BUT THEY DO BOND -- OVER A MUTUAL DESIRE TO MAKE THE PUBLIC STUPIDER
Chuck Todd has seen them together in person and I haven't, so I guess he should know, but I don't see this:
Commenting on a new joint interview with John McCain and Sarah Palin, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd described the Republican ticket as lacking cohesion, chemistry, and (he hinted) trust.
"There was a tenseness," Todd told MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "I couldn't see chemistry between John McCain and Sarah Palin. I felt as if we grabbed two people and said 'here, sit next to each other, we are going to conduct an interview.' They are not comfortable with each other yet." ...
"When you see the two of them together, the chemistry is just not there. You do wonder, is John McCain starting to blame her for things? Blaming himself? Is she blaming him?" asked the highly regarded NBC newsman....
Here's the clip of the Brian Williams report. The joint interview starts about two minutes in.
They may not be best buds, but I think there's a connection. Early on, Palin can barely suppress a smile, beaming at Gramps as he pulls out the "got 'em where we want 'em" line and talks about what a wonderfully respectful campaign they're running against Obama. Palin then nods repeatedly in delight when McCain lists all the differences between himself and the evil, scary, dangerous opponent he respects so much.
Prompted by Williams, they spend much of the rest of the interview trying to outdo each other in capturing the sheer enormity of Joe Biden's recent remarks about the likelihood of a global crisis early in an Obama term -- was this merely the most astonishing and terrifying thing ever said in American political history, or since man first walked erect? (OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) The point of Biden's statement about Obama -- that whoever tests him is "going to find out this guy's got steel in his spine" -- is never mentioned, of course. And watch McCain's delight when Palin brings up Biden's past praise of McCain, as if Biden's current criticisms of McCain are irrelevant.
This is the bond between Palin and McCain: they're both energized by the process of trashing their opponents and distorting the facts. McCain's energized because he believes that the attempt to deprive McCain of the presidency -- his due -- is an act of insolence on Obama's part; Palin's just amorally, monomaniacally ambitious. They may not be pals, but they have angry self-interest in common.
Near the end, there's a bit of what seems like tension when Palin misstates the number of secretaries of state who've endorsed McCain -- the number is five, not four -- but I think McCain is just brooding: Dammit, I have the overwhelming support of the foreign policy mandarins, but this Democratic puppy gets all the credit for one goddamn endorsement!
I don't think it's tension. In general I think they're fine together -- at least when they're focused on the array of forces they think are depriving them of their due.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
SURELY YOU DIDN'T THINK ANY OF THE CRAZIES WERE GOING TO STAY IN THE WOODWORK, DID YOU?
First, there's this from inJesus.com, cited by Kathy at If I Ran the Zoo:
Block African witchcraft curses against McCain and Palin NOW!
...Two days ago, I listened to a 9-6-08 message by Bree Keyton, a young woman evangelist who had just traveled to Kenya and visited Obama's home village and what she found out about his relations with his tribal people was chilling. And his "cousin" Odinga was dreadful. She said the witches, warlocks and those involved in satanism and the occult get up daily at 3 a.m. to release curses against McCain and Palin so B. Hussein Obama is elected. ...
****
Then we have this from Free Republic (citing many PUMA blogs):
... What would happen if a power-hungry President were to play tricks with the draft? Could he use the draft as an excuse to:
1. Use draftees for slave labor [in the name of 'civil service']?
2. Put adults from age 18 to 41 into reeducation camps? ...
What first fueled this concern was Michelle Obama in a California speech:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
... The clincher was Joe Biden's ominous warning:
1. A manufactured crisis within six months
2. Solutions that will cause Obama's poll ratings to plummet.
... Guess who said this?
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..." -- David Rockefeller.
... Bill Ayers has been practicing how to radicalize students for a long time now. It's clearly a passion of his....
(Wow -- David Rockefeller, from beyond the grave, conspiring with Bill Ayers.)
****
And in the professional division, from anti-Semitic Sean Hannity source Andy Martin, we have this:
A Honolulu news conference will disclose startling new details about the"secret truths" of Senator Barack Obama,
The presidential campaign is sure to be impacted
Is the release of these facts the real reason Obama has suspended his campaign and is heading home to Hawai'i?
Does Obama fear a "dying declaration" by his grandmother? ...
That's a whole lotta crazy.
THIS IS McCAIN'S BASE. This is the kind of paranoia that McCain, his running mate, and the top minds in his campaign are encouraging, and thus making mainstream. These are the flames they're fanning, and they should never be forgiven for it.
First, there's this from inJesus.com, cited by Kathy at If I Ran the Zoo:
Block African witchcraft curses against McCain and Palin NOW!
...Two days ago, I listened to a 9-6-08 message by Bree Keyton, a young woman evangelist who had just traveled to Kenya and visited Obama's home village and what she found out about his relations with his tribal people was chilling. And his "cousin" Odinga was dreadful. She said the witches, warlocks and those involved in satanism and the occult get up daily at 3 a.m. to release curses against McCain and Palin so B. Hussein Obama is elected. ...
****
Then we have this from Free Republic (citing many PUMA blogs):
... What would happen if a power-hungry President were to play tricks with the draft? Could he use the draft as an excuse to:
1. Use draftees for slave labor [in the name of 'civil service']?
2. Put adults from age 18 to 41 into reeducation camps? ...
What first fueled this concern was Michelle Obama in a California speech:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
... The clincher was Joe Biden's ominous warning:
1. A manufactured crisis within six months
2. Solutions that will cause Obama's poll ratings to plummet.
... Guess who said this?
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..." -- David Rockefeller.
... Bill Ayers has been practicing how to radicalize students for a long time now. It's clearly a passion of his....
