Thursday, October 30, 2008

Finally We have a Chance to Defeat FDR


Rush went on quite a spiel yesterday on FDR and Obama, basically decrying Obama as the modern updated version of FDR.

That doesn't sound too bad to me, but maybe I'm not listening right.
Even back in 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was doing his best to water down the basics of the founding of this country. It's just striking stuff. The battle's never going to be over, the war is never going to be over because battles are going to be fought continually over and over again, because this is who these people are. You might say, "Rush, they're saying such wonderful things for people. They want economic security, and they want freedom, and they want independence, and they want people to not be hungry and so forth." We all want that. We all want the same things. It's just this is not the way to provide it.
Sweet lord they are desperate. Dragging FDR into it?

Rush weakly explained that he brought up FDR because he wanted to point out how there was nothing new about Obama. Fair enough, I guess, but still pretty bizarre.

He also makes this historical argument.
There's nothing new about liberalism. If you, as a voter, have rejected liberalism once in your life, you have a duty to reject it at every opportunity you have. It is a demonstrable failure. It is an attack on individual liberty. It is a system that creates as much misery as possible under the guise of creating compassion and hope. Now, if you found it within yourself to vote against liberalism in 1980 and 1984, I don't know how you can vote against liberalism and ever go back to it.
So if Republicans put up a cute little puppy or a neanderthal or Sarah Palin, Rush says you are required to vote for it, him, or her. I'll admit I voted for George H. W. Bush in 1988, so I guess I'm required to vote for McCain this election.

But, when I'm in the voting booth and nobody's looking, I'm going to vote for Obama.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Desperation Pt. 23

The title of Matt Barber's article over at Townhall is entitled "Obama's Agenda is so "Gay."" Yeah that's pretty desperate.
If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first "gay" president. No, I don't mean he'll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he'll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He's very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual "Human Rights Campaign" and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.
Homofascist? There's no better way to explain Barber's mindset than that word. Just sums it all up. In Barbers mind, such as it is, Homosexuals are dangerously powerful and out to get good honest Christians like himself. Pretty insane.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Good Advice

William Kristol's latest article advises John McCain to return to the theme of national security, because that's a winning issue for him.

I'm not sure about that, but let's see Kristol's reasoning.
The McCain campaign intends, I gather, to return to the commander in chief theme with an event in Florida Wednesday showcasing former secretaries of state and retired senior military officers. But why not showcase young Iraq vets instead? These young soldiers and marines can testify eloquently to the success of the surge that John McCain championed, and to the disaster and dishonor that would have followed Barack Obama’s preferred path of withdrawal.

. . . McCain could point out that hope is nice and prayer is good. But, he could ask: With respect to our national security, do we really want to elect a president on a hope and a prayer?
He then recommends that McCain drop his negative advertising; because nothing screams positive message like suggesting your opponent will get us all killed.

I don't know if this will work for McCain. For one thing, the war is one area where he agrees with Bush the bulk of the time (with the exception of Torture - Bush is objectively pro-torture, McCain has some reservations). And we've seen what 8 years of Bush policies have got us.

Every Man a King

Laura Hollis has written an article over at Townhall that describes Obama as our future king. She relays the story from the old testement in which the Israelites demanded a King from the Prophet Samuel and says that our possible voting for Obama mirrors that story.
These are problems that no amount of social spending will cure, and any promise to do so is a lie, because no amount of money will change people’s hearts. And yet, instead of reaching deep within ourselves to find the solutions, we now whine and mewl for someone to save us.

And here he comes, Barack Obama, on a “righteous wind.”

As with anyone who would be king, Obama will take our money and our property in ever-larger amounts. Our children will be saddled with debt and beholden to a bloated government that will enslave the very people it promised to help. We will be at the mercy of our enemies.
Gosh - a person would have to be a super bad American and Christian to vote for a King, right? I mean this is a Democracy - I don't want to be ruled by a king.

