Apparently, Michelle Bachman's former planet does not want her back. arggh.....

(P.S. Get the ribeye....)

Who's intolerant?

Republicans will swing even further right and to the extremes because many of the old party Republicans with principles, like Carlson, have been purged and because many moderates in this hail storm of socialist-baiting, anti-intellectualism and the rhetoric of hate lost re-election.

The remaining Republican officeholders fear their inflamed and pissed off base. You're right, the ham-fisted, door punching, irrational ideologues screaming "Socialist!" is not going to tolerate Norm Coleman wanting to do some backslapping isle crossing.

And what about Governor Pawlenty? Or Mayor Bloomberg?

Fox is already reporting that the problem with this election was that McCain and Palin didn't appeal enough to the conservative base of the party. It seems all they did in the last two months was appeal to the extremist conservative base of the party.

I am really proud Minnesota did not split urban vs. rural or metro vs. outstate but it is great to see Obama carried Kittson. Mower, Fillmore, Houston, Olmstead, Swift, Big Stone, Blue Earth, Clay, Mahnomen, Murray, Lincoln not to mention Lake, Cook and St. Louis counties. Despite Palin's claim of real American's vs. the unreal community organizers, Obama's support came from every corner of the state.

It's wonderful watching the Republican circular firing squad take shape. Did you see the numbers on young voters? I think the under-30 crowd went like 65-35 to the Dems. This is huge, because as we learned when Reagan captured the youth vote in 1980, party affiliations made when voters are young tend to be very sticky.

For utopians like Rob The Bolshevik, who think they know why whites in Iowa and others voted for "The One", Shelby Steel provides an excellent corrective analysis.

Given that "The One" is neither qualified or experienced enough to be nominated let alone BE President, and that his very birth record is still mysteriously unaccounted for, (as are his scholastic records, his medical records, and his track record of....well, anything) this makes for some very enlightening edification.

Read up, race voters:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steele5-2008nov05,0,6553798.story

If it means we can do away with the Sharptons and Jacksons and other do-nothing race complainers, I'm in.

Props to CBS, who trotted out none other than Maya Angelou to bloviate on The One's coronation!

After all, it's not about race, right?

Vomit-inducing transcript followed by David Allen Griers absolutely fab skewer:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/05/a-preview-of-maya-angelous-inaugural-poem-for-obama/#comments

Bertram, you pay up yet?

Mr. Steele's just struggling to stay relevant. He's got to eat, too, certainly. Those questions he trots out at the top of his essay as if people are actually seriously asking them is a straw man forensic gambit.

We just had eight years of a reckless imbecile who completely misrepresented himself as an undistinguished candidate. So forgive those of us who're less than riveted by Mr. Steele's and Ms. Malkin's predictable cant a mere two days after the collapse of their party. We're just waiting to get through the final weeks of the Bush/Cheney disaster.

We're not really interested in tearing down his replacement before he's so much as been sworn in. We're moving on. You, I realize, have nowhere to go.

Why does anyone care what Arne Carlson says about the GOP? He's a throwback to the era where the MNGOP was basically the DFL with nicer suits. Which made people like Lori Sturdevant and Doug Grow and our host Mr. Lambert all tingly - it's much easier to remain in power when nobody contests it! - but really doesn't represent the part of the population that doesn't subscribe to the Great Society.

How off is Carlson? The GOP in DC hasn't been remotely conservative under the Bush Administration; indeed, the GOP in Congress acted like...well, a bunch of Arne Carlsons. Only when Carlson spent, he taxed to cover it - which people like Sturdevant, Growe and our host call "fiscally conservative", and fiscal conservatives call "wrong".

Ah, well. We survived 1976 and 1992. We'll do the same again.

Funny how Leinfelder manages a response that dimisses the writer's job prospects, the tenets in the "top paragraph", mixes in some of the usual hate / ad hominem's vs. Bush (and the submitter), while fecklessly grooming himself yet again as being one of a purported group ("we") who are as usual, so far above the fray.

Yet, he deigns not to argue Steele's brilliantly facile bullseye telling us exactly why Leinfelder and millions of other misguideds like him cast their votes as they did.

