First, the windup:

The last time a Democrat sat in the White House, he faced a nonstop witch hunt by his political opponents. Prominent figures on the right accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from drug smuggling to murder. And once Republicans took control of Congress, they subjected the Clinton administration to unrelenting harassment — at one point taking 140 hours of sworn testimony over accusations that the White House had misused its Christmas card list.

…as opposed to the eight years of civility, reason and earnest goodwill that marked the Bush presidency. We remember it only too well. At times it was quite frankly embarrassing to watch the Democrats bend over backwards to accommodate, praise and work with the Bushitler. In Krugman’s alternate universe, that is.

Now it’s happening again — except that this time it’s even worse. Let’s turn the floor over to Rush Limbaugh: “Imam Hussein Obama,” he recently declared, is “probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.”

For eight long years, every single network except FOX and pretty much every single newspaper except the Washington Times in the nation acted as if Shaitan himself had invaded the White House and thrown the nation into a long, dark, horrible night of terror and tyranny (and the occasional sacrifice of virgins), but all of this was nothing for the lying likes of Krugman. Or, at the very least, not near as bad as one talk radio show host throwing a snide remark in the general direction of Krugman’s Obamessiah.

Are you beginning to see why we keep telling you that all it will really take to defeat the liberal fascists is to just stand up to them just for once? Heck, at the rate the whiny liberal hysterics are going, a simple “boo!” from behind their backs ought to suffice. If they were fwench, and to compare them to the fwench would be a huge insult to the fwench army, we could accomplish it simply by speaking sternly to them in German.

To get a sense of how much it matters when people like Mr. Limbaugh talk like this, bear in mind that he’s an utterly mainstream figure within the Republican Party; bear in mind, too, that unless something changes the political dynamics, Republicans will soon control at least one house of Congress. This is going to be very, very ugly.

Depends entirely upon which side of the fight you’re standing and it’s been pretty clear whose side you’re on for quite a little while, but thank you for the gift of your fear. Or should we say “pants-soiling, unholy terror?”

So where is this rage coming from? Why is it flourishing? What will it do to America?

Depending upon the size of the tidal wave rolling in, we might just be able to save whatever remains of our nation and put her back on the course our Founding Fathers laid out for us and bought and paid for with their blood.

Anyone who remembered the 1990s could have predicted something like the current political craziness. What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals — even very moderate liberals — legitimate.

What “very moderate” liberals are you talking about, pray tell? But you’re right. We don’t consider their government legitimate when they’re ruling in a highly and clearly illegitimate fashion. For that “legitimacy” thing, check the Constitution. Study it, it’s not that long of a document, as those of us who actually have read it know.

Mr. Obama’s election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn’t, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage.

“RAAAAACISTS!”

Took you bloody well long enough, old chap. If you’d held out for two more paragraphs before bollocksing up your entire argument by throwing that old canard out we’d have lost a goodly amount of money in the Imperial War College pool. As it is, we must now thank you for the gift of your predictability as well.

Are you a sailor, by any chance? We should like it of all things to have a toast in your honour when we’re spending our winnings. “Bottoms up”, don’t you know?

By the way, I’m not talking about the rage of the excluded and the dispossessed: Tea Partiers are relatively affluent, and nobody is angrier these days than the very, very rich.

We know rather a lot of Tea Partiers who would welcome the news very much indeed that they’re “relatively affluent” if not downright “very, very rich” — are we supposed to spit when we say rich? — right after they get off the ground from rolling around in hysterical laughter.

On the other hand, if the Tea Party is, as you imply, powered by the Evil Rich, then there are quite a lot of them still around and that would seem to be a good thing for our nation.

Or you could just be right full of buffalo droppings. We’ll go with that.

Wall Street has turned on Mr. Obama with a vengeance: last month Steve Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman of the Blackstone Group, the private equity giant, compared proposals to end tax loopholes for hedge fund managers with the Nazi invasion of Poland.

And, in the other corner, we have the loony nutroots left funded pretty much entirely by known and documented real Nazi collaborator, George Soros.

What’s that you say? Unsporting of us? Really now, what you’re doing is not quite cricket, is it? Besides, facts are bothersome things, and they seem to be on our side pretty much all of the time.

And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage.

Powerful forces… Boo!

Bloody hell! We were just joking around a bit. Would you come out from under that coffee table, please?

Jane Mayer’s new article in The New Yorker about the superrich Koch brothers and their war against Mr. Obama has generated much-justified attention,

If it’s in the New Yorker, it must be true, after all.

but as Ms. Mayer herself points out, only the scale of their effort is new: billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife waged a similar war against Bill Clinton.

While billionaires like the unions, aforementioned Nazi collaborator George Soros and just about every single news outlet and “journalist” in the country waging war against every Republican who even thinks about sounding like a conservative is nothing worth mentioning at all, of course.

Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits.

The “right-wing” media. Ahhh… Sorry… No… We can’t resist…

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That one just never seems to get old.

In the 1990s, Mr. Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we’ve just seen, he’s doing his best to insinuate that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. Again, though, there’s an extra level of craziness this time around: Mr. Limbaugh is the same as he always was, but now seems tame compared with Glenn Beck.

Two persons. TWO persons, and the bloody runts of the liberal fascist wing start screaming like little girls and running for the hills. It’s not even any bloody fun to fight you anymore if you keep carrying on like that.

And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far?

