Concerning the debate

Obama is clobbering Romney.  The tingle will be back in Chris Matthews' leg.

And I'm shocked that CNN's Candy Crowley isn't blatantly biased (she's subtly biased, but it's decently subtle).

Mitt is fighting back, but Obama is killing him.

UPDATE 16 October 2012 10:05: "Stormin' Mormon". Heh:

UPDATE 16 October 2012 22:18: Mitt just blew a layup question on Benghazi. And Mitt knows nothing about guns - automatic weapons are illegal?  This will come as a shock to 100,000 (legal) owners of automatic weapons.  And he's incoherent on "Fast and Furious" - another layup that he blew.  He's Blue State to the core.

UPDATE 16 October 2012 22:24: There you go, gunblogosphere, Mitt proudly talking about bringing gun banners and hunters together for an Assault Weapons Ban.  It's Mitttastic!  Please, tell me more about how Mitt will be better on SCOTUS nominees.

UPDATE 16 October 2012 22:37: I like Romney's summing up on the last question.  The real question is whether the women voting bloc agree.  It's possible that nobody will remember anything but the last summing up, in which case it's a draw.  I guess that we'll see.

P.S. It doesn't matter.  Mussolini would beat Obama this year.  Duce! Duce! Duce!

Let them hate, so long as they fear

The Romans used to say that about the barbarians.  Another way of saying it is that it's better to be respected than loved.  So what do we see about Obama?  Is he respected/feared?

Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns. We have approved no campaign ads, and, as is our general practice, have requested that both campaigns remove Sesame Street characters and trademarks from their campaign materials.

They think he's going to lose, and don't want a hostile GOP White House and Congress.  They could have just kept quiet, but didn't.  Osama bin Laden may be dead, but he understood the strong horse and the weak horse.

In an extraordinary move, officials appeared to lay the blame for confusion over what happened in the Libyan city of Benghazi on the shoulders of a key aide to President Barack Obama - Susan Rice, the administration's United Nations ambassador.

She told reporters five days after the attack that armed militants had "hijacked" a protest linked to an anti-Islamic video posted online in the United States. By that stage, local guards at the consulate building and other witnesses were all denying any sign of a protest before the attack, which began with grenades being hurled into the compound.

In the briefing, officials were asked about the previous explanation that the attack was linked to the video. "That was not our conclusion," one replied, calling it a question for "others" to answer.

Do the State Department bureaucrats respect/fear Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton)?  The question answers itself.

The interesting question is how many more will break from the herd over the next three weeks?  Will it be a continual drip-drip-drip, one that accelerates as more and more see that there is no consequence for them to protect their position at the expense of the soon-to-be ex-POTUS?  Again, the questions answer themselves.  That you could even ask the question is to know the answer.

I'd do a long, typically Borepatchian post relating Obama to historical examples of the Peter Principle in action, but I did it three years ago.

Obama's Dilemma

The post debate go-to analysis is unsurprisingly found at your Gormogons.  I didn't watch, and so will rely on the Czar's writeup as being definitive.  If you haven't read it, go and look at it now.

The Press is (surprisingly to me) seemingly unanimous that Obama's performance in the debate was terrible, and people are scratching their heads as to why.  The reason is that Obama is in a trap of his own making.  Consider:

The Obama campaign up until this point has focused on the textbook Alinsky personalize-and-freeze strategy.  Romney gave some woman cancer.  Romney ties dogs to car roofs.  Romney is coming for your ladyparts.  This has all been 100% focused on the Democratic base, to keep them fired up.  If the base does not turn out for Obama in numbers similar to 2008, he is in very deep trouble indeed.  The polls, as a matter of fact, all use a Democratic turnout similar to 2008 in their models, and the polls are reporting that the race is very close.  If Obama doesn't fire up his base, he's toast.  Thus, the campaign to date.

