back in february 2006, glenn greenwald's examination of president bush's supporters got a lot of well-deserved attention on both the left and right wings of the blogosphere. some commenters noted that glenn's characterization of bush's supporters failed to account for other bases or wellsprings of bush support, i.e., lust for power, wealth, etc., but i don't believe that glenn was attempting to be all-inclusive.
to that end i assembled "the new republicans: a taxonomy" of the different species of bush supporter that i had observed at the time. two and a half years and an election cycle later, i've decided to revisit that exercise, especially now that bush's star has since fallen so low even among his once most fervent cheerleaders, so i've revised some entries and added a few new ones.
note that these classifications are not meant to be exhaustive or mutually exclusive; many republicans will fit easily into multiple categories. ultimately, there may be as many
reasonsrationalizations for being a republican as there are republicans.
1) republicana vulgaris: new!glorifies the "common people"; exalts "patriotism"; disdains erudition, sophistication, nuance and worldliness; will exploit any brand of xenophobia and pander to white men's basest instincts. example: alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee sarah palin.we believe that the best of america is not all in washington, d.c.
we believe ... we believe that the best of america is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what i call the real america, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-america areas of this great nation. this is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday americans. those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. those who are protecting us in uniform. those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.our opponent ... is someone who sees america, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.
2) republicanus cultus: revamped!"true believers"; worships guns, god, country, hearth and "heroes"; obsessed with displays and rituals of masculinity; virulently homophobic; abhors criticism and dissent; always in search of the next hero figure, and once found, will follow said "hero" off a cliff. see republicanus dumosus. example: almost any member of the blog free republic.if [harvey milk] had wanted to be a real hero he'd have leaped in front of the mayor and taken both rounds.
3) republicanus potentia:seeks power; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their hold on power. example: vice president dick cheney.go fuck yourself.
4) republicanus pecuniosus:seeks wealth; will support any act and entertain any justification that may increase or perpetuate their fortunes. example: media mogul rupert murdoch.the greatest thing to come out of [the war in iraq] for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. that's bigger than any tax cut in any country.
5) republicanus bellicosus:loves force; disdains diplomacy and dissent; will wield force as an all-purpose tool towards achieving their goals, as opposed to a means of last resort. example: arizona senator and former presidential nominee john mccain.you know that old beach boys song, "bomb iran"?
bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb iran ...
6) republicanus imperiosus:loves being number one; will not accept second place or share power; will not rest as long as any other power exists to thwart republican political supremacy or american international hegemony. example: former u.n. ambassador john bolton.[clinton] did not see or understand that the u.n. was only an instrument of american policy, not the policy itself ... he forgot that the u.n. was an instrument to be used to advance america’s foreign policy interests, not to engage in international social work.
7) republicanus fundamentalis:in love with their own righteousness; disdains tolerance; virulently homophobic; will not rest until all others either submit to their moral yardstick or are annihilated. example: catholic league president bill donohue.we've already won. who really cares what hollywood thinks? all these hacks come out there. hollywood is controlled by secular jews who hate christianity in general and catholicism in particular. it's not a secret, okay? and i'm not afraid to say it. ... hollywood likes anal sex. they like to see the public square without nativity scenes. i like families. i like children. they like abortions. i believe in traditional values and restraint. they believe in libertinism. we have nothing in common. but you know what? the culture war has been ongoing for a long time. their side has lost.
8) republicana contraria:hates liberals; will support any act and entertain any justification that may offend liberals; will categorically denounce any statement made by a liberal; will denounce as "liberal" anyone or any statement that criticizes or contradicts them. example: columnist ann coulter.i've decided to cut out the part of the speech where i say anything nice about democrats.
9) republicanus sapiens: new!exudes conventional wisdom; worships "bipartisanship"; considers themselves "sensible centrists"; consistently overestimates conservatives and underestimates liberals; consistently substitutes their own opinions as that of "the american people"; their dubious reputations consistently defy all blemish. example: washington post columnist and "dean" of the d.c. press club david broder.... what this country and the world desperately need [is] an american national security policy that commands broad support across party lines ...
