Chambliss wins in landslide; Sarah Palin widely blamed

"JohnHuang2" at FreeRepublic. Since some corporate blocking programs block FR, I usually copy the full article. This one is no exception.

Chambliss wins in landslide; Sarah Palin widely blamed
Liberals are so afraid of Sarah Palin that they rolled out one of their biggest guns to campaign for Jim Martin in Georgia -- Ludacris! (Their biggest ugly gun -- Rosie O'Donnell -- was too busy boarding up the windows on her new TV gig.)

But still the Obama puppet lost to Saxby Chambliss, 57% to 43%. (Al Franken swiftly issued a statement that he's contesting the Georgia results.)

Now that Bush is on his way out, libbies need someone new to hate. The scared little darlings feel so threatened by Sarah, they're mustering their most sophisticated, analytical arguments against her, such as, "Palin is stoopid!", "Palin is dum!", "Palin is a more on!", "Sara is a stoopid dum more on hik!". For convincing "proof", these brainiacs cite their own silly caricatures of her, as "reported" on the pages of their own New York Times. (In the holiday spirit, maybe Bush will pardon liberals for committing idiocy.)

Democrats keep telling themselves that Sarah's "15 minutes" are up, that her star is fading away, which must be why they can't stop whimpering and whining about her. The "fading star" has faded into getting almost as much coverage as Obama. Campaigning in Georgia, the washed-up has-been Sarah drew huge crowds in Savannah, Augusta, Perry, etc. Six-thousand at the Gwinnett Center in Duluth. The Washington Post reacted with impotent rage, using a porno reference in their headline: Palin does Georgia.

Speaking of purported newspapers, liberals at the Anchorage Daily News even attacked Sarah merely for campaigning for Chambliss because Chambliss six years ago defeated their sainted Max Cleland, who apparently is off-limits to criticism because he blew his own limbs off in an accident in Viet Nam.

In an editorial, Matt Zencey sniffed that Chambliss won the 2002 election by "running one of the most reprehensible campaigns of modern times," which itself is one of the most reprehensible lies of modern times. Naturally, liberals keep repeating it. Chambliss ran an ad criticizing Cleland for insisting on absurd union rules for workers at the Homeland Security Department, especially the useless workers. Liberals were so livid at the ad, they threatened to go to the U.N. to pass a resolution.

The ad had pictures of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, but also the U.S. military. Given liberals' fondness for the ol' Kurds-gassing, mass-graves-filling former Butcher of Baghdad, it's anyone's guess which of the other two pictures libbies were complaining about -- bin Laden's or the U.S. military's?

Obama ran attack ads mocking McCain for his war injuries and libbies were probing the size of Bristol Palin's belly but Chambliss "ran the most reprehensible campaign of modern times" because he criticized Cleland for pimping for union thugs.

In response, buffoon Cleland went Mary Mapes on Bush. After getting his butt handed to him, Cleland spent gobs of time on TV attacking Bush for his National Guard service, apparently auditioning for a job at CBS. Cleland complained hysterically that Bush didn't go to Viet Nam to serve his country, as opposed to Bill Clinton, who fought on the battlefields of Arkansas. Service in Viet Nam consisted of "shooting cattle and dogs for fun," "razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan," according to the liberals' other phony war hero, John Kerry.

In an interview on MSNBC at the time, Cleland told both viewers that the lack of pay stubs proved Bush was AWOL during the 12-month period in question, May '72 to May '73. After the White House produced the pay stubs approximately 3 seconds later, Cleland demanded to know why Bush, who got an honorable discharge, left the National Guard early in '73 when the war was practically over.

The losercrats tried the same 'so-and-so is a chicken hawk!' in the Georgia Senate runoff and -- in a total shock -- it flopped again.

But notice something -- I'm not gloating! I've decided to go with a no-gloat approach, and I'm sticking to it. It's awfully tempting to gloat about the fact that polls predicted a very narrow win for Chambliss, who went on to win in a landslide. But am I going to mention how wrong the pundits were? No. That they've got egg on their faces? No. That they look stupid and out of touch? No. Nor am I going to mention how the media were all set to shout from every rooftop that 'Chambliss's narrow win (or hoped-for defeat) is a further repudiation of Bushitler', blah, blah, blah. Not a peep from me either that tonight is a preview of the 2010 midterm elections. Oh, and did you catch the glumness at CNN when the numbers started rolling in? Heh, heh, heh! Whoops, wasn't gloating -- honest!