Revisiting the political "T word"

By Rick Morris

In a recent column, I passionately took up for one of our Dignitaries, Burrell Jackson, when he put out a press release detailing controversial aspects of his race for Republican state central committeeman in the Cleveland area. I owed him no less because of the work he has put in helping to build The FDH Lounge brand through our webcasts in our first year of operations. Now, it may cause him a bit of discomfort (I hope not), but I’m going to address the topic for what I hope will be one last time here on the blog. I don’t wish to make his life any harder, but I do think I’m entitled to make my points in an extended, coherent manner so that they cannot be dismissed as just angry ranting. Again, all points here are my own and I hope nobody asks him to justify anything I’ve written because he’s not responsible for any of it.

Now, we’re a relatively new brand and I’m not an egotistical person (that assertion may have caused a lot of spit-takes, but it’s true!), so I was not presumptuous enough to assume that my column would cause anyone at Cuyahoga County Republican HQ to take notice. I am pleased to note that I was wrong about that; call it the power of Google Blog search or call it what you will, somehow, the rumblings from that column made their way all through the corridors of the local party establishment and folks are unhappy. So, since I have their attention, I’m going to expound once more before I let this go.

The word “tokenism” was used by me on behalf of my friend. It is a loaded term, as I know very well because I choose my words carefully. So I want to clarify that even though it was used in an angry manner, there is an underlying serious point that should be taken to heart.

I’ll start by addressing the comment section of that column. In it, a statement was posted from the Jim Trakas congressional campaign taking up for David Gunning and pointing out that even though Mr. Gunning contributed to Democrat Joe Cimperman, he also gave a maximum donation to the Trakas campaign. While my view of Mr. Gunning’s activities differs from that of Jim Trakas because of my admittedly biased perch as a Jackson supporter, I think the statement was well-advised on his part. Jim Trakas is a good guy and more relevant to this matter, a smart guy, and he’s going to stick up for those who financially support him. He understands the manner of reciprocity and two-way relationships and that capacity for recognition would serve him well as a congressman.

And it’s reciprocity that’s at the core of my initial critique. The Jackson press release mentions that he was recruited to run for county clerk of courts this year. Due to space considerations, it does not also mention that he was recruited to run for state senate in 2006. On neither occasion did he find himself awakening one day to say, “Hey, guess what? I think I’ll spend my own time and money running for public office and wave the Republican flag which has been unpopular in the black community in recent decades!” It didn’t happen like that. He heeded the call of those who saw in him a vital building block for the construction of a GOP that was viable in the minority community and he gave of himself willingly toward that end. And once in these races, he’s been pretty much on his own.

Such a pattern is nothing new. I should note that many, many moons ago as a then-idealistic very young activist that I ended up volunteering for a black GOP candidate who was running in a fairly significant race (I’ll note that it was late in the Bob Hughes era but I’ll not provide a year because I don’t want to mention the candidate, who has not asked to become a part of this controversy). He, too, ended up on his own in that race notwithstanding the fact that he was a viable potential building block for East Side Republicanism. So the moral of the story is that the names change but the story remains the same.

I understand the notion of limited finances and of having to prioritize where dollars and organizational support goes. This, too, is not a new story for this party and I suspect for Republican organizations in urban areas all over the country. But the two circumstances are in many ways connected and the dream of constructing an actual two-party system in the minority community will never be realized until money and commitment match rhetoric – and charismatic, accomplished leaders like Burrell Jackson need to be the foundation for such an endeavor.

Words must match deeds. If Burrell is a vital piece of a grand plan going forward, then he must be supported even if his first few campaigns are longshots. The bottom-line obsession with ONLY putting cash into possible or likely winners does nothing for the long haul and frustrates those who allowed themselves to believe things were changing. To the inevitable counterpoint that he is responsible for his own campaign: of course he is, but his contacts and Rolodex are nothing compared to the resources available to the organization as a whole!

If this party organization, and others like it, wish to avoid the “T word,” then they must step up and truly support those who are showing what amounts to real bravery by embracing the role of Republican advocate in the black community.

Obama and the looming GOP mistake

By Rick Morris

In one of the clearest indicators yet of the Feiler Faster Thesis, John McCain has put to rest many doubts about his ability to unify the Republican party by bringing around most of his major detractors by Valentine's Day (except those talk-radio dead-enders who will never "heart" him). As some (such as myself) had anticipated, the notion of surrendering the White House to a liberal Democrat for (at least) four years has done much to focus the right-wing mind.

But instead of those largely unfounded fears, McCain, the Republicans and conservatives (and let's not conflate the last two in any way) face a new problem that could be of their own making -- if they let it. In the increasingly likely event that they face Barack Obama in "The Finals" this November, they need to be extremely crafty in how they attack the Illinois senator. Interestingly, this has little to do with race and much to do with the commonly accepted notion that Obama is running the sequel of Bobby Kennedy's 1968 campaign.

One of the most famous prayers in modern society goes as follows: God grant me the strength to accept the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. If John McCain defeats Obama to win the White House this fall, it will come from successful understanding of this beseeching of The Almighty.

Let's start with what can't be changed: the intense emotion attached to Barack Obama as a movement, particularly with the young people. He cannot, he absolutely cannot, be attacked in conventional political terms and have the tactics work at all.

Take for example this column referring to his campaign as a Hallmark card. Every word of it is true. And every word of it is breathtakingly irrelevant.