But wait, Obama won't actually be a king - he'll be a President. And after eight years of signing statements and the unitary executive, it's a bit odd to suddenly discover that Republicans are concerned about excessive executive power.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Sorry for the Low Posting

I am on the road, preparing for a very important meeting in about 2 hours - so haven't been posting as much.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

I Wish I had Thought of this First

From Glenn Greenwald's latest post.
But beyond that narrow point, why isn't this race-based analysis being applied to others who are endorsing outside of their party? I don't recall Joe Lieberman endorsing any hard-core conservative national politicians before this year, when he has spent much of his time cheering for and appearing with the McCain/Palin ticket. Using the Limbaugh/Buchanan/Halperin logic, isn't it fair to assume that at least a significant part of Lieberman's motive in endorsing McCain -- if not his entire motive -- is that he and McCain are both white, whereas Obama isn't? What's the difference between making that race-based assumption about Lieberman's endorsement and making it about Powell?
Yeah, pretty much.

I could have fun with that idea though.
Dennis Prager's latest article is on Proposition 8 out there in California. About halfway through it, he makes this interesting comment.
While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.
Of course this automatically lead me to scroll down and read his comments section.
You homosexual militants stop at nothing with your agendas. The nonsense has went to far. All of your invalid arguements will be challenged, and your intimidation tactics brought out into the open.
Well that's not too bad, although calling them militants probably isn't intended as a compliment.
Once this perverted reasoning is legally accepted from a group that wants to claim healthy and normal behavior for an abnormal sexual behavior, what other group can be legally denied their claim of normality for a behavioral disorder?

For instance, suppose a group involved in bestiality wants to claim “marriage rights” for their animal partners, how can they be legally denied if they claim that they are engaging in normal behavior?
Ah - comparing homosexuality to beastiality. Always popular, and, I have to say, at least a little hateful.
History records one of the first signs of the deterioration of a society is when the homosexuals and sexual deviates emerge front and center.

. . . Say goodbye to America as it morphs into a Sodom and Gomorrah. We had a republic once but the homosexual termites and clueless liberals have assiduously succeeded in undermining its very foundations.
Comparing gays to termites, well, also seems hateful.
Homosexuality is a deviant.pathetic desease that should be wiped off the face of the earth. They are infesting our schools,sexually abusing our children,fornicating like sick animals in our public areas and are actively trying to destroy the very fabric of civilization.
Hmmmm. That sounds very hateful indeed. But fortunately one enterprising commentator explains how none of this is hate.
Trying to define anti-homosexual behaviour as "hate" or "homophobic" is absurd. You confuse hate with utter contempt and disgust while homophobic is even nuttier as it would mean fear of man...phaggots are not men and why would anyone be "afraid" of them ?
Well, that makes sen . . . what? Utter contempt and disgust isn't hatred? What is hatred then?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't get "Race"

Fortunately, his lack of understanding mirrors those of his listeners, so it won't hurt him much.

Over the weekend he made some comments on the Powell nomination which have exposed his lack of understanding about race, and brought him a certain amount of fire.
Remember, the whole quote here, folks, the whole quote is, "I'm now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with." Now, just so you know, I haven't come up with any. I worked diligently on this on the airplane on the trip home from Green Bay yesterday. After I got home last night, I worked diligently. I can't find any of these inexperienced white liberals that Powell has endorsed. So they're all focusing you know it's race. This has hit a nerve. So what if it's race? Why is it so hard to admit that it's race? Ninety-five percent of black people are going to for Obama because he's black. What's so problematic about admitting this? I thought it should be about race. I thought you liberals thought this is a historic candidacy because finally we're going to elect a black guy to be president. Why hide behind this? Why act like it's not about race? What, you want to tell us it's about his policies?
See in Rush's mind there is no reason to vote for Obama other than his race, because Rush doesn't agree with his policies. This mirrors some comments he made about Powell and Condoleezza Rice back when they were being attacked. He couldn't understand how Liberals would attack black people, when we purport to love black people. He couldn't quite grasp how we might disagree with a black person, because we see him as a person who happens to be black.