I see that Katherine Kersten has written a gracious post-mortem piece today, acknowledging that her party has misread the public mood, mishandled the economy, left our global image in tatters, and now needed to do some soul searching about how it got itself here, adding that the election of the first African American president was a proud moment for every American, no matter their political orientation. ....Nah, just kidding!

What she actually said was that we can expect from this moment only Democrat folly and that a GOP "insurgency" will be in the works, with the party coming back stronger and more needed than ever. She sounds kind of like the knight in that Monty Python sketch taunting his opponent despite the fact that he does so with no limbs.

Anyway, is it me, or is her use of that word to describe right wing partisan activity, when an actual insurgency has been taking the lives of American soldiers for five years now, just really ... unfortunate?

M Berg says: "The GOP in DC hasn't been remotely conservative under the Bush."

That's what Republicans always say when they somehow gain power, implement their crazy ideas, and then everything blows up in their faces.

Don't you realize that conservatism by definition (according to people like M Berg) can never fail? If it fails, then, by definition, it was not conservative. Nice trick; too bad it is a complete fallacy.

George W. Bush in fact adopted the entire conservative movement (see here). If he wasn't conservative, then no one ever will be.

Definitely a solid election for the Democrats but no free steak dinner for Mr. Lambert since the win was under 8% for Obama.

The easy part is done for Obama and company. Now comes the time to fill the promises. I have more confidence that Obama will do what is right than Reid and Pelosi, both of which are a banana short of a bunch.

Obama will get a one year get out of jail free card by the public, thanks to the mess left behind by Bush. After that, things could swing back the other way.

This election was a softball for the Democrats to win, heck even Lambert could have won something!

I see the comments aren't moderated anymore? Can someone get Bertram his own room?

LAMBERT: Yes Dave. We switched from Typepad to Movable Type, and as usual I wasn't paying close enough attention in blog class. So I'm struggling to get a handle on moderating ... bertram ... before he packs up the truck for the Aryan Nation compound. And yes, I missed my 8 point prediction. But ABC News was calling the spread 7 points last night. So I'm very smug about my call.

Bertram please don’t project your fear and self-loathing onto the rest of us. Many of us voted, not with regard to black or white, but with a patriotic commitment to a better, stronger America in the real world. Leave everyone speechless by showing some class.

Mr. Lambert, about the tie – cherished gift from a loved one, yes?

LAMBERT: A close-up would have revealed a Parisian theme ... an homage to my freedom fry heritage.

Quick sidetrack into the Dems, then I'll get on topic.

All the GOP boogiemen are crying about Reid and Pelosi's power...that is because they were focusing on their Ayers/Wright wingnut version of Obama and completely missing how Obama really works the middle of problems and not any fringes. Reid and Pelosi are more on the hot spot to increase their approval rating for their next re-election than Obama...both will be gone if they try any 1970s tax and spent antics. Can you imagine Obama in a national address (ala Reagan) calling on Congress to act and what would happen to Reid/Pelosi if they didn't? I can and it doesn't look pretty.

Which brings me back to the topic--the GOP has reeled out of control. The word conservative has been split between intellectual cons and batshit cons, the intellectual cons got rich and lazy and gave their party away to the neocons, who in turn sold out to the religious nuts in '04. And son of a gun, these religious types turn out to not be very sharing and caring after all, they kinda like this power idea and are not planning on giving it up are they.

God loves irony, eh? Because now all these non-batshit GOPs find themselves to be more Democrat than Republican. They don't care about abortion or gay marriage, and they really don't care about immigration--hell, they WANT those workers for their farms and businesses.

So, what to do? I've been wondering this for weeks. My guess is one of two things--(1) either start a 3rd party or (2) battle to take back the GOP.

But--all those years of fixing politics to make it impossible for third parties to exist means they can't do (1). It would take years and Democratic help (unlikely eh) for all those rules to be changed.

So--it means a battle, but here is the problem...all the non-wingnut GOPs were pushed out of the party or marginalized. My guess is the GOP party needs to lose more before it can be taken back. So here is my scenario--

GOP flounders in '09, and in '10 they lose more seats. More importantly, as they lose power and leadership, the money to fund batshit policies will dry up. The religious fundies will have to watch their activities or risk becoming taxable, and finally in 2011 the GOP party will be small enough to be an attractive investment for the intellectual GOPs to buy back into power for 2012.