The author is clearly emitting a very frustrated vibe in terms of trying to find a way to puncture many of the mythical aspects of the Obama candidacy. But he has not learned yet that the sledgehammer is not the tool to use on this candidate, in this climate, in this particular year.

People are yearning for something that is completely different and Obama is tapping into that. Any attack on him that reeks of "politics as usual" is doomed from the start. Even the line that he was ranked as the most liberal US senator by the decidedly non-partisan National Journal is fatally flawed -- not because it's not true, but because anyone you drop it on will only say, "There you go again, putting labels on people."

In terms of the ill-reasoned arguments that talk radio and the right-wing blogosphere were ironically using to promote Mitt Romney at McCain's expense not too long ago, it's safe to be very worried about the intellectual capacity of the conservative movement when it comes to facing their most tricky foe in perhaps decades. A stale, bruised and cranky movement is likely to fall under the mistaken notion that blunt force can tear down Obama, when it will only end up reinforcing his fervent supporters even more. To use a cult analogy here, deprogramming is a very difficult, very delicate process and if Republicans and conservatives are perceived to be having a "WHY WON'T PEOPLE WAKE UP???" temper tantrum about this guy, they're going to end up marginalized everywhere except their Southern base. This is where application of the above prayer comes into play.

In the interests of contributing a workable tactic towards the effort, I suggest that McCain play to his greatest strength, safeguarding the future security of this country -- and specifically in this instance, fiscal security. He should have a pitch to the most fervent Obama supporters (who tend disproportionately to be young) that goes something like this: "At some point in your lifetime, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be bankrupt (produce figures to back this up). Senator Obama proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending (again, produce figures to back this up) -- and the net result of his plans would be to bump up our national day of reckoning significantly closer. On the other hand, I have a record as one of the most tight-fisted people in the Senate with tax dollars. I don't even take any special federal earmarks for my district, just to prove that I am serious. I know that you are looking for change. I am too, or else I wouldn't be running for president. Senator Obama and I agree that the country needs change. We disagree on the specifics and in which direction. The direction I propose safeguards your future, because it demands that our country stop spending your national inheritance like a drunken soldier and gets us on a path to turn things around. Change is good, change is necessary. But please vote for the right kind of change this November, the kind that puts us on a prosperous, sustainable course."

Agreeing with Obama on the need for change while challenging him on the direction and on the specifics is the way to victory in November, assuming that it can be procured in the face of what can only be called a juggernaut movement. Attacking Obama with tin-ear attacks will only ensure a repeat of the Nineties when Slick Willie was eating their lunch.

Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ

By Rick Morris

Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.

Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.

Without any further ado, the questions and answers:

Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...

A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...

Q: Did not!

A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.

Q: Did not!!!!!

A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.

Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!

A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.

Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?

A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.

Q: Still convinced?

A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.

Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?

A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!

Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.

A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.

Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.

A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.

Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.

A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.

Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!

A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.

Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!

A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).

Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?

A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."

Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.

A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.

My Hatred Toward Ron Paul Supporters

By Tony Mazur

As Rick Morris stated in the post below, Ron Paul will withdraw from the presidential race. I know, I know, it's sad for us all, but I guess he didn't appeal to the majority of the people.

Ron Paul has been described as a Constitutionalist, libertarian, and, although I don't believe it, a conservative. Personally, I think he's a goof. There is no redeeming quality about Ron Paul.

However, I do not know what's more annoying, Ron Paul's political positions, or his idiotic supporters. When referring to the 2008 presidential race, I heard someone say that "Ron Paul is the only true conservative". As a fellow conservative, I am offended to be classified with this numskull. I support the War in Iraq. I greatly support the Patriot Act. How can you not support the Patriot Act? There are savages who want to kill us, and these dummies think our rights are being infringed upon.

Ron Paul backers are all the same, no matter what age they may be. He's quite popular among college students and ex-hippies. The typical supporter is usually a liberal or libertarian. He/she probably smokes a lot of pot, and believes in ridiculous conspiracies, like UFOs and the "bombing" of the World Trade Center on September 11th. That's kind of why there actually is a chunk of people who follow Dennis Kucinich. Chances are, they do a lot of internet blogging. Also, they are usually offended by anything remotely resembling criticism against Ron Paul. These are the people who shout to the world that they are moving to Canada if [insert Republican candidate] wins the election, but never follows through.

I'm already hearing phony conspiracies about how the government is keeping Ron Paul out of the public eye. He's not Ross Perot. Ron Paul cannot affect the outcome of this coming election, even if he ran as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately, it's going to be either McCain or Obama, two candidates I'm dreading to see in the White House. I wish a viable candidate can go up against them, but it won't be the case. And Ron Paul isn't the guy.

Ron Paul to withdraw from presidential race

By Rick Morris

UPDATE: This was published as a straight news story, devoid of any editorializing. However, in response to many of the know-nothing reactions that this story has engendered in many quarters, we have created an FAQ section so that people may at least choose to avail themselves of basic facts and not embarrass themselves with baseless assertions.

Troubled by internal polls showing insurgent challenger Chris Peden having pulled ahead shockingly in the Texas 14th congressional district, Congressman Ron Paul will be pulling out of the Republican presidential race in advance of his home state's March 4 primary, The FDH Lounge blog has learned. This news comes from a source with access to Paul's congressional campaign and it parallels a recent move on the Democratic side of the White House run as fellow party establishment irritant Dennis Kucinich was forced to abandon his efforts in order to focus on a threat to his congressional seat. The key difference? Longtime Kucinich ally North Olmsted mayor Thomas O'Grady entered the race to split the vote, while Paul's refusal to engage in such tactics has backfired on him.

