All agree that Darwin's Origins of Mascot Species and The Holy Bible both acknowledge modern American elephants as descended from now extinct CroRonaldusMagnus who reintroduced the freedom and strength genes to one pachyderm line.  

The sacred texts also detail how today's dusty DC donkey descended from the line spawned way back on the day (or probably dark night by the looks of them) when DraftDodgeraptor cross bred with TaxosaurusRex.

And unanimous plurality agreement on global warming is a well disputed fact as we all are repeatedly instructed to intuitively know and as science religiously confirms.  

We all learned that stuff in 3rd grade science and know it to be infallibly true of course.  

But now, apparently either drunk on or burned by climate change, the two species have begun to mix in ways unseemly.  Some of these DonkADerms and PachyJackasses are NOT pretty and they eat more dollar bills than the greatest nation on earth can supply.

OK, I'll stop with the silly globally warmed over political evolution bit, but there really is something in the perhaps, for now, slightly warmer air.

Is it just me or does it seem entirely disingenuous for some Republicans to play the same political games with their elective vote or public endorsement as McCain has played with his legislative votes and increasingly hot air endorsements?  

I mean, come on, is it the possibly minimally temporarily increased heat - or what?  Are some of you so affected by climate change that voting for Hillary is no longer ranked just below bowing to the anti-Christ on your list of future big mistakes for which you'd rather avoid needing to answer?  

And consider what might happen if you get the anti-Christ thing right but the Hillary thing wrong.  You'll have an eternity to regret your next to worst possible heresy.  It might not be the unforgivable sin mentioned by Christ, but what if it turns out to be the unforgettable and unrepressible one?

The spite level of such a decision seems, to me, similar but worse than that of McCain when voting against tax cuts primarily (in my mind) for revenge because, despite getting out his biggest whacking stick in the prior presidentials, it was he that was beaten not the Bush.

I've heard that the devil sometimes wears "prada".  Now, I'll admit I don't know what the heck prada really is, but I'm starting to believe it includes a nice asset, a great set of wits, high heels, a short dress, blond hair, red lipstick and ... uh ... what was I talking about?

In other words, do Ann Coulter's devilishly sweet ends really justify her blasphemous means?

Not to me.  (But I'm physically still available about quarter past my present marriage.)

I am not going to be part of some Gang of Fourteen Million that would join the enemy for this present cause based on the promise that our now strengthened foe will roll over dead in four years.

Also, I'd rather not give evil an excuse to revenge, next time around, by holding their collective nose and voting for Rudy.  They might with similar coldness calculate that the means of briefly supporting the opposition party would be justified by the final ends of the pro-life factor.

Who's to say Ann's plan would even work?  Mr. Hillary went TWO terms and, rather than punish liberalism for it, the nation came to regret passing the Twenty-second Amendment.  And actually gave the succeeding liberal GoreKnob more votes than the winner.

Of course, if Ann could guarantee that after four years of Hillary we'd get eight years of somebody who would cut taxes and oppose international evil as did Reagan/Bush, fight moral decay like a southern preacher, dress as sharp as a northeast governor and strive for a return to original intent like some nut case with two first names, then it might be worth consideration.  

I see few options for myself.  

One is to vote for the Constitution Party or Taxpayer Party or the I Pine For The Old Days Party or whatever other good-hearted, but perennially poor performing options that God's Country (WI) offers me this time around.  It would at least be a more morally acceptable means to get hold of Ann's decidedly attractive ends.  Electing Hillary doesn't have to include voting for Hillary.  And protesting to the right rather than to the left might shift the balance of the tally spinners and party planners in the only direction that would eventually achieve the desired result.

The second option is to say fifty Hail Marys, spend the night in the confessional, throw the whole salt lick over my shoulder, rub my Buddha belly, hold my nose, take a few valium, chug some whiskey, get electroshocked, blast Ted Nugent on my IPod and ...and ...and slowly semi-coherently squeeze the trigger for McCain.  Then, either he loses anyway causing the big tent to get washed with extra warm water, dried for too long and hopefully shrunk a bit in terms of acceptable doctrine.  Or he barely wins and dooms us to the prophesied aisle-crossing hell.  Or he wins big.  Maybe with coattails long enough to drag even some less evolved lost elephants back to Congress.  While you laugh try to remember New Hampshire and other near fatal shots that conventional wisdom has already taken this cycle.  (Also remember all the drugs I just took before making this decision.)

The third option is to just not vote which, of course, would also help Hillary.  But I'm too afraid either her victorious and vengeful party or McCain/FeinGold II would then codify the old notion that you can't complain if you don't vote.  Then where would I be?  In jail I assume.

Or, I could just kill myself to avoid this particularly difficult decision.  But if I were of that mind then, instead of celebrating with the less-than-perfect but still NFC-oriented world champions as I am today, I would be in my grave cursing those dirty Packer-beating Giants.  I guess I have evolved some too. Maybe it's not the heat, but rather today's -40 wind chill!