The Anus-Clenching Adventures of Pierre Delecto

By @BiffSpackle

Help us Obi Wan Romney, you're our only hope!

By Lawrence Sellin

Jay Cost, a writer for the Weekly "NeverTrump" Standard, penned an article begging Mitt Romney to run for president as an independent candidate in 2016.

According to Mr. Cost, at this critical juncture in our nation's history, the country needs not a Washington, Jefferson or a Lincoln, but - brace yourself - a Martin van Buren.

Well, if it is a Martin van Buren you are seeking, then I guess Mitt Romney is your guy; a man who lost the Republican nomination to John McCain in 2008 and, after securing the nomination in 2012, proceeded to lose an eminently winnable election against a feeble Barack Obama, only by exceeding that feebleness, running a campaign of monumental timidity.

The Mitts Are Off!

By Stilton Jarlsberg

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK: GOPe in panic mode as Kasich support evaporates and Jeb! numbers drop below IQ of Biden

The Beltway Establishment's secretive plan to hand Jeb Bush the GOP nomination by flooding the zone with candidates (also known as the "GOPe Splitter Strategy") has totally unravelled.

Let's start in New Hampshire, where support for John Kasich has fallen off the cliff:

The Jebster's First Run at a Political Slogan Seems Strangely Familiar

By Lee Cary

Yogi Berra, a Master of the English language, once said that something felt like “Déjà vu all over again” (looks more urbane with the accent marks, doesn’t it?).

As you gentlemen and ladies well know, Jeb Bush is testing the POTUS waters, with the encouragement of the GOP Establishment’s donor class and the liberal media (e.g., see WaPo, NYT, Politico and HuffPo). Jeb’s doubtless trying to impress same with his abilities to attract financial support.

It was in this context that Deja overcame me, as it does all of us occasionally. Usually dismissed soon as the workings of an errant Higgs slamming against a larger molecule in our brains.

In this case, it may have been simple political plagiarism rather than the mischief of some loose sub-atomic particle.

The National Journal, run by Ron Fournier, the former UP Washington Bureau Chief, who has become strangely critical of Obama after shilling for him for years, told us this:

I just got an email from Karl Rove!

Doug,

President Obama's approval ratings keep dropping, no reliable poll shows battleground Senate Democrats with over 50% support, and GOP voters are excited to cast their ballots in 37 days. The midterm environment is toxic for Democrats, yet there's a chance Republicans may not take the Senate. Why?

Could it be that you and the rest of the Republican ruling class are completely out of touch with the grass roots? That you went to war with your own base? That you decimated any unity between the conservative and establishment wings of the party? And for what: to keep your incumbent protection racket going for mouth-breathers like Thad Cochran and Pat Roberts?

The Democrats have a huge money advantage. Last month alone, Democrats outraised Republicans by $1.6 million dollars.

Gee, I wonder why.

Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

They intend to outspend Republicans between Labor Day and Election Day, having bought $109 MILLION in television ads already, compared to $85 million for GOP candidates and their allies so far. Democrats, Harry Reid's PAC, and liberal interest groups are launching hundreds of attack ads in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, and North Carolina - key states in the fight for the Senate.

So now you're worried that your strategy of attacking conservatives might be, eh, suicidal? A tad late, Dr. Whiteboard!

REVEALED: The Democrat Party's Secret Playbook for Stealing Elections

By James Simpson

Elections matter. President Obama proves it every day as he willfully seeks to wreck our nation. But this is very evident elsewhere, too. The 2010 elections reversed decades of Democrat majority control in state houses. Since then, GOP governors and legislatures all over the country have been restoring sanity to state government. Most Americans don’t know this of course, because the media won’t tell you.

One good example is North Carolina. Republicans took over the North Carolina legislature in 2010, and Charlotte’s popular Republican mayor, Pat McCrory, won the governor’s mansion in 2012. This gave the GOP full control of the state government for the first time since 1898. In 2013 Governor McCrory signed a new voter ID law, and a fairly strong Republican majority, willing to take political risks, took over leadership of the State Board of Elections (SBOE). The Democrats are having fits.

An interesting email received this week offers a window into how Democrats used to rig the voter game.

A History of Voter Fraud

Vote fraud has been a long-standing tradition in Democrat-controlled North Carolina. For example, in 2012 the Democrat-controlled NC State Board of Elections (SBOE) openly, blatantly violated state election law by partnering with the Obama administration in offering illegal online voter registration. The corrupt administration of Democratic Governor Beverly Purdue—who declined to seek a second term rather than face a certain punishing defeat by McCrory in 2012—did nothing.

