The latest Gallup Poll has Obama leading by a mere two points, but there's also an expanded version that shows Obama winning with a margin of 618 electoral votes to McCain's 151. That poll takes into account the Greater USA which includes all 57 States, the Middle East Countries, Cuba and Venezuela.
Other polls show the race narrowing. Gee, who could have expected that?
But these latest developments have done nothing to reassure me about conservatives who, for eight years sat silent while George Bush destroyed the Republican party and spent more money than Barack Obama could ever hope to raise in illegal donations.
I put more energy into watching television than they did in letting Bush know they were furious. Then again, they probably weren't. Even now, you don't hear a word of criticism from conservatives about their worst ever and always President*
They aren't even mad as hell at liberals. Or maybe they are and they just exspress differently than I do – by whining and moaning and threatening. No, not threatening liberals, threatening to give up.
They never seem to write a follow-up about what happens then.
I mean, I hate to invoke memories of Jeremiah Wright, but it's not "'I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore'… no, no, no… it's 'I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore, so wake me when it's over… or at least before you go-go'"
Just look at the difference: liberals never give up. Before you think they're taking a cue from Churchill, it's that they're more like they're zombies – they keep on coming until you shoot 'em in the head.
But really, somebody point me to a liberal's blog where he's whining about how conservatives are so relentless, and he just hopes he can hold on?!
And don't think it's just because they think they're winning. They were always undaunted. In two previous Presidential elections, prior to the actual voting they danced around and made noises as if they were on some hallucinogen, always vowing to return afterward to delight in their victory. I was always glad I only had to observe this online because I know they were naked while doing it.
And now they're more excited than ever. So how delightful would it be if they failed again?
But the point is, when they lost in 2000 and 2004, they came back stronger… and dumber, but that's another story.
No, say what you will about liberals (and I defy anyone to say something I haven't already), at least they are fiercely determined to prevail, and they give no quarter.
And I mean that two ways, Liberals scream about the homeless, but most wouldn't give a homeless guy a quarter unless he was willing to file a fraudulent ballot in return.
But liberals don't know the meaning "surrender." True they don't know the meaning of many terms, many of those in the Constitution, but the point is, they don't get down. Their aim is to make their understanding of terms – yours
And how perverse can it get? One guy who shall remain nameless, John, also known as the Supreme Commander of Liberal Idiots On Vox said just yesterday (and as usual, without passing judgment himself on the scurrilous Barack Obama and his contemptible tactics which range from innuendo all the way to outright fraud) that we need to, at least in part, blame George Bush for Obama's dirty campaign.
Why not, my faucet's dripping and I blame Bush for that!
But speaking of drips, according to John, Obama couldn't help himself. He merely took a cue from Bush's two campaigns and improved upon it. I don't know about you, but I'd rather Obama learned from Bush that surging and winning is better than cutting and running, but that's probably as far above Obama's pay grade as rational thinking is above John's.
What really struck me though was how similar John's comment was to the one someone at the Politico made the day before – that John McCain himself was, at least in part, responsible for the overwhelmingly negative press he got because he's run a bad campaign. See, the media's motto is just: You Suck, We Reflect.
Which, coincidently, is remarkably similar to John's own motto: I Suck, You Genuflect
But as usual, I'm getting off-track.
I've been calling myself the Naked Conservative. That's because most everything I say is undressed, but now that I see conservatives so apparently willing to give up the fight, embrace defeat… and bitterly cling to it, I feel I need to distinguish myself from those who would be good losers… make that perfect losers, or as liberals call them, "losers."
So how about Ted West: Professional Conservative or Pro Con for short?
I got the idea from software – "freeware," to be specific. Developers are always asking people to upgrade to the "Pro" version. The free version usually has certain features disabled. That sounds a lot like your average conservative, doesn't it?
And of course, the pro version has a price attached to it. Me, I would crawl across broken liberals to spare members of the military from having to salute Barack Obama.
And "freeware conservatives?" What will they do, wait for the next beta version?
Do conservatives even realize there are only three alternatives**? They can fight, they can rollover and submit, or just die. But remember, "Might makes right, flight makes Wright."
Unless they're planning on checking out permanently if Obama wins, they're going to spend the next four years whining, probably louder than now, and to themselves, because I'm tired of hearing it, and conservatives won't even band together as one in pursuit of common ideals and goals. "Every man for himself" seems to be the conservative way… it's not the American Way.
Continuing to fight, and harder, for the sort of candidates and reforms they want is really the only viable alternative. But if they do choose that, 1) I'll be very surprised, and 2) there's no room for any more whining.
But why not get on with the cure? Make the best of things from this day forward? Conservatives should get in liberals' faces instead of crying in their beer which, by the way, they'll be buying a cheaper variety if Obama is elected… if he allows them any at all.
Because if you haven't heard, Howard Dean is running around and salivating over the anticipated Democrat control of all branches of government, with a veto-proof Senate as the cherry on top. According to Dean, that will allow Democrats to quote -RULE- unquote.
Now you can't blame Dean (John is at least partly responsible), history isn't one of the Democrats' strong points, so he's not aware that kings rule. In democracies legislators heed the will of the people and provide the judgment and guidance so that the best ideas become law – at least in theory. But I haven't heard any democratic theory that provides for a single party to rule its, dare I say, subjects?
And the subject is you, or at least you will be.
Even if we lose, like any liberal knows implicitly, the fight begins anew. Conservatives may not realize that because they're not used to fighting. It appears they don't even have a mind for it. But I'll never understand how, even when their backs are against the wall, they won't fight? Walls provide some support, but they're also the perfect background for a firing squad.
* Unless Obama wins
** A fourth option: going Postal – a bit premature, but since it's a liberal tactic they'd be at least partly responsible