There's something here that I can't quite get to - some intersection of Rush's reflexive views on race and his opinion that anybody honest and intelligent would be a conservative. Rush knows that if Powell were honest he would be supporting John McCain and Conservative (we'll take it as read that Rush thinks Powell is intelligent). So since he's not supporting McCain, there must be some corruption that is forcing him to support Obama. And given how Rush looks at Blacks, well, the corruption presents itself pretty much automatically.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Back to Palin

Peggy Noonan, speech writer for Ronald Reagan, has written an article about the end of this campaign season, in which she takes particular aim at Sarah Palin.
. . . we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for?

. . . No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can’t be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush’s style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don’t, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.
We talked about this in 2004. The question is how meaningful are the undecided voters? How undecided are they, really? What is more valuable, reaching out to the base and keeping it fired up and energetic or reaching out to the moderates, to the undecided. Because as Random Goblin pointed out, in a response to a post last week, those are two different things. He was speaking about Progressive Bloggers, but I think his comments refer to the politicized base on both sides of the political debate.
This is not to say that "progressive bloggers" should not keep pushing for whatever it is that they want, but that they should not be surprised when, inasmuch as they are not a majority in any sense, they do not actually get what they want.
The problem for McCain is who else does he have? Does he have a real chance of getting the middle at this point? Or is he better off concentrating on the politicized base, getting them worked up, and hoping their enthusiasm is enough to carry him to the end?

It's a political calculation, and he seems to have made his choice. I don't think it is going to work out for him.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

I-Pod 10

37. The Beautiful South - "Let Love Speak Up Itself"
38. David J - "Serial Killer Blues"
39. Everlast - "Next Man"
40. Goo Goo Dolls - "Broadway"
41. M.I.A. - "Jimmy"
42. Big Brother and the Holding Company - "Road Block (Studio Outake)"
43. Quicksilver Messenger Service - "Codine"
44. Ming + FS - "Freak (DJ Abstract Break Mix)"
45. Gregory Isaacs - "Public Eyes"
46. Beastie Boys - "Dramastically Different"

Weird Mix this time around, but cool. "Codine" and "Next Man" sit comfortably next to each other at any rate.

Presented without Comment

So, forget about radical chic or any other nonsense defining this election. The fantasy of the right has been put to rest. In this year of living dangerously — 20 days that are shaking the world — personal attacks don’t work, as innumerable polls showed in the last week.

And forget about the Bradley Effect, lying about race. We should be looking at the Reagan Effect: did Obama look like a president, as Ronald Reagan had to in the last week of the campaign to unseat Jimmy Carter?

History showed one thing in 1980. It’ll show the same in 2008.
Timothy Egan, "The Deal, Sealed?", New York Times

Voter Fraud Blues

Sorry - I was at the Dentist this morning so didn't have time to post. But I did want to point you to this interview at Salon, which deals with the current Republican hysteria around Voter Fraud. Lori Minnite, a professor of political science at Barnard college was asked whether or not Voter Fraud is as big a problem as Conservatives are claiming.
No threat.

The statistics bear me out. From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters -- voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident -- the voters that Republicans warn about. Meanwhile thousands of people are getting turned away at the polls.
The whole article is worth reading.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

A Splash of Cold Water

Glenn Greenwald's blog is regular reading around here, and hopefully it is with you as well. Today's post is insightful about why an Obama victory is desirable, but not ultimately that exciting to me.
I honestly don't know of any "progressive bloggers" who blindly support Democrats. I think the strategy of the blogosphere has always been two-pronged -- (1) remove the hideous right-wing beast from power and (2) change the Democratic Party in order to make step (1) worth doing. Those are EQUALLY IMPORTANT goals.
Step (1) is merely a pre-requisite (an absolute one) to achieving anything worthwhile. But without step (2), step (1) is mostly (though not entirely) worthless, because the Democratic Party as currently constituted at its core is a wretched and status-quo-perpetuating institution. If those who spent the last eight years vigorously opposing the radicalism, militarism, and anti-constitutional abuses of the Bush administration fail to oppose the Democratic leadership with equal fervor when they violate the same principles -- as they inevitably will -- then the humiliation of the Right and its removal from power will be emotionally satisfying, perfectly just, and a very mild improvement, but will ensure the continuation rather than the termination of most of the worst abuses of this government.
I want to be clear, I am voting for Obama, I have donated money to his campaign. I want him to win. But Greenwald is right, and my gut tells me that with Obama we are getting a huge step up from Bush, but a lot of the excesses of the Bush Administration aren't going away soon.

