Howard Stern calls Democrats "Communists", swears he "will never vote for them again"

In an uproar over the delay in the FCC approving a merger between XM Radio and Sirius Radio, Howard Stern swears off ever voting Democrat again. Socialism sounds great until it starts hitting your pocketbook. It's too bad so many out there don't understand that. I'm sorry Stern had to learn his lesson the hard way, but that's what we can expect if Barack Obama is elected in November.

Silly Republicans, Barack Obama isn't the Messiah...

...He's the reincarnation of Muhammad.

Conservatives have roundly criticized what they term as "Obamamania", the almost-messianic obsession too many Americans seem to have with Democrat Barack Obama. From fainting at political rallies, to otherwise-respected new commentators experiencing shivers up their legs when they here Obama speak, to Oprah Winfrey referring to him as "The One", to one San Francisco Gate columnist proclaiming Obama to not really be a mere human, but rather a "light-worker", it appears that many of his supporters attach some sort of quasi-divine attributes to the freshman senator from Illinois.

The controversial cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker has shed even more light on this phenomenon. While many commentators proclaimed the cartoon highly offensive and at least very un-P.C., Obama himself has stepped forward to denounce the cartoon as "offensive to Muslims". And where have we heard condemnation of cartoons as being offensive to Muslims before? That's right, the Danish editorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Nevermind that The New Yorker was actually satirizing all the false rumors that have been floating around about Obama.

Shame, shame on Jyllands Posten for publishing the insulting depictions of Muhammad and shame, shame on The New Yorker for publishing the insulting depiction of Barack Obama, our modern-day prophet.

Well, at least the Democrats aren't criticizing the cartoon because Americans are too stupid to understand the context behind it. Oh wait, I spoke too soon.

Conservatives for Obama?

Thomas Sowell weighs in on the supposed phenomena of avowed conservatives proclaiming such distaste for the actions of Republicans in Congress that they are supporting Barack Obama for President to presumably force a leadership bloodbath within the Republican Party, culling all those addicted to earmarks, and rationalizing that support by citing Obama's doubtful willingness to listen to conservative opinion.

While I am one of those who wholeheartedly supports getting rid of the current congressional Republican leadership, Sowell is absolutely correct in his analysis that presidential elections are too important to cast a vote based on emotional frustration. There are more important things at stake than the electoral punishment of wayward Republicans. While Obama has been rhetorically tacking towards the center in recent weeks in an attempt to attract centrist and center-right voters, that rhetoric is in no way consistent with either his earlier positions during this campaign or his entire political career. Pat Buchanan details Obama's recent political ruthlessness, as does Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, and Bob Herbert of the New York Times.

While this should be of obvious concern to Republican voters contemplating a punishment vote, Democrats who have supported Obama from the beginning should honestly examine that support. Does a candidate who so readily changes his political stripes to suit the target demographic of the week really represent the sort of "Change" and "Hope" they bought into in the first place?