But let me say it first--it will not be behind a Sarah Palin as nominee. It will be some little known moderate, who will lose in 2012 to set up a real run in 2016.

To answer your query then, 'if I were a Republican', I (not being a batshit) would become a Democrat (think Blue Dog or Democrat In Name Only), because I'm too old to wait 8 years for the party who left me to come back to its senses.

LAMBERT: Well Other Mike you are kind of what I'm curious about. Frankly, I don't see Obama wandering so far "left" to sorely antagonize you. He's one of the few who I believe actually wants to "get things done", like a big infra-structure/stimulus program, which will be another acid test of who is a bat-shit ideologue and who isn't. (What's not to like?) But you mention that pesky little tax status issue. You have to assume that a very shrewd operator like Rahm Emanuel, (among others), has a few ideas for enforcing existing laws against political activity by religious groups. He'll be busy with a lot of other White House problems, but he'll be right there explaining to Obama how the laws on the books might be enough to force these religious groups into behaving like, you know ... churches, instead of bund rallies.

"...with a patriotic commitment to a better, stronger America in the real world".

Oh, it's so rich, so very, very rich.

Do you have a mortgage? A 401k?

A family? A job?

Because you just threw them all under the Obama-bus.

But you sure salved that racial guilt that's been eatin' ya, I'll bet.

Best of luck, fool.

LAMBERT: Have you ever heard the always good advice, "Never let 'em see you sweat"? You're sweating.

Damned right I am.

Happens when you WORK.

LAMBERT: Is that Hugh Hewitt's rage du jour? That "real Americans" are the only ones who work?

Yep, "post racial" all right!

Wonderful. So very, very rich.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/06/new-national-anthem-my-president-is-black/

LAMBERT: I'm telling you, man. You're going to pop something.

Inclusive? Tolerant?

How about criminal:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/07/unhinged-losers-prop-8-opponents-threaten-mormons-and-catholics/

"If you were a Republican" you would have written something like this:

THE FOUNDATION

"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Alexander Hamilton
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
Majority fools...

By Mark Alexander

This has been an historic week -- for two reasons.

First, and most notable, more than 57 million American Patriots showed up to vote on Tuesday -- this despite having been swamped with Leftmedia reports fawning over the messianic Barack Obama, reports that the election was over, and reports that John McCain was defeated.

Obama victory celebration -- true colors

In the face of all the negatives, 57 million of our countrymen did what Patriots always do -- put country first and cast their vote for what is good and right about our great nation. We were unified by our recognition that the high office of the presidency deserves a man of great and demonstrable character. We were unified by the knowledge that constitutional integrity is dependant upon the selection of Supreme Court judges who will abide by the plain language of our Constitution rather than amend it by judicial diktat. We understand that if we are not a nation of laws, a republic, then we are a nation of men imposing their will upon others, a democracy. The latter always leads to tyranny.

John McCain was beset by the worst economic crisis in decades (the direct result of Democrat legislation to undermine free enterprise by rigging mortgage markets), a sitting president who has been relentlessly demeaned and atrociously attacked by liberals and their media, and costly but essential wars on two major fronts, which the public has been told should not be fought. (When was the last time any liberal openly pondered the consequences had we not launched OEF and OIF?)

Yet, of the 120 million ballots cast on Tuesday, McCain would be our president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground states opted for him instead of Barack Obama. (Just imagine what the political landscape would look like if the mass media was composed of objective journalists rather than Leftist campaign hacks.)

Second, this has been an historic week because a majority of American voters were lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship," with all its attendant deception. Never before has the collective idiocy of a nation been so galvanized in support of one of their own, Barack Hussein Obama.

In his victory speech Tuesday night, Obama said, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible ... tonight is your answer. It's been a long time coming, but tonight ... change has come to America. This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change."

Ah yes, "change" -- a euphemism for constitutional abrogation. BO's mantra -- can you smell it?

What follows are a few other observations from this "historic week."

Trudging through the smoldering debris of Tuesday's O-bomb, I have completed my post mortem. Unlike all the party punditry, who tend to form circular firing squads, here is a viewpoint far removed from the ubiquitous opinions of Beltway political hacks and media talkingheads.