(Wow -- David Rockefeller, from beyond the grave, conspiring with Bill Ayers.)
****
And in the professional division, from anti-Semitic Sean Hannity source Andy Martin, we have this:
A Honolulu news conference will disclose startling new details about the"secret truths" of Senator Barack Obama,
The presidential campaign is sure to be impacted
Is the release of these facts the real reason Obama has suspended his campaign and is heading home to Hawai'i?
Does Obama fear a "dying declaration" by his grandmother? ...
That's a whole lotta crazy.
THIS IS McCAIN'S BASE. This is the kind of paranoia that McCain, his running mate, and the top minds in his campaign are encouraging, and thus making mainstream. These are the flames they're fanning, and they should never be forgiven for it.
JUST A JEALOUS GUY
I keep reading analyses of John McCain's decision to keep fighting for Pennsylvania, a state where most polls say he's trailing by double digits, instead of concentrating on, say, Virginia and Colorado and New Hampshire, where he's polling better.
Al Giordano thinks he's counting on a late Jeremiah Wright ad blitz to win over the Pennsyltucky part of the state, hoping to build a "McCain comeback" narrative and also to influence other states that might respond to race politics. Chris Bowers thinks he's bailing on states like Colorado and Virginia because early voting in those states dooms him (Pennsylvania doesn't have early voting). MSNBC's First Read notes that Pennsylvania has a lot of old people. Nate Silver thinks the McCain camp might be overreacting to an internal poll in Pennsylvania that's surprisingly good, but is thus an outlier and unreliable.
These are all good theories. But I keep wondering if a big part of McCain's thinking is -- as usual -- pure unadulterated jealous anger.
Consider the pattern: Obama announced in mid-June that he planned to go to Iraq and Afghanistan? McCain announced a week later that he planned to visit Latin America. Obama planned a convention acceptance speech in a football stadium? McCain decided to hijack the news cycle by announcing his VP pick the next day, doing so in, yes, a sports arena. Obama was a fresh face with limited Washington experience who won the nomination and consistently beat McCain in the polls? McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Right now, Obama is ahead of McCain in a number of Bush states -- and maybe McCain is less interested in wresting those states back than in saying, "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to fight you in a blue state! So there!" Maybe there's less strategic thinking going on than we think -- maybe it's all gut.
Just a hunch.
I keep reading analyses of John McCain's decision to keep fighting for Pennsylvania, a state where most polls say he's trailing by double digits, instead of concentrating on, say, Virginia and Colorado and New Hampshire, where he's polling better.
Al Giordano thinks he's counting on a late Jeremiah Wright ad blitz to win over the Pennsyltucky part of the state, hoping to build a "McCain comeback" narrative and also to influence other states that might respond to race politics. Chris Bowers thinks he's bailing on states like Colorado and Virginia because early voting in those states dooms him (Pennsylvania doesn't have early voting). MSNBC's First Read notes that Pennsylvania has a lot of old people. Nate Silver thinks the McCain camp might be overreacting to an internal poll in Pennsylvania that's surprisingly good, but is thus an outlier and unreliable.
These are all good theories. But I keep wondering if a big part of McCain's thinking is -- as usual -- pure unadulterated jealous anger.
Consider the pattern: Obama announced in mid-June that he planned to go to Iraq and Afghanistan? McCain announced a week later that he planned to visit Latin America. Obama planned a convention acceptance speech in a football stadium? McCain decided to hijack the news cycle by announcing his VP pick the next day, doing so in, yes, a sports arena. Obama was a fresh face with limited Washington experience who won the nomination and consistently beat McCain in the polls? McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Right now, Obama is ahead of McCain in a number of Bush states -- and maybe McCain is less interested in wresting those states back than in saying, "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to fight you in a blue state! So there!" Maybe there's less strategic thinking going on than we think -- maybe it's all gut.
Just a hunch.
THE NEW BENCHMARK
John McCain to Don Imus on the question of Sarah Palin's network TV interviews:
She did fine in the interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. If I called you up and said, "What's the Bush Doctrine?," I doubt if you would know what it is. I think you'd probably have a pretty funny answer. She did a great job in those interviews.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there's your new standard: If Imus doesn't know it, then screw it -- the vice president of the United States doesn't need to know it, either.
Bonus lunacy from McCain:
I think she's the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president, to tell you the truth.
Yes, really. Sarah Palin: not only more qualified to be VP than, say, Dan Quayle, but more qualified than Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, John Edwards, Al Gore, Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen -- and, of course, McCain's first choice this year, Joe Lieberman.
****
AND: one more (and note that Imus really, really wants you to know he's not a racist):
IMUS: ... if you were not in this race and Senator Obama was running against someone else, divorcing yourself from policy considerations, would his election, given the history of our country -- slavery, the Civil War, civil rights battles of rthe sixties -- be a demonstration to the world that America is indeed the land of opportunity, that anything's possible, and all men actually are created equal, and that a black face in the Oval Office of the White House would redefine this country's role in the world?
McCAIN: Well, I think it certainly is an affirmation that, in America, that anything is possible. I think that Governor -- I think that President Bill Clinton was an example of that. I think that Ronald Reagan was an example of that. I think we've had many, many examples of, that, if America, in America you can come a long way, and especially impactful is Senator Obama's success, but, again, I again view this race as a contest that would be decided by who Americans think is the best qualified to be president of the United States. I believe I am that....
There you have it. Ronald Reagan: according to John McCain, he was the first black president. Basically there's no real difference between electing him president and electing Obama.
