Did Barack Obama Pull a ‘Girlfriend in Canada’ On The American Public? (Updated!)

Or is that called a ‘Girlfriend in New York’?

One of the more mysterious characters from President Obama’s 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father is the so-called ‘New York girlfriend.’ Obama never referred to her by name, or even by psuedonym, but he describes her appearance, her voice, and her mannerisms in specific detail.

But Obama has now told biographer David Maraniss that the ‘New York girlfriend’ was actually a composite character, based off of multiple girlfriends he had both in New York City and in Chicago.

“During an interview in the Oval Office, Obama acknowledged that, while Genevieve was his New York girlfriend, the description in his memoir was a “compression” of girlfriends, including one who followed Genevieve [Cook] when he lived in Chicago,” Maraniss writes in his new biography, an excerpt of which was published online today by Vanity Fair.

Because who doesn’t lump all their girlfriends together when writing their first memoir?  Especially when you’re an awkward skinny nerdlington dude with a funny foreign name.  You know those guys always score lots of poon.  Who could possibly keep track of all those babes?

C’mon; these bangin’ hot broads are from New York and Chicago.  Those cities both have big tall buildings, multinational corporations, ethnic neighborhoods, two baseball teams, parks in roughly central locations.  Hell, they’re practically the same place if you really think about it.

In fact, if you were writing an autobiography you’d be stupid not to ‘composite’ all your girlfriends.  You know your wife is going to eventually read your book.  You wouldn’t want her to know how much ass you were tapping back in the day.  Keep your pimp hand strong, but keep it discreet.

I for one think that blending all of his pre-marital female conquests together into a single woman to create a more easily-digestible racial narrative in a memoir he published at the age of 34 years old is just another genius move by our raging heterosexual T-Rex alpha dog President.

I mean, there’s no way Barack Obama invented a bunch of girlfriends just to butch up his studly street cred, right?

UPDATE: My forever-rad blog-homie Edge of The Sandbox has a very interesting wrinkle in this story.  Go there and read it.

Report: Elizabeth Warren is a Whole Whopping 1/32nd Cherokee Indian (Updated 2X!)

The other 31/32nds?  The Fuckawi Tribe, of course.

Desperately scrambling to validate Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage amid questions about whether she used her minority status to further her career, the Harvard Law professor’s campaign last night finally came up with what they claim is a Cherokee connection — her great-great-great-grandmother.

“She would be 1⁄32nd of Elizabeth Warren’s total ancestry,” noted genealogist Christopher Child said, referring to the candidate’s great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, who is listed on an Oklahoma marriage certificate as Cherokee. Smith is an ancestor on Warren’s mother’s side, Child said.

The missing link comes after Warren’s embattled campaign faced sharp questions about her Native American background in the wake of Herald stories that showed both Harvard Law School and Warren herself had touted her tribal lineage and claimed she was a member of a minority for years.

Say, what does it take to be considered an American Indian?

What is blood quantum?

Blood quantum is the amount of Indian blood you possess as determined by the number of generations of Native people you descend from, and it’s the process that the federal government uses to say whether they consider you a Native American or not. Between approximately 1885-1940, census rolls, the 1900 special Indian census, the Dawes Rolls, Durrant Rolls, and land conveyances involving Native people were taken. Based on that information, if any of your ancestors were on those rolls, you may be able to receive a Certificate of Indian Blood (see below). For example, if your great-grandmother was 100% Indian and your great-grandfather was non-Indian, their child (your grandmother or grandfather) would be ½ Indian blood. If your 1/2 Indian grandparent married a non-Indian, your mother or father would be 1/4 Indian blood. If your mother or father married a non-Indian, then you would be 1/8. Of course, the percentages change if there were marriages between Native people and your blood quantum or Indian blood would be more. As you can see from the above explanation, the bottom number gets larger as your blood quantum decreases, therefore it is essential that if you are applying for any services, you figure the blood quantum correctly.

How do I get a Certificate of Indian Blood (CIB)?

A CIB can often be obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regional or area office that covers the area where your tribe is located. Send your birth certificate, your Indian parents’ birth certificate and if available, your Indian grandparents’ birth certificate (otherwise their name and approximate birth date), to the Regional or Area BIA office where your tribe or ancestors are from. If your ancestors were on any of the old census rolls, they might be able to provide you with the name of the tribe(s) you are from and the percentage(s) of Indian blood. This doesn’t always work, but it’s the easiest and fastest way to prove your Native ancestry.

That’s strange.  I’m not seeing a “I Need To Claim Indian Ancestry So I Can Get A Harvard Teaching Gig” clause in the how-to manual for obtaining a CIB. But then again what the hell do I know?  I’m not the super genius that laid down the intellectual foundations for the totally not violent–except when it’s really really really necessary!–Occupy Wall Street movement.

Even better:  It turns out that 99% Champion of the Middle Class Lizzy-Dub has a slightly bigger bank account than she’s led us to believe.  Only a teensie-weensie bit bigger though.  Not much, really.

Last Friday, she released four years of tax returns. Over those four years, Warren and her husband, another Harvard Law prof, averaged $300,000 more than Sen. Brown and his spouse, a TV anchor. In 2009, the Warrens made $981,000 vs. the Browns’ $249,000.

Even the Globe had to admit that Warren was “in the top 1 percent of earners” — ironic, considering her bragging that she provided the “intellectual foundations” of Occupy Wall Street.

As recently as January, Warren was still crying poor, saying on MSNBC: “I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them — but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.”

No, she has mutual-fund portfolios. Her financial disclosures put her worth between $4.6 and $14.5 million.

Well, being middle class is “not about a number,” she told one reporter. “It’s about a place in your heart.”

That place in her heart?  It’s a nice piece of real estate with a mere $5 million dollar price tag.  Better start throwing some more coin in the ol’ 401K if you wanna run in Lizzy’s neck of the woods.

But remember, other than her fake Indian heritage and her fraudulent middle-class lifestyle, she’s the real deal.

UPDATE:  Since Lizzy-Dub is as Indian as a set of lederhosen, why not try to figure out what her not-Indian Indian name would be?

What is {ELIZABETH WARREN’S} Indian Name

Your Result: Woman with Broken Heal

You tend to live in the past and think about what could have been. Doing this will only hold you back from what is waiting ahead for you. Someday you’ll exchange this habit for a new one and will be unstoppable.

I found this Indian Name Generator in Maetenloch’s Overnight Thread at Ace’s place.  Post your faux-Native name for non-stop laughs.

UPDATE Numero Dos:  Now that we’re thinking about race, Clifford Thies over at Libertarian Republican has an interesting piece on the One-Drop Rule.  I really can’t excerpt it because there’s a lot there, so I’ll just give you a Spoiler Alert:  Bill Clinton wasn’t our first black president.  Read the whole thing.