First, when the Democrats ran the most uber-leftist member of their party, Republicans thought they could run a centrist who could make the case that he swings both ways. Unfortunately, in a time when Congress has far lower ratings than the historically low ratings of the sitting president, a centrist who is indistinguishable from the problem is not perceived to be the solution, no matter how great his patriotic pedigree.

Second, McCain ran his campaign like George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Bill Clinton defeated him. Who can forget Bush, in the last debate with Clinton, looking with disdain at his watch as if to say, "Are we done yet?"

McCain campaigned as if he had it won. He campaigned as a diplomat, not a warrior, and diplomats get their hindquarters kicked by warriors. He called himself a "maverick" (if I never hear that word again it will be too soon), and, indeed, he was once a great warrior, but after 22 years in the Senate, the "house of lords," the "deliberative body," he had lost his warrior spirit.

On the other hand, Obama approached this campaign as if he had been steeped in the effluent of radical Socialism, racism and anti-American sentiments since birth. He did what modern liberals do best: foment discontent, anger, division, greed, victimization ... you know the routine.

By the time McCain figured out that he'd have to rekindle his inner warrior spirit, it was too late.

Of course, then came the housing collapse and the subsequent stock market crash, and the credit crisis, followed by cascading consumer confidence, and the inevitable Leftmedia blaming of the party of McCain.

But there was one more major factor. Unlike 2004, there was no video message from al-Qa'ida's Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election; no message to remind Americans that we are one terrorist nuke away from a toasted urban center.

Osama's "October Surprise" shaved decisive votes from John Kerry's lead in just three days. One might conclude that Osama wised up this time around, in order to get his man elected. Tuesday was a happy day for jihadis around the world, but a sad one for those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Citizens of these two countries have, with a little help from our Armed Forces, tasted freedom for the first time in decades, and they now fear an American retreat, the implications of which are dire for the entire region.

One final observation: Some have suggested that this campaign was all about class warfare, rich v. poor. Indeed, that was a core message, but this campaign was really about dirt v. concrete. Obama received most of his support from urbanites, as one can clearly discern from all those county-by-county maps of election results.

Seems the further away some folks get from the self-sufficiency of the land, the more inclined they are to become dependent on the state. However, the fact is that concrete dwellers are completely dependent on the production of suburban and rural areas of our nation, those areas that are firmly under Patriot control. (Don't repeat this, because it causes a lot of heartburn among the majority of city folk who have surrendered to serfdom.)

So, for all those mindless minions whose heads have been stuck in the O-zone for the last year: You got what you wanted. Now what?

You recall that the only power that politicians have is the power to collect and redistribute wealth -- to tax and spend. I heard once that there was a great revolution over this issue, something about taxation without representation...

Consider how many times Obama has said that he thinks "people who have done well like me" should pay higher taxes. If that is the case, then why didn't he? I checked, and The One has never paid a dime more in taxes than the minimum required by law.

In regard to Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others, in his infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just because I want to spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in kindergarten!"

Of course, Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead, he's proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary, and give it to someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption that you aren't charitable enough to share it yourself.

However, exhibiting that most universal of traits common to liberals, hypocrisy, it turns out that the Obamas reported an average annual income of more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, but they gave a measly two percent of their income for charitable purposes.

So much for "spreading the wealth around."

Regarding constitutional liberty, Obama has twice taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

He does not honor that oath because he subscribes to the errant notion of a "Living Constitution" which, in his own words, "breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Clearly, as the next commander in chief, he has no intention of honoring his presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," but I suspect most of our uniformed Patriots will.

Obama's executive, legislative and judicial agendas pose a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic. He'll likely appoint two or even three left-wing jurists to the High Court in his first (and we hope only) term.

Expect a concerted effort by the executive, legislative and judicial branches to undermine the First, Second and Tenth Amendment rights of citizens, and restrictions on the central government.

However, Obama and his radical Leftists should not underestimate the concern tens of millions of my fellow Patriots share about the assault on our Constitution that will ensue on 20 January 2009. When the next administration commences to trample on our Constitution -- and they will -- they risk the potential of civil disobedience at least equal in proportion to the degree of constitutional violation.