The Sixties are Back

Rush Limbaugh yesterday explained why Obama is so terribly dangerous.
All these former SDS people -- Students for a Democratic Society, that's why its former leaders back Obama. Lots of books have been written about this.

These are the same people that backed Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro; they are Marxists; they have learned how to communicate and manipulate, they have learned to adapt socialism to American society. Tom Hayden, Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky. What's amazing is that this extensive network, this extensive network and movement goes wholly unreported by the likes of Tom Brokaw, Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Brian Williams. This is the movement that undermined the Vietnam War, that tried to undermine us in Iraq, and they are three weeks away from electing one of their own, if they can, Barack Obama.
The damned sixties keep happening.

I'm really not sure how scary this is supposed to be to anyway, but you should have heard Rush give this. He really sold it, as if he had uncovered some incredible conspiracy. And I imagine to someone like Rush it is scary. For some 30 years now, since Reagan, the conservative movement has been a repudiation of the sixties and the left. It must be terrifying to consider that such radical ideas as peace and love might be coming back into vogue.

But truthfully, such is not happening. Barack Obama for all the enthusiasm isn't the second coming of JFK or even Robert Kennedy. He's the second coming of Bill Clinton. A moderate liberal who will not challenge the status quo all that much, and yet draw incredible ire from the Republicans just for not being one of them.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Do they Really Believe it?

I don't know how to take a line like this from David Limbaugh's latest article.
And yet we've got a man running for the highest office in the land surrounded with anti-American allies and covert election burglars, all protected by an unprecedented mainstream-media cover-up.
Does he really believe the hyperbole? So far the Anti American Allies Obama is "surrounded by" include Bill Ayers, a person Obama knew but hasn't had much contact with recently, and Jeremiah Wright, who Obama cut off.

The covert election burglars are, presumably, ACORN and their efforts to encourage people to vote. I don't know how covert they are, since they are pretty open about existing and about trying to register the poor to vote.

And unprecedented media cover-up? Could that be because there's not much there? I mean the Ayers association has been public knowledge for months now, and several major media outlets have written on it. Isn't that the opposite of a cover up?

No. Remember when your political enemy is involved in a scandal, it doesn't matter how thoroughly he's been investigated or exonerated. No mater how thoroughly the matter has been investigated, it hasn't been investigated enough until he is found guilty of whatever the charge is.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Karl Rove - Political Genius?

Matt Taibbi has written an article over at Rolling Stone about everybody's favorite political genius Karl Rove. But Taibbi doesn't know if Rove has earned the Genius label.
Rove is not a genius, or even very clever: He's totally and completely immoral. . . .

The reason Rove continues to survive is the same reason that Johnnie Cochran was called a genius for keeping a double-murderer on the golf course — because this generation of Americans has become so steeped in greed and social Darwinism that it can no longer distinguish between cheating and achieving, between enterprise and crime, and can't bring itself to criticize winners any more than it knows how to be nice to losers. He survives because an increasing number of Americans secretly agree with Rove's vision of rules, laws and "the truth" as quaint, faintly embarrassing rituals that only a sucker would let hold him back.
Yeah, it's hard to argue with that. But here's the thing - these Rovian Tactics aren't working this election. McCain isn't winning, and at this point isn't likely to.

Got this link from Glenn Greenwald's Blog.

Doug Giles wants Christain Pastors to be more like Sean Hannity

Doug Giles latest article argues that Christian's aren't political enough and aren't going to bat for our Lord and Savior, John Mc . . . I mean Jesus Christ. In
Y’know, I appreciate O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and others who go to bat on behalf of Christian principles, but it would be kind of nice to see some more pastors in that mix also. Ted Nugent brings more truth to the table than most pastors and priests do on radio, TV and in print.