Participating in Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s “Crosscheck” [PDF] program, North Carolina’s new GOP-led SBOE matched 765 voters registered in both NC and another state with the exact name, DOB and last four digits of SSN of those who voted in both states in the 2012 election. They found a total of 35,750 matching with the exact name and DOB who voted in two states in 2012 (many states don’t provide SSN information). They also found 13,416 deceased voters on the voter rolls, some of whom have come back from the dead to vote.

MARK LEVIN TRANSCRIPT: Here's What I'm gonna do, Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch, if you go after Mike Lee

Transcript of Mark Levin, 6/10/2014


You know what I've heard? On good authority, that Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch want one of Mitt Romney's sons to go after Mike Lee in the Republican fight -- should there be one -- because they want to get rid of Mike Lee.

Who are the purists, exactly?

Who are the "Big Tent" guys, exactly?

Now let me tell you what I'm gonna do if these fools pull that. Listen to me, Orrin, I'm talkin' to you.

I'm going to go into your state and expose you. For your lies on this show.

I'm going to go into Utah, Mitt Romney, and expose you for the incompetent campaign you ran. The fact of the matter is, Mitt, while you play Mr. Nice Guy, you were behind the scenes trashing Republicans all the way to your "victory".

Let me tell you something, Mitt: You cost us. You cost us four years of Obama with your feckless campaign. Attacking one Republican after another in the primary... and it's like you surrendered in the general election. You're no Mr. Nice Guy... and, I know, the Republicans listening to me... folks, behind the scenes, this guy is trying to crush the conservative movement.

This "severe conservative"... he's going around the country endorsing every single establishment Republican he can against citizen candidates. It's time to wake up!

But if they... and you know I barely travel for anything... but if they.. I will go into Utah myself --and bring everyone I can find -- we will expose these people -- and let's have it out!


Visit MarkLevinShow.com to download free podcasts every weeknight.

RESET: The Obama administration opts for fake sanctions on Putin

Guest post by George Friedman

The United States announced new sanctions on seven Russian government officials April 28. A long-used tactic, sanctions can yield unpredictable effects or have no effect at all, depending upon how they are crafted. It is commonly assumed that sanctions are applied when a target country's actions are deemed unacceptable. The sanctioning nation presumably chooses sanctions to avoid war when war would be too costly or could result in defeat.

Sanctions' stated purpose is to induce behavioral changes in a target state by causing economic pain. To work, sanctions must therefore cause pain. But they must not be so severe that they convince the target state that war is more desirable than capitulating to the demands of the sanctioning nation.

When Sanctions Work Too Well

In July 1941, when the Japanese invaded Indo-China, the United States responded by freezing all Japanese assets. The United Kingdom and the Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) followed suit. The sanctions were quite effective, and Japan wound up cut off from the bulk of international trade, losing 90 percent of its imported oil. Japan had to respond, but instead of withdrawing from Indo-China, it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese example is worth considering. The United States placed Japan in a situation where its oil supplies would be depleted in months, at which point Japan would cease to be an industrial power. Tokyo could have accepted the American terms, but once it did this, it would have established a U.S. veto over Japanese decisions.

The Japanese did not trust the United States and were convinced that any capitulation to sanctions would simply lead to more U.S. demands. Tokyo understood the risks of war but calculated that these risks were lower than the risks of complying with U.S. demands (though the Japanese might well have been wrong in this calculation, and Franklin Roosevelt might well have known that Tokyo would choose war over capitulation). Faced with sanctions that would cripple the nation, Japan chose war.

DEAR ABBY: I'm in an Abusive Relationship with the Republican Party

Guest post by Christine X.

Dear Republican Establishment:

So, what do you need to do to get us to stick with you and get us back into your good graces?
Good question [{I’m glad I asked it}]

1). STOP SUPPORTING AMNESTY FOR 30 MILLION NEW DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.
[Can I be any more emphatic on that point?]
Mark my words, you can either drop the insane idea of amnesty for the illegal invaders or you can destroy the party - It’s your choice.

Pushing amnesty will either create 30 Million new voters for Democratic largess or it will fractionalize the party so badly that it will no longer be the ‘Loyal opposition’ to the Socialist National left.
The GOP will be deader than a Bull Moose as a result – does that sound like a winning strategy?

