Red states, that is, in the traditional sense.

If McCain pulls out an unlikely victory next Tuesday, the biased media and radical Leftist blogs will deserve much of the credit.

Over at the Mos Eisley blog, “Jeff” quotes himself telling his son why he should have voted for BRCK BM instead of John McCain at his school election:

“John McCain is a selfish man. He only cares about himself. Barack Obama cares about you and me.”

Sure, BRCK BM’s relatives are living in inner city slums and third world shacks, but what did McCain ever do for this country?

I mean, except for devoting his entire life to public service and putting his life on the line time and again. Other than that, he’s completely selfish.

UPDATE: BRCK BM agrees with “Jeff.”

UPDATE II: The esteemed Lang Wiseman has a new blog and a series of posts on selfishness:

• obama criticizes the selfishness of those who disagree with him about tax policy
• speaking of selfishness, look at millionaire biden’s charitable giving
• and what about obama’s charitable giving?

The Original Mud Puppy says, “I don’t respect commentary from anyone that refers to Barack Obama as Barry, BO, or BRCK BM.”

Since his apostles continue to have difficulty with my designation, please allow me to explain.

I started referring to the Junior Senator from Illinois exclusively as BRCK BM on February 28th, giving him the same honor the Hebrews reserved for YHWH.

Such reverence was necessary because his religious followers objected to BRCK BM’s full name being spoken or written, since using his given name was “an obvious attempt to associate him with The Great Muslim Menace.”

Hoping to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, the Democratic Presidential Candidate’s name had to be handled with extreme care and reverence. Unfortunately, it appears even this considered, controlled measure has been judged inadequate. But next to Chimpy McBu$Hitler — the commonly-accepted Leftist term for our current President — BRCK BM stands up pretty well.

Still, I fully suspect the Left will continue to preemptively reject conservative commentary no matter how we refer to BRCK BM — named, unnamed, nicknamed, This One, That One or simply The One. It’s just another excuse to ignore and/or prosecute those who disagree… until that blessed Red Dawn when The Fairness Doctrine silences us permanently.

He doesn’t look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills.

Though I must say he looks more Presidential without wooden teeth and a powered wig.

Background, for those who need it.

There have been rumors that gaffe machine Joe Biden would be dropped as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and we can now confirm that these rumors are TRUE. The only surprise is that Biden is not being replaced by Hillary Clinton; instead, BRCK BM has chosen his faithful apostle, Rep. Steve Cohen:

Rep. Cohen, as you’ll recall, recently compared BRCK BM to Jesus Christ, and the Republican VP candidate to Pontius Pilate.

Rep. Cohen has apparently been rewarded with a slot on the presidential ticket. That is, unless this is just a silly sign produced by Cohen, who faces no Republican challenger, and who recently said “it’s just me and Obama,” when asked which other candidates he would be helping this election season.

Also: this sign was spotted well inside the 7th District; Cohen represents the 9th District.

I can’t imagine how BRCK BM can be telling the truth that he wasn’t intentionally alluding to Gov. Palin with his “lipstick on a pig” comment, especially given his audience’s amused reaction. I thought it was a clever jab, but if BRCK BM maintains that he simply stumbled upon an untimely cliche, that’s his loss. We certainly can’t prove otherwise without further information only BRCK BM and his handlers would know.

I also laughed when I heard part of BRCK BM’s defense: “What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that makes people sick and tired about politics in this country.”

I laughed because I first thought that I’m certainly not sick and tired of politics, then I remembered this line from Monty Python:

I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.

We’re sick and tired of being told that we’re sick and tired of politics, and that somehow right thinking people in this country should be adopt the new politics of Obama, which is actually the old politics of the Chicago machine, writ large.

Is Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Memphis) comparing BRCK BM to our Lord and Savior?

There’s an interesting comment over at the Commercial Appeal article on Cohen’s ridiculous statement:

Wow, quickest headline change I’ve seen here. “Cohen compares Obama to Jesus” almost immediately disappeared and became “Cohen: Jesus was a Community Organizer.” Guess Otis must’ve figured the headline would hurt his boy.

There’s no Google cache of the old headline, but the url still reads:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/10/cohen-compares-obama-jesus/

UPDATE: I understood the last line of the comment excerpted above as a benign, colloquial reference to the CA’s endorsement of Steve Cohen, who the editorial staff would not want to “hurt.” Others apparently interpret it as an unambiguous, racially-charged reference to BRCK BM. I had briefly considered leaving that line out simply because it’s speculative and unnecessary to the issue I wanted to call out — the CA’s revisionist headline. But now I’m sorry that I didn’t, because the peanut gallery will claim it as evidence of veiled racism on my part. That’s sad and pathetic, but true. But I won’t remove it now, because I don’t subscribe to revisionism myself. I will only point out that the peanut gallery apparently ignored Steve Cohen’s comparison of BRCK BM to Christ, his comparison of Gov Palin to Pontius Pilate (the man who condemned Christ to death on a cross), and the CA’s revisionism, in order to focus on an ambiguous comment somebody else made, in order to smear me. Such is the current state of the radical Left.