John McCain to Don Imus on the question of Sarah Palin's network TV interviews:
She did fine in the interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. If I called you up and said, "What's the Bush Doctrine?," I doubt if you would know what it is. I think you'd probably have a pretty funny answer. She did a great job in those interviews.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, there's your new standard: If Imus doesn't know it, then screw it -- the vice president of the United States doesn't need to know it, either.
Bonus lunacy from McCain:
I think she's the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president, to tell you the truth.
Yes, really. Sarah Palin: not only more qualified to be VP than, say, Dan Quayle, but more qualified than Joe Biden, Dick Cheney, John Edwards, Al Gore, Jack Kemp, Lloyd Bentsen -- and, of course, McCain's first choice this year, Joe Lieberman.
****
AND: one more (and note that Imus really, really wants you to know he's not a racist):
IMUS: ... if you were not in this race and Senator Obama was running against someone else, divorcing yourself from policy considerations, would his election, given the history of our country -- slavery, the Civil War, civil rights battles of rthe sixties -- be a demonstration to the world that America is indeed the land of opportunity, that anything's possible, and all men actually are created equal, and that a black face in the Oval Office of the White House would redefine this country's role in the world?
McCAIN: Well, I think it certainly is an affirmation that, in America, that anything is possible. I think that Governor -- I think that President Bill Clinton was an example of that. I think that Ronald Reagan was an example of that. I think we've had many, many examples of, that, if America, in America you can come a long way, and especially impactful is Senator Obama's success, but, again, I again view this race as a contest that would be decided by who Americans think is the best qualified to be president of the United States. I believe I am that....
There you have it. Ronald Reagan: according to John McCain, he was the first black president. Basically there's no real difference between electing him president and electing Obama.
GOP EYE FOR THE ALASKAN GUY
Everyone's talking about the $150,000 the Republican National Committee has spent on Sarah Palin's clothes and hair in the weeks since she was put on the ticket, and even some Republicans are reportedly disgusted. Me, I'm struck by this:
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
Have you seen the Atelier Web site? Check it out. I'll wait.
Or read some shopper reviews:
For me, this was just exciting to see the fashion forward vision of the aforementioned designers, because God knows I can't afford $1200 boots.
This is where the RNC shopped for Todd the snowmobiler? Or Track the GI? Or Levi the hockey-playing teen daddy?
What was purchased?
Did the RNC buy the Carol Christian Poell see-through T-shirt, the Ann Demeulemeester knitted hood/scarf, the Miharayasuhiro wool pant with wrap detail, or the Julius cowhide fingerless gloves -- all of which, I'm sure, would keep a Palin man toasty warm at a Toledo campaign appearance or on a moose hunt?
OK, sorry -- that's nasty. I'm picking the most outre items; there are some perfectly reasonable suits and so on for sale at Atelier. (Pretty much all in black, of course, but that's New York.) But I don't even understand the thinking. You're selling these people as jes' folks -- and this is where you send them?
I can only guess that no one in the McCain campaign or at the RNC can bear to even talk to whoever's doing this wardrobe stuff, out of fear of catching frou-frou cooties. Surely the campaign could have asked for tasteful but simple and down-to-earth.
Come on -- fake it better, folks. You're embarrassing us.
*****
There's also this:
The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
Well, I have to cut the Republicans a break on that last one -- I assume what's meant is Steinlauf and Stoller, which sells button and zippers and other such items to the rag trade, as well as to consumers; that's a reasonable expense. (Although I can't help thinking about TBogg's remark after Palin dropped the puck at a Philadelphia Flyers game: "Why did Sarah Palin have four Oreos glued to the front of her coat?")
Pacifier, though, seems kinda high-end -- a lot of $900 strollers there. (By contrast, Walmart's most expensive stroller is under $400, and it's a triple.)
But that's nothing compared to Palin's decision to make Alaska taypayers shell out for her kids' travel:
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.
I love the way Palin effectively turned the kids into state workers:
In July, the governor charged the state $2,741.26 to take Bristol and Piper to Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association. The girls had their own room for five nights at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for $215.46 a night, expense records show.
Expense forms describe the girls' official purpose as "NGA Governor's Youth Programs and family activities." But those programs were activities designed to keep children busy, a service provided by the NGA to accommodate governors and their families, NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear said....
In February 2007, the three girls flew from Juneau to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines. Palin charged the state for the $519.30 round-trip ticket for each girl, and noted on the expense form that the daughters accompanied her to "open the start of the Iron Dog race."
The children and their mother then watched as Todd Palin and other racers started the competition, which Todd won that year. Palin later had the relevant expense forms changed to describe the girls' business as "First Family official starter for the start of the Iron Dog race."
Reformer? Don't make me laugh. If you sent Sarah Palin back in time to any of the most corrupt, nepotistic, can-you-put-my-cousin-on-the-payroll? political machines in American history, she'd feel right at home.
Everyone's talking about the $150,000 the Republican National Committee has spent on Sarah Palin's clothes and hair in the weeks since she was put on the ticket, and even some Republicans are reportedly disgusted. Me, I'm struck by this:
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
Have you seen the Atelier Web site? Check it out. I'll wait.
Or read some shopper reviews:
For me, this was just exciting to see the fashion forward vision of the aforementioned designers, because God knows I can't afford $1200 boots.
This is where the RNC shopped for Todd the snowmobiler? Or Track the GI? Or Levi the hockey-playing teen daddy?
What was purchased?
Did the RNC buy the Carol Christian Poell see-through T-shirt, the Ann Demeulemeester knitted hood/scarf, the Miharayasuhiro wool pant with wrap detail, or the Julius cowhide fingerless gloves -- all of which, I'm sure, would keep a Palin man toasty warm at a Toledo campaign appearance or on a moose hunt?