The Obama Administration’s War On Romney Donors

Remember when that meanie-head Sarah Palin made a map that was like an angry visual aid with scary targets for evil Rethuglicans?

Yeah, that was really awful.

But hey…the President’s re-election team is making an ‘example’ of people who donate to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Nothing to see here people…move on.

This past week, one of his [Obama's] campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

But it’s all good because Obama slow-jammed the news on Jimmy Fallon’s show.  That means he’s hip and cool and totally not a bullying prick.

Obama and The Perfect Storm of Misery

Old And Busted:  Getting people off the public dole.

New Hotness:  Getting lots and lots of people back on the public dole.

The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. 

Political Junkie Mom is right.  Having the Obama administration do stuff to increase employment or oil production is just silly rugged individualist conservative yakkety-yak.  Far better for the government to do the things it’s really good at, like fostering long-term dependency.

But hey, it’s not poor people who are getting pounded by this administration.  The “rich” are about to get their comeuppance as well.

 If you thought paying your taxes was painful this year, get ready for more heartache next year, when taxpayers could be on the hook for almost $500 billion in higher taxes… That’s the size of “Taxmageddon.” 

Taxmageddon is the tax hike set to slam the economy and taxpayers on Jan. 1, 2013. It’s made up of seven different categories of tax cuts set to expire, and six tax hikes from the health-care law set to kick in, as soon as the ball drops on New Year’s Eve.

The Left’s definition of ‘shared’ sacrifice: Make the poor into a permanent underclass so they can easily be exploited for votes while simultaneously punishing anyone who tries to escape the statist suck-hole of fail.

Or maybe I’m being too hard on Obama and the rest of the progressive movement.  Perhaps I’m ascribing a conscious plan to people who really have no idea what they’re doing.   It could be that the President and his administration are just incompetent dolts.

Then again, that would go against everything we’ve been told about Barack Obama for the last five years.  People who identify themselves as conservative think Obama is scary smart.  Scions of the Left have insisted that Barack Obama is a great intelligence.  How many prestigious universities did Barack Obama go to?  Occidental, Columbia and Harvard represent the pinnacle of higher education not just in America but across the globe.  Anyone who wrote not one but two memoirs before the age of fifty has to be pretty sharp.

If President Obama is as smart as his sycophants and enablers insist he is, then he has the intelligence to see how his proposals affect the nation.  That means that Obama is happy to see more and more people on food stamps.  Obama wants to hammer Americans with tax hikes.  The current state of affairs in the United States is pretty much exactly what the community-organizer-in-chief ordered.

Here’s the rub–I think Obama is going to play dumb during this campaign season.  In 2008, dude was supposed to walk on water during a three dimensional chess marathon while simultaneously developing a vaccine for athlete’s foot.  In 2012, everything–and I mean EVERYTHING–will be somebody else’s fault.  Crappy economy?  Damn you, Bushitler.  Wallet-punishing gas prices?  Darth Cheney and his roving band of nefarious petroleum speculators are killing the electric car with their diabolical oil-based superpowers.  Stratospheric unemployment?  John ‘Satan’s Personal Oompaloompa’ Boehner simply won’t let America have the kajillions of eco-tastic green jobs that every US company is just dying to create.

That line of nonsense cannot be allowed to fly.  Obama has constantly billed himself–and actively encouraged others to sing from the same hymnal by the way–as a super genius.  Its time to throw that achievement-free arrogance back in his face.

Insanely High Gas Prices Got You Down?

Don’t worry–Donald Douglas over at the American Power blog has a quicker picker upper to brighten your mood.

(Via The People’s Cube)

Where does this come from, you wonder?

Promise kept.

Thanks, Barry.

[sarc/]

President Barack ‘Dog Meat’ Obama Is An Admitted Dog Meat Eater Who Has Eaten Dog Meat

So it turns out that David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s campaign hatchetman, posted a tweet that many folks took as a shot at Mitt Romney.  Specifically, the tweet was an oblique reference to the story of how Romney once transported his dog in a pet crate on top of his car during a family trip.  No doubt it was pretty clever to for Ax to ding Romney with this embarrassing anecdote.  Everybody knows that any tale Gail Collins has made a fetish out of reporting on is edgy comedic gold.

Then the right-wingers on Twitter pointed out in sarcastic detail how Barack Obama has some skeletons in his closet when it comes to man’s best friend.

Let Joe and Mika and some other hapless MSNBC stooges fill you in.

In summation, Romney treated a dog poorly once.

At least Mittens wasn’t thinking about which side dish and wine would go best with his Irish Setter spare ribs.

Not surprisingly, this kerfuffle lit up the twitterverse and the larger blogosphere.  Ace had a laugh at Obama, Devourer of Dogs. Manhattan Infidel posted a great satirical interview with the clearly endangered First Pet.  James Taranto threw his kibbles and bits into the fray.  Frank quipped some quips about the story (sample–”Dog bites man – not news. Man bites dog – news. President bites dog – BEST NIGHT OF TWITTER EVER!!!”).  Jim Treacher has been cracking on Axelrod and Co. for almost two days now, throwing in the inevitable, and inevitably hilarious, ‘Downfall’ clip to boot.

Don’t get it twisted, though.  Not every conservative has been having fun at Blood-Pudding-Hound Obama’s expense.  Newt Gingrich told Sean Hannity that focusing on the “Obama Eats Dog” story is ‘junk’.  He would prefer the Right to focus on big ideas and big issues.

The former speaker is almost impossibly wrong.  First, look at Axelrod’s twitter timeline.  He deleted the tweet that started this fight, which means he knows he screwed the pooch.  Homeboy wouldn’t memory-hole a tweet unless he knew it was a self-inflicted wound.

Another thing to note is that while Americans hate to hear about dogs being mistreated, eating canines is really weird to most people in the United States.  Granted, there is already a liberal thumbsucker defense of Obama eating a dog in Indonesia (“IT IS THIER CULTCHERR, MAAAAAAN!!!!!!!111111111eleventy!!!1!”) but that’s only going to work for people already invested in Team Obama. The rest of the country is going to be deeply creeped out at the idea of the President scarfing down a fido-burger.

Besides all that, why does Newt–or any other conservative–think this is an either/or proposition?  Why can’t the Right offer data-driven substantive criticism of President Obama’s disastrous policies while simultaneously busting on Schnauzer Skirt Steak Barry’s inherently strange biography and ideology?  Thinking that the conservative movement can’t walk and mock progressives at the same time is antiquated.

It’s not 1978 anymore.  There isn’t a monolithic leftist media vice-grip on mass communication.  The conservative movement doesn’t have to carefully craft the picture perfect message in the hopes that a Fairness Doctrine-era news organization will deign to pick up on it.

