Masochistic submissive" three times without blowing lunch? The way thses Apostles of Truth and Righteousness have fallen into line out of fear and loathing reminds me of the pants-crapped "nobles" in Henry the Eigth. To quote the only one of the same dirty-undies crowd with an ounce of integrity "Each to the Devil in his own way". I had to read that in 1963. You think that the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy would have learned from history...you know the rest, folks. For my money, M^cCain would be justified in saying to the lot of them "Hey: Go suck Martian canal water! Not only did I do all right without you, I did all right despite you: Thanks to my friends the Democrats. [guess where that would go -- sideways! That's gotta hurt!]".

Now I will probably get chastized for the abundance of one-liners here. I have two things to say: 1) Never give a sucker an even break and 2) You can't do those who cannot be done.

Now let me address the persons who say we "gotta" vote for John M^cCain after eviscerating him for being a RINO. Do you still say that he is a RINO and that Obama is a real Democrat?...well...tick tock tick tock tick..I'm waiting....How about a simple "yes" or "no", this is not a college Differential Equations Problem...WILL YOU PUT DOWN THAT FRIGGIN' KOOL AID AND ANSWER ME?! Now that I have your attention: Is it true that John M^cCain is a RINO and Obama and Clinton are real Democrats?

OK, another straight answer please. Given that, is it not true that John M^cCain is a phoney? And please don't take more than 5 seconds. It's either yes or no. Now remember; three weeks ago you were up his nose with a rubber hose.

If you are an honest person, then is not the genuine better than the phoney because the phoney is a lie right out of the box and no more need or can be said?

Now, as a relgious person, interested in keeping the Ten Commandments in play and plastered all over the damn galaxy, is not supporting a phoney bearing false witness? Looking though those same Ten Commandements, I see no "except...." clause in "Thou shalt not bear falsw witness": Do you?

Do I make myself clear? Do I need to go on? It's that simple once you get your head out of Uranus.

Of the lot, I am most disappointed in Michelle Malkin for printing the Mohammed cartoon. It is defamatory against 90% of the world's Muslims. Also she is peddling a sign that defines Swift Boating as "Telling the truth about Democrats" (which I've adressed in detail elsewhere) when O'Reilly blew that whole thing out of the water and the Captain of the other Swift boat produced logs that supported Kerry's side of the story on that matter and it's been made clear that these guys who claimed to be there weren't and the cleiams made by these jokers made the military out to be corrupt beyond redemption. No "Support the troops" from these jerks. One more incident and her cred is in the crapper. Pity, I liked her. She was one of the few that refused and so far, still refuses to drink the M^cCain Kool Aid.

It is said that the Wages of sin is death. Which leads us back to where we started and the Seventh commandment is reputed to say "Thou shalt not bear falsw witness" Now I don't see an "except" clause in there, do you? Now since they're gonna commit sin at the second highest level. what are the wages of this sin? Let's look at these scenarios with a McCain Prsidency:

If they oppose the Globull Warmingist religion and it's legislative agenda, how will they answer when the Dems say "but your president believe in Global Warming being man-made"? SLAP!
Now what will the Establishment say when they try to open up ANWR to oil Drilling? "Gee, your guy, our president, voted agains that" SLAP!
When they want to secure the border, what will the Dems say? "Your president had a good reltionship with us and helped craft a good bill that you spat on but now will be in force" SLAP!
Where will the Limbaugh League be when the Democrats decide to close Gitmo and M^cCain goes along with that? SLA...er...WATERBOARD!
In the area of judicial appointments. What will we get from a person who hijacked the nomination by bringing in strangers and enemies while trashing the same idiots who are now giving him a hiney-hickey? It's not what you know, it's who you owe. M^cCain will have to get his nominees through a Democrat Senate that is out for blood and locked and loaded with all kinds of ideological litmus tests just to show who's boss. oh and SLAP!

In short; forty miles of bad road: I love the smell of flambeed credibility in the morning.

Now, having been chastized by M^cCain and been told he owes them nothing, what? On this one your guess is as good as mine, except to say that these will become permanent fixtures of the GOP as the "conservatives" are consigned to the realm of UFO adbuctions, the Loch Ness monster and Barney the Dinosaur. Can you say "Hasta La Vista; Baby!"?

in short the very ideas, that they declared anathema will have been assumed into the Republicans' behavior with the Limbaughs, Haniitys, Carrs and Malkins* reduced to making the whimper of whipped dogs.

One hears these pathetic panderers whining about how the Fairness Doctrine will be used to put them out of business. a few things: First the Fairness Doctrine was meant to apply to news reporting, not other content. Second: Am I the only one who noticed that it was after the Fairness Doctrine was removed that the major media tilted so far left, from 85% to 93% in the last 20 years that they're giving the Leaning Tower of Pisa a reputation for standing straight and true? Now, if their fears were to be met. I am inclined to think it would be an act of kindness to both them and to us. They could be spared further self-embarrassment and become gainfully employed and we would be spared the nuisance of the stench of bovine excretia.

Now, you don't know how it goes up my nether parts sideways to have to vote for the Democrat. But I'm certainly NOT going to let my party be hijacked and turned into Gore Lite: There are no real Republicans in the race; just Dem and Demmer. On the other hand, there is a bit of good old revenge. Back in 2004 while the phoneycons were toasting the Swift Boaters as heroes and to be believed when I knwe better. I supporte Kerry's bid for the White House which I later withdrew when he repudiated his stand on the Iraq war in the second debate (and I did so with great pleasure and moral confidence since in so doing, Kerry took the war off the table). I did this support thing for two reasons. 1. The Swift Boat element was a lie and for that the Republicans deserved defeat. 2) I knew Hillary was waiting in the wings and would tell people "Look: If Kerry wins, we get to 2008 with the following situation: Keryy is a sitting president and Hillary will have to make her move and challenge him or pass on this forever. Beyond that, Kerry will most likely be ousted in 2008 by a Republican. Also if Bush wins, it is not a good bet that the Republicans will win a third term in a row. So look at it this way. Kerry to block". Well I did not know that what was also waiting in the wings was worse than Hillary although not by much.

In '06, I wrote that the Democratic winning of the House and Senate were actaully a defeat for liberalism. How does this square up with that? Well, for one thing, the Democrats did not win so much as the Republicans lost; that is, they beat themselves by playing sloppy ball and not minding the store. It's the same deal here. It's not that the liberals win, it's that the "consevatives" by going along with this sham nomination out of fear are losing and the libs are just the alternative there to fill the vacuum.

This election is about personalities more than substance. Ideology is absent in the dynamics here. Besides which, When Obama gets the nomination. The wiser heads are going to sit him down and say. "Hey, dude: We worked hard to get the George M^cGovern stink out of the party, your buddy DeVal Patrick is a disaster and you didn't get this nomination by much. Don't go screwing around, we've got this locked up unless you go around like a dufus and frig it all up. A goodly number of us aren't screaming commies like you are and we want a future." If the less lunatic Democrates ally with the now backs-to-the-wall-facing-a-moment-of-truth Repubicans then President Obama cannot count on a majorty.

I bagan with an observation by Ayn Rand. It comes true if M^cCain becomes president because he blurs ideological lines and given the proclivities of the drive-by media, the bad that he wreaks will be attributed to the Right. But that does not have to happen now. If the Democrats win the white house then the Republican party will have been spared the consequneces of its mistake and a chance to position itself for big gains in 2010 and to redeem itself in 2012.

However, that will not be victory, only a reprieve to give the Right time to properly orient itself.