Handy Resources New!

Understanding the 2012 Election New!

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files Updated!

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

I have a business associate who wrote his PhD dissertation on Moby Dick and the Mythology of Oil. I asked him about all the analysis that has been done on Moby Dick. The book is four or five hundred pages, but tens of thousands of pages have been written analyzing it. Was Herman Melville that smart to tie all of that stuff together in there?

Bob said that Herman Melville was very well versed in the whaling industry and he wrote about things that were real. So the associations that people make are because they exist in reality and Melville wrote about reality. It's not that he had to deliberately craft them in there—they already existed.

You may be wondering, what does this have to do with democrats being evil scumbags? I'm glad you asked.

The Republican party is trying to destroy itself. We lost the election, so now everyone is fighting internally and the party is in chaos.

This is exactly what the democrats want. But they didn't orchestrate it. The democrats are not that smart.

That's just one of those unintended consequences that, in retrospect, you realize was the natural flow of things given the variables at work.

I don't know if we've ever had a US President who was less qualified in background, ability and ideology than Barack Obama. And remember, candidates for that honor include Jimmy The Worthless One Carter and Bill Clinton (pardon my language).

We do not elect people with Obama's lack of ability and experience or his Marxist tendencies. We didn't elect Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, McGovern . . . We did elect Jimmy The Worthless One Carter and Bill Clinton (pardon my language), but those were both special cases.

But somebody figured out a way for America to cut its own throat.

Dukakis failed. McGovern failed. Kerry and Mondale and Gore and all the other Marxists failed. The evil buzzards who run these things were thinking "Hmmmmm. What do all those Leftist white guys have in common? How can we trick people into electing someone as bad as these morons that America has rejected?"

I've got it! What if we can find a way to get people to completely ignore a candidate's politics and background and experience and ability and ideology and temperament? What if . . . follow me here . . . what if we find a way for it to not be about those things, but about how cool and hip and happening the voter himself is? Something like, I don't know, like the very first ever black President.

Then the substance of the candidate doesn't matter. He doesn't have to be anything special—it doesn't matter what he is. People love to get caught up in something "historic."

Nobody voted for Obama because of his "message" or his ability or his vision for America. Obama won because so many people wanted to be able to say they were so cool that they voted for the black man. That was an orchestrated tactic that worked.

Because Obama is half black and because so many Americans are so anxious to come across as cool and open-minded, Obama won the election. This caused the Republicans to wonder "Why did we lose the election?"

But they couldn't actually identify why they lost. That's the genius of running a black man. You have to vote for him or you're a racist—that's the part the democrats orchestrated—but the natural extension of that that is that the party he beat can't even identify why they got beat. That's off limits and against the rules, too.

So the Republicans are trying to figure out what they can change to fix it, all the while carefully avoiding getting close to the real reason. That's like trying to find your keys in the kitchen 'cause you don't want to reach in the toilet where you know you dropped them.

We have people within the Republican party calling for the abolition of the Republican party. We have people saying the party has to change.

The evil people who orchestrated Obama's candidacy didn't orchestrate that. They wish they had. They are enjoying the specter of the demise of the one party in America who is not insane. They would love to have devised that. But they didn't. They are not that smart.

Republicans destroying themselves is just a happy bonus for them that just naturally flowed from the same dynamics that caused a complete waste of skin to rise to the Presidency of the United States.

Republicans are struggling to understand the dynamics underlying their defeat in the last election. They are analyzing what they need to change to appeal to voters they didn't attract in that election.

I wonder if perhaps our problem wasn't so much our message as something more amorphous. I wonder if perhaps the average voter on the other side was compelled by an allure that had more to do with their candidate's persona than his position on the issues and his ability to deal with the problems that face America.

What do you think?

Nah . . . that mamby-pamby touchy feely stuff may work for someone who has to appeal to a radio audience. As for me: Obama is an America-hating waste of skin and the morons that support him are complete freaking idiots. So are the Republicans who can't figure that out.