But the dilemma is that it was independents (and we must admit some "Obama Republicans") who gave Obama his margin of victory in 2008.  Whether it was SWPLs making themselves feel good voting for the Black Guy or because they listened to his soaring Home and Change rhetoric rather than the Jeremiah Wright class war fire and brimstone, if Obama doesn't get those people turning out in similar numbers, he's in deep trouble.

Remember, the Republicans are fired up this year (unlike 2008), and so Obama's 52% victory starts likely at even - assuming he keeps both his base and the independents.

And there's the dilemma.  What fires up the base is the class war fire and brimstone.  What will pull in the independents is the persona he projected in 2008 - post-racial, bipartisan, and agent of competence and change.

Obama's choice?  Pick one of those.

Last night, he appears to have picked the echo of his 2008 persona, trying to conjure the remnants of the bipartisan figure that would pull in the independents.  It appears (remember, I didn't watch the debate) that Romney mopped the floor with him on precisely this point, because Romney's record in Massachusetts is demonstrably bipartisan.  Indeed, Obama's reported lack of energy is likely a combination of (a) a strategy to avoid going all fire and brimstone and (b) a realization that he was playing a very weak hand.  Post debate polls seem to be showing independents breaking 2:1 for Romney.

Further evidence that he was not playing to his base is the astonished reaction by the Press, who quite frankly are his base this year.  You can't listen to Chris Matthews without thinking that they were hoping for the fire and brimstone from their guy.  Nobody every overestimated Matthews' intelligence.

Obama knew better, but he's trapped.  Romney is plenty competent enough to let Obama get away with the HopenChange play, and plenty competent enough to keep from scaring the SWPLs.  I've been saying repeatedly that Romney will win, and win big - this is probably the point in the campaign where the polls begin breaking decisively for Romney, and will not correct towards Obama.  The independents who have been putting off making their choice will begin to decide now, and they will break strongly for Romney.  If Obama dials up the class warfare to energize his increasingly demoralized base, he will simultaneously energize the Republican base to turn out and push independents more strongly to Romney.

Quite frankly, Obama has dropped below the power curve.  I've been saying for a year or so that Mussolini could beat him this year, and it's playing out like a Kabuki dance.  Scripted.  The interesting question is how Obama will position himself for life after 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  I'm not sure on that, but suspect that some weirdness that we are likely to see in the next month will be driven by that.

"It's the economy, stupid."

OK, Romney picked Paul Ryan as Veep.  Lots of folks are talking about this (and there's a positive swoonfest going on over at Instapundit).  Meh.

This is a very Romneyesque choice.  He's very good at prioritizing things, and what he has prioritized at the top of the list is the economy.  This isn't earth shaking, it's just management.  Ryan is a top asset for Romney here, and is perhaps more effective as VP than in the House.

Perhaps.  Remember, Ryan is Budget Chairman.  Whoever replaces him in that post will have a high bar to reach.  I expect that the Republican Establishment has a list of their preferred "go along to get along" candidates there.

But fixing this mess will take a long, long time.  This year's deficit is around $1.4 Trillion.  Here's a breakdown of the current Federal spending (you can't really call it a "budget" - we haven't had one of those for 1200 days):

Here's the tl;dr version: yellow, red, green, and (maybe) light blue are off limits - those can't be cut.  That's almost $2.3T out of a $3.6T spend.  The difference between those two numbers?  It's just about exactly the $1.4T deficit.

Even Paul Ryan won't cut the entire Defense Department and all Discretionary spending.

What I don't hear nearly enough from Romney or Ryan is what they plan to do about the regulations that are stifling the economy.  We need growth to close this gap, and the regulatory burden is putting the brakes on the economy.  I'd like to see specifics on the top 10 job killing regulations that he will direct the agencies to abolish.  There's quite a lot of room for a President Romney to maneuver here, as the regulations are crafted by the Executive branch, and can be changed by them without a Congressional vote.