Let the free-market thinkers think.  Let the libertarian linkers link.  Most importantly, let the conservative stinkers well…not stink per se…but mercilessly mock everything about Obama and the lunatic left.  At a moment when our hapless President would rather talk about anything other than his pathetic failure of an administration, it would be foolish for the Right to put limits on its messaging.

Barack, Trayvon and The 2012 Election

In light of recent events surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin, I’d like to bring up something I wrote a few years back.  I was making predictions about how I thought Barack Obama’s presidency would end.  I think I might have lucked into being onto something.

As Obama spins his wheels, his most vocal and loyal bloc-the American mainstream media-attempt to bolster their candidate.  The White House and the journalist caste create the myth that Obama is the victim of lingering racism.  Nearly any lack of support for Barack’s policies will be explained with charges of bigotry.   

Ironically, the post-racial candidate of 2008 will morph into the most explicitly racialist American politician in a generation…He limps through 2011 and 2012 as a dead duck.  As he goes down, he sows the seeds of racial discord, grasping at anything to get him re-elected.

Now look at what President Obama’s comments on the shooting.

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden, “and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened.”

Mr. Obama said he is glad the Justice Department is investigating the shooting and that Florida Gov. Rick Scott formed a task force in response to the incident as well. The president suggested he was sympathetic to suspicion that the shooting may have been racially motivated.

 ”You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Mr. Obama said.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have officially reached the David Dinkins stage of the Obama presidency.

For those of you unfamiliar with old school Empire State politics, David Dinkins was the mayor of New York City before Rudy Giuliani.  Mr. Dinkins, a black man and veteran New York pol, promised racial healing in the five boroughs.  He presided over, among other things, the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum during the Crown Heights riots by a group of thugs incited to violence by that paragon of ethnic tolerance Al Sharpton.  

Mayor Dinkins’ police commissioner Lee Brown said: 

“Sharpton came close to the line of inciting [to riot] but did not actually cross it.”

Well, thank God Al Sharpton didn’t go nuts or something bad could’ve happened.  [sarc/]

After the Yankel Rosenbaum murder, Mayor Dinkins became a polarizing figure.  Jewish voters, who had supported him in the past, now viewed him with suspicion.  Dinkins’ 1993 re-election effort was marked by racialism.  Black voters were supposed to support Dinkins because…he was black.  The undertone of the campaign was that failure to support the mayor over Rudy Giuliani was a sign of barely concealed racial bigotry.

In the Trayvon Martin shooting incident, we can see the same pattern emerging.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on the scene stoking racial tensions.  The New Black Panthers are offering a million dollar bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon.

Into this incredibly heated and rapidly evolving situation, what did Barack Obama do?  He could’ve simply declined to comment.  After all this is basically a local matter, directly involving two people in Florida.  Staying above the fray would’ve been prudent, especially as this case has become a lot more complicated than how the media initially portrayed it. 

The President did not choose to do that.  Instead he chose to stoke racial fires.  He didn’t call on the Sharpton/Jackson/New Black Panther Triumvirate of Stupid o tone down their inflammatory rhetoric.  Obama failed to tell Louis Farrakhan to shut the hell up about retaliation.  None of that happened.

The question becomes:  Why did the President take this course?  The unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin’s is being used by Barack Obama to create fear and anger within the black community.  He intends to use this fear to help bolster his re-election campaign. 

Is that cynical?  Sadly, it is.  Then again, why shouldn’t Obama be greeted with cynicism?  It was his administration that asserted that they would never let a crisis go to waste.  He himself asked the Russian dictator regime to give him some space until after the November election so that he could cave on missile defense.  Every time this President makes any move, he’s operating in the most mercenary politically expedient fashion possible.

But in this case, we’re all supposed to assign purely innocent motives to Barack Obama.  Of course.  After three years of watching this clown’s beer summits, non-recess recess appointments and undeclared kinetic military actions that are not officially wars, everybody is supposed to just let this one slide.

Sorry if I’m not in the mood to play along with the dopey ’emperor’s new clothes’ drag act.

The larger point here is that Obama’s actions are the mark of a desperate man.  Just like David Dinkins clung to the life-raft of racial grievance to try to stay in office, Barack Obama is using the Trayvon Martin death as a way to energize black voters.  That’s the only card he has to play.

Consider an alternative:  If Obama had any kind of record to run on, would he have bothered to weigh in on the Trayvon Martin shooting?  Would he be selling Trayvon-inspired hoodies to fund raise for the 2012 campaign if he didn’t feel the need to tie himself to one side of the Martin case?

No, this is a sign of a candidate using the most shopworn hackneyed race card in the deck because he’s got no other trick to play.

UPDATE:  Linked by Smitty at The Other McCain.  Thanks!

UPDATE II:  Linked by The DaleyGator–those guys rule.  Thanks, homies.

UPDATE III:  Linked by the ever-cool Wyblog.  Muchas Gracias, Chris.

UPDATE IV:  Linked by the debonair Bob Belvedere.  Big ups, sir.

Awesome News-Leader of The Free World Emo Over News Network’s Coverage

Just remember:  Everybody knows the GOP field of presidential candidates is a pack of weak sisters compared to that rara avis Barack “Scary Smart Exceptional Temperament” Obama.

President Barack Obama blamed Fox News for his political woes in a private meeting with labor leaders in 2010, saying he was “losing white males” who tune into the cable outlet and “hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7,” according to journalist David Corn’s new book, “Showdown.”

…Corn writes that after the midterm elections, Obama told labor leaders in December 2010 that he held Fox partly responsible for him “losing white males.”

“…Fed by Fox News, they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in…The Republicans have been at this for 40 years. They have new resources, but the strategy is old,” Corn recounted Obama as saying.

You remember how George W. Bush constantly whined how MSNBC hurt him among the douchedrinker neo-hippie voting bloc, right?

Then again, why is anybody surprised when the crybaby-in-chief loses his shit over conservative criticism of his record?  Other people write his books, yet he gets all the credit.  He skated through his 15 minute US Senate career by voting ‘present’ and showing up late to hearings.  The American media coverage of Obama’s presidency has run the gamut from fawning to tongue-bath.

Everywhere this spoiled brat of a man has gone in his political career St. Barry has been somebody’s pretty silky pony.  From the Chicago Left to national progressive organizations, Obama always had to be sheltered from the tough-minded critiques of his policies.  His achievement-free self-esteem couldn’t handle the shock of real sustained dissent.

Obama thinks that Fox News caused his party to lose the white male vote in 2010.  It couldn’t be that white males honestly disagree with the President’s administration.  Nope.  Of course its racism and Fox News that pushed the caucasian persuasion dude caucus to vote with the Republican Party.  That explains everything.  [sarc/]

I snagged this link from Iowahawk’s twitter feed.  Thank you, sir.

