No Comment Necessary

The Line

Thank you, dear most right-wing of Republicans, for broadcasting your intent so very clearly. Those of us paying attention to the nascent line of attack are already imminently aware. He doesn't hire guys who you like, or who have any Washington experience? "So much for change!" He calls for national service? "Socialist!" He demonstrates the ability to rally people with charisma, at a grassroots level? Either "Empty Suit!" or "Dictator!" (The HuffPost called this "intellectual violence" - as in, attacking logic/reality itself).

But then, when you decide you're just trying to tear down the new administration just to help your party either save face or rekindle a culture of fear? I call you pathetic.

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

What a ham-fisted, pathetic attempt to publically and very loudly call Obama Hitler. You do this in private, you're just a douche. You do this in public, you're a certified nutjob who's playing to the shreds of the hardest-right wing of his party. By this chunderloaf's reasoning, ANYONE he disagrees with could "potentially" be Hitler. Sometimes, it's the "real America;" other days it's "Red Commies." The politics of desperation, the politics of the lost party, though, never changes.

If the Republicans can learn anything from this election, rather than lining up in the circular firing squad (McCain aides blame Palin; Social conservatives blames McCain for not being right enough; Palin blames the policies of George Bush), they should learn this: the time for that shit is over. That card has been played. The people are sick of it. This race was won by the independants, the definition of the political middle, and they voted against the mudslinging and gnarly half-truths and outright distortions and the return of the culture wars. Find your platform. Figure out why you lost, why you REALLY lost, rather than pointing to everything else and blaming that. You messed it up. Learn, or get used to the cold, cause you'll be out there quite a while.

Nader = Tool



To Fox's Shep Smith's credit, one of the best lines of the campaign:

"Really.

Ralph Nader...what was that?"

DOOM! :)

Now that the nation's finally shitty enough that we can vote for progress, we must face the horrible aftermath of this great victory for America:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The Electoral Results Map is In

The Aftermath

The race is starting to look like a Obama massacre, and the question I already find myself thinking is, 'Did Obama win, or did McCain lose?'. There are interesting signs that point to the power of Obama's campaign strategy (his standing vs. McCain exactly 2 years ago - 28 electoral votes to 510 ), there are many other signs that show it was 2000 McCain's race to lose. He had garnered pretty huge support from moderate Democrats and Republicans, as well as the independants - and us armchair pundits know it was the middle, not the wings, that are the deciding factor in this election.

Make no mistake - I expect the Democrats to fuck this whole majority thing up, watch them turn on one another as the left wing battles the center for whatever crazy thing they wanted but haven't been able to get until now. I mean, we're talking about the Democratic Party here - and even the Republicans couldn't play majority their advantage. At the same time, I expect Obama to lead from a more centric position (free trade, tax breaks, a stronger balance in Supreme Court appointments and probably standing up to Congress more now that he's in The Big Chair), so it should be good.

And then, there's the question of what this loss on all fronts - the second in a row for the GOP - will mean in the longer timeline. I had mentioned this earlier, but it's worth asking again - what will come of the GOP? Will the marginalized hard Right, those who survived the purgation by the electorate for their pro- or anti- stances, crystalize those positions and filibuster everything out of a strongly Democratic Congress from sheer spite? Or will they instead turn inward from the wilderness, much as House Republicans did pre-1994, ask themselves what went wrong, and come back with a new, more moderate, and perhaps more principled party? I think the latter is the GOP's only chance of survival, or at least a comeback. So do the people at the Wall Street Journal:

Back to a Big-Tent GOP?
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

All eyes are on Tuesday. For the GOP, the real question is Wednesday.
That's the day the party will survey the damage of the 2008 election, and have to decide what it wants to be. Even if John McCain pulls out a win, the Grand Old Party will be in trouble. Contrary to recent liberal pronouncements, the conservative movement is not dead. But the GOP response to Tuesday will determine how long it remains on life support.

