In a post titled “What’s Wrong With a Pit Bull,” by Christine Bowman tries to be clever in attacking Sarah “Pit Bull” Palin by comparing her to literal pit bulls. In so doing, she spewed every lie in the book about the breed itself, just to get at a Republican.

Update 9/11/08: It appears based on comments received that some readers have misconstrued my purpose in posting this article. I chose Sarah Palin’s pit bull metaphor as a means of criticizing her, as well as other GOP leaders. I had no desire to criticize pit bulls themselves. — CB

Now what on earth could have possibly given readers that impression?

Sarah Palin likes to describe herself as a pit bull. She rolled out the “pit bull in lipstick” idea in her first address to the American people, and she uses the image in her everyday stump speech.

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” she asked.

“Lipstick.”

The analogy is actually a good one.

Indeed it is. Pit bulls are tenacious, and loyal to a fault. Which of course was the point Palin was making, so having confirmed as much, you can end your article here, Sweetie.

Just think about it. What images and feelings do the words “pit bull” conjure up? (… with apologies to all sweet-spirited canines)

Here you see Democrat thinking at its worst: forget verifiable facts: “images and feelings” are all that matters. If you have bad thoughts about Republicans and pit bulls, well, that must mean that they are bad, right?

* A pit bull is a programmed fighter. Its handlers throw it into the ring, and it attacks.

The other pit bull, sure. That’s what Vice Presidential candidates are supposed to do in an election season. So far, Sarah the Pit Bull seems to have done a pretty good job of that, certainly better than the Yorkshire terrier they’ve got yipping for the other side.

* A pit bull fights indiscriminately. A pit bull mauls small children, innocent neighbors. It even bites the hand that feeds it.

* A pit bull is dangerous.

Some are, sure. Some dogs of every breed are.

* A pit bull can’t be trusted.

A Democrat can’t be trusted, that’s for sure, but since when can’t a good dog be? Most dogs, pit bulls included, are WYSIWYG.

* A pit bull is mean.

Nope, no desire to criticize pit bulls there. Sweetie sez so in an update!

* A pit bull is tenacious. It never lets go.

OK, so after smearing innocent dogs just to get at an innocent Republican, you finally found the point! Congratulations, Sweetie, you can go home now. Oh wait, there’s more…

Now, we can’t say necessarily that Sarah Palin is a pit bull. It is Palin herself who is saying that.

What? You mean that when Sarah Palin gave that speech comparing herself and her fellow hockey moms to pit bulls, that was actually Palin herself doing the talking? Wow, that’s, like, a real freaky coincidence, like.

We do think it’s fair to point out that the Republican National Party — the party running Palin as their vice presidential candidate — values a dangerous, untrustworthy attack dog.

I suppose Sweetie does have a point there. After all, where would the RNC and the dextrosphere have been for the last few months if it weren’t for Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews? To their credit, however, none of these three have smeared pit bulls by comparing these beautiful dogs to themselves.

On August 29, 2008, the GOP made a calculated judgment. They decided they needed an attack dog as a counter-balance to the top of their ticket.

Yeah, we all know that John McCain chose Sarah Palin on the very same day he announced her nomination. Gotta hand it to both of them, those were two hells of impromptu speeches they delivered on the very same day McCain made a calculated judgment to choose a Republican as his running mate.

John McCain was trying to run for president as an honorable man, but it just wasn’t looking like a winning strategy. He wasn’t catching on. So the party elders, the K Street campaign managers, and the Karl Roves who shape GOP campaigns and GOP policy put their heads together. Enter Sarah Palin.

Hate to burst your bubble, Sweetie, but there’s nothing dishonorable about appointing a woman, or a person of either sex who is likely to appeal to members of your own party.

But is a pit bull good for America? Haven’t we Americans had our fill of pit bulls?

Xrlq 2.0 hasn’t.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were unmistakable pit bulls. For better or worse, they were fierce, single-minded, and unwavering. Pit bull warriors, pit bull diplomats, pit bull economists.

Where did they lead America? Was the war they and John McCain believed in the right one?

You know, I was asking myself that very same question on September 11, 2003, when two years had passed since the infamous 9/11 attacks, and the next attack was due any day now. I asked myself the same question again on September 11, 2004, and on September 11, 2005, etc.

And how did their energy plan work out for the country? Cheney sure was tenacious in protecting his secret energy task force, but that wasn’t a case of putting “Country First,” was it?

Right, it wasn’t the Democrats who keep us from drilling offshore, in ANWR and the shale, it was those eeeeevil Republican pit bulls in Washington scheming to keep oil prices high, while sending Karl Rove out to secretly underinflate everyone’s tires and lull them into believing they won’t need a tune-up for at least 100,000 miles or so.

We now know the GOP pit bulls still in power bit off more war than they could possibly chew. They leapt into an attack on Iraq without a reasonable long-term plan or exit strategy. They ripped their teeth into the wrong enemy, and they have spilled way too much human blood.

While the Democrat Yorkies rushed into the same war, only to yelp and submit at the first nip, even if that meant leaving newly liberated Iraq to descend into civil war, followed by a terror state rivaling what existed there before.

Snarling and snapping, they created more enemies than America ever had back in 2001.

Maybe, but they seem to have done a pretty good job of keeping the one enemy at bay that mattered most in 2001.

Worst of all they turned their tail to the biggest threat in the fighting pit.

Right, ‘cuz if there’s one thing a pit bull is well-known for, it’s its tendency to turn tail and run. That’s why we need Democrat Yorkies in Washington to replace those mean ol’ Republican pit bulls.

Think about it.

I’d like to, but frankly, but with every sentence I read of this article, I feel my own IQ slip 3 or 4 points. I’d rather make it through this exercise without becoming a complete retard, so I think I’ll take a pass on actually thinking about it further.

And what do Americans really think of pit bulls? In 16 of these United States of America we have enacted or drafted laws to restrict and control pit bulls: in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Washington, Utah, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, Maryland, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Kansas.

Colorado drafted a law to protect pit bulls from bigots like Bowman. It didn’t work because only Denver was passing such idiotic ordinances anyway, and as a home rule city they can ignore state law pretty much whenever they want. But leave it to a Democrat to cite the fact that other people have a bad perception about someone or something as though it were evidence that that someone or something is bad (and then to have the audacity to update the piece and deny any intent to insult the same).

That list includes a lot of states that might be up for grabs in this 2008 presidential election.

Indeed it does. Here’s hoping that of the states Bowman actually got right (as opposed to Colorado, the only one I bothered to check), voters understand that just because they may vote against allowing their next door neighbors to personally own pit bulls or nuclear weapons, that doesn’t mean we as a nation shouldn’t have either.

So what will it be? The GOP pit bulls, or a Democrat who thinks like a diplomat?

A better question is, would we rather have a Republican who barks at our enemies to keep them at bay, or a Democrat who barks at us? Fortunately or unfortunately, I can’t think of a dog breed that warrants a comparison to “malaise” Democrats, so rather than smearing innocent dogs I’ll skip the analogy.

Voters can say no to the GOP pit bulls here and now.

Indeed, we can vote out the tenacious fighters and replace them with wimps who cut and run at the first sign of trouble. The question is, why on earth would we want to?

No more pit bull campaigning.

Meaning: no more criticizing The One. The other side’s pit bulls are free to attack as often as they like.

No pit bull foreign policy.

Meaning: no more tenacious fighters, let’s bring in the new ones who are all bark and no bite.

Democrats. Wrong on literal pit bulls, wrong on figurative ones.