Peden's lead is extremely surprising given the vast disparity in resources between the campaigns, a divide that will only grow as Paul is able to divert funds contributed by his large base of small contributors to his presidential race back into the House of Representatives campaign. Over the past year, Paul's libertarian-based platform struck the most fiscally conservative note of any of the Republican aspirants, but it also contained an isolationist streak that put him at odds with the party base -- and those foreign policy views are currently the biggest problem for Paul in an extraordinarily conservative district. The irony is that Paul positioned himself as a determined upstart out to topple the powerful national establishment, but he himself has been the Goliath of the Texas 14th until very recently -- when the district's David, Chris Peden, amazed the world by forcing an end to his crusade for the White House, dubbed by his followers The Ron Paul Revolution.

With friends like W, McCain doesn't need enemies

By Rick Morris

This guy is who's calling you a true conservative? The guy whose many deviations from sound public policy have led to a position in the public opinion polls showing him as slightly less popular than gonorrhea?

I'm going to assume that the talking points McCain sent to Dubya got lost in the mail. If he was looking for a real boost from "The Decider," the statement would have read, "This guy's not nearly the squish on conservative policies I am. Why, if you elect that right-wing maniac, he's bound to do radical things like cut spending and restore the school voucher system I squashed!"

Having either President Bush vouch for your conservative credentials is much like having Kobe Bryant praise you as an unselfish teammate.

Redemption for right wing leaders

By Rick Morris

The fawning embrace given to Mitt Romney by so-called conservative leaders (bloggers, talk radio hosts, activists/lobbyists) was deeply damaging to their own credibility – but it was also unfortunately hurtful to the interests of the larger movement they claim to represent. While I’m not losing sleep about the harm done to the reputations of those like Hugh Hewitt who so consistently demeaned and undermined legitimate candidates in the race, I do recognize their power to diminish the future of this country since so many give them credit for speaking for the conservative movement. I do think the revolt against these people was a positive development, as the arrogance we’ve seen on display indicates that they’ve lost touch with those they purport to lead. Every intellectual revolution, such as this one that started with Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan back in the early ‘60s, eventually ossifies and becomes exactly that which it was supposed to oppose. For right-wingers, the Romney bandwagon of 2007-08 was the Animal Farm moment.

Herewith, my free advice for how these luminaries can get out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves and American conservatism:

^ Have the humility to read this column all the way through. Already, there are signs that the grand poobahs still don’t get it and want to foist the Mittster on us again four years hence. In this article, it is revealed that, in an insanely presumptuous and egomaniacal move, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene took it upon himself to personally welcome Romney into the conservative movement at C-PAC. [Side note to Davey: You did nothing but induct him as a member of your little Beltway boys club. It’s very interesting that you have such contempt for the fact that a majority of conservatives in this country rejected your pet and would never call him one of their own. Who died and left you as The Sultan of American Conservatism? I’m just wondering if you put him through some rituals as part of a ceremony, such as “pinky swears” or a quiz on Bill Buckley’s five favorite Latin phrases.]. The continued arrogance of those who refuse to “get it” about Romney is unbelievable, inasmuch as they should be able to read the cold hard facts; if Mitt were the “great right hope,” then McCain and Huck put together wouldn’t have been able to stop him and he would have been more than a doormat in the bastion-of-conservatism Southern states. Leveling spurious charges of religious bigotry against the folks you clearly perceive to be nothing more than Flyover Country peasants won’t get you anywhere either. You need to accept the fact that the work many of you did for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1976 could very well be invalidated by the destructive moves you’ve pulled lately and in some cases persist in doing.

^ Crawl out of your echo chamber and be willing to defend your opinions. This piece of advice applies mostly to the talk radio potentates, most of whom hide behind the skirts of their call-screeners. Take a lesson from Michael Medved, who not only accepts calls from those unfriendly to his point of view but specifically seeks them. You have to get in fighting trim and go beyond accepting arse-kissing missives from vapid folks like “Dittoheads” and be willing to mix it up and articulate your principles in a consistent manner or learn to deal with irrelevance in a world fast leaving you behind.

^ Take an honest look at where you went wrong. Most of you were silent when you had a chance to boost Fred Thompson. Some of you, like Hewitt, actively slimed him. Regardless of how far off the reservation you went, you damaged the advancement of vital American causes. You did so in the false belief that you were embracing a candidate as sleek and supercharged as the American Motors company his father once ran. Instead, you ended up climbing aboard an Edsel that could not meet any necessary performance standards (justifying the megabucks investment in the early state contests, connecting with voters on any level, finding explanations for a myriad of conveniently-timed policy changes, creating an even moderately-successful campaign message). At long last, you need to admit that you picked the wrong “vehicle” and stop blaming others for the inevitable crash into the ditch.

^ Stop bashing populism. This edict applies specifically to good old El Rushbo, who denounced populism as part of his intellectually dishonest critique of Huck. One wonders exactly what he considers his denunciation of entities such as Nancy Pelosi and the “intellectual elites!” I realize that I speak as a member of the paleoconservative wing of the movement, which unfortunately accounts for a small minority, but let it be said once and for all that populism is a good thing! Certainly, Rush doesn’t like the concept when it’s turned on him, but that should have been an early sign that he was in the wrong. Some types of populism, such as the economic form of it that panders to folks of an illiterate mentality, are idiotic. But always, in making a choice between the people and their leaders who are pushing them down the primrose path, I side with the people and anyone aspiring to lead the conservative movement must also do no less.