10) republicanus goldwaterus:espouses traditional conservative principles and respect for the rule of law; disdains waste and adventurism; thoroughly disillusioned with bush; sadly, a dying breed. example: former georgia congressman and libertarian presidential nominee bob barr.are we losing our lodestar, which is the bill of rights? are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle? do we truly remain a society that believes that ... every president must abide by the law of this country? i, as a conservative, say yes.
11) republicanus moderabilis: new!traditional moderates; prefers the status quo; disdains change, bold ideas or zealotry, but reliably relents, after perfunctory protest, to the party's will, wherever it leads; another dying breed. example: pennsylvania senator arlen spector.arguing against the military commissions act:what the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some nine hundred years.justifying his vote for the act:i think the courts will invalidate it. they’re not going to give up authority to decide habeas-corpus cases, not a chance.
12) republicana non grata: new!once fiercely loyal, now openly criticizes fellow republicans; sentenced to exile by republicanus cultus; thoroughly disillusioned with the party and, for the time being, will accept exile; a vastly multiplying breed. example: columnist kathleen parker.three little letters, great big problem: g-o-d. i'm bathing in holy water as i type.
... the grand old party ... has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners.
short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.focus on the family chairman james dobson (r. fundamentalis) takes aim and fires:whatever she once was, ms. parker is certainly not a conservative anymore, having apparently realized it’s a lot easier to be popular among your journalistic peers when your keyboard tilts to the left.
13) republicanus oportunitas:a grab-bag of special interests; not staunch republicans, but will take advantage of any opportunity to further their own causes, which during the bush administration meant supporting republicans. example: lobbyists.after eight years of the so-called k street project — the effort by republican lawmakers and operatives to pressure companies, trade associations and lobbying firms to hire their fellow republicans — the tasseled loafer is on the other foot. companies and interest groups are competing to snap up democrats.
14) republicanus democratus:a snake in sheep's clothing and/or judas goat; may fit within any of the other categories; registered or professed democrat. example: connecticut senator joe lieberman.the democratic party today was not the party it was in 2000. it's not the bill clinton-al gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. it's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will — and very, very hyperpartisan. so it pains me.such a poor, wounded creature it is, the r. democratus.
15) republicanus dumosus: new!idolizes bush; disdains criticism and dissent; will support any act of bush and entertain any justification of his actions; a particularly virulent offshoot of republicanus cultus; thankfully, an almost extinct breed. example: lawyer and blogger john hinderaker, a.k.a. "hindrocket".it must be very strange to be president bush. a man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. he is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
rick sanchez: i want you to look at this video, alright? it seems almost sad.
look at this — this is the president of the united states walking out on stage to take a picture with world leaders, invited to the g-20 summit over the weekend. look at him.
and he seems like the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked, uh, the one with the cooties.
everybody's shaking hands, but he walks in, and nobody's shaking his hand, and he's not shaking anybody's hand.
this is different, though, because, look, i'll let you watch this again — watch, everybody's shaking hands ... he's not shaking hands.
remember just six years ago? he was, quote, "the bully", who everyone seemed to like — or did they just pretend to like him?
by the way, just to be clear: "bully" is not my word. it's one of the words most used to describe the bush administration's foreign and economic policies around the world. to check, i googled "bush" and "bully" together — you ready? — two million, five hundred thousand hits!
this may be a case of "what goes around, comes around", maybe not ...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
i think atrios @ eschaton put it best today:
today is a lovely day to eat some shit.