Earlier today I caught part of a BRCK BM stump speech being broadcast live on MSNBC. He repeated the lie we spotted earlier; now the official Fact Check is finally in, and it ain’t pretty for BRCK BM:

Obama said “average family income” went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn’t correct. An aide said he was really talking only about “working” families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

And “inched up slightly” means the median income has risen $1,149.

So BRCK BM is off by a mere $3,149. But let’s be generous and only hold him to the first $2,000.

Back during the Democratic primary, all we heard about was change and experience.

The two finalists selected these generic tags as surrogates, since there were no essential ideological differences between them, and since both were freshmen Senators with equally thin resumes.

It was Change (embodied by a doctrinaire Leftist who wouldn’t alter a single plank of the Democratic platform) vs. Experience (represented by a carpet-bagging one-term legislator whose most vivid telling of her experience involved dodging runway sniper fire — otherwise known as a typical airport greeting ceremony).

Change spat upon the very notion of experience and said it was a corrupting agent, while Experience belittled change as being insufficiently capable of bringing about itself.

Experience started out on the defensive, saying it was she who had the requisite experience to bring about change. Sensing weakness, Change countered that change wouldn’t come from Washington, that in fact we were the ones we’ve been waiting for. Then with her back up against the wall and facing impossible odds, Experience decided to attack Change head-on, drawing on her own assumed strengths and questioning whether Change was prepared to take phone calls at 3 a.m. But Change had reserved a knock-out blow, explaining that instinctive judgment, not experience, was the real prerequisite for change.

This back and forth was not lost on the Republican candidates, who jumped at the opportunity to ride the change bandwagon, each of them claiming to be the true representative of change, while simultaneously chiding the triteness of the term’s usage. America’s Mayor said his proven conservative leadership would really change Washington, the Mormon Governor replaced his full-movement conservative rhetoric with slogans hinging on populist change and political reform, and the Governor from Hope staked a claim on change by logical extension.

But it was the Maverick — a term already synonymous with change — who was endorsed by Experience as its Republican standard-bearer. The Senator from Arizona essentially came to represent both terms, brilliantly alternating between his dual reservoirs of change and experience, drawing from one or the other, depending on the given audience or circumstances, and thus surging ahead of the Republican field.

Upon assuming the official status as the Democratic nominee, Change pinned the defeated Experience label on the Republican winner and tied him to the current administration — casting him as the continuation of the last eight years and saying he could thus not represent change. So the Maverick’s age became a larger issue, as did his recent voting record.

The Maverick hit back with the now-familiar Experience jab, knocking Change as a vapid celebrity and pounding him with questions about his readiness to lead the country.

Bloodied and dazzled by the onslaught, Change undercut himself when it came time to pick a running-mate. Change defensively selected an old Washington insider who could help solve his experience problem, even though he too had once questioned Change’s experience.

With the title in sight, the Maverick took a chance on delivering a knock-out punch, choosing a running-mate who would reinforce the change side of his combination attack.

Change fell into the trap, attacking the Maverick’s running mate for her lack of experience, thus abandoning his safety zone and entering unfriendly territory. You can call it bad judgment, but that’s just what happens when you have absolutely zero experience. (more…)

I don’t agree with BRCK BM that family matters are completely off-limits, particularly if those family members are making political stump speeches. It also extends to spouses, siblings, children and extended family who don’t project themselves upon the public stage, to the extent it reveals something important about the candidate’s character or ideology.

It’s important that we know how serious BRCK BM is when he quotes the Bible on “whatever you do to the least of these, my brothers…” Does his charity start at home, with his own half-brother, living in a shack off a dollar a month? It’s important for us to know why MCHLL BM is only recently proud of her country, and why she and her husband chose Jeremiah Wright to marry them, advise them and mold their socio-religious views.

It’s perfectly fair for us to talk about how Sarah Palin’s socio-religious views play out in her own family. What does it mean for her husband? What does it mean for her children, and her children’s children? Does Gov. Palin advocate abstinence-only education both at home and in public schools? If so, what is the product of that ideology, and how does she personally deal with the benefits and consequences of those views? Further, how practical is that ideology when contrasted with more liberal sex education, and what are the comparative statistics on pregnancy, birth and STDs?

That discussion should in turn bring us back around to BRCK BM — why he thinks it’s “above [his] pay grade” to determine when human life begins, and why he’s willing to gamble with destroying human life in the absence of that assurance. And we should be asking what he meant when he said he didn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby.”

I’m not saying minor children of politicians should be over-exposed, exploited or kept under constant news surveillance. Children should be allowed to be children, and we shouldn’t expect perfection from political families. For the most part, all family members should be left alone. But when their lives, actions and public statements tell us something important about the candidate, the public cannot be expected to ignore them.