But what do we change? People wanted to be cool by voting for the black guy. How are we going to change that by courting gay Latina women who want legalized dope and abortions?

We didn't lose because of our message, and Obama didn't win because of his message. His message is that America is evil and people who love America are evil. That's not a message that resonates with enough people to win the election.

But it doesn't matter. Nobody who voted for the imbecile was paying any attention to his message. If his "message" had been exactly what Romney's was saying, the outcome would still have been exactly the same.

Representative Maxine Waters told a press conference that because of sequestration "over 170 million jobs will be lost". There are 134 million people currently working in America.

That's still not as bad as that lunatic Nancy Pelosi. She said that if we didn't pass the stimulus 500 million American jobs would be lost.

What a bunch of complete freaking idiots. The only people more stupid than them are the ones that vote for them.

Have you ever played wooden Indian? One person stands in the middle and stiffens his body. Everyone else stands around him in a circle. Then the one in the middle falls, stiff-legged and stiff body, into the crowd and they push him around and around the circle.

Obama is the wooden Indian. He's standing on a pedestal and every time he tries to fall the mindless morons standing around won't let him fall off his pedestal.

Consider the man whose ex-wife is struggling to make ends meet even living a very austere existence. The guy fought to keep her from getting anything in the divorce, even though he had the means to take care of her, and now she is struggling to raise his kids while he continues to try to make her suffer.

This is a man who pursued her hard and begged her to marry him. How does a man who was so desperate to marry her now treat her like this? How can a person treat someone he once loved that way?

Answer: He can't. He never really loved her.

The person (not a man) who treats a woman like that never loved her—he loved his wife to the extent that she made him look good.

You've seen this—you know that people can have a tendency to use people to make themselves look good.

What's that? Why yes, now that you mention it, that does remind me of Obama supporters.

The analogy doesn't track exactly for all the aspects of the mindless morons who support Obama, but the point is that people sometimes praise and exalt other people because they like the association with themselves.

This is the secret to Obama's support. The man is a cipher. There is nothing to him. His support lies in the fact that the people who do follow him only do it because they think it's the cool thing to do. It's a brilliant strategy because he doesn't have to do or be anything. His brain dead followers will not allow him to be anything but superlative because any tarnish on him reflects on them.

The man is nothing. He hasn't won any support with his brilliance or ability. That's why his idiocy and ineptitude has never cost him any support.

---

You saw Obama in the first debate. That was the real Obama. The cipher. The nothing. That was Obama up against someone who wasn't drunk on the Kool-Aid. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, he's used to just walking out and having everyone swoon. He's not accustomed to having to actually perform. The idiots hail him as a genius by the idiots no matter what he does.

You saw the same thing when he figured he'd run over and get the IOC to give the Olympics to Chicago. They said "Who are you?" They weren't drunk on the Kool-Aid. His amazing personality wasn't enough to influence someone who's brain is still functioning . . . or who doesn't have a vested interest in making him look amazing so you look amazing by association.

He does have presence—he does have some charm. But you have to be under the influence to not see through it. This is why Rush Limbaugh used to speed up the audio of the man. When you had to actually listen to the content he lost all of his Svengali effect.

---

The man drives me crazy. I'm not sure what is more maddening, listening to him spout his lies or knowing that 50% of the people who vote are stupid enough to believe him.

Drives. Me. Crazy.

He says: Work together. You know what that means. "Do it my way" He talks about "Partisan bickering." Yep, that means "Not doing it my way."

---

Barack Obama is a liar.

DO. NOT. TRUST. THIS MAN. Why would you trust someone when every single thing he has ever told you has turned out to be a lie? Why?

It's brilliant, did you see that? When I said that, I am the one that sounded like a crazy person. I flat out said that the President of the United States is a liar. That's crazy talk. A man in that position . . . crazy talk.

But the fact is, Barack Obama is a liar.

