I used to have an account at Redstate.  It's long gone.  I committed the cardinal sin of telling the truth and my account was vaporized.  I think they even have a catchy slogan for when they do that.  I forget.  It's so lame.

So I was hungry for some more schadenfreude or at least salty tears of infantile poutrage, and I thought I'd see what conservatives are saying in their bubble these days.  After one or two disappointingly boring starts, I found this:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/11/paul-krugman-agrees-there-is-no-fiscal-cliff/

What made this so mock-tastic for me was reading the following:

Now much of Krugman’s analysis is wrong. This is not unusual. When Krugman ventures from his academic writings his is both an inveterate liar and relentlessly wrong. But in the main he is right.

Krugman, of course, has a fairly long track record of getting things right.  And a Nobel Prize.  Unlike any of the douchehats who apparently volunteer to make asses of themselves on Redstate.  What makes this amusing to me is that it is coming in the wake of the most fail-tastic election wherein the right-ward media got everything wrong.  I mean everything.

I guess when you're always wrong, you get defensive about it and are always telling everyone else to be wrong.  I mean, that they're wrong.  Heck, I don't know.

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/12/our-path-forward-is-not-moderation-it-is-infrastructure/

In many states, some of which are key swing states, the parties have been essentially banned from running a coordinated, unified campaign that has the ability to enlist actual grassroots support. At the national level attempts to do so often result in disasters such as Project ORCA.

I'm trying to figure out in what states parties have been banned from running a coordinated campaign. Not in Ohio, surely, where the President's campaign team opened their 100th office just two months before the election.  I'm sure some draconian law prevents Republicans from opening 100 campaign offices too -- perhaps the law of not enough volunteers for your shitty message.  

And I'm also curious how Citizens' United didn't help them out here, and how come three of the most crucial swing states were owned lock stock and barrel by Republican governments and still couldn't hand the election to their anointed tool?  

What I read is "we had no advantages, none whatsoever, and those Democrats had all their pesky voters!!!"  

Yup.   Even with his thumb on the scale so much that your average Republican has a special scale made with an ergonomic impression for it there, they still think they're getting an unfair fight when the voters simply don't agree.  This is known as cognitive dissonance.  It must hurt to be inside that head.

http://www.redstate.com/drohan00/2012/11/12/a-week-later-why-it-isnt-unmitigated-disaster/

I loved this one.  A particular gem here:

What did we learn?  That our candidate preparation needs to get better.  WE can do that essentially by just thinking in common sense ways about the modern media.  In what instance does it make sense for the Republican Candidate in any election to speak to the liberal media?  

Well, it made no sense to Mitt Romney, who basically avoided the media throughout his campaign.  Most of the discussion then happened without him present, allowing his opponents to define him because he didn't want to go on the record.

Please, let's see 2016's Presidential candidate stay on the discredited Fox News channel, and let his thin stream of followers try to vault the propaganda from their cloistered websites.  LOLOLOLOL.

Why not use our own media outlets: Red State, Free Republic, Drudgereport, Fox News to bring our message to the people we care about.  Understand this, that the New York Times is not your friend no matter what.  They will twist and spin everything you say.  Make certain that you understand the context of what they are saying and stay on message.  Is there any doubt but that Richard Mourdock would be a U.S. Senator-elect today had he not opined on rape?  While I agree with him on his position, the media made hay out of a white man making a comment on rape, and they spinned it in such a way that made him look like an ogre.  

Apparently, those of us predicting the GOP would double-down on stupid, hateful and ugly were correct.  The problem with Richard Mourdock wasn't that he loved rape, it was that he inadvertently allowed the electorate to see that he was a rape-lover.

I don't know how anyone coulda spinned it any other way, unnamed and sad little Redstater.   I think this reminds me most amusingly of how the Romney campaign used to issue corrections and clarifications after their candidate had shoved his foot in his mouth.  And who was it who said it was unfair to quote his own words back at him?  Was that Newt?  Or Romney again?

Who can tell?  These folks aren't going to learn.  This is just a small glance into the open, squirming pit of stupid that awaits us in Election 2014.

My god, people, it is going to be epic.  If the GOP's morning-after thoughts are so bitter and refreshingly absent of introspection, you can be sure the 2014 election will be a bloodbath for the right wing.  Apparently, more pro-rape candidates are in the offing.  We'll have to make sure someone asks every Republican ever what he thinks about rape.