“Where are the useful idiot ‘Republicans’ that we used to be able to rely upon to stab their own in the back, get down on their knee pads and lick their liberal masters’ scrota?”

Nowhere to be found.

Actually, they can be found. But they’re getting awfully hard to find in Congress (the ones still there are hiding under their desks, praying that they won’t be strung up as the fifth-column collaborators and traitors that they are) and will be even scarcer come next year. It’s just no fun being a RINO Kapo anymore.

To take a prime example: the hysteria over the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan almost makes one long for the days when former President George W. Bush tried to soothe religious hatred, declaring Islam a religion of peace.

We were wondering about his mental health at the time. Cordoba, Constantinople, Vienna, Tripoli, Omdurman, Khartoum, the Khyber Pass etc. That’s one amazingly peaceful “religion of peace”, right there.

But we do find it rather amusing that the same person you’ve been demonizing without interruption for 10 years now all of a sudden is the one person to whom you turn for help, whining like frightened sheep that he’s not coming to rescue you from the big, bad wolf.

There were good reasons for his position: there are a billion Muslims in the world, and America can’t afford to make all of them its enemies.

That is a rather convoluted and excessively verbose, we admit to the redundancy, way of spelling out the word “cowardice in the face of the enemy”, isn’t it? If we’re outnumbered, we must surrender? Bollocks. Numbers mean squat. When we wore a uniform, the Bolshie Bastards outnumbered us by 10 to 1 on a good day, but you never heard us blathering like old women about our “good reasons to surrender”, now did you?

Now, in all fairness and to make ourself clear, we’re not suggesting that old Dubya was a coward, he just doesn’t strike us as one. In our opinion, he was less scared of the howling dervishes than the right royal drubbing he could have expected from the fourth estate fifth column and liberal fascists if he hadn’t said something to that effect, a luxury that you can ill afford when you’re about to launch a war against the slobbering beasts who just perpetrated the worst assault on our homeland in our entire history.

After all, why would he be concerned about the wrath of the Saracens? Their enmity towards civilization in general is a fact that has been rather well established over the last 1,400 years of human history.

Firing up a bunch of blackguards and traitors inside our walls as we girded our loins for war, on the other hand. As we all know now, his efforts to placate those utter predictable homegrown members of the Islamischer Bund were to no avail, they proceeded to crucify him anyway, but at least he tried.

But here’s the thing: Mr. Bush is still around, as are many of his former officials. Where are the statements, from the former president or those in his inner circle, preaching tolerance and denouncing anti-Islam hysteria? On this issue, as on many others, the G.O.P. establishment is offering a nearly uniform profile in cowardice.

“Help us, Obi-Dubya, you are our only hope!”

You really expect somebody you’ve been relieving your bladders over for ten long years to suddenly turn around and come to your aid? And you call their refusal to do so “cowardice?”

Would somebody please be as good as to introduce Mr. Krugman to a dictionary of the English language? Yes, you can do so by knocking him on the head with it if you so desire. We much doubt that using a more traditional approach would meet with more success.

So what will happen if, as expected, Republicans win control of the House? We already know part of the answer: Politico reports that they’re gearing up for a repeat performance of the 1990s, with a “wave of committee investigations” — several of them over supposed scandals that we already know are completely phony.

Well then, you shouldn’t fear those commissions then, right old chap?

We can expect the G.O.P. to play chicken over the federal budget, too;

“Playing chicken”, in ENRON consultant and noted “economist” Krugman’s parlance meaning, of course “NOT expanding the national debt by another 40 trillion dollars.”

We suppose chicken really is good for you, although we still find ourself partial to a half raw, bloody steak.

I’d put even odds on a 1995-type government shutdown sometime over the next couple of years.

Be still our beating heart. We’d prefer a complete reversal, but a shutdown should do nicely for starters.

It will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too. The 1990s were a time of peace and prosperity; this is a time of neither.

And obviously, in times of war and deficits, spending less is even MORE of a horrible idea.

Would somebody kindly enlighten us to the reasons for why this imbecilic twat is still referred to as an economist of some note?

After all, he WAS a most famous consultant to ENRON and just look at how well that worked out for them!

In particular, we’re still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s,

The “after-effects?”

Last we checked, but how can we possibly expect a “noted economist” to be familiar with the regularly published economic statistics, doubtlessly such paragons of economic wisdom as he are far to busy with other and more important things to bother himself with mere facts, the economy was headed for trouble starting in 2008 which, by some rather odd coincidence, was also the first year where the Federal budget had been passed by a Democrat Congress, and it’s been plummeting downhill ever since like a cavalry charge into a waiting infantry square.

The “Recovery Summer” has so far turned into the worst financial disaster in the last 50 years and, if Krugman’s Messiah has his way, we may well surpass the horrors of the Great Depression yet, but here we have this “economist” talking about “after-effects?”

and we can’t afford to have a federal government paralyzed by an opposition with no interest in helping the president govern.

Where were those cries of “help the president govern” from 2001 to 2008, we ask?

But that’s what we’re likely to get.

If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic.

Oh sure. Use the Lame Duck Congress from November to January to truly destroy any hope of recovery we may yet have. That sounds like a splendid idea.

Apparently the Democrat National Socialists really mean it with their Ear Leader’s silly “putting the car in ‘D’ instead of ‘R’” slogan.

Here we are, with our car nearly over the edge of the abyss in front of us. Let’s put it in “D” and floor the gas.

Thatisall.