Again, I’m glad for Bill, Sean, Glenn and Ted’s defiant input, but the insane silence amongst the brethren, especially the boys who run the so called mega-churches, to me is both pitiful and immoral. No matter how you want to slice your silence, Christian ministers and corporations, your mute mouth is cowardice of the highest order and a betrayal of our nation’s Christian heritage.
In fairness, I'd think Doug Giles doesn't think John McCain is the savior. I'm pretty sure he is more interested in tearing down the Antichrist - Barack Oba . . . I mean Barack Obama.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Not Sure I Can Improve on This

Shawn Akers has written an article over at Townhall entitled "Obama's Henchmen and the Rise of Commufascism."

Yeah I think Conservative's trepidation over Obama might be making them crazy.
The great discomfort for many Americans as they watch the current presidential contest is that the scent of such totalitarianism hangs heavy in the air; the pattern so familiar in European dictatorships seems eerily present in Barak Obama’s presidential campaign.
I suppose if I thought Mr. Akers were talking about Obama's capitulation on immunity for telecoms guilty of helping the Government spy on American Citizens I'd agree. But of course that's not what he's talking about.

Rather some of the posters put out by the campaign remind Akers of Communist posters, and some of Obama's followers have been doing some heavy handed things. And Obama's followers in this context, does not necessarily mean working for the campaign.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Political Cartoons

Comics Should be Good, a blog about comics, is doing a series dedicated to political cartoonists. So far it's really good and interesting, so check it out.

Gail Collins banal defense of Barack Obama and John McCain

Gail Collin's latest article is on the current controversies over Obama's association with Ayers and McCains association with Keating. Collins defends them because she one attended a party with Bernadine Dohrn before she joined the weatherman and before she committed any terrorist actions. And she attended a school assembly at which Charles Keating spoke.

Ye Gods.

Conservatives complaint about Obama isn't that he was in the same room as Ayers - it's that they sat on the same board (yeah there is a lot of tangential stuff they are making up, but the part that's true is that Obama and Ayers sat on the same board and that Obama attended a meet and greet at Ayers house). They feel that to do these things signifies a deeper connection or affinity for what Ayers was doing in the 1960s/1970s. You can disagree if you want (I certainly do), but it's pretty different from simply attending a party.

And the Keating matter is another step beyond this nonsense. McCain was implicated in helping Keating with his matters - he was a participant.

In fairness the column is somewhat amusing, but ye gods, how banal.


Mona Charen's latest article takes the New York Times to task for presenting Sarah Silverman as a Jew and appreciating a somewhat shocking video she did. Sarah Silverman doing something shocking? Apparently their acceptance of Silverman as a Jew proves that the New York Times is "Jew-baiting."

Yeah it's a stretch, and Charen seems to know it. As she moves on in the article, she drops the New York Times angle, and focuses on the idea that secular Jews aren't really Jewish.
Judaism does command social justice of course -- just start with the prophets. But normative Judaism is not the Democratic Party at prayer. . . . Judaism demands that human beings worship God, not themselves.

It's a free country and secular Jews can believe and say whatever they like. But it is tiresome as well as false for them to parade their liberalism as the authentic expression of a great faith.
Unfortunately for Ms. Charen, to be a Jew isn't just to practice a certain religion; it's also an culture. And I think it's safe to say that it's a culture that Ms. Silverman sprang from.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Paying Taxes

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can’t just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.”

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

. . . Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”
From Thomas L. Friedman's latest article. He can be a free market dunderhead sometimes, but he's completely right here, in my opinion.

Problems for Obama

Hopefully this won't turn out to be much, but Maggie Gallagher has written an article today that might give the Ayers story a little bit more of an edge.

She interviewed John Murtagh, who's house was firebombed by Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers. This was, for the record, an awful thing that Dohrn did, as were the other bombings by Bill Ayers. Also for the record, Obama has condemned these actions by Bill Ayers, calling them detestable. For more information on the shakiness of these connections, check out this post by John K. Wilson.