The debt held by the United States today is 72% of the GDP, in 2004 it was 37% of the GDP. And Obama says . . . just flat out says, doesn't even try to be clever about it . . . that he has decreased the debt.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. I don't know if I subscribe to date Dinesh D'Souza theory on Barack Obama, simply because I don't think he is that smart. It's not that I don't think he is that evil, that he doesn't want to destroy the economy of United States. But I just don't see him as being that smart.

Everything I see points to him being an idiot. He's not an evil genius, he's just evil. But he doesn't have to be an evil genius. The American people that listen to him are even bigger idiots than he is.

I hate that. I hate that, by calling Obama what he is, I sound like a million other two-bit whiners who post on the internet. But, hey, at least I can spell . . . most of the time.

"Obama is a liar! He wants to destroy America!"

That's just one more thing that I hate about the man—that he makes me sound crazy just by accurately describing him

I want to sound like a dignified, credible statesman. I want to say "It is apparent that the President does not share my vision of the path to economic prosperity" (add your own Sean Connery accent in there to lend credibility.

But the simple fact is that the man is a liar and a moron and a . . . a . . . a putz. He's a putz. And by making me point it out he makes me sound like the one who's a loser and a nobody . . .

Wait a minute . . . oh, crap.

You think Obama can do something that will make his mindless supporters say "Hey! Wait a minute." Here's a case in point: Obama came up with sequestration. Then he tells the nation that it's a very bad idea.

---

Since Obama has acknowledged that his sequester idea was a really bad idea, read this article called When good ideas become bad ideas.

Then read this article called Turning bad ideas into good ideas.

That's all.

Last night was Obama's STFU speech, where he explained to us how amazing he is and how crazy it is for us to have this whole democracy thing when he is the expert in everything. If you have a drinking game on condescending phrases you were passed out 12 minutes in. I especially liked the part where he was lecturing us about manufacturing. I know at the plant where I work whenever we need an expert in manufacturing we always scour the want ads for community organizers.

But since he is the Smartest Person in the History of Everything, he is thinking on a much higher plane than us mere mortals. As a public service, I hereby offer these plain language explanations of the amazing things that he said.

What Obama said	What it means
"We have cleared away the rubble of crisis"	This is George Bush's fault!
"The American people don't expect government to solve every problem."	So I have to keep educating them
"The fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15."	Benghazi? What? Look! The planet is burning up!!!!
"But they do expect us to put the nation's interests before party."	It's anti-American to disagree with me
"These cuts -- known here in Washington as 'the sequester' -- are a really bad idea."	I'm counting on you forgetting that it was MY idea.
"the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans."	Evil people
"None of us will get 100 percent of what we want."	We are going to do it my way
"Let's set party interests aside"	Put down your gloves so I can hit you!
" . . . the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities"	You aren't paying enough tax
"Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform"	Raise taxes
"Let me repeat: Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime.	I am going to raise your taxes
And that's why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class "	I'm going to raise your taxes
And this year, my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet	I'm going to raise your taxes
"We need to make those investments."	I'm going to raise your taxes
"We must do more to combat climate change"	You guessed it! I am going to raise your taxes.
"Study after study shows . . . "	I'm lying to you.
"Why are -- why would we be against that?"	How dare you question me?!!"
We don't need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad or occupy other nations.	Drones
"Nonpartisan commission"	Valerie Jarrett
"America is not a place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny."	You are a racist
"Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs."	Wuuu . . .? I'm sorry, I have absolutely no translation for this in any known language in the galaxy . . .

---

1. This material is important, and it could be interesting, but it's not presented in an exciting way. It's a lot of words and not some of my best material. Hey, anything worth having is worth working for.

2. If you cared about it you've probably already figured it out.

Once upon a time we set up a trap to catch a stray cat that was causing problems. I came out of the house one morning to find Blackie in the trap. She was freaking out. I opened the door and Blackie shot out like a rocket.

A couple of days later, Mouse (another of our cats) got caught in the trap. A little background: Mouse is the dumbest cat I've seen or heard about. Just dumb. No brains at all. This cat is Joe Biden dumb.