Either way will mean one party Socialist Democratic national party rule for now until Armageddon.

2). Stop insanely nominating Rinocrats in the futile hope that the media will be ‘nice’ to you and not put the full weight of their propaganda machine to work shredding said candidate.

How many times do you need to repeat that insanity before you learn the lesson?

3). Stop trying to outbid the socialists with government largess – you cannot win the game, because they don’t care if they bankrupt the country in 5 years instead of 20.

You can’t outbid people willing to destroy the nation just attain some temporary power.

It should be plain that you need to stand up for Conservative values – that is the only thing that will save the country from it’s inevitable demise at the hands of the socialists.

IF you do not do those simple things to save the party and save the nation, I will bid you a quick goodbye and be on my way – along with millions of others.

You can stuff your endless appeals for my donations, and your admonitions to volunteer will fall on deaf ears.

We may be on our way to defeat with a third party – but we will do it with our head held high and our Conservative principles intact.

There is no earthly reason to stay with a sinking ship – and you people are heading straight on for an iceberg – and sadly, you don’t seem to know it.

We can and we will leave – many already have and the exits are getting pretty jammed up.

I can envision many of my Conservative colleagues yelling back at the paper – Hey, where have you been, sister? We abandoned the stupid party years ago – well, let me just say in my defense that in most abusive relationships, each has their personal breaking point – many have already reached and are beyond that point. I dare say that if the current events hold to the trends as they are now, many more will join them – as will I.


I encourage you to email this article to every Republican official you know. Time grows short to save the party -- and the country.

And Now: A Very Special Message From Karl Rove

From the man who brought you Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi comes the following pearls of wisdom. Write 'em down, because I'll wager you cash money that these two will be Rove's favorites:

Well, sooner or later he's bound to get one right.

Isn't he?

Well, isn't he???

Will Mark Levin Actually Moderate the GOP Debates? Exclusive Interview with RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer

A few days ago Sean Spicer, the Communications Director of the Republican National Committee, made a surprising statement: he said that Mark Levin should moderate the GOP debates. Levin has formally accepted the offer. To explore this issue and a few others, I made a few attempts to get a hold of Mr. Spicer and, after a time, was able to synch up with him this evening.

Ross: Sean, thanks very much for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with us. Give us a little bit of background on yourself and how you arrived at the RNC and rose to such a key position.

Spicer: I got involved in several Congressional campaigns, House races in the nineties... after a time, I became the Republican National Congressional Committee's Retention Director. Three years later, I became a spokesman for the House Budget Committee. More recently, for the last three years of the Bush Administration I had a very lengthy title, but was really a trade spokesman.

Ross: Sean, a recent statement you made really caught conservatives by surprise -- and in a positive way. You said you thought Mark Levin and perhaps other conservative thought leaders should moderate GOP debates. How serious was that statement and did the reaction catch you by surprise?

Spicer: That was a very serious statement. Obviously, we're not at a point yet of picking debate forums or moderators, but we are definitely committed to energizing the conservative base. It's common sense: anyone's who listening to Rush, Levin, Hannity... they are addressing the issues that the grassroots are concerned with.

What I also find absolutely unbelievable is that in 2008 Chris Matthews, of all people, moderated two GOP debates. Yet why wouldn't we insist on the converse situation?

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN: Another "can't lose" moderate... loses

Jeffrey Lord pens another must-read that is certain to be ignored by the Beltway class and, yet, contains within it certain incontrovertible truths.

Number one: another "can't lose" RINO moderate... fails. Do the terms McCain, Dole, Bush 41 and Ford ring a bell?

Number two: where were first principles in this campaign?

One cannot plunge the country into astronomical debt without there being a financial come-to-Jesus reckoning. One cannot tempt aggression with weakness. One cannot tax one's way to prosperity. One cannot build a behemoth federal government and expect the country to prosper. One cannot, as Mark Levin puts it, not understand the "interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition and authority" -- and not pay a price for that lack of understanding.

Were these conservative principles true in 1980? Yes. They were also true in 1780 and 1880 and they will be true in 2080. They are to the world of politics and government what Newton's law of gravity is to the physical world. And to the extent that they are ignored, one is -- politically speaking -- jumping off the Empire State Building without a parachute.