These attempts to connect Obama to Ayers are pretty weak, but I think John Murtagh might give this story more legs. For one thing he's running for the state senate on a GOP ticket, so presumably he can present himself well, and presumably he would like to play a role in the national campaign. For another he puts a human face on this issue. The actual connections to Obama are slim to non-existent, but the claims of the Swift Boat Liars in 2004 were pretty slim too. And they got through.

The Power of Negative Advertising

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have written an article on the benefits of negative advertising, coincidentally, just as McCain and Palin are starting to go negative in a big way.
Some political consultants, including most Republicans, treat positive advertisements like the overture before the show begins, marking time until the real campaign starts and the negatives begin to hit. That's wrong. Positive ads that explain a program, develop a theme, or spell out hot-button issues are still the most effective communications in politics. But negative ads work and have their place. They are how the voters find truth in a morass of claims and counterclaims. With much of the media oriented toward the left or the right, negative ads are often the only way voters can penetrate the claims of the various campaigns and get the facts.
Yeah - negative ads are the only way voters can get the facts. For example media outlets, like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have repeatedly examined Obama's connection to William Ayres and found little of note. But Palin and McCain know there is something there. So negative ads can highlight this supposed connection, and in that way bring the "facts" to the voters.

I think maybe Morris is using fact in a different way than I am using it.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Something I Can 't Really Improve On

This is the first paragraph of David Limbaugh's latest article.
There are many reasons that Sarah Palin is energizing the conservative base. It's not just her authenticity, freshness, noble defense of traditional values, and vivaciousness. This lady is finally giving red-state conservatives a voice, and she's taking it to the other side without apologies.
So Red State Conservatives, when they have a voice, sound like the uninformed, not ready for prime time Sarah Palin? OK.

The rest of article focuses on how Palin and McCain should be hammering Obama on a litany of abuses, including Ayers and Wright, and just generally being liberals.

The Menace of Obama

Doug Giles has taken Barack Obama to task for his anti hunting positions. Wait, that's not exactly right. Apparently he's upset that Barack Obama has drawn the support of an anti-hunting organization. And what is this hideous organization?
This past week Obama added to his rogue gallery of support groups another radical band of anti-American spirit lunatics. No, I’m not talking about an additional endorsement by a new terrorist group or Black Muslim faction, or pro-abortion loon, or another communist cabal, or an extra Castro/Chavez-like dictator but rather the Humane Society (HSUS).
Yep. Apparently the Humane Societies endorsement of Obama is just about the worst organization in the world you can have endorsing you. It's worse than those terrorist groups who have endorsed Obama, none of whom Giles even bothers to name. It's worse than the Black Muslim factions, who may be fictions for all the detail Giles provides. Nope - the only evil leftist monstrous organization Giles bothers to name is the Humane Society, so one can only infer that they must be the worst of all.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it. But then again I'm not a hunter.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Sarah Palin Unleashed

Sarah Palin sat down with William Kristol, New York Times Columnist, and they chatted. Then Kristol wrote an article about the interview. Apparently we are going to get to see the real Sarah Palin in the coming month.
As for the campaign, Palin made clear — without being willing to flat out say so — that she regretted allowing herself to be overly handled and constrained after the Republican convention. She described the debate on Thursday night as “liberating,” and she emphasized how much she now looked forward to being out there, “getting to speak directly to the folks.”
Hmmmmm. So she wants more of a chance to speak directly to the American people. Presumably without anybody asking her any annoying follow up questions. The American people don't need any specifics. They just need to know that she hates the media and loves her kids. And that Obama is a radical who has creepy friends.

On that note we are going to be hearing a lot about Obama's supposed relationship with Bill Ayres over the next few weeks. Slactivist has a great post exposing this particular nonsense.

The Subprime loans explained

This does have some bad language, but it's very funny and educational as well.