^ Speak truth to power. The conservative intelligentsia has spent the last seven years toadying up to the Bush crew at all costs – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular come to mind. They’ve overlooked a host of offenses against sound policy but now ask us to get outraged about ones made by John McCain! [Another aside: how the heck does George W. Bush get a hero’s welcome at C-PAC from the same audience of “purists” who had to be begged not to chuck tomatoes at McCain? Again, not that McCain’s Mr. Right himself, but he’s made no more transgressions than Dubya and arguably has had less. But Bush pretends harder to be a consistent conservative than McCain does and appeases the sheep that way. Quite a shame the way the psychology works]. A little less worry about access to the Bushies and a little more pressure to do the right thing would have been better for the country, even if the individuals involved wouldn’t get invited to as many ice cream socials. The idea isn’t to be loved by the political elite, it’s to keep them honest. You people don’t need my admonition to hold McCain’s feet to the fire; it’s a tragic shame for our country that you chose not to apply the same standard to “The Decider.”

Mittens = Emo

By Rick Morris

All across the Internet, groupies for Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney are mourning the death of his presidential bid in 2008. They're really taking it hard. Why, one bitterman in this comment thread even had the audacity to drop the "I hope you're happy now" routine on yours truly (for the record, I am and thanks for asking!).

There are certainly different schools of thought on how to handle a profound loss like the one these hero-worshipers are suffering at the moment. Some may say that it's unhealthy to wallow in the moment and the persistent sense that life is unfair.

To that, I say poppycock.

Because I believe, at the moment, that they could well learn from the one archetype who knows their present state of mind all too well: The Weird Kid At The Mall With The Flippy Hair Who Wears All Black and Carves Bleak Catchphrases Into His Skin And Listens To Depressing Music 24/7. With a wisdom well beyond his or her years, that strange young person would know exactly how to handle this situation. "Go ahead and wallow," that self-actualizing social outcast would proclaim. "Give in to the gloom -- the world will just beat you down anyways!"

So in the interests of helping out the folks whose hero I have been beating like a snare drum for the last few months ... Ladies and Gentlemen, here to provide the bleak music to serve as the soundtrack for the shattered hopes and dreams of the Mitt-Bots, please give it up for Simple Plan!

Republicans in Ohio-2 beware: Jean Schmidt has NO CHANCE in the general election

By Nathan Noy

Let me paint a quick picture of what is going to happen this summer. Rolling Stone Magazine is going to give a great plug to help promote a film that is coming out that focuses on corruption in Ohio politics. The movie will almost certainly get significant traction and will have a major impact on the fall election if any of the featured individuals in the film are still candidates for political office.

Fact: As John Craig reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer I spent a few days with a Hollywood film crew in the fall of 2006.

Fact: My friend at Rolling Stone Magazine Matt Taibbi did a hilariously funny article about Jean Schmidt in November 2006 calling me a “classic Reagan-era Conservative.”

It is a virtual given that Matt will run another great piece this summer giving significant exposure to the aforementioned film. What did not get reported in the press was the purpose of the film: an in depth review of corruption in Ohio politics, focusing primarily on the likes of Tom Noe, Bob Ney, and Jean Schmidt.

I corresponded with the producers of the film this week and found out the release date is set for July 4, 2008. The ironic thing is that the time I spent with this film crew and producers actually cost me the endorsement of the Constitution Party in 2006. I had already wrapped up endorsements from the Reform Party and America First Party and I was informed that my relationship with the people from Hollywood had cost me the CP endorsement. It turns out the folks at the CP did some research and the producers of the film had strong ties to Michael Moore and the CP felt the film would essentially be a DCCC hit piece, I was skeptical of this at the time, but given what I know now, this in fact appears to be what we are in store for later this year.

I won’t spoil the film by divulging the gory details of what I gave the folks from Hollywood, but it can be safely assumed that the dirt I provided on Schmidt would rival the work of even the best investigative reporters. It was amazing how many people came out of the proverbial woodwork with information on Schmidt for me while I made my run in 2006, she has made more than a few enemies in her day.

I spent some quality time with the crew and they made it clear that my appearance in the film would be about Schmidt, not about me, but that is exactly what I wanted. After they finished with me they spent a day in Cincinnati with Jean Schmidt’s other greatest fan: Charles Foster Kane aka The Whistleblower. And if you doubt how much dirt I was able to provide on Schmidt you can rest assured that The Blower gave them enough dirt to make a dent in filling the Grand Canyon.

For those that still doubt Schmidt could have that much hanging out there consider that a person who is a sloppy enough liar to actually get publicly reprimanded by the OEC for a “reckless disregard for truth” has left more than just a few loose ends on her way up the food chain. Believe me when I say that not only will the movie paint Schmidt in a very similar light to Bob Ney, but it will also leave voters as likely to vote for Ney as they will Schmidt this fall. Also mind you that the aforementioned Ney and Noe are already doing time in the federal prison system, a place Schmidt may be headed as well if the proper authorities actually launch a few investigations after seeing the film.

The key thing in all this: everything and I mean EVERYTHING I gave these guys was 100% true. Jean Schmidt did it all, the fact that she was successful in covering it up and it finally will come back to haunt her is her own fault. When someone decides to go after a person as shady as Jean Schmidt it isn’t hard to build a strong case in a nanosecond as long as the proper stones are unturned.