Asma Al-Assad: Pretty. Vacant. Fascist.

Syria’s most chic Baathist continues her charm offensive all over teh intertubes.

Twitter closed down a string of accounts purporting to be authored by the Syrian president and the first lady, emails reveal.

A senior aide to Asma al-Assad, Fares Kallas, took issue with the site over 11 accounts. Half of the accounts using the first lady’s name and all but one of those using the president’s name were closed down.

The author of one account, @Syrianpresident, described it as a “parody account” and said it had attracted 2,500 followers.

Kallas wrote to Twitter complaining that this and other accounts were “fraudulent Twitter accounts purporting to be the president of Syria and the first lady of Syria and we would like to officially request for these accounts to be removed or suspended. We believe that each of the following are clearly intending to mislead people via impersonation rather than act as spoof/humorous accounts.”

Twitter told the Assad office: “We do suspend accounts that are clear attempts at impersonation,” but added: “Twitter users are allowed to create parody, commentary and fan accounts.”

How does Asma Al-Assad have clout to get a bunch of parody Twitter accounts closed?  Syria’s First Dictatorette must be more powerful than we thought.  I for one would like to have Twitter shutter the tweet-handles of Daily Kos, Keith Olbermann and Barack Obama for starters.  I mean, if we’re just terminating obvious lame joke accounts, we should start with the biggest ones.

Here’s an even better question: When does Vogue Magazine do another breatheless fashionista airbrushing tough-minded profile of Mrs. Assad?  Last year the style mavens were all a-flutter, gushing over the greatness of Asma.  Now…eh, not so much.  Must be the stench from all those massacres that’s harshing Anna Wintour’s fan-girl crush on the First Lady of Syria.

The problem here is that no matter how many Givenchy frocks and how much luxe make-up you put on the wife of a paranoid murderous, freedom hating, minority-bashing jack-booted socialist dickbag, she’ll still be the wife of a paranoid murderous, civil rights hating, minority-bashing jack-booted socialist dickbag.  It’s impossible to separate the two.  I understand that Asma looks terrific in Chanel sunglasses and Italian couture, but does anybody really understand how she gets her clothes?  They’re not running a March of Dimes over in Damascus.  The Assad regime is pretty much the blueprint for a multigenerational Middle Eastern kleptocracy.

As the great amateur sociologist PJ O’Rourke once wrote, “It’s always tempting to impute/unlikely virtues to the cute.”  Asma Al-Assad, to be frank, is a knock-out.  She’s in her mid-thirties, but she looks like she could be ten years younger.  Her English is spoken with a genteel British lilt.  She is blessed by great genetics–and some help from an expensive personal trainer, no doubt–to have a runway model’s physique.  Her golden wavy tresses and girlish smile give her an air of sun-kissed youth leavened by a cultured aesthetic.  It would be hard for even the most rock-ribbed cynic to resist Mrs. Assad’s numerous charms.

But that doesn’t mean the West shouldn’t at least try to see through the beautiful facade. Asma’s husband Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who has spent the twelve years of his rule torturing and killing his own people.   His latest acts of oppression and slaughter are the systematic crackdowns associated with tyrannical socialism.   His government stands shoulder to shoulder with America’s worst enemies.  Asma is inextricably linked to the Syrian terror state, whether or not we want to acknowledge it.

Moreover, in judging Asma Al-Assad, we should look at her actions, not by her wardrobe.  When faced with derision on Twitter, what did Asma do?  She didn’t defend free speech rights.  Nor did she just ignore the parody accounts, which would probably have been her best choice.  No, she used her influence to silence voices of dissent against her husband’s murderous regime.  Mrs. Assad’s first instinct was to muzzle criticism of the Syrian government.

In other words, the beautiful style maven beloved by Western elites for her luxurious elegance used a tactic straight out of the How To Trample Free Speech Like A Good Baathist playbook.

Naturally, all this means that Sarah Palin is a Nazi because she criticized Democrats.  Asma Al-Assad is just a misunderstood angel.

UPDATE:  Turns out the (fake) President of Syria is a fan!

It’s always nice to have celebrity admirers.  [sarc/]

Fun With Afghanistan Debacle Headlines!

Matt Drudge, you magnificent bastard.

Haha. 

Good to see the President showing his usual steadfast dedication to the important issues of the day.  Watch for tomorrow’s itinerary when our glorious leader will give the Chicago Bears tips on their upcoming NFL draft.  Spoiler Alert: Barry thinks the O-line needs some help.

On a completely unrelated and truly unimportant aside, the total metaphysical boning of America is just about done vis-a-vis Afghanistan.  That metastasizing tumor masquerading as a country is a clogged toilet wrapped in a cesspool baked in a donkey’s asscrack cloaked in an illiterate mujahedeen’s armpit.  The mission to democratize these jag-offs has not succeeded.  Hell, the mission to just get these miserable bastards to not molest their children or throw acid on their women’s faces or not turn themselves into human grenades has been a complete disaster.

Fuck them.  Fuck their stupid tribal grievances.  Fuck their rampant corruption.  Fuck their crybaby nonsense.  Fuck their wildly overblown sense of cultural superiority.  Fuck their childish whining sense of entitlement.  Fuck them hard.

Enough is enough.

The problem here is that both George Bush and Barack Obama have failed to figure out some important facts over the last ten years.  America has gone with the Underpants Gnome Theory of Third World Country Democratization.  Like scrotum, here’s the plan in a nut-shell:

Phase 1:  Conquer The Country

Phase 2:  ?

Phase 3:  DEMOCRACY!

See?  When looked at from that perspective it’s obvious this great plan should’ve worked out.  Right?

You wanna know what’s missing in this brilliant tripartite strategy?

Massive death tolls, obliteration of several urban areas, vast destruction of Afghan infrastructure and property, liquidation of important economic instruments, humiliation of the Afghan people and the annihilation of those members of society that believe in ideologies that allow the harboring of international terrorists bent on killing American citizens and wrecking our society.

There.  Now I fixed it. 

That plan should sound familiar.  It was the guiding principle that worked in Germany and Japan during and after World War II.  In fact, the post-war reconstruction and rebooting of both the German and Japanese cultures has worked out so well that neither country has even considered an offensive war for sixty-seven years. 

Do you remember the last time you heard a peep out of either of them?  No?  These countries made sabre-rattling smack-talk an Olympic sport in the first part of the 20th century.  Now they can’t wait to shut the hell up and not get bombed again.  Why?  Because they’re now docile.  They’ve turned their backs on imperialism and embraced conquering the world the new-fashioned way, through economics.       

But we didn’t do that in Afghanistan. 