Quite frankly, this would be another stark distinction that Romney could use to show that his philosophy is the antithesis of Obama's.  Obama wants to grow government and regulation, and give companies less ability to employ people and pay taxes.  A Top 10 Job Killers and their impact would fit very well into Romney's strategy.

And unlike the "I will abolish Obamacase on Day 1" nonsense he's offered us - he can't abolish a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the President - he can eliminate 10 (or 20, or 50) regulations at his discretion.

Frankly, I'm a little mystified as to why he hasn't tried this.  And that makes me a little bit suspicious.  After all, he's an intelligent man, and has a lot of business experience.  He knows about this.

And so we're likely to end up with a President Romney (remember, Mussolini would beat Obama with this economy), which I don't really find quite pleasing, even with a Vice President Paul.  Romney seems to be flinching from addressing the big issue, which is not a comforting thought.

The end of the Obama administration approaches

The Silicon Graybeard brings our attention to the Republican controlled House of Representatives giving the President unprecedented power to appoint officials.  Now why would the Republican House ratify something passed by the Senate 2 years ago?

Because they expect that Barack Obama will will the election?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The irony could only get thicker if Mittens actually loses the election in November.  Or maybe if this fellow wins.

Now that fellow would at least make this an efficient fascist government.

You know that Obama is in trouble ...

... when he's accused of being an empty suit by Chris Matthews.  Yikes.

Hey Chris, it's not too late to jump on the bandwagon with a winner!  Sure, he doesn't have a birth certificate either, but he's fixin' to smoke that Obama fellow ...

Now this fellow would make a good President

I must say that I like the cut of this chap's jib.



He'd massacre that Obama fellow this year.

Weeping from the saddle

The most annoying thing about the Intellectual "Elite" is that they're ignorant of history.  You'd think that history would thrive in the Ivy League liberal arts, but I guess not.  Because this is a Full Service blog, let me offer up a history lesson to Progressives who find themselves unexpectedly washed up on these shores of Al Gore's Internet.

Image source

Clovis was a barbarian, a violent man in a violent time.  He was a two bit punk, as people would  have said back when, but got outstanding PR from the only literate people of the day (the church fathers) when he converted to Christianity.  But it was his violent nature that made his Franks successful in establishing the Frankish kingdom and the Merovingian dynasty (after Clovis' son, Merovich).

But the trouble with monarchies is well known - outstanding Kings are sires to Adequate Kings, who sire incompetents.  Gradually the Merovingian Kings became less competent, and came to rely more and more on their chief military advisers, the Mayors of the Palace.

Image source

But the Kings were a mystical figure to the masses, Christ's Vicar on Earth, and the personification of the hopes of the polity.  And so even Kings who were clearly not competent were expected to lead the Army against their foes.  Even Kings like Sigebert III.

Most of what we know of Sigebert comes from the Chronicle of Fredegar, one of the earliest surviving records of the barbarian ages that immediately followed the fall of Rome.  Sigebert ascended to the throne of Austrasia at the age of only ten, and was immediately pushed to attack the neighboring Thuringians.  He knew nothing of leading an army, and indeed the invasion was a disaster.  His army was crushed, and routed from the field of battle.

Fredegar tells us that Sigebert, watching his army flee, wept from his saddle.  He had no idea what to do, or how to live up to the expectations of his people.

We're seeing this today, in our own land.  A novice with excellent PR was invested as Christ's Vicar on Earth in the election of 2008.  Never having done anything, and not knowing how to get anything done, he was carried along with his general Pelosi in an attempt to conquer more territory for the Realm.  It hasn't turned out like his subjects expected.  This week will see the Supreme Court either strike down entirely or rip the guts from the signature achievement of his reign.  His strength is waning, forces are in disarray, and all of his acts seem to be making the situation worse.

Even his later day Fredegar (the Washington Post's Dana Milbank) sees the rout:

It has been a Junius Horribilis for President Obama.


Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a “cascade” of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the “private sector is doing fine.”

Could it get any worse?

Milbank goes on to describe the rout in gory detail.  No mention of the Fast & Furious scandal, which is just bring new barbarian forces to the battle.  Looking at the Teleprompter In Chief, there is no sense of leadership, no sense that he has a plan that could possibly work, no hope of anything but continued loss.  Sitting in his saddle, all he can do is blame George W. Bush.

But yeah, it can get worse, as even the New York Times sees the unmistakeable weakness:

The Hope and Change that media shamelessly sold to the nation in 2008 is starting to reach a point of solemn desperation.

Perfectly exemplifying this Tuesday was New York Times columnist Frank Bruni who minutes after President Obama finished his press conference at the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, told CNN's Piers Morgan, "He doesn’t seem in command” (video follows with transcript and commentary)

I see an Ed Muskie moment coming, if not from Obama himself, from any number of his demoralized supporters.

The Ivy League types, of course, are entirely cow-eyed in their ignorance of any of this.  After all, it's been the "End of History" for a these two decades now, so they didn't bother with those classes.  Clearly from their handling of the Economy, they skipped math as well ("Math is hard!!!").  Ignorance and arrogance, combined in equal measure.

And so, the sharks are circling.  New prospective Mayors of the Palace are stirring.  Mitt Romney wants to take over the Kingdom from the outside; Bill Clinton is maneuvering to put his Wife on the throne of Clovis.  It's not long since the coronation of King Barack, and already he's increasingly alone.

Sigebert has gone down in history as St. Sigebert, a patron of those church fathers who gave such good PR to his house.  I predict something similar for Obama, after the crushing defeat that is coming his way in November.  Watching his army routed before him and having no ideas about what to do about it, he will become a political Church Father, being beatified by an increasingly irrelevant Main Stream Media.  Dana Milbank's chronicles of St. Barack will gather dust.  Nobody will be interested in reading them for ages.  Instead, they will look to see who will play Pepin the Short, able to win on the political field of battle.

Mitt Romney, straight up

This is the real Mitt Romney.



It's all there, from the "I'm not Barack Obama" to his capital gains tax plan being worse than Obama's.  You may vote for him because it's true that he indeed is not Barack Obama.  He'll almost certainly win for precisely this reason - remember, even Mussolini could beat Obama this year.

But he makes my skin crawl.  I don't know that I've ever in my lifetime seen a bigger phoney, and that's saying a lot.  That's harsh, I admit, but it's true.

Quote of the Day - Romney speaks a Killing Word edition

I think this is about right:

Tit for tat is a fine tactic for Romney, because it enables him to be a bit nasty, about a whole succession of things, but without seeming too nasty. When the American mainstream media say hey you're being nasty, Romney can say: only a bit nasty, in response to all this diversionary nastiness from Team Obama. Which the mainstream media ignored when Team Obama said or did whatever nastiness it was that Romney is tit for tatting against, which means that the mainstream media come across as biased and dishonest, that being no surprise because that is what they are. Romney comes across as strong, moderate, as nasty as he has to be, as nice as he can be, a good man in a bad world. Just what you want in a President.

I'm a bit less sanguine that Romney will take a big stance on the new discoveries of hydrocarbon fuel.  My gut tells me that there are too many unknowns that could be sprung - junk environmental "threats" gladly played up by the miserable MSM - and that Romney is too cautious for swing for the fence when he thinks that he's wearing down the other guy's pitching.

But the idea that Team Obama is trapped in his kill zone sounds about right.  The combine viciousness, arrogance, and stupidity is roughly equal amounts, and so the idea that Romney is forcing them to keep coming back to talk about the economy is pretty interesting.

Mind you, I still don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him.  He'll do what's good for Mitt Romney, and do it competently.  Right now, he has Team Obama swinging at change-ups way out of the strike zone.  It's fun to watch that, in a Mighty Casey struck out sort of way, but I haven't changed my opinion that we'd be better off taking the up front hit of giving Barry another four.