So, Republicans in Ohio-2 you have the chance that the voters in Ohio-18 did not have in 2006. Imagine if the voters in OH-18 knew what they did about Ney before the primary and not after it? The seat would likely still be controlled by the Republican Party.

If Republicans want to keep this seat they MUST vote for Tom Brinkman. Oh, and by the way, Brinkman just happens to be the candidate of the two that actually voted against all of Bob Taft’s tax hikes. Brinkman happens to be the one with a clean conservative record who never bows to the special interests, and Brinkman happens to be the one that actually has an honest character. If Schmidt wins this primary, Republicans will regret it, especially as they watch a Democrat get sworn in next January.

Mittens, don't go away mad, just go away

By Rick Morris

Today former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney suspended his campaign for the presidency, bowing out in deference to presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Although I have been very tough on Mr. Romney throughout his run for the Oval Office, today is a day for positive reflection on what he brought to this country during his efforts.

Well, maybe it's a day for some people to speak positively of Mittens. But, if I may quote the great Jim Halpert, "I'm not a perfect person."

Objectively Unfit Mitt defecated on every American principle you can find during a campaign waged with all the heart and positivity of C. Montgomery Burns. Were it not for the fact that I have an obligation to deliver some FDH programming tonight to our listeners and viewers, I'd be "Slurpin' a Fody" in rapturous celebration at the burst of horror so narrowly averted by our great republic.

To see this pathetic Stepford tool take the podium at CPAC today to deliver a whimpering, Uriah Heep performance babbling about how he loves his country and his party more than himself -- well, that was truly a scene that could bring a tear to a glass eye, couldn't it?

Let nobody be fooled; today marked the first chapter in his efforts to contest the 2012 Republican nomination, which he'll be officially targeting the day after he passive-aggressively finishes off his new "friend" John McCain in November. I fear it's working -- all of the gullible fools taken in by the Flip-Flopping Fraud are shedding their own tears today about what a shame it is that this would-be titan of American history was deprived of his chance to lead this land of ungrateful peons.

Well, let those of us who stood tall at this time of peril warn you jerks one more time: try to foist Wily Willard on us again, and we'll bitch-slap you again. This poser couldn't gain any votes down South once he was exposed as "Mr. $50 Abortion Co-Pay" and if you think the pushback on his attempted coup against the right wing was vicious this time? Ya ain't seen nothin' yet, because you alienated too many decent people to ever get a pass on anything ever again. Whether it be spreading malicious and untrue rumors about Fred Thompson planning to drop out of the race right after Iowa, or cancer-mongering Fred when he got into the race, or posturing like Mike Huckabee was a religious bigot, no low was too low for this crowd. It was really funny to watch the Shameless-As-A-Clinton hypocrisy, though -- whenever they'd do anything particularly vile, they'd smirk and trot out the "politics ain't beanbag" attitude -- but they'd squeal like stuck pigs whenever anyone fought back or used clever tactics, like McCain's abdication to the Huck in West Virginia on Tuesday.

Whether John McCain wins or loses in November, there is no room for the Mitt-Bot groupies to foist their Plastic Phony on us again like they came so close to doing this time. Whether it be Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford or some other bright principled leader, somebody will emerge and marginalize Romnoid because they will legitimately be the great conservative leader he has tried so hard to fool us into thinking he is. The real deal always beats a false replica, so if he couldn't beat a John McCain despised by many elements of the Republican Party? Say goodnight, Irene.

And now The Trust Fund Baby will finally stop spending his kids' inheritance, so they can do something with the gazillions of dollars that keep getting passed down in that creepy little clan. Here's hoping that whatever they do with it, that it doesn't end up as injurious to the U.S. of A. as what their old man had planned.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part IV

By Rick Morris

This will be my final post of the evening and I will be revising my previous assessment, at least on the Republican side. While I still think the race will go on for at least another few weeks, McCain comes out of tonight extending his already strong lead having just won California and Missouri. Also, at the time of my last post, I confess that I had not seen some of the internal numbers in the polling down South -- Romney, who was being propped up by so many right-wing "opinion leaders," ran in third place across wide swaths of Dixie. His enablers will cry anti-Mormon racism, I'll retort that those voters just know a slick Northern Yankee phony when they see one, but regardless, a candidate trying so hard to be Goldwater 2K8 cannot afford to be repudiated so soundly by such a significant part of the base. So my prediction in the last liveblog installment was wrong; McCain comes out of today much stronger, Romney is weaker and Huckabee is in better shape but still a distant third and almost completely a regional candidate. And the Mitt-Bot meme about McCain only winning states dominated by Northeastern fru-fru elites (I never understood how South Carolina and Florida fit into that narrative?) -- well, McCain wins Illinois and Missouri among other states. How do you like them apples, Chowds?

The Democratic picture is still quite muddled. Obama's going to come out of the night with more states won, but Hillary just won the Big Casino, California. That Clinton win proved a bit disquieting for Claire McCaskill ... at least from the looks of her creepy, wrinkled Oompa Loompa visage.

