The opinions expressed on this blog are the personal opinions of our bloggers, and in no way reflect the opinions of Comedy Central, MTV Networks or Viacom.
Warning
Some blogs or websites linked from this site may contain objectionable or uncensored content. Comedy Central is not affiliated with these websites and makes no representations or warranties as to their content.
The brilliant minds behind Conservatives4Palin have taken a long hard look at the chess pieces on the board. They've rolled the evidence around in their heads. They've tortured themselves mentally by studying every clue from every conceivable direction. They've driven themselves to near madness interpreting the auguries of St. John of Patmos in The Book of Revelation. But it was all worth it. Because now they've totally cracked The Mysterious Case of When Sarah Palin Will Announce That She Is Coming to Save America.
The solution is elementary, my dear terrorist: February the 6th 2011 in the Year of Our Lord 2011. Because Ronaldreaganronaldreaganronaldreagan…
Twice in the last month we’ve had the sincere and unbelievable privilege of watching the Palins up close as the Governor delivered two important addresses in our home state of Illinois.
In both speeches, Palin cited President Ronald Reagan as a driving influence in her life and political career, drawing great attention to the fact Reagan was born and educated in Illinois — the state in which we believe Palin will officially launch her 2012 presidential bid on February 6th, 2011… Reagan's 100th birthday. She'll do it — we betcha — in either Tampico or Eureka, two cities in our state intimately connected to Reagan.
Lest you be led to believe that these people are something less than serious political scientists whose analyses should maybe not be taken all tat seriously, please continue reading and prepare to have your prejudices punched in the groin, you dirty liberal scumsack…
As supporters of Hillary Clinton, who worked tirelessly for her for two years until she suspended her presidential campaign in June of 2008, we know what it's like to watch someone we respect and admire — someone we know would make an excellent president — come under constant and unrelenting attack from the Left and its propaganda arm (the paid spokespeople like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper, and Rachel Maddow in the agenda-driven media).
We see, clearly, the Left thumbing through the Alinsky Methods playbook it employed against Hillary in 2008, desperately trying to sink Palin early, to hobble her, to take her out of contention so the media can install a losing, mayonnaise-and-cucumbers milquetoast sandwich "it's his turn" Republican like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty as the Republicans' 2012 nominee — to further the media’s pursuit of handing Barack Obama a second term.
Uh oh! They're onto us! Quick, everybody hide in the nearest bathhouse!
Well, the SCOTUS rumors have already started to fly, and a lot of them are kind of silly. But this one here from Sen. Orrin Hatch is one that's so serious and so not-any-kind-of-conservative-shit-stirring that I hesitate to even call it a rumor at all…
Sen. Orrin Hatch says he's heard Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name mentioned in connection with the Supreme Court vacancy brought about by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.
Hatch didn't elaborate in an interview Monday. Appearing with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on NBC's "Today" show, the Utah Republican said only, "I heard Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix."
Hillary Clinton? Hmmmm… That would be an interesting person in the mix. Do you know whose I heard today? William Ayers. (Just now, when I was reading aloud as I typed.) I think that would be an interesting person in the mix.
Oh, and Michael Moore. That would also be an interesting person in the mix.
What about that fat transvestite from all those John Waters movies? Is she still alive? Who cares, doesn't matter. She would be a very interesting person in the mix.
Most people forget about li'l ol' New York State, with its shrinking violet politicians and its Aw Shucksy down-home folkiness. But Rep. Charlie Rangel's recent improprieties have sort of dragged New York kicking and screaming back into the limelight. And, since it's already here, we might as well use this opportunity to examine it through a Colbert-approved politiscope. 'Cause who knows when we'll be hearing from it again…
This is the part of the movie where it smash-cuts to "Three Years Later" and we see U.S. bomber jets flying over New York City, dropping load after load of Bibles while the President sits in her Oval Office laughing hysterically.
Good news for all you poor ol' international corporate conglomerates who've wanted nothing more than to have some small modicum of say in American politics!
Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
The ruling was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace will corrupt democracy.
Oh, my. I hadn't thought of that! Could something like that even happen? I mean, what would an America that had been corrupted by corporate money and influence even look like? Could we be possibly losing this glimmering populist utopia we know so well?
The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.
Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it.
Look out for the network television premiere of the new musical Obama Antichrist Superstar in the late summer of '12.
Who is the "Most Admired Woman" in the entire U.S. of A.? I'll give you some hints: She's a controversial political figure. She's a mom. And as far as I know she's never fired a gun at anything, except maybe her husband that one time.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues her reign as the Most Admired Woman in the eyes of Americans, but barely edges out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin this year, 16% to 15%. [...]
Clinton has now been named Most Admired Woman 14 times since 1993, spanning her career as first lady, New York senator, and now secretary of state. The three times she has not finished first during this time, she earned second place (to Laura Bush in 2001 and to Mother Teresa in 1995 and 1996).
The brilliant minds behind Conservatives4Palin have taken a long hard look at the chess pieces on the board. They've rolled the evidence around in their heads. They've tortured themselves mentally by studying every clue from every conceivable direction. They've driven themselves to near madness interpreting the auguries of St. John of Patmos in The Book of Revelation. But it was all worth it. Because now they've totally cracked The Mysterious Case of When Sarah Palin Will Announce That She Is Coming to Save America.
RSS
Well, the SCOTUS rumors have already started to fly, and a lot of them are kind of silly. But this one here from Sen. Orrin Hatch is one that's so serious and so not-any-kind-of-conservative-shit-stirring that 
Good news for all you poor ol' international corporate conglomerates who've wanted nothing more than to have some small modicum of say in American politics!