So the question is, since Mittens is looking to win (not that this is unexpected; Mussolini could beat Barry this election): how do you keep Mittens thinking that a smaller, less intrusive government is good for Mittens' re-election prospects?  Because Mitt is predictable: if he thinks it is good for Mitt, he will do it efficiently.

Romney 296, Obama 242

I'm getting specific in my prediction.  The following can be taken as a best case projection for the Democrats.

States voting for Romney (296 Electoral Votes): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine (split: 1 EV), Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

States voting for Obama (242 Electoral Votes): California, Connecticut, Delaware, Dist. of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine (split: 3 EV), Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

The rationale is that Obama is already visibly weakening, as the economy weakens.  Signs of weakness are everywhere - softness in support from women, that sort of thing.    His campaign is about class warfare, distractions ("War on Women", "Ann Romney never worked a day in her life", gay marriage, etc).  Quite frankly, that dog won't hunt.  It's the economy, stupid.


My calculus is to look at the current state-by-state projections, and weaken Obama one level in each state: "Solid Obama" becomes "Strong Obama", "Strong Obama" becomes "Weak Obama", "Weak Obama" becomes "Weak Romney".  Nothing will be shifting from the Romney column to the Obama column between now and November.

So there's the line up.  It could be worse: the states I have listed as "Weak Obama" have 85 Electoral votes: Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin

Quite frankly, some of those very well might break for Romney if the current weak economy and ineffectual thrashing by the Obama campaign continues.  The Romney camp has been impressively disciplined, and so it's far more likely that a damaging gaffe will come from the Democrats this season.  If all of those 85 votes break for Romney, you have to go back to Reagan's victory in 1984 to find a worse drubbing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is no upside for Obama at this point, only minimizing the loss.  A 297 to 241 loss might preserve his chances to run again; a 382 to 156 loss will leave him washed up.  But there really isn't any path to victory for him - after all, Mussolini could beat him this year.

So you have a specific prediction here, with a range of result.  Note that I think that this is very likely a bad thing for the Republic, but facts are facts, and this is how I see them. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.

Mussolini looks to crush this Obama fellow

How badly is Obama losing?  This badly:

How unpopular is Obama in West Virgina? Joe Manchin, a Democratic Senator from the state won't say who he voted for. So a guy running for re-election this year would rather leave open the possibility he voted for an imprisoned felon rather than his party's sitting President.

I've been saying for months now that Mussolini could beat Obama this year, but I must say that I'm surprised by how early the collapse is occurring.  You can smell the panic coming from the Democratic Party.  Not only won't they mention their greatest Progressive achievement in 45 years (ObamaCare), but the won't get in the same room as Obama.  Everything around them has turned radioactive.

I wonder if Romney will win 40 states.  It a long way from the Nobel Peace Prize.

Choose the form of the Destructor

Santorum's out, and Newt hasn't a prayer, so now it really is down to Mittens vs. TheOne.  Yeah, yeah, R0N P4uL!!!! Like I said, it's Mittens or TheOne.

Decision time.

Here are some things to keep in mind as you choose the form of the Destructor:

1. The Economy won't get much better, no matter which of these doofuses plants his seat in the Oval Office.  It's regulation that's killing this country's economy, and Mittens is a not-quite-as-big-government as Barry.  A Romney administration will preside over a continued sputtering and no job growth, and all the "green shoots" that the Press so hopefully reports on will oddly disappear next January 20 if Mitt wins.

2. For most people, the issue is jobs.  If Romney wins, the Press will be nothing but "Jobless Recovery" (remember that from 2004?) for the next 4 years.  Without job growth, that will stick, and we very well may see Romney turned out after four years.