Has the country changed since 1980? I would hope so. Change in human life is unstoppable. But as Reagan himself -- a staunch advocate of change -- smartly said: "History comes and goes, but principles endure…"

Barack Obama will come and go. The next Apple iGizmo will appear -- and eventually disappear to be a relic. Katy Perry and Lena Dunham will grow old. America will not even be in this moment of 2012 for very much longer. Life will go on. Time will move on. And yes, some absolutely inevitable and foreseeable crisis will confront the new romance with American socialism and send Americans running back to their roots.

Lord insists we need more "New Reagans" -- people of all backgrounds, all races, all religions -- who are well-versed in conservatism.

And where did Marco Rubio, now hailed by the Republican establishment as a 2016 favorite, come from? Not from the RINO establishment. It backed Charlie "Tan-in-a-Can" Crist and fought Rubio tooth and nail. It was the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservative movement that gave birth to Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, etc.

There are flawed candidates, to be sure, among those backed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. RINOs point to Sharon Angle and Richard Mourdock, for example, forgetting that no one wins 100 percent of their slate. Until the afternoon of election day, when the unions started busing in voters from places unknown, Angle was in fact leading Harry Reid handily.

And one inappropriate and/or misconstrued remark by Mourdock (and a crackpot third-party candidate) helped cook his campaign.

It's not the conservatives who need to go away. It's the RINO establishment that should make themselves scarce. Once again, a mushy centrist -- who supposedly would appeal to wide swaths of the electorate -- lost in a race that should have been a slamdunk.

And in this existential showdown between liberty and tyranny, Mitt Romney could not even attract the same number of voters as... John McCain. Constitutional conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, and fiscal conservatives don't need to retreat. The RINO country club set needs to cede control to the true heart of the party. And if they refuse to cede power, we will defeat them as we have time and time again.

The Big Election Post-Mortem Pundit Post

Jim Geraghty:

Phil Klein noted that the exit polls indicated Romney won voters 65 and older by 11 percentage points. So one could argue that the Ryan reform proposals weren't quite as politically difficult to sell as some warned, but . . . the Romney-Ryan campaign offered serious reform of runaway entitlement programs. And the American people -- or at least enough people in enough states adding up to more than 270 electoral votes -- rejected it.

I feel a bit like when Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman out in California: If you really think that the guy with the tired promises of spending more and taxing more is really going to save you, I can't help you.

Jedidiah Bila:

I always hear "We are a center-right country."

No. A center-right country does not elect Barack Obama twice.

Time to re-evaluate.

Peter Ingemi:

We conservatives will have to double our efforts to teach but the results of the next four years under Barack Obama will do that more effectively than anything else.

Experience keeps a dear school, yet Fools will learn in no other. Get ready America you are about to have a four-year course and the joys of socialism with a president who no longer has an incentive to pretend he is anything but the radical he has always been.

May you be Happy in the choice you have made because you’re not going to get another one for four years.

John Brodigan:

Meh, we lost.

Romney was the best of our choices in the primary.

He put Paul Ryan on a national stage, and my money is on Ryan being Speaker of the House.

We start off with our best on the bench for 2016.

We held the House. We can take the Senate in two.

Take a break from the Internets tomorrow.

The Republic stands. God bless America.

Monica Crowley:

A very slight majority---but a majority---of the American people KNOWINGLY chose four more years (at least) of high unemployment, anemic economic growth, break-the-bank spending, unsustainable and record-breaking deficits and debt, unpopular and bankrupting socialized medicine, and record numbers of people on food stamps and living in poverty. They KNOWINGLY chose four more years ... of this.

...When Obama came into office in January 2009, he had three main, overarching goals: first, to expand government as fast and as widely as possible; the ultimate objective of that was to expand the number of people dependent of government as fast and as widely as possible; and the ultimate objective of THAT was to leverage it into a permanent Democrat voting majority. If you are getting a constant stream of freebies from a government promising to stick it to the other guy while providing you with cradle-to-grave "security," you are less likely to vote out the guy doling out the free stuff.

Obama had a multi-pronged strategy to achieve those three goals, but two were particularly effective. First, he chose a path of divide and conquer to pit Americans against each other in order to make it easier to slide in his radical redistributionist agenda. He divided us by class, gender, race, and age. He turned the American motto, "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of Many, One") upside down. It is now, "Out of One, Many." The American experiment cannot go on as it once did driven by divisions and envy rather than uniting values and common goals.

Jim Geraghty, again:

And just think, Obama thought he inherited a lot of problems back in 2009.

And lastly: me, for what it's worth:

Hurricane Sandy and Crispy Creme Christie didn't lose the election. Racism didn't lose the election. Lack of pandering to various ethnic groups didn't lose the election.