(actually, it wasn't all that lovely where i live; it was cold and gray.)
yesterday i put together a tentative headcount on the lieberman vote, documenting as best i could the available evidence for each eligible voter's leanings. who would support the resolution? who had gone on record for joe? who had supported him in the past? long diary short: i couldn't put together more than 7 potential votes in joe's favor.
well, we can't be right all the time, but rarely am i this wrong. i'd misread just about everything.
but instead of trying to chase down all the possible explanations after the fact for why which senator voted the way he or she did, i'm singularly puzzled by just one question: what cards does joe have? i've yet to hear a completely satisfactory explanation for the vote. perhaps the bitter truth is that the explanation isn't satisfactory to anybody but joe.
like many, jonathan singer at mydd seems to believe that it was obama's nod to the senate helped swing the day for joe:
yet lieberman could make obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a tom coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the homeland security committee — particularly if he owed his chairmanship to obama, which he does. under this rationale, obama will have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the senate with lieberman beholden to him than lieberman weaker, but mad at him.
the only problem i have with this explanation (not that i think it's necessarily wrong) is that, as we all know, lieberman's biggest crimes are deceit and disloyalty. as benjamin disraeli once remarked of a political opponent:
he is a systematic liar and a beggarly cheat; a swindler and a poltroon. he has committed every crime that does not require courage.
after all, didn't lieberman already owe obama his senate seat?
a top official on joe lieberman's 2006 senate reelection campaign tells me that lieberman's staff practically begged barack obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment — requests that obama agreed to, helping lieberman minimize the damage from challenger ned lamont's recent entry into the contest.
apparently that favor wasn't big enough to prevent joe from campaigning against not only him, but every democrat.
perhaps saving lieberman's chair was obama's wish, but i just can't see what lieberman has to offer in return that doesn't require all of us having to trust him again.
all right, it's time for my shit sandwich. pass the condiments.
perhaps more than most star trek fans, the deeply dispirited hardcore right wingers at the blog free republic are especially excited about next year's new star trek movie:
it warrants 400 posts at least. if you haven’t noticed, obama is president, biden is veep, and hillary is secretary of state. this country needs some escape, and hope for a future. let us have our 30 star trek posts.
WOOOOo HoOoOooO STar TREK!!!!!!!
Monday, November 17, 2008
tomorrow decides the fates of two senators, one a professed democrat, the other a republican. while ted stevens faces certain expulsion from the senate for his conviction on corruption charges, joe lieberman's fate seems less clear.
that the leadership wants to take joe's chairs from him seems clear. the chairs are joe's by default, if he wants them, which is what this whole hubbub's about. if the senate does nothing, he gets to keep them. no vote is required. this entire discussion would be moot. so by staging a vote, reid is making his intentions clear about removing joe.
like the president-elect, reid prefers little drama, which is why he privately offered joe lesser seats on other committees as a consolation prize for going gently into the night and not making a stink, especially in front of any cameras:
"if they aren't able to work something out satisfactorily, there will be a vote in the caucus." "that's lieberman's decision."
unfortunately, joe loves drama, especially when he's the center of it, so joe sent out an aide to the hartford courant to let everyone know not only that reid's deal was "unacceptable" but also to drop a none-too-subtle threat:
"sen. lieberman prefers to remain in the democratic caucus, however, he believes he should remain as chairman of the homeland security committee."
... a threat punctuated with joe's characteristic sanctimony:
[joe] "thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security."
joe lieberman: the sine qua non of homeland security. reading that really must have made harry very happy.
so joe's thrown down his gauntlet and forced reid's hand. it's all or nothing now.
harry, as promised, has thrown the question to the caucus. while the ballot is secret and makes each member's vote both unpredictable and unverifiable, i believe harry reid is no complete buffoon. every lawyer knows better than to ask a witness a question the lawyer himself doesn't already know the answer to. reid would have to be completely tone-deaf to his colleagues to stage a vote he knows he can't win. joe has few friends on his side of the aisle. out of 53 eligible votes, he needs 27. there will be no tie.
still, as of now, it's still not precisely clear what exactly reid will throw over to his caucus to vote on tomorrow. last week leadership aides were adamant that the vote would be over his committee chairmanship. but it's now unclear whether reid will follow through on this specific vote or whether he'll ask the dem caucus to vote on a compromise or a lesser punishment.
but if the vote becomes a straightforward question of "does joe keep his chairs?", then here are the tentative votes in reid's corner:
1) the leadership (4):
reid: leading the move to dethrone joe
dorgan: "as a chairman of one of our significant committees in the senate, not just going off and supporting a presidential candidate of the other side but also criticizing the candidate on our side, and also involving himself in a couple of senate races on the other side. the question is, is that acceptable? the answer is no."
durbin* and schumer: "interestingly, people like dick durbin who is the first democrat in the senate — the first senator, and from Illinois, to support barack obama — is really loaded for bear about lieberman, he wants to kick lieberman off that chairmanship. chuck schumer, the head of the campaign committee likewise."