OK, sorry -- that's nasty. I'm picking the most outre items; there are some perfectly reasonable suits and so on for sale at Atelier. (Pretty much all in black, of course, but that's New York.) But I don't even understand the thinking. You're selling these people as jes' folks -- and this is where you send them?
I can only guess that no one in the McCain campaign or at the RNC can bear to even talk to whoever's doing this wardrobe stuff, out of fear of catching frou-frou cooties. Surely the campaign could have asked for tasteful but simple and down-to-earth.
Come on -- fake it better, folks. You're embarrassing us.
*****
There's also this:
The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
Well, I have to cut the Republicans a break on that last one -- I assume what's meant is Steinlauf and Stoller, which sells button and zippers and other such items to the rag trade, as well as to consumers; that's a reasonable expense. (Although I can't help thinking about TBogg's remark after Palin dropped the puck at a Philadelphia Flyers game: "Why did Sarah Palin have four Oreos glued to the front of her coat?")
Pacifier, though, seems kinda high-end -- a lot of $900 strollers there. (By contrast, Walmart's most expensive stroller is under $400, and it's a triple.)
But that's nothing compared to Palin's decision to make Alaska taypayers shell out for her kids' travel:
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.
I love the way Palin effectively turned the kids into state workers:
In July, the governor charged the state $2,741.26 to take Bristol and Piper to Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association. The girls had their own room for five nights at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for $215.46 a night, expense records show.
Expense forms describe the girls' official purpose as "NGA Governor's Youth Programs and family activities." But those programs were activities designed to keep children busy, a service provided by the NGA to accommodate governors and their families, NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear said....
In February 2007, the three girls flew from Juneau to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines. Palin charged the state for the $519.30 round-trip ticket for each girl, and noted on the expense form that the daughters accompanied her to "open the start of the Iron Dog race."
The children and their mother then watched as Todd Palin and other racers started the competition, which Todd won that year. Palin later had the relevant expense forms changed to describe the girls' business as "First Family official starter for the start of the Iron Dog race."
Reformer? Don't make me laugh. If you sent Sarah Palin back in time to any of the most corrupt, nepotistic, can-you-put-my-cousin-on-the-payroll? political machines in American history, she'd feel right at home.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
DREW GRIFFIN'S JOB INTERVIEW FOR FOX NEWS
Remember those lists of predicted questions that appeared before Charlie Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin? The lists with questions like "As you know, Barack Obama’s baby mama has been a controversial figure, making statements on the campaign trail that some have interpreted as the loony blather of a wild-eyed black nationalist. I’d like a one-word answer to this question: Have you always been proud to be an American?" and "Why are you so gosh darn popular?"
Well, Drew Griffin of CNN just finished an interview with Palin -- and the questions were pretty much like that.
Samples:
You seemed to be very much on your game. You get huge crowds. Even bigger crowds than [Republican presidential candidate Sen.] John McCain. Why is that?
****
...you are the only person in this race with executive experience, who's taken over governments as mayor and governor. What will you do, day one, to tell the American people, things are changing for the better?
****
Governor, is Barack Obama a socialist?
****
Do you think his intention though, if not a socialist, is to move away from capitalism, true capitalism?
****
...Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?
****
Governor, if in two weeks you're not elected, do you come back at the top of the ticket in 2012?
Wow.
Griffin got picked, no doubt, because Team McCain admired his NewsBusters-approved, Stanley Kurtz-quoting "expose" on Brarack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. Griffin has also, as Steve Benen noted, done GOP-friendly reports on Troopergate and ACORN.
I don't know who the McCain people think they're fooling, but they got what they wanted -- a Fox News interview that wasn't on Fox.
Remember those lists of predicted questions that appeared before Charlie Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin? The lists with questions like "As you know, Barack Obama’s baby mama has been a controversial figure, making statements on the campaign trail that some have interpreted as the loony blather of a wild-eyed black nationalist. I’d like a one-word answer to this question: Have you always been proud to be an American?" and "Why are you so gosh darn popular?"
Well, Drew Griffin of CNN just finished an interview with Palin -- and the questions were pretty much like that.
Samples:
You seemed to be very much on your game. You get huge crowds. Even bigger crowds than [Republican presidential candidate Sen.] John McCain. Why is that?
****
...you are the only person in this race with executive experience, who's taken over governments as mayor and governor. What will you do, day one, to tell the American people, things are changing for the better?
****
Governor, is Barack Obama a socialist?
****
Do you think his intention though, if not a socialist, is to move away from capitalism, true capitalism?
****
...Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?
****
Governor, if in two weeks you're not elected, do you come back at the top of the ticket in 2012?
Wow.
Griffin got picked, no doubt, because Team McCain admired his NewsBusters-approved, Stanley Kurtz-quoting "expose" on Brarack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. Griffin has also, as Steve Benen noted, done GOP-friendly reports on Troopergate and ACORN.
I don't know who the McCain people think they're fooling, but they got what they wanted -- a Fox News interview that wasn't on Fox.
IS PALIN REALLY THE PERSON YOU WANT TALKING ABOUT STEADINESS IN THE FACE OF A GLOBAL CRISIS?
Joe Biden said over the weekend that there's likely to be an international crisis early in the term of Barack Obama, if he's elected -- and (this is the part the New York Post leaves out of its story, as do other McCainiacs) Obama's going to handle the crisis with "steel in his spine."
The McCain campaign has seized on this -- one member of the ticket in particular.
Um, if I were the McCainiacs, and I wanted to highlight a statement about my opponent inviting a foreign policy trial by fire, would I really want to send out ... Sarah Palin?
We know that, in a crisis, Obama will be deeply informed. We know he'll have smart, thoughtful, seasoned advisers. And we know he'll be cool as a cucumber.
To say the least, we don't exactly know this about a possible Palin presidency.