I opened the trap and Mouse sat there. He looked around but didn't make any move to get out. Finally he ambled out of the trap.

Awareness makes a being intolerant of certain conditions. Prisoners who are more intelligent are more vulnerable to torture techniques like sensory deprivation, psych ops, etc. Knowing and caring make you vulnerable compared to someone who doesn't know or doesn't care.

This is why you were unable to watch the Obama's STFU speech. You are too intelligent to be subjected to that torture. But maybe, like me, you heard excerpts (or copied the transcript for your blog).

My head is going to explode. Barack Obama is wringing his hands over "The family with two kids living on minimum wage . . . " This is an echo of Bill Clinton (pardon my language) who moaned that "You just can't raise a family on 5.15 dollars an hour."

No. You can't. You're not supposed to! By the time you have a wife and two kids you are supposed to be worth more than that to an employer. If you have been in the workforce more than six months or so and you're still making minimum wage you are either going to school or really need to be going to school.

You get it. I could explain it all day long, but you get it. I know you do 'cause you're reading this. And anyone smart enough to read is too smart to fall for Barack Obama's BS.

Here's what you might not get—how does anybody fall for that? How in the world is any sentient being so astonishingly stupid as to listen to that man and say "Yep, yep, yep. He's exactly right."?

You keep hearing how wonderful Obama is. You don't see it. He has screwed up every single thing he has touched. He's lecturing us about manufacturing systems having never set foot in a factory or even a classroom where they teach anything like that. In fact, you are completely at a loss to find one topic you'd trust his opinion on.

It's an odd thing to say about a man who's achieved the Presidency of United States, but he is an individual completely devoid of achievement.

How in the world does he get away with being so astonishingly inept at his job? How in the ever loving world is any person fooled for a second by this imbecile?

The problem is not that the president is an idiot. He is an idiot, but is it possible that the people that he is talking to are all so astonishingly stupid?

Try on this lens and see if it brings things into focus:

There is a phenomenon called the Dalton Effect where a person is always bragging up his friends and associates to aggrandize himself. If I'm not mistaken, this tendency is named after one Todd Dalton, a narcissistic engineer who was featured in the Teknolix Chronicles.

Here's how this works: You work with a guy who tells you he has a neighbor who is a world renowned expert in . . . whatever, like military encryption algorithms. And he has a friend who is a world champion UFC fighter, and a guy he goes to church with who retired from test fighting the hottest top secret jets, and a guy he plays cards with who the pentagon consults with on strategy.

You don't know any of these people. They are all so much better than you—in fact, this guy doesn't seem to know any ordinary schmos other than you and the rest of the people at the plant.

The funny thing is that you may not realize is that when this co-worker is playing cards or going to church or talking to his neighbors, he's telling them how amazing everybody he works with is.

You get it. You understand that this not about building up the people he knows. This is about how amazing he is for rubbing shoulders with amazing people.

Enter the Obama voter.

All of these idiots who are swooning over how wonderful Obama don't give a crap about Obama. They are all about how cool they are because they support someone as incredibly superhumanly cool as Obama. So they have a deeply vested interest in him being absolutely amazing, because their self-worth is tied to his amazingosity.

That is why he can do no wrong. No matter what he says or does he cannot fall from the pedestal. His worshippers won't let anyone—including him—rob them of being so incredibly super cool that they support someone as incredibly super cool as him.

Obama doesn't have to be a Messiah because his worshippers need a Messiah so desperately that any clay idol will work. The secret is

That's power. Fifty million idiots worship you and you don't have to be anything special. That is power.

The idea of a Rosetta Stone for Obama's bs is a good one. Unfortunately, I just wasn't able to pull it off. But some of the ones I did were even less funny than the others. Maybe I'm just turning into a person that feels--this whole Obama thing is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Anyway, these are the ones that are every bit as true, but not funny enough to make the A list. And if you read the A list you know what a low standard that is!