*durbin's reportedly been making noises in lieberman's favor:
durbin: [senate democrats should be] "gracious in victory" [toward lieberman]. "despite what sen. lieberman did in campaigning for sen. mccain, speaking at the republican convention, he has voted with the democrats an overwhelming percentage of the time."
... but has said nothing specific about his chair.
2) other vocal reid supporters (3):
leahy: "i'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did." "i would feel that had i done something similar, that i would not be chairman of the senate judiciary committee in the next congress."
sanders*: "to reward senator lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of americans who worked tirelessly for barack obama and who want to see real change in our country."
*sanders might not be allowed to vote.
carper: "there need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant." "many of my colleagues … are very angry with his criticism of sen. obama."
carper's statement is significant since he was reportedly one of four democrats lobbying on lieberman's behalf. i guess he heard something that changed his mind.
3) i think many of those who backed ned lamont against lieberman will likely back reid (16):
akaka*, boxer, cantwell, clinton, feingold, feinstein, harkin, kennedy, kerry, kohl, menendez, murray, stabenow, reed, rockefeller, wyden
*since akaka is reportedly in line for joe's chair, i think reid can count on his vote.
4) lastly, i think reid can count on the new incoming comfirmed members (3):
merkley, udall, udall
meanwhile, in joe's corner we have:
1) the following vocal supporters (2):
bayh*: "i think reconciliation is in order, not revenge or retribution." "i think we had to just let bygones be bygones."
*bayh was a lamont supporter.
dodd: [obama has] "talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. i don't think he'd necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense."
2) others reportedly making calls for lieberman (2):
3) others who supported lieberman against lamont (3):
inouye, landrieu, pryor
so the tentative vote count stands at reid (26), lieberman (7), unaccounted for (20).
even with a lot of unaccounted votes, the "temperature", as carper put it, is very chill towards joe. how many can he realistically add to his seven? not enough, i think.
i think he's gonna lose that chair.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
from the eagle-eyed folks at hardcore right wing blog free republic:
i would never trust google. i had tried putting in "hostility towards geroge bush" and it brings back articles on the summary page like
and on and on. last time i tried it, the first page results over 1/2 of them were stories about hostility towards obama — go figure. the google algorithm has been jiggled to make sure no list of all 8 years of hostility towards george bush ever shows up. they turn it around an show the articles that have hostility that bush has shown. try it. i also switched it around to "george bush, hostility towards", with similar results.
- bush shows 'pattern of hostility' toward civil rights
- the failed presidency of george w. bush: a dismal legacy
- protests show rising hostility toward u.s. policies
Friday, November 14, 2008
i would also add, lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and november ... because their are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it's hindu, buddha, allah — that his opponent wins for a variety of reasons.
and lord i pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're gonna think that their god is bigger than you ... if that happens. so i pray that you would step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and election day.
see also: "prayers answered".
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
general: hao! dai ye! we won again! this is good, but what is best in life? mongol: the open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. general: wrong! conan! what is best in life? conan: to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. general: that is good! that is good. — conan the barbarian (1982)
i can't help but look at the frustration, anger and despair taking hold in the right blogosphere and not be reminded of the angst experienced on the left in both 2000 and 2004.
it got so bad that many on the left refused to believe the signs accumulating over the last four years, in both polling and demographics, of the coming electoral tsunami. they grew too comfortable with reflexively invoking the name of the dread god "diebold!" in the face of any promising data, as if the curse by itself were powerful enough to dispell all rational reason to hope.