Yet there she is, delivering the campaign's response. And I say: thank you, McCain campaign.
*****
Here, by the way, is Palin's list of possible crises early in an Obama presidency:
Our opponent wants to sit down with the world's worst dictators. With no preconditions, he proposes to meet with a regime in Teheran that vows to "wipe Israel off the map." Let’s call that crisis scenario number one.
So what, Sarah? The meeting will be a crisis? Is Ahmadinejad going to nuke the conference room?
Senator Obama has also advocated sending our U.S. military into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism. We'll call that scenario number two.
Yes, Sarah, please keep telling the voters what a terrible thing it would be for President Obama to kill bin Laden.
He opposed the surge strategy that has finally brought victory in Iraq within sight. He's voted to cut off funding for our troops, leaving our young men and women at grave risk. He wants to pull out, leaving some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three.
Right, Sarah -- America loves the war. America would hate to see the troops withdrawn. America really wants to police Iraq forever.
After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.
Yeah, Americans really want to take a bullet for Georgia and Ukraine. Got your finger square on the pulse with that one, Sarah.
But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden's next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis scenario number five.
And that's really how you want to hammer home that "We're all gonna die!" message -- with a big yuck about Joe Biden's speaking style. The gravitas is awe-inspiring.
Here's what I don't get: the McCainiacs went to all this trouble to write up a list for Palin, yet they couldn't come up with one scenario that was actually frightening? You know, something even remotely like the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11? OK, maybe Palin's first one -- if they meant Iran actually nuking Israel, yes, that's a huge deal, but the bullet point is written as if the talks would be the crisis. Does anyone in the McCain camp actually read this stuff before it goes into the Teleprompter?
Joe Biden said over the weekend that there's likely to be an international crisis early in the term of Barack Obama, if he's elected -- and (this is the part the New York Post leaves out of its story, as do other McCainiacs) Obama's going to handle the crisis with "steel in his spine."
The McCain campaign has seized on this -- one member of the ticket in particular.
Um, if I were the McCainiacs, and I wanted to highlight a statement about my opponent inviting a foreign policy trial by fire, would I really want to send out ... Sarah Palin?
We know that, in a crisis, Obama will be deeply informed. We know he'll have smart, thoughtful, seasoned advisers. And we know he'll be cool as a cucumber.
To say the least, we don't exactly know this about a possible Palin presidency.
Yet there she is, delivering the campaign's response. And I say: thank you, McCain campaign.
*****
Here, by the way, is Palin's list of possible crises early in an Obama presidency:
Our opponent wants to sit down with the world's worst dictators. With no preconditions, he proposes to meet with a regime in Teheran that vows to "wipe Israel off the map." Let’s call that crisis scenario number one.
So what, Sarah? The meeting will be a crisis? Is Ahmadinejad going to nuke the conference room?
Senator Obama has also advocated sending our U.S. military into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. Invading the sovereign territory of a troubled partner in the war against terrorism. We'll call that scenario number two.
Yes, Sarah, please keep telling the voters what a terrible thing it would be for President Obama to kill bin Laden.
He opposed the surge strategy that has finally brought victory in Iraq within sight. He's voted to cut off funding for our troops, leaving our young men and women at grave risk. He wants to pull out, leaving some 25 million Iraqis at the mercy of Iranian-supported Shiite extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq. By his own admission, this could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. Crisis scenario number three.
Right, Sarah -- America loves the war. America would hate to see the troops withdrawn. America really wants to police Iraq forever.
After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine next. That would be crisis scenario number four.
Yeah, Americans really want to take a bullet for Georgia and Ukraine. Got your finger square on the pulse with that one, Sarah.
But I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden's next speaking engagement. Let’s call that crisis scenario number five.
And that's really how you want to hammer home that "We're all gonna die!" message -- with a big yuck about Joe Biden's speaking style. The gravitas is awe-inspiring.
Here's what I don't get: the McCainiacs went to all this trouble to write up a list for Palin, yet they couldn't come up with one scenario that was actually frightening? You know, something even remotely like the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11? OK, maybe Palin's first one -- if they meant Iran actually nuking Israel, yes, that's a huge deal, but the bullet point is written as if the talks would be the crisis. Does anyone in the McCain camp actually read this stuff before it goes into the Teleprompter?
ARUGULA!
It was a minor event, but why am I not hearing howls of outrage about that snooty elitist Sarah Palin, who was in Colorado Springs on Sunday and took one of her kids to Cold Stone Creamery?
Hell, even The Wall Street Journal thinks that Cold Stone Creamery's "$4 scoop" of ice cream is "a pricey indulgence" in these tough times. Shouldn't we have at least a news cycle's worth of cable-news chatter about how millionaire Sarah Palin is out of touch with ordinary Americans
It was a minor event, but why am I not hearing howls of outrage about that snooty elitist Sarah Palin, who was in Colorado Springs on Sunday and took one of her kids to Cold Stone Creamery?
Hell, even The Wall Street Journal thinks that Cold Stone Creamery's "$4 scoop" of ice cream is "a pricey indulgence" in these tough times. Shouldn't we have at least a news cycle's worth of cable-news chatter about how millionaire Sarah Palin is out of touch with ordinary Americans
DRUDGE'S DELIGHTFUL DREAM, DASHED
Remember last week, when Matt Drudge took one possible interpretation of Gallup's tracking-poll data and declared that Obama and McCain were in a two-point race, then left the big red headline up for an entire day?
Well, yes Gallup does have three different poll interpretations these days -- and one of them did show a two-point race.
Now, by that same measure, Gallup says it's a seven-point race.