What he said	What he meant
" . . . there is much progress to report."	I'm counting on the fact that you haven't been paying attention.
" . . . no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like or who you love."	You are a racist!
"But we can't ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and the most powerful."	People who have money are evil
"And I am open to additional reforms from both parties,"	LMAO
"Let's agree -- let's agree, right here, right now, to keep the people's government open and pay our bills on time and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America."	It's your fault that I'm a bad President
"Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it's our job to make sure that they do."	I refuse to let a 225 year old document define my job! Oh . . . and I'm going to raise your taxes
"Our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007."	This is all George Bush's fault!
"But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. A family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line."	You have a wife and two kids and still make minimum wage? You go, Obama supporter!
And I ask this Congress to finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year"	Ha-hah! You thought I was serious about creating jobs? You chump!
The United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades"	I am going to raise your taxes"
It is this kind of prosperity -- broad, shared, built on a thriving middle class -- that has always been the source of our progress at home.	People with money are evil.

So the Boy Scouts were talking about letting gays be scouts and leaders.

What is there to say that you haven't already heard? So let's talk about making dictionaries.

The fine people who make dictionaries get a crew of researchers together and they pore over all kinds of written material. They read magazines and speeches and newspapers and just about anything that has words. And from all that material they pull out what people intended to say when they used words.

I found that really interesting. I don't know what I was expecting. Did I figure they got the best linguistic minds together (and who decides who that is?) and they wrote down what words are supposed to mean? I don't know. Anyway, the dictionary definition is how they are used, not how they're supposed to be used.

I'll give you an example. When you say you're feeling "frustrated" that comes from a root word meaning to thwart. So if you're frustrated, it means you're blocked—that your efforts were met with resistance. Usage has migrated the meaning to refer to a feeling.

So far so good.

But if someone is "aggravating" you, what does that mean? Well, it doesn't mean anything. To aggravate means to make worse—to make more grave. So you can't really be aggravated, but someone can aggravate a situation or a problem. You can be annoyed or exasperated or irritated. But you can't be aggravated . . . I guess if you're sick or wounded your condition could be aggravated.

So if you're using that word to mean irritated, you're using it wrong.

But don't stop, because I guarantee you that in a few years that will be proper usage. That's how language works. You don't ever hear anyone say "Are you not diverted?" Two hundred years ago that meant "amused," from the Latin word for fun. "Hopefully" will soon be standard usage, and (gritting my teeth) eventually probably even atrocities like "the reason why" will work their way into accepted usage.

We use hundreds of words that probably make no sense based solely on their root and origins. But we don't realize it, 'cause they've evolved into standard usage.

That's the way definitions work.

I didn't fool you for a second, did I? You knew I was going to bring this back to current affairs.

The 'gay rights' crowd knows how definitions work. It's not what's right or wrong or what does or does not make sense. It's usage. "Time makes more converts than Reason," Thomas Paine said.

So they want to shove our thinking about things in the direction they want.

Let's get the caveats and provisos out of the way: I don't care if you're gay. This isn't about whether you get to love on males, 'cause frankly the more guys that don't appreciate the astonishing things that only a female can do for you, the more females that are available for those of us who do.

This is about calling things something they aren't.

The standard approach that the sexually confused have adopted is to equate gay rights with Civil Rights. Nope. Not gonna' let you get away with that. Being gay is not the same thing as being black.

Being black—or Latino or Asian, or white for that matter—is something you're born with that has nothing to do with your choices. Being gay is a behavior. And you can bet your posterior adipose tissue I'm going to assess you on your behavior.

Okay, so you might say that being gay is not a choice. I think you're wrong, but it doesn't matter. It's functionally irrelevant. Let's say that you're gay and you have no say in the matter.

So you feel all bad 'cause your sexual tendencies make you want to do things society doesn't allow you to do? Boo-freaking hoo. How does that make you any different from anyone else in society?