Thomas Jefferson insisted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Could Americans take up arms against each other, Patriots in defense of our Constitutional Republic? Surely not again. However, anyone who thinks this prospect is preposterous should put their ear closer to the ground.

Many American Patriots believe, as did Thomas Paine, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

Speaking of concerns, have you read about Barack Obama's "National Service Plan," which he proposed because, in his words, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"? This is his version of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and it is an Orwellian plan to employ legions of his sycophants in the service of his administration. He proposes spending more on this "plan" than our current budget for national defense.
Read all about it in an upcoming edition.

As for our national security in the next four years, what new can I say about this issue? Well, just this: I wonder how the election of Obama will affect military recruitment, enlistments and re-enlistments? Slim prospects for jobs in the private sector may prop up the military census, but in the unlikely event that Obama backs off his tax-and-spend agenda, and the economy improves, military recruiters will have their work cut out.

Some are insisting that liberals can't keep playing the race card now that a black man has been elected president (even though less than half of Obama's family line is of African origin). But liberals are totally dependent on cultivating constituencies of victims in order to perpetuate their tenure in public office. As long as there is a Democrat in Washington, they will continue to insist that the nation is replete with racial and social injustice (which, they fail to tell us, is the result of liberal economic and social policies), and that the only salvation for the victims of such injustice is, you guessed it, to re-elect the liberals who perpetuate it.

While 95 percent of blacks voted for Barack Obama, it should be noted that one of the most courageous groups of people in the entire nation is the four percent of black men and women who voted for John McCain. One of these Patriots lives on my street, and he told me recently that back when "the black community" found out he voted against Bill Clinton, it cost him and his family dearly. That notwithstanding, he displayed a McCain/Palin sign in front of his house and voted accordingly.

On Election Day, another neighbor, who apparently had a few Patriot essays forwarded to her, felt compelled to write me a note defending her support for Obama: "I am a very patriotic person, a post-college/graduate school educated person, a consistent churchgoer and dedicated mother, a firm believer in a woman's right to choose, and a strong Democrat."

I mention the above only to include the last line of her note: "There are a lot of people in our community who feel the same way I do." After all, isn't this all about "feelings"?

Ask liberals about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example, why they support charlatans like Obama, the Clintons, Albert Arnold Gore, John Kerry, et al. -- and invariably they will tell you how they feel. That's why you can't reason with them. Logic and emotions are like oil and water.

Fortunately, the majority of my community, my state and my region of our great nation cast their votes on the basis of reason, logic and good judgment, not "feelings."

Finally, as I ponder the "historic changes" of the past week, my first response has been to pray. I know many of you are responding likewise.

This battle is lost, but the war is not. Stand firm, Patriots. Stand ready. Let's roll.
Quote of the week

"Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people. ... Our challenge is not to retreat to the comfort of self-congratulatory exile but to sweat and bleed -- and be victorious -- in the arena of public opinion." --Tony Blankley
On cross-examination

"For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president." --Ann Coulter
The BIG lie

"I may not have won your vote tonight, but ... I will be your president, too." --Barack Obama

LAMBERT: You know, if you quoted Carrot Top this stuff might be more credible.

The continual links to other blogs with vague references are tiresome.

The message doesn't become more entertaining just because its split between posts.

But I guess frustration leads to annoying behaviors.

Another quick aside before getting back on topic--
BJ, I think you are in a time warp, all those factors you are trying to throw under Obama's bus have already been thoroughly and completely run over by Bush's bus.

Obama is more the paramedic called in by the american voters to try to save the day. Let me know if you need a new calendar to mark these key dates in history on them.

Oh, a P.S., if you are finding your best news and opinion from Michelle Malkin, you need more help than a new calendar. I suggest you try reading...hmm...pretty much ANYONE else...even O'Reilly has been better than her.

Back on topic--Brian, on your reference the 'pesky little tax status issue', I think this is better as a threat than as a practice.

Think FCC and IRS...think Iraq even. The threat of the big stick is what straightens people up to listen to the soft talk, but when you start wacking people with sticks you will quickly realize you didn't bring enough people with enough strength and big enough sticks to hit them all. It becomes a wack-a-mole game where you run out of resources taking attention off the real issues; and in the meantime they gain courage when they realize they are still around.