This year, that's the least believable of Gallup's models -- likely voters "based on current voting intentions and past voting behavior." It's clear that a lot of people are absolutely determined to vote this year whose "past voting behavior" doesn't include consistent voting. A "likely voter" model "based on current voting intentions only" shows Obama with an eleven-point lead. Among registered voters, he has a ten-point lead.
It's all good news. Sorry, Matt.
Remember last week, when Matt Drudge took one possible interpretation of Gallup's tracking-poll data and declared that Obama and McCain were in a two-point race, then left the big red headline up for an entire day?
Well, yes Gallup does have three different poll interpretations these days -- and one of them did show a two-point race.
Now, by that same measure, Gallup says it's a seven-point race.
This year, that's the least believable of Gallup's models -- likely voters "based on current voting intentions and past voting behavior." It's clear that a lot of people are absolutely determined to vote this year whose "past voting behavior" doesn't include consistent voting. A "likely voter" model "based on current voting intentions only" shows Obama with an eleven-point lead. Among registered voters, he has a ten-point lead.
It's all good news. Sorry, Matt.
(UPDATE: I whiffed on this one. I was tracing this back to the wrong post -- as GeoD notes in comments, the original post lads to a much more detailed photo, and, yeah, the thing looks real there.)
*****
PHONY ANTI-PALIN BUMPER STICKER?
Via TS at Instaputz, I see that Glenn Reynolds, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and a number of other righty bloggers are upset about this bumper sticker:
Conveniently for one of the offended righties, this offers the perfect opportunity to play the Hitler card:
As one historically astute commenter notes, the Nazis had a similar slogan back in the '30's and '40's:
"They are NOT Men and Women, They are Jews."
Dehumanizing your enemies is the first step in rationalizing their murders.
Um, if this bumper sticker is on the car of an evil Godless Nazi liberal, why does it have a Jesus fish on it?
Better Photoshop next time, kids. (Notice that the bumper angles in, but the bumper sticker doesn't?)
I challenge anyone to find this bumper sticker on sale anywhere.
*****
Via TS at Instaputz, I see that Glenn Reynolds, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and a number of other righty bloggers are upset about this bumper sticker:
Conveniently for one of the offended righties, this offers the perfect opportunity to play the Hitler card:
As one historically astute commenter notes, the Nazis had a similar slogan back in the '30's and '40's:
"They are NOT Men and Women, They are Jews."
Dehumanizing your enemies is the first step in rationalizing their murders.
Um, if this bumper sticker is on the car of an evil Godless Nazi liberal, why does it have a Jesus fish on it?
Better Photoshop next time, kids. (Notice that the bumper angles in, but the bumper sticker doesn't?)
I challenge anyone to find this bumper sticker on sale anywhere.
MARK PENN STILL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL HE'S TALKING ABOUT
Remember Mark Penn, the campaign genius who helped Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic nomination this year, partly because he couldn't master little details like the fact that the California Democratic primary is not, in fact, winner-take-all?
Well, today he has a Politico piece about possible pitfalls for Barack Obama in the homestretch of a campaign, in which he says, among other things, that
... a campaign’s closing couple of weeks can be unexpectedly treacherous. Just ask John F. Kerry...
... during the presidential campaign's closing weeks, Kerry got hit by the famous Swift boat attacks.
Er, Mark?
The Swift boat attack ads began airing on August 5, 2004; a New York Times story dated August 20 discussed Kerry's response "[a]fter weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record." The Swift boat book, Unfit to Command, was published on August 25 and hit #1 on the September 5 New York Times bestseller list.
Well, at least you had the right year, Mark. That has to count for something.
Remember Mark Penn, the campaign genius who helped Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic nomination this year, partly because he couldn't master little details like the fact that the California Democratic primary is not, in fact, winner-take-all?
Well, today he has a Politico piece about possible pitfalls for Barack Obama in the homestretch of a campaign, in which he says, among other things, that
... a campaign’s closing couple of weeks can be unexpectedly treacherous. Just ask John F. Kerry...
... during the presidential campaign's closing weeks, Kerry got hit by the famous Swift boat attacks.
Er, Mark?
The Swift boat attack ads began airing on August 5, 2004; a New York Times story dated August 20 discussed Kerry's response "[a]fter weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record." The Swift boat book, Unfit to Command, was published on August 25 and hit #1 on the September 5 New York Times bestseller list.
Well, at least you had the right year, Mark. That has to count for something.
Monday, October 20, 2008
THE AFRICAN MICHELLE OBAMA TAPE STORY: WAIT, IT GETS STUPIDER
Last week, many of our pals in the right-wing blogosphere actually fell for a bizarre post on a blog called African Press International that purported to be a transcript of a telephone rant by Michelle Obama -- albeit a Michelle Obama who, to judge from her syntax, learned to speak English somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa:
... Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: ... "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API." ...
But there's more: API, which insists it will soon release the recording of the conversation, says it's now being represented by an American lawyer.
And not just any lawyer:
...The release [of the recording] has taken long due to the fact that API wanted to clear all legal hurdles and be safe from getting sued by any one. API and a US Law firm - LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG has just entered into an agreement giving the law firm the right to represent API in all matters that may arise due to the Michelle Obama interview and the release of the tapes in the US....
That would be this Philip J. Berg:
...In 2005 he was fined and sanctioned $10,000 for having committed a "laundry list of unethical actions."
Berg is also a 9/11 truther.
But the subject of Michelle's alleged rant has, in fact, been the focus of Berg's life for some time now: the citizenship status of Barack Obama:
Pennsylvania's former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania accusing presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of lying about his U.S. citizenship, which would make him ineligible to be president.
...The suit ... says Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya late in her pregnancy and ended up giving birth there. It also claims that later in life, Mr. Obama declared himself a citizen of Indonesia.