what a difference a day makes. november 4th, 2008, to be exact.
so to listen, a week after the bloody republican rout, to the yelping of the vanquished, their rending of garments and the wailing of their women and children, to me it sounds all so familiar ... but for the first time in years, it sounds all so pleasant to hear.
maybe now the dimwits in the rnc leadership will realize what happens when you stray from principles.... and that when you’re facing a coordinated national campaign, running a decentralized "every man for himself" front guarantees a loss.
i'm sorry, but if these elections are stolen, as it seems to be the case in minnesota, how is the "straying from principles" going to help?
we can't put the yoke back in the eggs. if the filthy rats have 60 seats in the senate and the obamessiah in the white house we are finished.
the left fails to appreciate the suicidal nature of their philosophy. let them starve on the decaying bones of a once strong people. fine by me.
count that again. fifty-seven 'rats, plus snowe, collins, mccain and specter. they already have 61 votes.
they stole the election in many states and all we here is the sound of CRICKETS. is anyone alive out there????
the rnc was in power for nearly 6 years. they should have done everything possible to reduce the possiblity of voter fraud in the future like requiring photo ids!
the dems' attitude now is essentially...."everyone knows we're cheating, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. we'll do what we want."
i was waiting for the rnc to SLAM these "recounts", rolling out facts and figures and generally showing that the dnc is stealing the seats.
still waiting. i haven't even heard a whimper.
whatever happens.. fine by me. the same people who are winners today will be the same people who are winners tomorrow and the losers will go right on suffering.
so man is walking backwards, so what? we don't go to mars? big whoop, we've got time before our sun gets big and red. someone has to create things for there to be things. it'll start up again.
barack hussein will soon win the same percentage of the electorate as saddam hussein once did.
isn't it amazing how long it always takes to count the votes in these contested elections? you wouldn't think it would take so much time for them to finish creating those fraudulent ballots. i guess they are being paid by the hour.
the differences between our election system and that of a banana republic are approaching neglibible.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
well, it's been a whole week. i certainly hope mccain hasn't turned into some kind of sore loser, because i'm still waiting — along with the rest of the world, i'm sure — for him to tell us just how to win wars and how to catch bin laden.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
four years ago conservatives, fundamentalists and neocons across the country were gloating.
tonight ... not so much, as testified by these assorted anecdotes from what could be a clinical casebook of right wing ideological collapse, collected from the
out-patientscommenters at the blog free republic:
stage 1) shock and denial:
Fox has done a terrible job in their reporting tonight. They are so proud of their computer equipment, they just can't run it. Brit is all over the place. Their website is worse
Has California come in? That's a lot of electoral votes. ANd we're giving it to Obama, because of Ohio exit polls?
DO NOT PANIC. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A VIRTUAL TIE.
MCCAIN CANNOT CONCEDE - CHALLENGE LEGALLY VOTE FRAUD EVERYWHERE, CHALLENGE LEGITIMACY OF BHO, HELL THROW IN THE UNNATURAL CITIZENSHIP. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! (DOESN'T OHIO HAVE TO WAIT 10 DAYS TO VERIFY ABSENTEE BALLOTS OF LIKE 200,000?)
stage 2) pain and guilt:
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. I am so ashamed of Americans tonight.
If only those born in the US had voted, we would not be losing tonight.
Oh Lord, HAVE MERCY, PLEASE!!!!!!
I am now feeling sick!
stage 3) anger:
ACORN has succeeded in stealing this election for the terrorist in chief.
Thank You W. - Hussien is your legacy! May your retirement be as bad as the Huseein Presidency will be for us. For the rest of you Bushes .. stay out of republican politics forever.
So much for Rove's PERMANENT MAJORITY.....
....the Hispanic vote went big for Obama....
...New Mexico is no longer a red state.....
...Colorado and Arizona are trending left...
how will we ever win an election in the future? Thank you George W. Bush and John Mccain for ruining our party with your open borders policy.
stage 4) depression:
Capitalism lasted longer than communism but in the end everyone settled on socialism.