If needed, Rahm could pay a visit to a couple key fundamentalist lobbyists to pass along the inference that taxing might become an option unless they get on board. Then let them decide their control their own fate, which if the statement is done well it should do the job of bringing about the desired change without the Congress getting off track.

Actually, quite like diplomacy, that old word that has been ignored for so long. There are also possibilities raised by re-regulating radio and TV as a stick to be shown but not necessarily used.

Options, always options, but keep the eye on the prize, which is to please regain a working Congress first. These problems are to be solved there, not in the executive's office--that is one of the lessons we learned from the last 8 years.

LAMBERT: You're thinking like I'm thinking. There are laws on the books about churches and "religious organizations" mixing politics. Let the word get around that you will be enforcing those laws. Eventually though you will have to make an example of someone.

Did I miss a posting? How could I have missed the comment where BJr admitted that he was wrong about a McCain runaway victory. At least McCain showed some class in his concession speech. He reminded me of the McCain we saw during the 2000 election. If BJr keeps ranting for the next four (hopefully eight) years, he will start to appreciate how many of us have felt during the current occupant's reign.

Why do I anticipate BJr complaining about Franken have the audacity to not concede the election? Imagine him having the nerve to let the system run the way it was designed.

BTW, Brian, the prospect of seeing you back in the USA, and wearing a tie, had us flipping between Fox 9 and CNN. I was quite shocked to see Fox calling states for Obama much earlier than CNN.

LAMBERT: It may have been since First Communion since the last tie ...

Pierce County Politician's posting of that ungainly Alexander missive...well I made it as far as this before I wore out--"John McCain was beset by the worst economic crisis in decades (the direct result of Democrat legislation to undermine free enterprise by rigging mortgage markets), a sitting president who has been relentlessly demeaned and atrociously attacked by liberals and their media...".

Good grief. So, let me point a finger too, at something a bit closer to reality--Nixon's creation of 'wedge issues' as the problem in modern american political action.

Because it was in that period that the GOP stopped solving problems and instead would use it to create wedge within the american public. Meanwhile, the problem would grow, the wedge would grow, Congress inaction would grow, political party fussing/funding would grow as the sides became more polarized.

I say enough--I call bullshit on any politician and any media player who continues to feed wedge issues and the partisan divide.

If Obama has been given a mandate--this is it, at least it is the one I give him--to stop the political divide in this country.

Don't misunderstand--political discussion and opposing viewpoints are critical, there is no anti-american fingerpointing here, in fact, quite the opposite. But I want them to be on topic and that topic is 'yes we can' or 'country first' or whatever slogan you want to attach to getting our country moving forward and working together again.

Can we all (mostly) agree on that? I want a bunch of talk, but then bang the gavel, call a vote, and let's put america back to work dammit.

LAMBERT: That "ungainly" thing was from "bertram jr", not Pierce County.

Bertram, Jr., maybe lay off the venison sausage for awhile and get some chelation therapy before you return to the key board.

I don't know PCP. I think it takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and the maturity of a two-year old to find the type of posts like Bertram Jr. does for us here. I personally relish the ones that are grounded in a reality similar to the one Nancy Reagan enjoyed during her White House days and contain less intellectual thought than a DVD of Raven The Hunting Dog's Greatest TV Moments.

LAMBERT: Now, I don't know if that's exactly being fair to Raven.

My computer was down and I anticipated the Bertram JR meltdown before I even clicked on the link. When my educated cradle Catholic parents with their antiabortion beliefs vote for Obama because they are afraid of Sarah Palin at the top of the org chart, this speaks to how out of touch the grand ole party is with everyday mainstreet people with beliefs associated with conservatism.

LAMBERT: And they'll continue to be out of touch until they stop looking to the likes of Rush Limbaugh for intellectual leadership. Talk radio conservatism was a successful shtick for many years. But it is has almost nothing to do with on the ground reality. It's a sales gimmick, at best.

Thank you Mr. Lambert for authoring a blog that promotes both open exchange and intellectual sparring. With the freedom to express, of course, comes the responsibility to let the other guy speak his mind. My 11/6 response to bertram’s post was inappropriate. It should have been directed specifically to content and I apologize to bertram.

The tie commentary stays.