...Mr. Berg said he was contacted about filing the lawsuit by a member or associate of the group PUMA....
His efforts to demonstrate that Obama is ineligible to be president have been unceasing. This has made him the hero of an astonishing number of Free Republic threads. He blogs about the lawsuit at the site ObamaCrimes.com. He also appears on fringe radio shows such as the show hosted by Pastor Butch Paugh, a neo-Confederate.
Berg, Jerome Corsi ... there's probably a great book or magazine article in all this ("The Gang That Couldn't Swift-Boat Straight"). Meanwhile, I hope a recording is released, just so we get to hear how embarrassingly fake it is.
Last week, many of our pals in the right-wing blogosphere actually fell for a bizarre post on a blog called African Press International that purported to be a transcript of a telephone rant by Michelle Obama -- albeit a Michelle Obama who, to judge from her syntax, learned to speak English somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa:
... Mrs Obama was angered and she came out loud with the following: ... "it is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a step father. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband's face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by His step father. The important thing here is where my husband's heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that My husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner; says Michelle Obama on telefon to API." ...
But there's more: API, which insists it will soon release the recording of the conversation, says it's now being represented by an American lawyer.
And not just any lawyer:
...The release [of the recording] has taken long due to the fact that API wanted to clear all legal hurdles and be safe from getting sued by any one. API and a US Law firm - LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG has just entered into an agreement giving the law firm the right to represent API in all matters that may arise due to the Michelle Obama interview and the release of the tapes in the US....
That would be this Philip J. Berg:
...In 2005 he was fined and sanctioned $10,000 for having committed a "laundry list of unethical actions."
"Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession," Joyner wrote.
"This court has grown weary of Mr. Berg's continuous and brazen disrespect toward this court and his own clients. Mr. Berg's actions ... are an enormous waste of judicial time and resources that this court cannot, in good conscience, allow to go unpunished," Joyner wrote.
Berg is also a 9/11 truther.
But the subject of Michelle's alleged rant has, in fact, been the focus of Berg's life for some time now: the citizenship status of Barack Obama:
Pennsylvania's former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania accusing presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of lying about his U.S. citizenship, which would make him ineligible to be president.
...The suit ... says Mr. Obama's mother went to Kenya late in her pregnancy and ended up giving birth there. It also claims that later in life, Mr. Obama declared himself a citizen of Indonesia.
...Mr. Berg said he was contacted about filing the lawsuit by a member or associate of the group PUMA....
His efforts to demonstrate that Obama is ineligible to be president have been unceasing. This has made him the hero of an astonishing number of Free Republic threads. He blogs about the lawsuit at the site ObamaCrimes.com. He also appears on fringe radio shows such as the show hosted by Pastor Butch Paugh, a neo-Confederate.
Berg, Jerome Corsi ... there's probably a great book or magazine article in all this ("The Gang That Couldn't Swift-Boat Straight"). Meanwhile, I hope a recording is released, just so we get to hear how embarrassingly fake it is.
IF YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING, I HAVE A BRIDGE I'D LIKE TO SELL YOU
Of course they're going to play the Wright card. They were always intending to play the Wright card:
John McCain's campaign manager says he is reconsidering using Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue during the election's closing weeks.
I love the justification:
In an appearance on conservative Hugh Hewitt's radio program, [Rick] Davis said that circumstances had changed since John McCain initially and unilaterally took Obama's former pastor off the table. The Arizona Republican, Davis argued, had been jilted by the remarks of Rep. John Lewis, who compared recent GOP crowds to segregationist George Wallace's rallies. And, as such, the campaign was going to "rethink" what was in and out of political bounds....
It's yet another variant on the disingenuous nonsense I described earlier today. John McCain goes negative? It's Obama's fault because he won't do a series of joint town meetings! The McCain campaign uses vicious robocalls? It's an unfortunate necessity because it's impossible to talk to every voter individually, and the "liberal media filter" makes genuine communication through traditional channels impossible! The Wright card is played? John Lewis made us do it!
This is beyond whining; it's blaming the victim. The base actually believes that the campaign is negative because Barack Obama and his supporters forced negativity on McCain, as did the "liberal media," which won't override its biases and tell the public the plain truth, which is that Obama is the most dangerous human being on the face of the earth and his presidency will be the end of civilization as we know it.
Of course they're going to play the Wright card. They were always intending to play the Wright card:
John McCain's campaign manager says he is reconsidering using Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue during the election's closing weeks.
I love the justification:
In an appearance on conservative Hugh Hewitt's radio program, [Rick] Davis said that circumstances had changed since John McCain initially and unilaterally took Obama's former pastor off the table. The Arizona Republican, Davis argued, had been jilted by the remarks of Rep. John Lewis, who compared recent GOP crowds to segregationist George Wallace's rallies. And, as such, the campaign was going to "rethink" what was in and out of political bounds....
It's yet another variant on the disingenuous nonsense I described earlier today. John McCain goes negative? It's Obama's fault because he won't do a series of joint town meetings! The McCain campaign uses vicious robocalls? It's an unfortunate necessity because it's impossible to talk to every voter individually, and the "liberal media filter" makes genuine communication through traditional channels impossible! The Wright card is played? John Lewis made us do it!
This is beyond whining; it's blaming the victim. The base actually believes that the campaign is negative because Barack Obama and his supporters forced negativity on McCain, as did the "liberal media," which won't override its biases and tell the public the plain truth, which is that Obama is the most dangerous human being on the face of the earth and his presidency will be the end of civilization as we know it.
LOSING THE ELECTION, GAINING GROUND IN THE LONG WAR?