3. A Romney administration is no chip shot for Supreme Court nominees.  Ignore that given a chance he's likely to show his true G. H.W. Bush colors and appoint another Souter; if it looks like he might lose, the liberal justices might just stagger on for another four.  A Democratic successor to Romney might appoint as many as five Justices in his first term.  That would be a record since George Washington's time.

4. Mush from the wimp. Stick a fork in him, he's done.  The Obama campaign is ruthless, and what people have so far been interpreting as Mitt's steadiness is in reality ripe to be exploited by the Democrats.  Turn out the lights, the party's over ...

5. The action that counts is in the House and Senate races, but the action that really counts is almost over - running challengers against the too-comfortable Republican fat cats that don't care about what happens to the country as long as they get their chairmanships and earmarks.  Right now, confidence is not high.

And so, we only await The Sign.



Oops, somebody just chose Romney ...



Me, I'm sticking to my original plan.

Or maybe Cthulhu.  If I vote for him, maybe he'll devour me first.

UPDATE 11 April 2012 16:55: Robb says it with pictures.  Heh.

Would you like the Fascist Party, or the Fascist Party?

(Note: I use the term not in the typical insulting sense, but in a descriptive, clinical sense)

Seems that Tribalism is breaking out all over, and the Cool Kids want you to tell them that their tribe is cool, or you can't play.  The problem for a lot of us is that we don't like their tribes.

I won't presume to speak for Roberta, who certainly doesn't need my help.  I'll just speak for me: both of the Big Government parties are objectively fascist, in the "everything within the State; nothing outside the State" sense:

• Education.  Take your pick: Teacher's Unions or No Child Left Behind - send your kid to school, tell him to sit down and shut up while Nanny indoctrinates.  Sure, there are subtle differences between the content of the indoctrination - bring a score card so you can tell the difference.  Oh, and the Republicans bitch only because the Unions donate only to Democrats.  If the Unions had a clue, they'd split things, and buy off both parties.
• War On (some) Drugs.  I for one cannot see a millimeter's difference between the two parties.  SWAT teams, "no knock" raids, local Po-Po armoring up with tanks - the State is the Master, and expects us to be suitably deferential.
• War On Terror.  The only difference I can see is that Republicans like to kill the enemy using the 3rd ID, and Democrats like to use Predator Drones.  Oh, and Democrats think that an apology rope-a-dope will actually make a difference to the people we're fighting.  Other than that, Obama is the 3rd term of George W. Bush. 
• Big Spending.  Payoff to friends, punishing their enemies, all to strengthen the State and the Party.  Republicans say Oh noes look at teh deficit!!!eleventy!!  Where were they in 2005?  They'll be different how?  Ah, they've learned their lesson.  Riiiiight. 
• Homeland Security.  TSA.  Wiretaps.  Fourth Amendment.  Coke Party, Pepsi Party.  Whatever the Republicans implement, the Democrats will use, and vice versa.  It seems that a majority of Democrats in Congress support the NDAA which allows American citizens to be arrested and detained, indefinitely, not subject to habeas corpus.  Power has its uses, but is always reserved for the State.  But don't you "wiretap" the police, Citizen.

I could go on, but you've all heard it before.  And so cutting to the chase - both of the Tribes on offer are pretty indistinguishable, other than the speed they would have us lurch towards the abyss.  There's "Bad" and "Worse" to choose from.

Or you could phrase it as "boil the frog fast" or "boil the frog slow".  Obama has done something unique in American history - he's rallied perhaps a million people to take to the streets to protest Big Government overreach.  The Stupid Party is stupid of course (this memo brought to you by the Department of Tautology), and so there's reason to think that the "boil the frog fast" option is preferable - because turning up the heat may actually make the frog jump out of the water.

And so, color me unimpressed with arguments like those served up by Mr. Quick, that his tribe has a lock on virtuous public policy, and the rest of us are mindless, drooling morons for not falling into line.