Do you think that straight males don't want to start at the northwest corner of the local mall and screw our way to the southeast? That's what our sexual preferences dictate. Do we get to do that?

What makes us humans is our ability to do what we're supposed to do, not what we want to do.

So some lady called in to the radio station talking about how horrible it was that the Boys Scouts didn't allow gays. She said "Don't you want all kinds of people?"

No! Oh, hell no!

All kinds of people? Seriously? I don't want criminals and pedophiles and reprobates and thieves. No, I don't want all kinds of people.

Hold on, Did I just equate gay behavior with criminal behavior?

I just equated behavior with behavior. I'm not going to apologize for excluding people who make bad choices from my club.

See, I don't shower in the women's locker room, even though I may have no sexual intentions toward the particular women in that locker room. It's not a behavior I get to do, because women are the group that I have preference for.

So men who have a preference for men don't get to shower with me or go on a campout with scouts.

And as for getting beat up or harassed because you're gay, that's already covered under Human Rights.

This morning Dennis Miller was talking about the drones deal. First off, some bad guys need to get killed. I don't care what country your passport is, if you're a terrorist you need to die. So I'm not going to bash The Amateur just for killing bad guy American citizens with drones. If I know him, he screwed it all up—the guy could wreck an anvil in a snowbank with a cotton swab—so I reserve the right to call him a moron for the way he did it. But I'm not going to say you never take out an American citizen with a drone.

The point that Dennis Miller made was that Obama will never get a second's flack for it. The Press is giving him a complete pass on this—just like they did on Benghazi and dozens of other things that would have taken out anyone else. He said "Can you imagine if George Bush had done the exact same thing?"

Indeed.

Then Dennis said something like "I'm just flabbergasted by the power of this man's personality . . . " and I got all ready to scream at the radio, but Dennis finished his sentence. " . . . or whatever he represents to these people."

It's not his personality. He does have this great persona, but I can't be the only one who is annoyed by his narcissistic, arrogant, superior attitude. You've got to know the man never spent a dime on bathroom deodorizer.

The point is that Dennis is right. This is not about Barack Obama; it's about all the little idiots for which he represents something that they are incapable of understanding and scared to death that it's too fragile to examine.

Oh, bullcrap!

There is nothing more to say on that topic.

---

---

You know me. I'm just a schmo guy, not a professor or nuclear physicist. Why am I able to figure out what apparently stumps some of the best minds in the country?

It still surprises how many really smart people still have no clue what happened in the last election. No clue.

They can't be lacking the intelligence—it seems more like a game—like pretending they don't know. It's like they have intentionally walled off the rooms in their brains that hold the answers. No admittance. Not allowed to look in there.

There is one and only one explanation for what happened in the last two elections. Yeah, I know, we had some problems with getting the message out and Obama's side cheated like the casino security office was on fire. But Obama won because he is super cool Barack Obama and his voters are idiots who don't pay any attention to anything else.

You are wasting your time and mental energy if you try to figure out how his message out-resonates ours. The man has no message!

Obama cannot say or do anything to alienate his base. Obama cannot turn away any voters with his actions, ideology, background, or ability, because he never won any voters with any of those things.

Jerry Doyle says it's a problem with the Republican party. He says the party is "Too white, too right, and too uptight." He doesn't really believe that, he just likes to hear himself say cutesy phrases. He's like people who know nothing about cars but say that Ford stands for Found On Road Dead. Cutesy sayings are a stupid thing to base philosophies on.

If you must use cute little rhyming phrases, why not use one that makes sense? The Obama voter is unaware and doesn't care.

I have a close personal friend who has had excruciating pain in his leg for four months. This is like when you hit your funny bone, but it does not subside and it lights up his whole right leg. Constantly. Intense, crippling pain . . . as I understand it.

The interesting thing is that the problem is not in my close personal friend's leg. If he were to cut off the leg where all the pain is, he would still have the pain even though he no longer had the leg. The problem is in his back (which really doesn't hurt).