Late note from MSNBC: Team Mittens is having "frank discussions about the future" on Wednesday. Turn out the lights, Dandy Don, the party's over.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Waiting on California

by Jason Jones

Almost 2 hours since the last post, the results have changed more closely toward my favor. I want to address the delegate issue. Clearly, I do not agree with the delegate aspect at all. The House of Representatives members are determined by population per state. The American way is to have balance, that balance is found in the Senate; 2 across the board. In my simplistic way of thinking, whoever wins the most states wins, period. This happens in some fantasy sports. If one person dominates, we alter the rules to make it fair. The analogy is this, if Barack Obama wins 46 states and Hillary Clinton gets 4, there should be no way Clinton can win. Using hypothetical numbers for this exercise, if California, Texas, New York, and Florida are worth 1 more delegate than all of Obama’s 46 states, then something is wrong with the system. That just sound un-American. Luckily for me I don’t have to worry about delegates just yet.

I am still, like most of you, waiting for California. As it stands, including states that are close to being called…

John McCain-AZ, CT, DE, IL, NJ, NY, OK

Mittens Romney-CO, MA, MN, MT, ND, UT

Mike Huckabee-AL, AR, GA, WV

Barack Obama-AL, CO, CT, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT

Hillary Clinton-AZ, AR, MA, NJ, NY, OK, TN

The math nerds at Fox News are reporting that even if McCain/Obama lose California, the number of delegates that would be divided would be enough to walk away from Super Tuesday with an overall lead for both McCain/Obama. Can you tell where my respective support lies? As I said before, this country cannot afford to allow Clinton/Romney to be the nominations. If you thought George W. Bush did a poor to a crappy job as President, Hillary or Mittens might make the country implode to a lack of F@#%ing existence.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part III

By Rick Morris

RealClearPolitics is still on top of the big picture.

Arizona went for McCain and by a bigger margin than was anticipated, so there goes the Mittens spin.

I spent about an hour on the phone tonight with our Senior Editor Jason Jones just chewing over what we're seeing so far. I have to say that, for what has been billed as the biggest primary/caucus day in American history in terms of delegates up for grabs on both sides, this day does not seem like it's going to change the race drastically on either side. That could be famous last words on my part, but if it is, it is, I'm not afraid to stick my neck out there. A very persuasive column surfaced today (referenced here) that suggests that the Democrats are on a trajectory to have their fight either last all the way to the convention or at a bare minimum, come down to a bloody, superdelegate-by-superdelegate struggle that casts aside all results decided at the polls. On the Republican side, as of now, McCain seems poised to come out of the day not losing any ground in terms of having a strong upper hand, but he's not going to put it away tonight.

CNN just called Georgia for Huck in an excruciating three-way between McCain and Willard. Dare I suggest that my brother and sister-in-law may have provided the margin of victory?

Missouri and Cali are too close to call still, but the polls on the West Coast have not been closed for very long.

Again, I could be wrong, but I think the anticipated impact of this day will prove to be at least slightly overrated on both sides -- and in a season of monstrous political surprises, having The Most Super Tuesday in the history of the nominating process amount to a fart in a thunderstorm relative to the momentous level of expected drama would have to be one of the biggest shocks.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging-Early Impressions

by Jason Jones

I must preface the following by saying, I have never watched Super Tuesday or any other final 2 nominees' coverage as I am now. With the 9pm est polls closing in 7 minutes, I am attempting to make some logical sense, not political sense, of what seems to be in thus far.

John McCain-Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey (still in Alabama, Georgia, Montana)

Mittens Romney-Massachusetts (still in Montana)

Mike Huckabee-West Virginia (still in Georgia)

Barack Obama-Georgia, Illinois (still in Alabama, Connecticut, Tennessee [the gap here has been narrowing])

Hillary Clinton-New York, Massachusetts, Oklahoma (still in Alabama, Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee)

Democratic states too close to call at the moment: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, and Arizona. At last check, I am pretty sure, unless the tide completely turns, that New Jersey will end up being a state for Clinton. Right now, the big hub-bub seems to be over New Jersey. It is a winner-take-all on delegates. Fox News is reporting that the Clinton camp believes it is all but locked up. Barack Obama was just declared the winner in Delaware with approximately 50%. Apparently, Obama is also winning and separating in Connecticut. Currently with 27% in, Obama is leading Clinton 51% to 47%. As far as Obama is concerned, Illinois and Delaware are not that much of a surprise. Georgia and potentially Connecticut would greatly surprise me.

The question that keeps coming up lately on the Republican side is, “who does Huckabee’s moderate success benefit?” Initially, most of these talking heads claimed it would support Mittens (which was the earliest disappointment for me). The move to almost punt West Virginia on McCain’s part in conjunction with other factors could swing in McCain’s favor by nights end.

Arkansas goes to Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee.

New Jersey does indeed go to Clinton.

As I sit watching this unfold, the key motivation remains the same.

1. McCain MUST SEPARATE from Mittens Romney.

2. Obama MUST REMAIN RELAVENT versus Hillary Clinton.

Clinton and Romney are bad for America. At this point, if the nominees are Barack Obama vs John McCain, I will feel as if America has dodged a bullet from the gun of inevitable demise. At that point I won’t even care who wins on the surface. Its more important that Clinton/Romney not be involved when this gets serious. We are on the cusp of a real moment. Like a promising young teenager poised to decide for or against drug use. On one hand, take the drugs and fall into a shell of itself (i.e. voting for Clinton/Romney) or on the other hand, just say no and ensure that said kid continues on a positive path (i.e. not voting for Clinton/Romney).

John McCain just won New York.