Bush should have at least gone down swinging and holding to his principals (That's what I hated about him in his first terms but what I miss about him right now)
It's over. It's been over. I have been the victim of my own wishful thinking. We're getting a terrorists buddy instead of a patriot. It is depressing.
Allow me to be the first to say with sadness: ALL HAIL KING HUSSEIN
I for one, welcome our new socialists overlords.
Now, where's that bottle?
stage 5) acceptance and hope:
This is what you should all do now:
Hug your wife and kids
Pray to God and understand he has a plan
Keep your guns close
Get a good accountant to shelter your money
It is true, that I never concieved such a day during my lifetime. But I still have faith in God, my family and friends.
They dug their own grave. The same goes for bipartisanship. Either way, the Republicans will never be relevant again without conservative leadership. Palin in 2012 is a start.
Anybody know a good militia I can join?
Amerika has just elected its first communist president - in fact, with a communist Congress, a complete communist government. Time to start understanding how to organize and lead a resistance movement.
With the union stuff coming we'll never be able to get back the congress. How long before Sharia law is implemented?
The only saving grace I can think of now is that HRC does have proof that he is not eligible to be POTUS.
And there's always the possibility Israel acts tomorrow and the world nuclear war is on!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Saturday, November 01, 2008
everyone seems to agree: the election is over. so there's no need to wait until wednesday for the postmortems.
everyone also seems to agree that we have a clear loser. to be expected, some beg to differ about why the loser lost:
when mccain cruises to an easy, early victory tuesday night, the pundits will be in disarray. they will be left scratching their heads, saying that the reason mccain won is that all the undecideds at the last minute broke for him, preferring the old, known crotchety guy over the charismatic unknown.
it's all untrue but when did the truth ever deter the bsm (biased socialist media) from telling you want it wants you to believe?
in order to win, zero [obama] had to do better among democrats than did john kerry. he didn't. here's why:
- zero never secured the democrat base. his first decision was fatal to his candidacy — he chose a bumbling, mediocre biden over party unity. had he selected hillary as his running mate, the ticket would have been a juggernaut. this fateful selection created the puma movement comprising — who knows? — thousands, millions of disaffected hillary supporters. this is the greatest unreported political fallout in media history.
- zero was a weak, unknown candidate propped up by the compliant bsm. all the evidence you need is this: no bounce from his thirty-minute infomercial that was intended to "close the deal." further, after spending more than $600 million dollars, he was still campaigning on the monday before the election in iowa, a neighbor to his home state of il, which he should have won by 20 points. a strong democrat candidate with a $600m warchest and this economy should win walking away. there'd be no chance for a mccain surge in the final days. give me a break.
- the reincarnation of the reagan democrats. they left the party when jimmah carter ran the second time and they left when zero burst on the scene. nevertheless, the bsm will spin these folks to have left for the all encompassing next reason:
- race. some democrats will reject their guy based on his race, or at least the black half of it. face it. it's a small percentage of the democrat party but, in order to win, zero had to hold onto every dem voter and he failed to do so.
- the bsm failed zero. as they always do, they went into protect mode, trying valiantly — if not honestly — to shield their chosen one from harm. had the media first done its job of vetting zero and, had he survived the vetting in the primaries, he would have been tested by fire and ready to win. instead, by treating him with kid gloves, the republican opposition was free to explore zero's past associations, his voting record, his years of drifting and lack of accomplishment; all raised doubts in the general election that should have been vetted long before it took place. unknowns like zero don't benefit by not being challenged.
- few people bought the outright lies zero told about his being pro second amendment. like so many other losing democrat candidates, zero had to run from his record but there was no place to hide.
- zero's opposition to illinois' born alive infant protection act. couple that with zero's statement to rick warren that determining when a baby is human is above his paygrade — well you've just created a tsunami of truth washing over your campaign.
we are witnessing the greatest collapse by a major party candidate in history. now you know why it's happening.
i agree. we are witnessing a collapse of historic proportions, not just of a candidate, but of an entire party and its ideology. barack obama is fini—