That's why he's treating his back and didn't cut off his leg.

I would suggest that the Republicans hold off on massive changes to their message until they understand the problem.

Ann Coulter mostly shares my opinion in her latest column. She is right about not changing our message when our message is not the problem. She is right—we don't need to be more like the democrats. Holy crap, perish the thought!

She makes a good case that it's just borderline impossible to beat an incumbent—but that still misses the point. Any other incumbent with that moron's record would have gotten clobbered in the last election.

That's the point.

I used to work with a guy named Weston. Every time he made what he thought was a good zinger, he had to repeat it. "Dude, I'm all 'Did you comb your hair with an egg beater?' "

Forgive me for pulling a Weston here. Any other politician with Barack Obama's ability, ideology, and record would have gotten clobbered in the 2012 election. Fact.

To be fair, the reason Ann Coulter doesn't correctly identify the problem is because she can't correctly identify the problem—the rules don't allow her to.

This goes right to the brilliance of putting in this Manchurian Candidate in the first place. You damage yourself more than him when you correctly identify the issue. It's the old Clinton Immunity Syndrome. The more outrageous your action, the more likely you'll get away with it.¹

If you're a me, you can say that The Amateur is a complete freaking moron and you could pick a random idiot from any college campus that would be every bit as qualified for that job.

But if you're an Ann Coulter, you have to play Michael Medved. You have to say "I've got to believe the man has some competence." You have to sound moderate and reasonable and talk like he has some legitimate qualifications for the position.

But what if he doesn't?! What if he's a complete freaking idiot, hates America, is a pathetic, weak, lame excuse for a leader, not qualified to be president of the High School chess club much less the occupant of the Oval Office?

How do you say that and not sound crazy?

---

¹In fact, Clinton himself would say it when his misconducts were revealed. He'd said "These allegations, they're . . . well, they're outrageous!"

That's true. That's absolutely true. He didn't say the accusations weren't true; he said they were outrageous. They were outrageous, and, as it turned out, they were true.

There's another factor at play here. Nobody really wants to acknowledge that the Presidency is such an irrelevant position that someone no better than your neighbor's son who lives in her basement playing video games all day could do it.

This started with Clinton. Clinton was a man with no dignity. He wasn't someone you can look up to. He was a sniveling, low-class piece of trash. And he was President of the United States.

That's where it started in the modern era. We got used to someone who's nothing special being in that most important position in the entire world.

Then we had Bush. Bush was a man of substance and character. He was the kind of man that could be the figurehead of a nation. But the democrats wouldn't have that. They demeaned him at every turn. They used all of their resources trying to paint him as a juvenile, and an imbecile and a man not capable of the office.

Did they understand what they were doing? Were they intentionally reducing the Presidency to something small enough that Barack The Amateur Obama could fill it?

Democrats don't care. They have no love for the country or its institutions or they wouldn't be democrats. But we care enough that we keep pretending that the man who continuously voted "present" as a Senator has any legitimate qualifications to run our amazing country.

Did you see that? Did you see what those imbeciles made me do?

I just said that democrats don't have any love for this country or its institutions. That makes me sounds pretty extreme. By being extreme those degenerates made me sound extreme.

But what do you say when you are completely sane and it's clear that someone has no love for my country?

I've tried—I actually have. I've role played that I had a radio show like Michael Medved and I had to sound like the people who I watch trying to tear down the country for their own purposes are legitimate. I've tried.

Welcome to the Frank Leany program. Today we're going to discuss the economic situation. The democrats in Congress who have proposed a reasonable plan are . . . well, they . . . actually the ones who sound pretty reasonable are . . . gimme a minute. The democrats that I always look to when I need a reasoned, honest view of the other side are . . .

I'm sorry, there just aren't any.

How am I supposed to pretend like the center is somewhere in between the correct views I hold and the wrong views they hold? And keep doing that while they keep moving further away? Am I supposed to watch what they do then act like they're not evil, just because pointing it out makes me seem crazy?