Romney crushing McCain in Arizona. ARIZONA! Guess he should’ve made more of a fuss on Illegal Immigration.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part II

By Rick Morris

Real Clear Politics has, as their name would indicate, the clearest election scoreboard you will find anywhere right on their front page.

On Hugh Hewitt's radio show right now, he's asking people who they voted for and, get this, apparently it's nothing but Mitt-bots calling in right now. Shocking! Wait, some little old lady just got on and called him a character assassin. How'd she get past the call screener? That was funnier than any 1,000 "Baba-Booey" phone calls combined.

No results thus far have really changed the narrative we saw coming into the night. Arizona remains too close to call, which Eye Candy Megyn Kelly claimed to be a big blow to McCain. I see somebody got their Romney talking points email today!

Notes from The Corner on National Review's website:

^ Hillary's peeps are sending out emails bragging about the red states she's winning? Uh, Hill? You're running against a guy whose middle name is "Hussein." Ever stop to think that those wins in Reagan Country may be by default?

^ Georgia is having troubles tabulating the vote.

^ Mitt Romney kissing Bob Dole's arse after being dumb enough to attack him today is getting spun like there's no tomorrow on NRO.

I just read Jason's first live-blog of the night comparing the candidates to drug use. To me, Mittens is black tar heroin, Hillary is crack (I chose her for crack so I wouldn't have the Reverend Al picketing me) and Obama is a pile of whippits.

Super Tuesday Liveblogging Part I

By Rick Morris

First, let's get the initial predictions out of the way. Given the polling muddle in so many states, this assessment will be general on both sides as opposed to state-by-state.

For the Democrats, my sense is that Hillary Clinton comes in ahead of Barack Obama by a decent margin, but nothing overwhelming especially given the fact that delegates are awarded proportionally in so many places. I look for Hillary to win the majority of states tonight, however, which will provide a psychological boost to her campaign in the absence of a delegate landslide.

On the Republican side, I look for a solid John McCain win and an excellent tally of delegates given the winner-take-all victories he will earn tonight. I think McCain hangs on narrowly in California, but Mike Huckabee stays alive in the South and Mitt Romney takes a handful of states to stay alive.

Huck has already won the West Virginia caucuses with help from the McCain voters today, causing the Romney people to predictably cry. Obama won Georgia also.

James Dobson sells out

By Rick Morris

I am very disappointed by the recent decision of James Dobson to throw his support behind Objectively Unfit Mitt in the Republican presidential race, although I am not surprised. I criticized him previously for his ivory-tower babbling about wanting a real conservative choice in the race while he was choosing to publicly stab in the back the only viable candidate who fit that bill, Fred Thompson. His refusal to support the best man for the job because of what amounted to personal egotistical pique about Big Fred not puckering up and kissing Old Rosey exposes his decision as the complete and utter hypocrisy that it is.

For the millionth time, I get the fact that a lot of conservatives don’t like John McCain. I was strongly for Fred before and I’m only for McCain now in the sense that the other members of the “Final Four” of major presidential contenders on both sides are completely unacceptable to me. But haven’t these right-wing leaders, most of whom are moderately-to-significantly older than me, been around long enough to know that Option B isn’t always preferable just because Option A sucks? The world isn’t this simple. It is possible to acknowledge that John McCain leaves much to be desired as a candidate and still admit that Trust Fund Willard is the absolute pits. As I’ve said previously, you pretty much know what you’re getting with McCain and I’d rather be stabbed in the front than the back. Given some of the conservatives who have endorsed him and are rumored to be the leading contenders in terms of shaping policy in a McCain Administration, I’m also not in complete despair about what might come out of it, either.

As asinine as Ann Coulter’s diatribe about how she’d prefer President Hillary to President McCain was (and that pains me to say as I have several of Ann’s books and I respect the fact that she’s got more guts than almost any other commentator on the scene), at least it’s intellectually coherent. She feels that the country would be better off suffering the pain of a third Clinton Administration before taking a figurative laxative in 2012. At least that decision of hers makes more sense than her ill-considered endorsement of Romney just because he’s McCain’s only remaining major opponent on the GOP side. If anyone feels that the country would be better off with Hillary winning the White House or that there would be no difference whatsoever between her and McCain as president – well, I can disagree strongly with that and point to any number of facts to back up my view, but I wouldn’t disrespect it like I do the Know-Nothingism of the childish “We’re For Romney Just Because He’s Not McCain Brigade.”

James Dobson, like National Review, has a strong legacy of working to improve public policy in this country. Like National Review and so many other “conservative leaders,” he’s betraying that legacy with his hypocrisy and he should be ashamed of himself.

Hugh Hewitt: The Smears of a Clown

By Rick Morris

The last thing I ever want to do on this esteemed blog of ours is to dip into hack FM morning-drive wacky DJ territory, which is why I have never countenanced doing any type of song parody here. It's a tough concept to get right and if you don't believe me, listen to a tape sometime of Opie & Anthony deservedly carving up said DJ types for lapsing into idiocy.

Having said that, I was inspired to put a song parody together in honor of what will hopefully be a 55-gallon drum of whoopass being dropped on Objectively Unfit Mitt on Super Tuesday (click this link to check the latest compendium from Bizzyblog to see why that name applies so well). The Biz put up a post over the weekend based on the old Paul Simon ditty about 50 ways to leave your lover that had 50 reasons to vote against Romney (personally, I'd have gone with something about me & Julio eloping in Massachusetts, but I can see where that would have been unwieldy!).