Instead, we routed the Taliban only to let them play hide-n-seek in Pakistan.  We gave every village warlord with a harem of prepubescent catamites a forum to vent his spleen over the burning of his precious holy book.  We tolerated the poppy fields and the pay-offs and the puffed-up pre-modern honor systems and the kickbacks and the vendetta killings and all the assorted scumbaggery inherent in traditional Afghan society.  We let Hamid Karzai, our hand-selected well-upholstered puppet and a wretched piece of human filth not fit to tie our shoes, dictate to us the terms of our embarrassment.

This is what our billions have bought us.  This is what our incredible investments in military superiority have won us.  This is what the sacrificed lives of the most precious resource we have–our military men and women–have gained us.  

Fuck, don’t go with my plan.  I know it’s a harsh and brutal way to win a war.  I understand how certain facets of 21st Century America might not be ready for such a drastic step.  I also realize that the steps we could’ve taken in 2001 probably cannot be employed today.

Instead, go with the Bing West model.  Forget about democratization.  Just focus on killing the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Network and any other entity that wants to re-establish international terrorist organizations in Afghanistan.  Do that, regardless of borders or hurt national feelings, and we would at least accomplish something meaningful.

Instead, we slowly and inexorably drift into abject surrender.  Our feckless incompetent president won’t allow a hasty retreat to mar his re-election campaign.  The defeat and humiliating withdrawl will come in 2013.  Obama will then wring his hands and fret over the loss of what he once called our most important war.

I realize this is a trite observation, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true–If a war is important enough to fight, it’s important enough to win.  If we won’t or can’t fight to win, we shouldn’t fight at all.  All we can do is pray that somebody in this Administration figures out that most basic lesson.

The Republicans Might Be A-Strugglin’…

…but oh those Democrats aren’t doing any better.

First, let’s check in with The Other McCain, who reports on the GOP’s current quagmire, whoops, I meant the Alabama and Mississippi primaries happening tomorrow.

We know that late-deciding voters are highly suggestible and subject to bandwagon appeals to vote for the candidate they perceive to be the eventual winner. That factor favors Romney, and if it weren’t for the fact that Santorum is being hit with negative ads from every directions (including both the pro-Gingrich “super PAC” radio ads I first heard two weeks ago in Michigan, I’d be tempted to predict a third-place finish for Gingrich in both Mississippi and Alabama.

Because there is no way Newt can actually win the nomination, I’d say a vote for Gingrich is a vote for Romney, except that keeping Newt in the race might, by some unforeseen future turn of events, result in Romney being deprived of a majority of delegates going into the convention. Every delegate Romney doesn’t win — no matter whether the delegate is for Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul — increases the possibility of a non-Romney candidate getting the nomination in that political wet dream, the “brokered convention.”

Read the rest.

A brokered convention might be every reporter’s Christmas, New Year’s Eve and ten gallons of free scotch all wrapped up in one, but it doesn’t seem like it would be very good for the GOP cause. I’d say even the specter of a brokered convention–no matter how unlikely–is enough to dampen some spirits on the Republican side. The fear of a brokered convention forcing the party to put up a weak candidate against President Obama is too horrible for many GOPers to even contemplate.

All of this is music to the ears of Team Obamster, of course. Which is why they’re kicking so much ass in the polls.

The new Post-ABC poll shows that “46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.” . . . Obama also has a substantial problem with independents. The Post’s pollster tells me that Obama trails Mitt Romney 42-50 among independents; against Rick Santorum he trails by a smaller margin, 45 to 48 percent.

Because that’s what truly unbeatable political juggernauts do: Poll weakly to the dude running second in the GOP primaries. Underwater unfavorables in March of an election year? Obama’s got the Republicans right where he wants them.

Ya know what else is a sign of Obama’s awesome electoral might?

Translation: “Last election’s failed vice-presidential candidate said mean things about me–SEND MONEY QUICK!”

Obama–Algae Is, Like, The Next Great Energy Source

Captain Science McGreenJobs to the rescue!

Or maybe Bunkerville is right and this is Barry’s version of a faith-based initiative.

Let’s cut the President some slack. He thinks he can cool the planet and make the oceans recede. Turning the slime in your under-maintained backyard swimming pool into automotive fuel is small beer for Barry the Miracle Worker. What’s another half-billion dollars in taxpayer-funded loans or subsidies or just plain-old handouts?

To be fair, research and development is a tricky thing. At one time, petroleum was probably considered a risky source of energy to use for anything, much less base a whole economy around. Figuring out how to turn the black crap that came out of the ground into something useful was an arduous process that a lot of people likely thought wasn’t going to pan out. Obama might be right to think that algae is the wave of the future. But his track record on energy policy shouldn’t fill you with loads of confidence.

Even though it’s likely that algae will be yet another Solyndra-sized government boondoggle, I kinda want Obama to pursue this wacky project. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then we can all get a laugh as Juan Williams accuses Newt Gingrich of being a racist when the former Speaker calls Barack Obama the ‘pond-scum President’.

UPDATE:  The one and only Snarky Basterd has a satirical take on AlgaeRising.  Spolier Alert-Henry Waxman makes an exciting guest appearance.

Barack Obama: I Totally Have A Plan To Stop This Runaway Spending

The details? Oh sure, here you go.

But wait–there’s more!

Testifying before the House Budget Committee today, U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Chairman Paul Ryan the following: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

Actually, President Obama sort of did have a definitive solution. He created a debt commission, which devised a long-term debt reduction plan. Which the president rejected. And instead, we get this new budget proposal, which makes no effort to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—the long-term drivers of U.S. federal debt. The debt curve never gets bent, as the above White House (!) chart shows. (Yes, the chart comes from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.) It just goes up and up and up—until the heat death of the universe or the economy is struck by a Greek-style debt crisis.

Read the rest, as James Pethokoukis basically slaughters the argument that this administration has any inkling or desire to reign in spending.

Turbo Tax Timmy is a funny dude.  The guy who couldn’t figure out how to pay his own taxes is annoyed by Paul Ryan’s long term debt reduction plan.  Meanwhile, somewhere Dane Cook is seething over Daniel Tosh’s latest comedy routine.

As hilarious as Geithner can be, he’s just a reflection of his feckless incompetent boss.  Back in 2008, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half.  See, Barry can make with the yuks too.

Question:  Could Romney, Santorum or Gingrich be any worse on the federal budget than Obama?

That’s what this election is really about.  Not Mitt Romney’s feelings about his tax rate. Not Rick Santorum’s position on jimmy hats. Not Newt Gingrich’s expansive views on serial divorce. None of that stuff is vitally important to continued existence of this Republic.

Don’t get it twisted. All of those other debates–and all the secondary discussions that spring from them–have a great deal of merit in certain contexts. Free societies should have many ongoing discussions about numerous topics if they are to survive in a complex and ever-changing world.