LAMBERT: An apology to bertram. That's a first.

Bertam Jr.'s assertion that he WORKS (his caps) is the most interesting thing he's ever said. I wonder, what with him being so busy working, how he finds time to post about 5,000 words here ever day.

LAMBERT: And another 5000 on other blogs. I assume he's being paid for it.

Why do you reprint bertram jr.'s ranting and raving by reposting someone elses articles? Doesn't the hobgoblin have a brain of his own? Isn't it a violation of copyright? Isn't it boorishly unintelligent and merely ugly mimicry at best?

Can't this ogre of a man be put out of his MISERY and ours as well?

LAMBERT: A "hobgoblin" and an "ogre". Nicely done. As I've said, bertram is here as a reminder of the forces of irrational fear and illogic. We don't want to get too smug about making progress, you know.

Oh.

It must be SO annoying to have a chance to listen to what the other (smarter) half of this country thinks about the hypocrisy and pathology of your vacuous "change" agent.

You do know we think you folks are nuts, right?

Just like the gay marriage terrorists in California.

"Second, this has been an historic week because a majority of American voters were lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship," with all its attendant deception. Never before has the collective idiocy of a nation been so galvanized in support of one of their own, Barack Hussein Obama."

Word.

Oh, and apparently the financial markets agree.

LAMBERT: And this is a quote from who? Jonah Goldberg?

"Can't this ogre of a man be put out of his MISERY and ours as well?"

Try arguing the basis of your beliefs.

I know that's where you loony libs struggle, but TRY.

BL: Please comment on the decisive black Prop 8 vote, and the resulting "rainbow of terror".

LAMBERT: Is anything funnier than unintentional self-parody?

C’mon Brian. Why insult Jonah Goldberg like that? Nope, it was that raving anti-intellectual Mark Alexander and Bertram is now just lifting bits and pieces from his previously posted (read: stolen) thoughts.

But I’ll continue to urge Bertram and others to keep posting that drivel. It continues to appeal to an ever-shrinking base of religious zealots, rabid anti-intellectuals, and fear-mongers that make up the base of the Republican Party while driving younger voters, intellectual and moderate conservatives, and minorities to the Democratic side. It’s why Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the last five Presidential elections and why your estimate of an eight-point spread is going to look like a….. gulp…….conservative estimate in future elections.

LAMBERT: Like I say, what is toxic about the Republican brand are the hucksters of low-brow sloganeering and bigotry ... who persist in declaring themselves "true conservatives".

Thanks for setting the record straight on my last comment...sorry Pierce County...I really really should have known better.

As for BJ...I wish he would be a bigger american and put his country first instead of spewing all his divisive messages.

BJr. I must have you confused with Rip Van Winkle. Did you sleep through the last eight year while the collective idiocy of a nation was galvanized in support of one of their own, George W. Bush?

These thinly veiled threats of murder and assassination by Mark Alexander are outrageous. First, why do you Mr. Lambert feel obligated to reprint this fanatical call to arms by a zealot who misrepresents and characterizes other people inappropriately in order to inflame violence?

Couldn't you simple chose not to reprint the entire copy/paste in the name of a respect for his copyright?

Articles such as this one by Mark Alexander is just the kind of thinly veiled threat of violence along with false inflammatory language about socialists and leftist radicals that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used to justify blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

This is the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, just like Ann Coultier who called for "patritots" to step up and murder Supreme Court Justices who seem to favor Roe vs. Wade (or just kill any of them not appointed using a anti-abortion litmus test) I think these people need to be held accountable and called out for their murder inciting deeds.

Ann Coulter and Mark Alexander are no better than terrorists or the Taliban when they start calling for executions of people they don't agree with and call upon "patritots" to carry out their illegal fatwas.

LAMBERT: Your point is valid. I allow bertram his rope because in my experience very few of my liberal pals have much if any exposure to the routine rantings of the not-so distant right. This stuff isn't a small fringe percentage, and that is worth constant reminders.

Open exchange and intellectual sparing? Plezzzz

Having a debate with bertrum jr. is like being forced to endure Thansgiving Dinner with the ignorant foul smelling Uncle who will not move out of your basement, get a job, or do something productive with his life as he spends all day watching Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and listening to Rush and cannot think for himself.