The GOP's problems are a result of a failure of action, not of philosophy. Everything, including this election, shows we remain a center-right country. If Barack Obama wins, it will be because he has doggedly (if not always believably) run to the right on everything from national security (wiretapping) to "tax cuts," guns and social issues.

Democrats may also achieve big gains in the House and Senate. But their wins in 2006 were the result of the party's decision to run "conservative" candidates -- pro-life, pro-gun and populist on economics. Democratic gains this year will come via similar candidates. The nation hasn't moved left; the Democratic Party has leaned right.

Because Nancy Pelosi and her old liberal bulls will likely overreach, the GOP will have an opportunity. But the risk is that Tuesday's results will cause panic, and exacerbate the reactionary, backward-looking behavior that has already done so much damage to the party.

Republicans love to recollect Ronald Reagan, though they forget why. Reagan's strength was looking to the future -- and framing the issues of the day for Americans. When the focus had been balanced budgets, he made the issue the need for economic growth. When the debate had been détente, Reagan turned it into the need for a strong America. That tradition continued with the Contract with America, welfare reform, government reform, tort reform. George W. Bush tackled education.

Reagan's other great strength was not distinguishing between red and blue America. He offered a set of principles, and invited anyone who broadly subscribed to those principles into his political house. The result was that unlikely coalition of fiscal conservatives, defense hawks and social conservatives. These were the days of Reagan Democrats, of victories in states that now seem unwinnable to the GOP.
The further Republicans have moved away from this playbook, the further its fortunes have declined. The GOP was thrown out in 2006 because it had failed to evolve on the new issues facing Americans -- spiraling health-care costs, dwindling energy supplies, out-of-control entitlements. It spent its last years divvying up pork. As it has hit the electoral rocks, the party has also turned inward, harping on immigrants and gay marriage.

So come Wednesday, the Democrats will be energized -- and the GOP must make a choice.
The worst GOP instinct would be to mimic Britain's Tories after their 1997 shellacking by Tony Blair, becoming a "no" party that spends so much time howling against the opposition it forgets what to howl for. It could curl up and stoke bitter cultural fights (immigration, abortion) to rev up a dwindling base. It could cede its fortunes to an unreformed old guard who will happily wait out their retirements in the minority. It would be easy to do all this; the party has already had practice.

The other option is for the GOP to start elevating the new generation of reformers -- folks like Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor or Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. With them comes a new intellectual focus on today's issues. (See Mr. Ryan's recent blueprint for reforming taxes, entitlements and health care.) The Republican high point this year was when the party united to fix the energy mess. That ought to tell it something.
The party could also go back to recruiting real professionals ahead of career politicians. That's how the Senate obtained Dr. Tom Coburn who, because he isn't a lifer, hasn't been afraid to shame colleagues on earmarks or obscene spending.

Just as important, the party could again open its arms to those who should, naturally, gravitate to the GOP. Today's ballooning Hispanic community is socially conservative, the sort of up-and-comers who would appreciate lower taxes, more opportunity. America's YouTube generation is naturally entrepreneurial, and doesn't like anyone telling them what to do. If Republicans could tap into these sentiments, they'd widen the tent.

Doing so does not involve altering conservative principles. Politicians like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have shown it is possible to be for law and order, even while welcoming immigrants who want the American dream; and that it's possible to be pro-life without braying on the subject in a way that offends suburban moderates.
This transformation is necessary even if Mr. McCain wins. His difficulties have stemmed from his own struggle to articulate answers to the biggest American worries.

Parties have to evolve. This is a GOP opportunity, if it is smart enough to take it.

Oh My God...Awesome


Obama Undertakes Presidential Internship To Ease Concerns About His Lack Of Experience

And For Those Worried about Voter Fraud


Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President

More Humor to Get Me Through the Day

21

Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Sites

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Just in Case the Worries about the Bradley Effect are Justifed...