I’ll even grant that if it was twenty or thirty years ago, those kinds of issues would’ve been featured more prominently in an election season. Relatively good times give folks the luxury to drill down on a lot of stuff.  When the entire lawn is perfectly mowed down to putting green length, the single blade of two foot tall crabgrass looks far bigger than it really is.

The problem is that the US can no longer afford to look solely on ancillary issues and make political decisions. Why? Because, as the chart suggests, pretty soon America won’t be able to afford shit.

Baldi is right: America is at a crossroads and there is no back tracking out of it.  Naturally, Barack Obama doesn’t want you to recognize this reality.  He is the smiling ignorant face of a man running at full speed directly into the blades of a corn combine.  His budget represents the bankrupting hope and the backbreaking change inherent in the assumptions of the statist status quo. 

Obama desperately wants you to focus on the flaws of the GOP candidates.  His record cannot withstand a cursory glance, much less a thoughtful critique.  So yeah, lets all really pick through the records of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. 

With a fine-toothed comb.

For the 80th time.

This week.

Yeah, that’ll be awesome.

Or lets not do that.  We know what the GOP guys are all about.  Their various quirks and personality traits have been thoroughly examined.  More importantly, their positions are all very much known quantities.  If Republican voters don’t know what the candidates stand for by now, they’re not really paying attention.

No, the focus has to shift back to the Arrogant Incompetent Affirmative Action Hire-In-Chief.  Obama’s budget should be all the impetus any conservative needs to put their eyes back on Barack Obama.  His spending plan is practically designed to get right-wingers furious at the President all over again.

I say we give Obamster what he wants. Our president deserves to be the center of Republican attention. Lets make him and his leadership the only important issue in this campaign.

Ya Know That Clint Eastwood Super Bowl Ad…?

Well, ReasonTV has a nice answer for that.

Also, screw you Obama.  You created Zombie Chrysler.  You saved a dying company that should’ve been allowed to croak, then parted out and given a reboot.  Instead, Chrysler fucking sucks.  Dodge sucks.  Jeep sucks.  Ram sucks.  

The entire company is covered in the stench of pushy beige pocker-protector nerdlington government bureaucrat flop sweat.  

We’re still stuck with the tab for the government’s decision to make a charity case from the husk of a car company that wasn’t smart enough to get out  of its own way.  On the other hand, it’s not like the local Chrysler dealership is giving American car buyers a 10 grand discount on the 300.  They aren’t running a buy one get one free sale for Grand Cherokees.  You don’t remember all those half off specials  on Challengers?  Yeah, me neither.

UPDATE: I brainfarted on the youtube link. This post will make more sense now that the movie is actually included. My bad.

Mike Bloomberg’s Very Busy Week

Say, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been sorta quiet lately.  It seems like everybody’s favorite snow-removal expert and amateur dietitian is holding back.  Wouldn’t it be rad if homeboy could pull off some kind of moralistic left-wing show-boating maneuver to let us know he still hates over half of America?       

Mayor Bloomberg plans to give Planned Parenthood $250,000 to make up for money it lost when a breast cancer group cut its funding.

“Politics have no place in health care,” Bloomberg said in a statement on Thursday. “Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

The controversy erupted this week after the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation said it would not renew most of the grants it made to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings — about $700,000 annually.

…Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued a statement saying that it was “enormously grateful to Mayor Bloomberg.”

“This contribution will help ensure that politics don’t interfere with women having access to health care,” the statement said. “People all across the country have stepped forward in the last 48 hours to offer help and support, and the mayor’s donation will help ensure that no woman is denied breast cancer services because of right-wing political pressure campaigns.”

Bloomberg will donate a dollar for every new dollar that Planned Parenthood brings in, up to $250,000.

Bloomberg has a point.  I mean, Planned Parenthood should get funding for breast cancer screenings.  All those mammograms cost money, right?

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson revealed the main reason why the Planned Parenthood abortion business lost its funding. It doesn’t do mammograms.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker explained. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

She added, later in the day on Twitter:, saying the money “will be invested in programs to serve low-income, uninsured and underinsured women.”

“Our Board approved new grants standards to improve direct services to women,” she said. “New grants standards strive for grants that provide direct services and outcomes. We have to put metrics, outcomes and measures to our grants so we can translate the science we’ve funded over 30 yrs. We will continue to provide services to vulnerable populations with care, treatment and screening.”

“We’ve decided not to fund pass-through grants. What we would like is to have clinics where we can directly fund mammograms,” she added

See, you stupid reich-wing bitter-clingers.  Nurse Bloomberg is right.  Planned Parenthood desperately needs those hundreds of thousands of dollars so that it can perform abortions breast cancer screenings that aren’t mammograms. 

Making a big fat donation to Planned Parenthood is a good start, but the mayor can do better than that.  This is a man of vision, after all.  We need something bigger, more costly and much more obnoxious than just tossing the fetus-haters some cheddar. 

No peace for weary Conservatives. Not even the Super Bowl apparently is exempt. Yes, the 2nd Amendment is a hoot, Mr. Bloomberg. Guns are so annoying.

In an unprecedented move, the mayor and his national coalition against illegal guns (which are most guns in NYC) plan to air a 30-second ad during the big game, which draws some of the highest TV ratings of the year and traditionally serves as a platform for memorable and very expensive commercials…

They provided a single picture from the shoot, which showed Bloomberg wearing a replica Giants tee shirt over his dress shirt with French cuffs, seated next to Menino in Patriots garb. Both were seated on a couch in front of a table with hats of their respective teams.

“It was very funny,” the mayor said of the ad, without providing further details. “You should take a look at it.”

“A New York-Boston Super Bowl is a perfect opportunity for the mayors to talk about fixing the nation’s backround check system that allow criminals and dangerous people to buy guns illegally,” said Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna.

Yeah, that’s more like it.

Forget the fact that most sports fans don’t want to think about politics during the biggest football game of the year.  Bloomberg is sure that the average American gridiron enthusiast wants and needs a thinly veiled propaganda clip featuring a lispy sawed-off billionaire media mogul lecturing the country about guns.  People eat that shit up; that’s why Current TV is kicking so much ass in the ratings.

So yeah, it’s been a great week for Mike Bloomberg.  The only way it could get better is if he could make all health care plans pay for contraception.  Oh wait, somebody already did that. 

Presidential Election Doomwatch–Placing The Blame For Mitt Romney’s Ascendency

It’s only February, and it feels like a lot of the wind has gone out of the sails of the conservative base. The culprit? With just four states checked off the 2012 primary season, the results simply aren’t very encouraging. Ron Paul continues to fight the good fight against fiat currency, the last 50 years of American foreign policy and chemtrails. Rick Santorum cannot seem to gain any traction as a viable center-right alternative candidate. Meanwhile, Captain Ahab Gingrich and the Romneytron 2012 Self-Guided Political Action Figure have turned each state into a clash of personalities rather than a fight over ideas.