Damning with Faint Praise

Debra J. Saunders thinks that Sarah Palin did well in last Thursday's debate with Joe Biden. She did well, Saunders argues in her latest article, largely by not embarrassing the campaign any further.
Sure, she had moments when she seemed to be working too hard trying to remember what she was supposed to say so she awkwardly regurgitated a string of campaign buzzwords. Who cares? She didn't crash. And she showed Americans a candidate who does not speak Beltway-speak.

Democrats used to crow about that common touch with Bubba. Well, meet Bubbette.
Yeah the difference was that Bubba was articulate. He could communicate well with people but he seemed to understand what he was saying. Palin on the other hand doesn't seem to know much about what she's saying.

Joe Conason, in an article over at Salon, has a harsher view of Palin's rise.
As Biden showed quite convincingly when he spoke about his modest background and his continuing connection with Main Street, perceptive, intelligent discourse is in no way identical with elitism. Palin's phony populism is as insulting to working- and middle-class Americans as it is to American women. Why are basic diction and intellectual coherence presumed to be out of reach for "real people"?

And why don't we expect more from American conservatives? Indeed, why don't they demand more from their own movement? Aren't they disgusted that their party would again nominate a person devoid of qualifications for one of the nation's highest offices? Some, like Michael Gerson and Kathleen Parker, have expressed discomfort with this farce -- and been subjected, in Parker's case, to abuse from many of the same numbskulls whom Palin undoubtedly delights.
Yeah but the key aspect to many modern Republicans is that allegiance to ideology trumps all other concerns. Biden is unqualified to be vice president not because of anything he's done, but because he isn't a conservative. Palin is qualified to be Vice President not because of anything she's done, but, again, because she is a conservative, and the right kind of conservative.

Thursday, October 02, 2008


David Limbaugh's latest article takes aim at the "Liberal" media. He finds himself wondering how the Media could fail to recognize their terrible bias, and he comes up with this.
No, I think their closed culture teaches them that liberalism is so manifestly correct that its proponents embody objectivity. Bias is defined as any deviation from the only correct worldview: liberalism.
His big example is the different ways in which Joe Biden and Sarah Palin have been treated. But you really can't blame Limbaugh. I think his closed culture has taught him that conservatism is so manifestly correct, that it's worldview is the only accurate one. He can't see Palin's lack of depth because he can't see anything that deviates from the only correct worldview: conservatism. Seeing through those ideological blinders, well, Palin probably looks pretty good.

An Unsual defense of City Dwellers

Steve Chapman's latest article is directed at Sarah Palin's defense of those who choose to live in the in small town rural areas, and her simultaneous decision to slam those of us who choose to live in the city.
Most Americans, it seems, can tolerate hearing of the superiority of the small town, as long as they don't have to live in one. You wouldn't know it from listening to country music stations, or to the governor of Alaska, but four out of every five Americans choose not to reside in rural areas.

. . . One of these days, the 80 percent of Americans who live in more populated areas may tire of being obliquely insulted. Most urbanites and suburbanites don't think they're any better than their country cousins. But Palin might want to think twice before telling them they're worse.
Of course this argument hasn't gone over very well with Townhall readers who know that us city-folk do look down our noses at country folk. And they let Chapman know that they don't take to his defense of urbanites.
Chapman says:"Most urbanites and suburbanites don't think they're any better than their country cousins."

Now there is a lie. Therefore the whole premise of this article is a void

How Much Did Obama Pay You . . .to write this column?

Palin was defending rural Americans against the very snobbery that you just published.

Nice try. Get out of my country you America Hating Hack.

Go be a snob in some other country where they can fully appreciate the aroma of your eminations.
I have to say that Chapman's assertion that City Folk don't think they are better than Country folk is at best a half truth. I don't know that we dwell on them as much as Country folk seem to dwell on us. But if you choose to do something, you generally think you've made the right choice.

If you decide to live in the country you've decided the benefits of living in the country outweigh the benefits of living in the city. By the same token if you live in the city you think that's the right choice. That's human nature. Where it becomes problematic is hen you make judgment calls about the sort of people who make the opposite choice. I don't understand why some people choose to live in the country; but I have to take on faith that they have good reasons for it.

