Polls are showing that it’s possible Joe Sestak will beat Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania tomorrow; a sweeter outcome I could hardly wish.  A Sestak victory would be another nail in the alarmingly perforated coffin of  Obama’s silly idea of postpartisanship, and it would also show the voters, unlike the media that condescend to them, do not have amnesia.  What Democrat could forget ol’ Arlen’s rude and dismissive treatment of Anita Hill, who did have the subsequently proven advantage of being truthful, after all, and his misguided but nonetheless victorious efforts to elevate to the Court the craziest and least qualified Supreme Court Justice nominee ever, Clarence Thomas, who lives to plague us to this day with his disturbed rantings.

Like rat infested ships passing in the night, Joe Lieberman before him jumped parties when the political winds seemed to favor it, and Arlen has now done the same.  What these two rotting corpses have in common, besides physical repulsiveness, is an utter lack of any principles worn so nakedly that though they might hang onto their jobs, they garner no respect for it, and their opportunism always tarnishes their supporters, win or lose.  For all the much-vaunted political genius of the Obama crowd, betting on these two turncoat losers make them look like, well, nincompoops.  Waxing lyrical about hope and change while proudly supporting oily and duplicitous paragons of insiderism and corruption like Joe and Arlen can only end in ignominy, and the Administration’s refusal to go to Pennsylvania to catch Arlen’s tomatoes shows that somebody there is getting some oxygen to their MSM-addled brain.  Finally.

Of course, they still think Blanche Lincoln, Sarah Palin’s's homelier, corn-pone half-sister, is the bee’s knees, and even the corrupt ol’ cocktailhag Jane Harman still looks good to them in the right lighting, too, so this sudden acceptance of reality is by no means universal.  What they ought to fear, if they have any sense, is that each of their corporate-fellating and universally offensive candidates actually squeak out narrow and base-dispiriting undeserved victories, and the Republicans win anyway.  They will have lost a battle they were too wimpy to fight in the first place, and the “winners” will go on to undermine them and make 2012 a disaster.  Worse, if the “Democrats” they are supporting win, they will have “won” a battle, and 2012 will also be a disaster; maybe an even bigger one, as the democratic voter realizes that voting is pretty much irrelevant.

The unseemly, premature, and ultimately self-defeating capitulation to the Republicans after 2008 continues to unfold…   Let’s hope Pennsylvania stops it.


  1. michlib says:

    Team Obama is great at campaigning, but the effective governing gene seems to be missing. They would be well served to examine ” the great uniter ” W’s playbook. Disasterous for the country no doubt, but they sure did get their projects passed, bipartisanship be damned. Barry’s fetish for reaching out for replicker support would be funny if not for the damaging results.

  2. rmp says:

    Each of the four Senate elections today have very different aspects at play. The M$M will draw all kinds of conclusions which will be mostly useless since the November election is so far off campaign wise. Dylan Ratigan made the most cogent argument for the only valid thing we will learn from the elections is the number of Dems and Repugs who show up to vote. If one of the parties shows much more true enthusiasm by showing up, that could be one trend to pay attention to.