Anyhoo, this is a song designed to be belted out by Romney hatchet man Hugh Hewitt. Enjoy, and please don't sue me, Smokey!

"People are bigots, they won't vote for Mitt
Though I told them the Morman speech was a hit

In order to get him over the finish line
I have to launder all of the campaign slime

Don't let my nerdy expression
Give you the wrong impression

Really I'm mean, won't let the campaign be clean

I will talk down to the right wing
I'll use my show and blog to sing

The smears of a clown
'Cause my boy's going down

Fred's got the "Big C," he is gonna die
Contrast that with my healthy and well-groomed guy

In case people's mem-ries of McCain are hazy
I'll trot out the tale that he had a black baby

Don't let the Huck's expression
Give you the wrong impression

He's on the left, so was Mitt but he's deft

I will talk down to the right wing
I'll use my show and blog to sing

The smears of a clown
'Cause my boy's going down."

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Romney hypocrites: sit down and shut up!

By Rick Morris

With the whiff of desperation in the air, the followers of Objectively Unfit Mitt (click here for 50 great reasons to vote against Romney) are insulting the intelligence of every voter on the right by proclaiming the superior purity of their hearts and they are also quite busy demeaning everyone opposed to their hollow hero as a squish or tool of the media or worse.

Well, I've had about all I can take from these posers and it's time to hang them with their own words.

Let's be quite unambiguous about this: the betrayers on the right who have thrown in with Mitt Romney's attempt to dupe the American people and are now daring to present themselves as "more conservative than thou" have transgressed against conservative policy way more than I ever have in my voting record or support of candidates -- and that's true of countless other citizens as well.

Because of space consideration, I'm going to limit this to one apiece, but here are several reasons that the leading opinion-shapers on the right who are trying to shove Mittens down our throats have PREVIOUSLY proven that they are not to be trusted.

^ Rick Santorum, who courts an image of the purest of the pure right-wingers, is a complete phony who colluded with Dubya and the D.C. power brokers to save Arlen Spector's worthless RINO hyde in the '04 primary.

^ Rush Limbaugh bashed Pat Buchanan and other challengers to Bob Dole in '96 and H.W.'s boy in '00 in faithful, unquestioning service to the Washington Republican Establishment he now amusingly claims to have always opposed.

^ Hugh Hewitt -- ah, how do you limit yourself to just one of his intellectually dishonest bon mots -- OK, here we go -- he, the self-professed arch-nemesis of all things "MSM," took to the New York Times editorial page to whimper about how the conservative movement had lost its moorings by depriving America of That Future Hall of Fame Supreme Court Justice, Harriet Miers.

^ I lied, here's another one about "El Rushbo": he took an elitist stand disregarding the wishes of the American people regarding the Dubai ports fiasco.

^ Michelle Malkin played the fool during Hurricane Katrina by assuming that just because state and local authorities, under the control of Democrats were incompetent (they were) that the Feds, controlled by Dubya Who Can Do No Wrong were competent (they were not): "Contrary to the usual Bush-deranged kvetching, the president is on the job."

^ Sean Hannity, whose Bush-era sniveling sycophancy is second to none, praised the PRE-SURGE state of affairs in the Middle East in his customary slavish terms in 2004.

^ Mark Levin, maybe the most holier-than-thou basher of anti-Romney Republicans, was so big a pro-Bush sellout that he tried to drag down the Gipper by using him as cover for George W's misadventures.

As has been documented previously on this esteemed blog, Fred Thompson was The One True Hope of The Right in this election cycle and the above members of Mendacious Mitt's Choir failed to "mount up and ride to the sound of the guns" when they legitimately had a chance to stand up for the future of this country. To them, and the other nauseating "opinion leaders" on the right who want to lead us down the primrose path as they demonstrably have before:

Sit down and shut up.

Tears of the Mitt-Bots are sweet nectar

By Rick Morris

Schadenfreude. It's the German word for deriving pleasure from the misfortune of others.

I get accused of partaking of it fairly frequently, and I have to plead guilty to that. It's pretty fun to bask in people getting the figurative fecal matter that they deserve thrown at them -- don't knock it until you've tried it.

My latest opportunity in life to point and say, "what goes around, comes around" regards the useful idiots in Mittens' Hollow Army who are crying their pathetic eyes out about the prospect of the Republican presidential nomination being delivered to John McCain. Now, I should preface the following commentary by noting that I supported Fred Thompson previously (quite ardently, I might add -- and repeatedly -- and repeatedly again!), but I now support McCain in the sense that he is the only major candidate for president against whom I am not irretrievably opposed (how's that for a hearty endorsement?).

So, not to make the Mitt-Idiots feel worse -- ah, who am I kidding? -- OK, I revel in making them feel worse -- but it's their fault.

That's right, those who are the most ardent proponents of Trust Fund Willard at the moment -- like this shameless spinner who cancer-mongered Fred when he got into the race, in one of the scummiest displays in recent political history -- they are weeping, sniveling, crying and otherwise conducting themselves in the same fashion as their hero. How about the sight of Rich Boy Romney going into the fetal position last night about McCain's characterization of his Iraq position, as though Romney didn't spend a ton of his inherited wealth to dump slime via TV ads on everyone in the race thus far.

Mark Levin has recently taken to insulting Republicans opposing Romney as RINOs. But since the real fault for this state of affairs lies with all of the weasels who could have backed the only real conservative Fred Thompson but chose to back a fraudulent loser, the RINO Levin is in closest contact with these days is the man in the mirror.