Look, I wasn't the sharpest Chess player, but I could look at least a couple of moves ahead.  The arguments to vote Republican have so far been entirely unconvincing.  Sure Obama will be a disaster.  Mittens will be better?  I'm willing to listen, but quite frankly, Romney himself has been very careful indeed to avoid saying anything about what he'd do once in office.  So all I can do is look at the record he put together when Governor, and the record of the recent GOP Congress.  Those records are "boil the frog slowly".

The others are in the same ballpark, other than the Wookie who doesn't have a chance because he's the only one not a fascist, who explicitly rejects increased Government power, who explicitly says he would devolve power to the States and to the People; stick a fork in him, the GOP will work to elect Obama rather than him.

And so, they're both objectively fascist.  Both of them.

Given this, if I'm forced to choose tribes, I'm voting for Obama.  Crank up the BTUs, baby, and boil the frog so fast that he notices.  Let's see if we can get two or three or five million people protesting in the street.  At that point, the Stupid Party may think that they gain more by being somewhat less fascist, by devolving power to the People.

Or they don't, and the frog cooks.  I'd rather know that the Fed.Gov has enough power to take us all the way to the scene of the crash.



Hit something hard - I don't want to limp away from this s***.

Postscript: Frank James analyzes gun control under Republican presidents (with a side dish of just who appointed the most liberal Chief Justice in history; you could add Bush Senior's appointment of Souter, Nixon's appointment of Blackmun, and Ike's appointment of Brennan to this).  Please read his post in full before commenting on how we have to vote for Mittens for the sake of the SCOTUS and Second Amendment.

Muffole! Muffole! Muffole!

Well, it looks like Mittens has it all sewed up.  Oh, well - it's unlikely that I shall be disappointed*.  And 2cents is probably correct that Romney is the least scary Republican in the General election.  Newt?  Scary.  R0N P4U1!!1!? Heck, he scares me some of the time.  Mittens?  Aw, so cute and cuddly.

Oh, and the post title?  Well, a while back I said that Mussolini could beat Obama this year.

But "Duce" has a harsh, scary sound to it.  Romney is all cute and cuddly.  Maybe Simon Grey is right: Romney needs Game.

* Because my expectations are so pathetically low for him that it would be fail of truly epic proportions for him to, err, "exceed" them.

TheOnesDay® No. 15

It's Wednesday (err, TheOnesDay™), and so it's time for your regularly scheduled mockery of the Egghead Leader who's supposed to transcend our mediocrity.

Mussolini sent a telegram to Hitler.  ARMY IN GOOD RUNNING SHAPE.  STOP.  SRLSY.  FULL STOP.

What's that?  Why joke about Mussolini, rather than the Lightbringer?  Well it's because Il Duce would crush TheOne in an election.  Srlsy.  The Obama campaign is fixin to get the message presently, and that message reads FULL STOP.

Alinksy's rules, everybody.  They worked for decades to take over the system; show them that The Man is still a ripe target for mockery.

Duce 2012

Well, it sure won't be Obama.  Reason points us to a new poll of what Americans are most concerned about right now.  They have a nifty graphic to show this; rather than the usual boring old bar chart, they have a tag cloud.  The bigger the word, the more important it registered in the poll.

Let's see how Obama is doing, shall we?

Economy?  Fail.
Jobs?  Fail.
Debt/Deficits/Spending?  Fail.
Government/Big Government?  Fail
Division?  Fail (this one's particularly bad, because he promised the independents that he'd be not your average politician here).

The People's Cube sums it up:

In the poll questions that count, Il Duce beats him handily.  And there wasn't even a question about whether the trains run on time.

Mussolini could beat Obama next year

So just how bad are Obama's chances next year?  So bad, that the media that shamelessly covered for him in 2008 are running bits like this now:

That's John Stewart, brutally and repeatedly mocking the Administration in general, and Obama and Biden in particular.  Repeatedly.  Stick a fork in it.



Mussolini will absolutely bury these losers.  I predict he'll take 44 states.

Via Michael Graham.