Why did it come to this? RightHandMan has some harsh–but fair–words.

In 1976, the Republicans watched Reagan lose to Ford and then saw the repercussions of that loss in Carter’s four years. Thing is, Reagan didn’t want to run for President – but did. Know why? Because the people demanded it.

In 1976, the American Conservative Union pushed Reagan to run against the establishment supported and Presidential incumbent Gerald Ford. The establishment supported the wrong guy (the moderate), told us that a conservative like Reagan could never win in the general election, and went on to fail in the race against Carter anyway. The establishment strikes again in 2012 but…No Reagans.

Shame on the conservatives who sat on the sidelines instead of running. Shame on the citizens for not demanding better.

It’s our own damn fault. This whole godforsaken clusterfuck of a Republican primary dogpile is our fault.

I understand when people talk about how the Establishment ‘wants’ Romney to win. I get how they can feel cheated by a process that seems designed to hand Mittens the nomination. At the end of the day though, it still comes down to people supporting, or withdrawing their support from, certain candidates. The conservatives and Republicans who did not want Mitt Romney to be the party’s nominee simply didn’t do enough to make sure that didn’t happen.

But it isn’t just the vast right-wing conspiracy that dropped the ball.  While we’re in the spirit of circular firing squads, let me take aim right back at myself.  I jumped on the Herman Cain train with my heart, but I should’ve given it a little more thought than I did. While I had my doubts about the man being completely ready for prime time, I truly believed that he was a star that would shine brighter as time went on.  That simply was not the case.

I still think Herman Cain is an impressive guy.  He has a deft grasp of economics, he’s a successful businessman who has beaten the odds to rise to the top of profession and he is a forceful public speaker who can connect to audiences. These are all tremendous assets that should not be discounted simply because he didn’t do well during the course of a presidential campaign.  There is a future for Herman Cain somewhere in the political world, even if we can’t quite see it yet.

At the same time, Herman Cain and all his wonderful qualities were not able to get the job done. Presidential politics requires an absurdly varied skill-set.  Just having visionary ideas isn’t enough. Simply being a good orator won’t cut it.  Merely carrying around a huge warchest won’t work either.

Very few people in the world possess the vast talents necessary to play at Commander-in-Chief Level Boss status; even fewer have the desire or stomach for it. Ever wonder why the GOP cannot seem to create another Ronald Reagan? It’s not just that the Republican Party tends to dislike movement conservative candidates, although that’s certainly part of the problem. It’s because Reagan’s combination of temperament, knowledge, endurance and skills are so exceedingly rare that finding another giant world-changing figure like him is damn near impossible.

Conservatives–myself included–should recognize that fact.  They should also recognize the limitations of the candidates in the field.  Most politicians are not going to be awesome right out of the box.  Reagan’s iconic status is in part a product of the passage of time.  In the 1980′s, most of the Left and more than a few on the Right thought Ultra Ronaldus Magnus was a bird-brained failed actor who was intent on nuking the world.  Even those in the conservative movement who voted for and agreed with the President still criticized him.  It’s only been relatively recently that Reagan has become respected–if not loved–across the political spectrum.

As time has passed, I think I saw more in Herman Cain than was actually there.  I thought that he had the potential to be a transformational politician.  It turns out that Mr. Cain is merely an incredibly impressive man.  For what its worth, I’m sorry I didn’t recognize his limitations as a candidate.  Had I been a bit more skeptical a little sooner, I probably would’ve moved faster to find a more viable Not-Romney. 

2012 has been full of lessons.  Sometimes those learning moments have been delivered with a bit of a sting attached.  Rather than cry over it, it’s best to learn the lesson quickly, move forward and be wiser in the future.

Rick Perry’s Out and I’m Live-Tweeting The Debate Tonight

I guess we won’t have Rick Perry to kick around anymore.

Rick Perry is a good man, and he deserved a better campaign than he got, but his political advisers — Dave Carney and those other guys — had all the wrong ideas, and thus Perry’s “mission” was destined to failure from the outset. Exactly how these men, so widely hailed as shrewd strategists, got so many things so badly wrong is a story that I’m sure will be the subject of many campaign post mortems, like Jennifer Jacobs’s excellent examination of what went wrong with Michele Bachmann’s campaign. But I have neither time nor inclination to offer a full analysis today.

Yeah, it’s over.

I wasn’t nearly as down on the Perry candidacy as McCain was…or still is.  I liked the fact that Perry was getting better as the debates progressed.  I dug his tenacity even in the face of his campaign going terminally pear-shaped.  In the end though, all of Perry’s strengths couldn’t overcome that horrendous beginning. 

In any case, now we’re stuck with Mittens versus the AntiRomney horde.  Tonight’s debate should answer some questions; specifically will Ron Paul break out his fanciest tin-foil hat for this solemn occasion?  Can Mittster flip-flop his positions within a single answer?  Will Rachel Maddow be there to ask Newt Gingrich about the pleasures of an open marriage?  Will George Stephanopanoloppalopopafloppaopapophloppoloploppoppoapaopapoaoulous be on hand to ask  Rick Santorum if Gingrich should’ve worn a jimmy-hat while carrying on his multiple affairs?

As for me I’ll be on Twitter if ya’all wanna chat during the debate.  I’ll be snipping at Romney–and everyone else.  See you on teh intertubes.

Mitt Romney Sucks And I Miss Reagan

I’ll admit it. I spent most of Tuesday night trying to make light of Mitt Romney’s thumping primary victory in New Hampshire. A few days thought has changed my mood from bleak pessimism to inchoate depression. Thank the Lord for Baseball Crank, who gives voice to my heretofore wordless melancholy.

The other point I would make about integrity is that it goes close to the core of why a Romney nomination worries me so much: because we would all have to make so many compromises to defend him that at the end of the day we may not even recognize ourselves. Romney has, in a career in public office of just four years (plus about 8 years’ worth of campaigning), changed his position on just about every major issue you can think of, and his signature accomplishment in office was to be wrong on the largest policy issue of this campaign. Yes, Obama is bad, and Romney can be defended on the grounds that he can’t possibly be worse. Yes, Romney is personally a good man, a success in business, faith and family. But aside from his business biography, his primary campaign has been built entirely on arguments and strategies – about touting his own electability and dividing, coopting or delegitimizing other Republicans – none of which will be of any use in the general election. What, then, will we as politically active Republicans say about him? I was not a huge fan of John McCain’s record, but I was comfortable making honest points about the things McCain had been consistent on over the years – national security, free trade, nuclear power, public integrity, pork-barrel spending. There were spots of solid ground on which to plant ourselves with McCain, and he had a history of digging himself in on those and fighting for things he believed in. But Mitt Romney’s record is just one endless sheet of thin ice as far as the eye can see – there’s no way to have any kind of confidence that we can tell people he stands for something today without being made fools of tomorrow. We who have laughed along with Jim Geraghty’s prescient point that every Obama promise comes with an expiration date will be the ones laughed at, and worse yet we will know the critics are right.