Not very pleasant...

I know I've posted it before re: Bertram, but, here goes again: Those who borrow their opinions from others can never repay the debt. Bertram's intellectual red ink makes AIG look flush.

LAMBERT: Part of my sick fascination with bertram is that literally everything is a talking point of the day. Again, he is not alone in this regard.

I can not countenance those who do not recognize the efficacy of the Bush presidency.

Your type are misinformed, maladjusted and simply not rational enough to understand the role of the President.

No greater evidence of that exists then your collective Obamagasm.

LAMBERT: You can not "countenance"? What are you a soldier in King George's occupying army?

I have to ask this....
With all the posting Bertram does (you literally have to scroll and scroll and scroll)... What else does he do besides visit you here!? Bertram, you need to be a good Republican and get to work!

LAMBERT: Remember, "good Republicans", like Joe the Plumber were once on welfare, failed to pay their taxes and are working -- when they do work -- without a license.

If I wanted to read the sort of rancid tripe Bertram, Jr. regurgitates all over this blog, I could simply go to the source at www.davidduke.com . I'll give David Duke this much, he signs his actual name to his work. More than can be said for Duke, Jr.

LAMBERT: No one ever accused bertram of being "fear-less".

What we cannot countenance, although we recognize it, is the efficacy of the Bush President to run our economy into the ground and our respect in the world to zero.

We thought we knew the role of the President was to uphold the Constitution and protect the nation but now we understand all too well Bush's horrible and corrupting, yes, efficacy.

"rancid tripe"?

You couldn't polish Mark Alexander's shoes with anything you've written that wasn't a hate-filled screed.

David Duke? So 80's.

Try to keep up. You add little here.

The sub-prime situation was forced on us by Willie Clinton, Barney Frank and their cabal, who insisted banks make loans to (largely) minorities who couldn't afford them.

But Michelle, you're one of those who is not interested in looking at who's really responsible and the origins of things when it's so much more fashionable to just "hate Bush".

Right?

LAMBERT: Let me get this straight ... Clinton, (gay) Barney Frank and "minorities".

Tell me, Michelle, just how do you verify and measure "our respect in the world", and what effect does it have in your life?

Because you sound like one of those know nothing lib/ haters spouting foolish tripe that you think makes you sound like an enlightened citizen or something.

LAMBERT: Be careful here, Michelle, you're talking to a guy who knows his foolish tripe.

A letter to John McCain that should also be written to the fanatics and extremists like Mark Alexander and Ann Coulter:

“If your campaign does not stop equating Sen. Barack Obama with terrorism, questioning his patriotism and portraying Mr. Obama as ‘not one of us,’ I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate, and therefore of potentially instigating violence. You are unleashing the monster of American hatred and prejudice, to the peril of all of us. You are doing this in wartime. You are doing this as our economy collapses. You are doing this in a country with a history of assassinations.”

I think we might want to count bertram jr. as one of the unhinged elements in our society as he growls, gnaws and snarls over his red meat of hate.

YOU bertram jr are so David Duke 80's. That's what makes your posts so self-mockingly mordant and satirical. We laugh as you gnaw at your posterior regions like a mouse chewing its own leg off to escape a trap or a dog angrily chasing its own tail.

Imagine my disenchantment to realize that Duke, Jr. was not referring to the Mark Alexander thought to be an odds-on favorite to be Obama's White House counsel. Alexander, currently a Constitutional scholar at Seton Hall, a former litigator, advisor to the Bill Bradley campaign, a Fulbright Scholar and generally brilliant guy, seems emblematic of he sort of meritocracy we can look forward to supplanting the Bush administration's self-dealing pack of cronies and blinkered ideologues.

Sadly, Michelle makes it plain that this was yet another one of Duke, Jr.'s references to some fringe-dwelling intellectual and moral pygmy pecking out acridly bitter rants for right-wing agitprop rags the likes of TownHall.com. For a minute there I thought maybe Duke, Jr.'s amygdala and frontal lobes were back on speaking terms.

But judging from his latest reflexive eructations, that is not the case.

Uh, that one must have been particluarly painful to pass, Lib-felder.

Take it easy there, son, you only get one set of that plumbing...

And, Michelle, I stand by my estimation of you.