Lack of money didn't lose the election. The choice of Paul Ryan as VP didn't lose the election. Mitt Romney didn't lose the election.

A corrupt Democrat Party and an equally corrupt Vintage Media lost this election.

Folks, whether you are Democrat or Republican, we are set on a course for fiscal collapse.

The math is simple, certain -- and not something with which you can negotiate.

President Obama's debt trajectory of $25+ trillion -- and the Democrats' refusal to pass a budget -- are not matters of conjecture. These points can't be debated.

America just reelected the most fiscally irresponsible government in world history.

No government in world history had ever run a trillion-dollar deficit until Barack Obama and the 110th Congress came along; he has since rung up four such deficits in a row.

No country can survive these levels of debt.

The postmodern Democrat Party and -- most importantly -- old media are responsible for the misery that is to come.

The progressives' plans for unraveling the Constitution have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. If you look at the agenda of the Fabian Socialists, virtually every tenet has come to pass thanks to FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Unchecked retirement benefits, rampant proliferation of public sector unions, the takeover of the educational system with progressive curricula, the moral decay of America's youth promoted by the likes of MTV, unchecked illegal immigration and Balkanization, "free" health care, "free" welfare and a myriad of other entitlements have set the country on a course for institutionalized dependency and -- I can assure you with mathematical certainty -- a fiscal calamity.

The only question now is: how much economic pain will people endure (Kroger and Darden Restaurants being the latest examples of Obama's "concern" for the lower-middle class) before they reject the doomed policies of the collectivist? Or will a true economic collapse, war, or other unforeseen events first conspire to shred what remains of the civil society?

We're either reliving the New Deal or the Weimar Republic, but I can't tell which.

TWEET O' THE DAY: Expect a Romney bump at 5:30pm

Not the real Tim Tebow, but still:

I'm predicting Obama will take an early lead tomorrow... Until all the Republicans get off work. #RomneyRyan2012

— Tim Tebow (@TheTimmyTebow) November 5, 2012

Hat tip: Jennifer.

Public Service Reminder From Mitt Romney

Hat tip: Lee.

CHART: The Obama Defectors and What They Mean

Interested in determining how Barack Obama's support has eroded since 2008, The Washington Post commissioned a poll to determine which segments have fled the candidate of Hope and Change.

Overall, the Post-ABC poll found that 13 percent of 2008 Obama voters have decided to back Mitt Romney.

Now, I'm no math wizard like The New York Times' Nate Silver, purveyor of statistical butt-hurt salve for Lefists...

...but let's use a little arithmetic to see what this might mean.

• Obama won the popular vote over McCain, 69,456,897 - 59,934,814.

• 13 percent of Obama's vote represents about 9,300,000 votes

Even if that figure overstates defections by 50 percent, the race is a statistical tie... without any increased Republican turnout. And if we turn out in droves, if we muster everyone we can to try to save this Republic, then I think we may have an election result that truly is... historic.

MORE OF THE LEFT'S VAUNTED "TOLERANCE": Progressive Scumbags Portray Ritual Murder of Mitt Romney

Dateline Boulder, Colorado:

The Boulder Theater was packed with stilts, skeletons and acrobats on Friday — and that was just on stage — for the first night of ***’s weekend run...

MarchFourth Marching Band kicked off the show with a stunning visual performance. ***’s Day of the Dead/Mayan Apocalypse theme came to life with a “sacrificial ritual” of a band member in a Mitt Romney mask.

A "Day of the Dead" theme "came to life" through the portrayal of a ritual murder?

I redacted the name of the band. They don't deserve to be mentioned.

Because these punks don't have the cojones to depict the ritual murder of a Democrat.


Hat tip: Ari.

ANIMATION: Projected Hurricane Storm Track for Next Eight Days

Courtesy of Zombie:


#Beatdown2012

Creaky, Partisan, Antique Media Finally Wakes Up: "President Obama has a problem with independents"

And the owners of The New York Times and The Washington Post wonder why their papers are bleeding out?

President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.

In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.

That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

For months, independents have been breaking for Romney by double-digits, yet only within the last couple of days has vintage media seen fit to report this inconvenient truth.

Now even if Democrats match GOP turnout -- which is unlikely -- the margin of independents breaking for the GOP are going to make Nate Silver look like Nostradumbass. Just like 2010.

But that's why they're called "vintage media".