And my experience is that Country folk are more apt to make the argument that living in the city makes you a lesser person and a lesser American.

The Sarah Palin Story

Tonight Sarah Palin and Joe Biden will face off to see which has the juice to get to whatever color house the Vice Presidents get to stay in. Sarah Palin would probably like to do well against Biden, but if she doesn't she has two secret weapons.

1. Expectations have been set so low that just making it to the podium might be enough to count as a win.

2. Any question that she finds difficult to answer is a "gotcha" question, planted by the DNC, and happily asked by moderator Gwen Ifill who has a book on Barack Obama coming out.

Take Rich Galen's article on the Veep candidates (Rich Galen was Dan Quayle's Press Secretary, so I guess he knows a bit about it).
It would be a mistake for Sarah Palin to try and match up with Joe Biden on depth of knowledge. She can't have learned enough to do that. All she needs to do is to present herself as a competent, likeable, generally knowledgeable adult person who doesn't scare the audience by trying too hard and falling short.

Biden has to take whatever medication he needs to take to keep himself from being too clever, too smart, too loquacious, and/or too patronizing (how's that for a 1970's word?) toward Palin.

We KNOW Biden knows a lot. People aren't going to vote for Obama because Biden knows more the names of more deputy prime ministers of Europe than Palin.
I don't think there are enough medications in the world to keep Biden from looking too smart for Republicans.

Here's the thing, Galen is making the argument that what matters isn't knowledge or experience, but personality and instinct. Palin may not know much about foreign policy or economic policy or supreme court decisions, but she has a good heart and good instincts, and that counts for more. Which is in a way flattering to the great majority of Americans who may not know as much about foreign policy or economic policy or supreme court justices as they think they should.

But I don't buy it. If I asked most Americans what Gingivitis is and how it works, they would say something like "I think it like attacks your teeth and gums." And that's fine, because I don't allow most Americans to jam metal hooks into my mouth.

On the other hand if I asked my dentist what Gingivitis was, and he was unable to come up with any better answer than that, well I'd be looking for a new dentist. If Sarah Palin doesn't have the where-with-all to answer questions about the economy or foriegn policy, well, maybe McCain should look around for a new vice presidential candidate.

It seems unlikely that he would do that, though.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

I-Pod 10

1. James - "Runaground"
2. Thievery Corporation, "Liberation Front"
3. Mason Jennings - "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol"
4. Cibo Matto - "Sugar Water"
5. Lou Reed - "New York Telephone Conversation"
6. Château Flight - "Camping Jazz"
7. R.E.M. - "Imitation of Life"
8. Evan Dando - "The Ballad of El Goodo"
9. World Party - "Is It Too Late?"
10. Erasure - "If I Could (Japanese Mix)"

Busy Day today so not much posted. I will note that the Mason Jennings cover of The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol" is from the brilliant "I'm Not There" soundtrack. The Ballad of El Goodo is from the "Empire Records" soundtrack. The Japanese Mix of "If I Could" basically sounds like Vince Clark discovered the Koto button on his computer.

If Sarah Palin Can't Answer Tough Questions, well, Blame the Tough Questions

Or so seems to be the tack some Republicans are taking. Hugh Hewitt has an interview with Sarah Palin in which he asks the following question.
Hewitt: Now governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to interviews. Do you share that opinion?

Palin: Well, I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago. But I’m not going to pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful. I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say, “That’s okay.”
That's okay? What a bizarre response.

But it is nice to see that Palin agrees with her supporters who think she's getting a bum deal. We've already covered (here and here) the bizarre assertion that there's no such thing as a "Bush Doctrine." And the question she flubbed so terribly in the Couric interview? Why don't we put $700 Billion "helping middle class families" instead of helping these big financial institutions. Considering the state of the economy, this is a question Sarah Palin should have been ready to answer. And she sounded like a moron.

So I'm not sure how that's Courics fault. But I totally get why they want to blame the media rather than facing up to how badly she flubbed her questions.