And there you have it.

Consider: The Republican Party represents–nominally, at least–the interests, concerns and aspirations of the American Right. That same GOP is less than a month away from nominating the least reliable conservative since the modern traditionalist movement coalesced in the 1950′s. After the rise of the Tea Party and the Democrats’ electoral drubbing in the 2010 midterm election, the idea of the GOP nominating a character like Mitt Romney seems like the utterly unsatisfying twist ending to an otherwise great movie.

We can discuss the various reasons why the rank-n-file Republicans cannot seem to find a viable anti-Romney conservative candidate. Open primaries are juicy targets for non-GOPers looking to decide the Republican nominee. A flawed field of candidates has presented voters with few truly attractive options. The various debates have done much to show off the reflexive liberalism of the media class, but they haven’t done much to help voters understand much about the Republican candidates. The failure of conservatives to rally around one right-of-center pol has allowed Romney to sail on through the nomination process with the GOP nod all but secured.

However, the fact remains: Unless Santorum or Perry or even Gingrich somehow pulls off a miracle, conservatives and Republicans (but, alas, I do not repeat myself) are going to have to come to grips with the reality of Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee.

Just how will they do it? As the Baseball Crank says, getting as many conservatives elected into the House and Senate is as important as ever. But as vital as that is, it pales in comparison to the real critical issue. Whoever wins in November will likely get to appoint several Supreme Court Justices. Stephen Breyer is 73. Anthony Kennedy is 75. Antonin Scalia is 75. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 78 and has a history of serious health problems.

If Barack Obama is re-elected, he will get to decide the composition of the Court for a generation. The possibility of conservative governance will be threatened if not neutered. Right-of-center ballot measures and legislation from the states will be overturned. The US Congress–regardless of it’s partisan flavor– will be see it’s power drain as liberal activist judges discover more and more ‘rights’ in ever more absurd interpretations of the Constitution. For that reason alone, Barack Obama has to lose in 2012.

Conservatives will gripe that, given Romney’s craptastic crapshoot record of convenient changes of mind, changes of heart and changes of mood, it’s almost impossible to determine what ideological leanings his Supreme Court nominees will have. Sadly, this is very true. But it’s not like President Obama doesn’t have a track record when it comes to high court picks. Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan don’t have an originalist bone in their body. There is no chance Obama’s second term judicial appointments are going to deviate much from the Kagan/Sotomayor template. Conversely, simply having Romney in the White House at least makes it slightly less likely a Laurence Tribe or a Harold Koh would find themselves on the Supreme Court.

But therein lies the problem with Romney. Because there is nothing in his background for conservatives to hang their hat on, rank-n-file righties are going to have to play the ‘He’s Not As Bad As Bammy!’ card for the next 11 months. That might be an ideological consolation for hurting conservatives, but I don’t know if it’s the foundation of a winning political coalition. If Romney can only drum up perfunctory fair-to-middlin’ enthusiasm from the pool of Republican voters, it cuts right into the argument that he’s the most electable candidate in the field.

God, I hate this election.

MORE: Yes, I sorta stole the title of this post from “Team America: World Police”. Because I am a shameless thief and you gamely put up with my crapulence, here’s your musical break.

STILL MORE:  It seems the New Hampshire primary was a buzzkill for a lot of folks.  Here’s Innominatus‘ pox-on-all-your-houses annoyance with our current political malaise:

The Not Romneys are gangin’ up, makin’ the Mittster look like Richard Gere’s character in Pretty Woman. Dunno how that will all turn out. But it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking leveraged buyouts, prostitution or politics: First, money changes hands… and then somebody gets screwed.

True dat, homie.  True dat.

Elizabeth Warren, Explained

Say, did you hear former Obama Administration official Elizabeth Warren is running for the US Senate against Massachusetts moderate and pick-up truck aficionado Scott Brown? 

She seems really reasonable and smart, especially on the whole ‘citizen vs. subject’ debate we’re having in America right now. No really, check it out.

See, she’s totally cool.

I mean, what could you possibly have against good ol’ Lizzy-Dub?  She’s just pointing out your selfishness for wanting to keep some of your money out of the government’s coffers.  She’s also simply illustrating how it’s only the protection cash you pay to the cops and firefighters that keep your investments safe from the angry jealous mob.  The fact that the hypothetical marauding bands of pillagers she’s talking about would probably be aligned to Elizabeth’s Warren’s brand of left-wing politics should be ignored, naturally.  Just understand that it is Ms. Warren and her generous confiscation and spending of her tax revenue–whoops, I mean your tax dollars of course–that keeps the great unwashed moi polloi at bay.

Oh and look at how she says ‘God Bless!’ to business owners.  That took real guts on her part.  She didn’t have to utter that hackneyed Christianist phrase, but she decided to throw all those crazed bitter-clinger teabagging reich-wingers a bone. 

Truly, Elizabeth Warren is a magnanimous spirit for our otherwise benighted age.

But of course there are those spoiled dissenters out there, unfairly berating this giant intellect. 

See, now this is just the kind of cruel derision I’d expect from mean-hearted conservatives.

Just because Elizabeth Warren is a snippy overentitled hack who dresses from Jennifer Granholm’s Salvation Army donation sack doesn’t mean we should make fun of her.  Laughing at Warren’s waxy man-hands, deer-in-the-headlights gaze or her apparent distaste for buttoning her blouse is wrong.  Worst of all, how can you make fun of her ideas like this?  Lizzie can’t help it if God didn’t redistribute enough brains or reasoning into her thick skull when He made Wise Lady Warren up in Worker’s Heaven.

C’mon people.  Can’t we just give Elizabeth Warren a Senate seat for being a well-meaning big-hearted big spending liberal?  I mean, it wouldn’t be the first time we elected a wildly unattractive, shrewish, thin-skinned leftist ideologue to the world’s greatest deliberative body in the history of deliberative bodies.  What’s one more Marxoid dipshit from the depths of Harvard University’s know-it-all manufacturing plant gonna hurt?

Live Tweeting Tonight’s Debate

This debate should answer a few questions. 

The most vital question?  Will Michelle Bachmann continue to seek the all-important Jenny McCarthy endorsement?

See you on Twitter, my homies.