I don't buy the notion that John McCain is an innocent victim of his campaign -- I think he's perfectly comfortable with its gutter nature. It makes him feel young and vigorous; it makes him feel like a brawler who doesn't quit. I don't think he worries at all about the lies his campaign is telling or the toxins it's introducing into America's body politic -- all that is trumped by his desire to either win or go down swinging.
But I wonder if his motivations are exactly the same as those of his campaign managers (and running mate).
Steve Schmidt, his campaign guru, is a Rove protege; Sarah Palin is just a plain old underinformed wingnut. They've spent their political lives in a Republican Party dominated by "movement conservatives" -- radicals with no real goals other than the amassing of power and the destruction of liberalism and the Democratic Party.
Like revolutionaries in the jungle, movement conservatives are fighting a long war. And I think they're philosophical about losing an election if they can make gains in that long war. Right now, they may actually be making some gains.
Look at how we're talking about taxes. The notion of progressive taxation in America goes back a century or so -- it was championed by Teddy Roosevelt, reportedly John McCain's big political hero. Suddenly, though, adjusting the tax code in ways that would replicate Clinton- or Reagan-era rates is being denounced as "socialism" -- not by back-bench GOP crazies or talk-radio blowhards, but by the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate. This has breathed new life into "socialism" and "socialist" as political smears and given them a new political acceptability. Now the words will be deployed at the highest levels of the GOP if Obama wins and tries to make even the moderate tweaks in the tax code he's promising. That's a legacy of the McCain campaign.
More frightening is the talk about "voter fraud." At the Huffington Post, Christina Bellantoni of The Washington Times has posted video of early voters in North Carolina (nearly all of them African-American) who have to walk through a gauntlet of (mostly white) protestors (some yelling "Cheaters!") in order to cast perfectly legal votes. It's now mainstream to suggest that every Democratic victory at the polls may be the result of voter fraud, or that every black voter in America is illegally registered unless proven legal. That's another legacy of this campaign.
So the election may be a battle the GOP loses. But in the long war, ground may have been gained.
I don't buy the notion that John McCain is an innocent victim of his campaign -- I think he's perfectly comfortable with its gutter nature. It makes him feel young and vigorous; it makes him feel like a brawler who doesn't quit. I don't think he worries at all about the lies his campaign is telling or the toxins it's introducing into America's body politic -- all that is trumped by his desire to either win or go down swinging.
But I wonder if his motivations are exactly the same as those of his campaign managers (and running mate).
Steve Schmidt, his campaign guru, is a Rove protege; Sarah Palin is just a plain old underinformed wingnut. They've spent their political lives in a Republican Party dominated by "movement conservatives" -- radicals with no real goals other than the amassing of power and the destruction of liberalism and the Democratic Party.
Like revolutionaries in the jungle, movement conservatives are fighting a long war. And I think they're philosophical about losing an election if they can make gains in that long war. Right now, they may actually be making some gains.
Look at how we're talking about taxes. The notion of progressive taxation in America goes back a century or so -- it was championed by Teddy Roosevelt, reportedly John McCain's big political hero. Suddenly, though, adjusting the tax code in ways that would replicate Clinton- or Reagan-era rates is being denounced as "socialism" -- not by back-bench GOP crazies or talk-radio blowhards, but by the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate. This has breathed new life into "socialism" and "socialist" as political smears and given them a new political acceptability. Now the words will be deployed at the highest levels of the GOP if Obama wins and tries to make even the moderate tweaks in the tax code he's promising. That's a legacy of the McCain campaign.
More frightening is the talk about "voter fraud." At the Huffington Post, Christina Bellantoni of The Washington Times has posted video of early voters in North Carolina (nearly all of them African-American) who have to walk through a gauntlet of (mostly white) protestors (some yelling "Cheaters!") in order to cast perfectly legal votes. It's now mainstream to suggest that every Democratic victory at the polls may be the result of voter fraud, or that every black voter in America is illegally registered unless proven legal. That's another legacy of this campaign.
So the election may be a battle the GOP loses. But in the long war, ground may have been gained.
THE DOG ATE OUR SENSE OF DECENCY
Jason Zengerle of The New Republic is puzzled:
Is Palin Posing for Posterity?
Some interesting comments from Sarah Palin on the subject of those McCain robocalls:
It's a strange sentiment coming from Palin, not only because it's off-message (McCain was defending the very same robocalls yesterday) but because she was the one who was recently urging McCain to take the gloves off. The obvious thought here is that she's saying this with an eye toward her political future--disassociating herself from what's looking like it'll be a losing campaign. But when you consider that, in the event of a McCain defeat, there's going to be a large number of conservates who'll blame that defeat on the fact that McCain wasn't negative enough against Obama, you'd think Palin would be making that CYA critique....
But it's not really mysterious. What Palin is saying is just a variation on McCain's preposterous argument that he simply had to run negative ads because Barack Obama wouldn't join him in a series of town meetings.
In each case, when the McCain-Palin campaign can't defend the indefensible, some alternate scenario is presented that is -- alas! -- impossible. Because that other scenario is impossible, it's argued that the campaign is forced to resort to methods that -- regrettably! -- are very, very ugly. Darn it, they don't want to do any of this! They just have no choice!
Also, a preference for talking to voters directly is Palin's one-size-fits-all answer whenever she's asked about freezing out "MSM" journalists, as in her CBN interview with David Brody:
Well sometimes [speaking to the media] just doesn't do any good. I mean you set yourself up just to continually be mocked, you know so sometimes that doesn't do any good, but what I have done in this campaign is in reaching out to the American voters through our rallies, through the one on ones, through the small meetings that we've had trying to get our message out, our plans for this country out there minus the filter of some of the filter of the mainstream media because, because that filter as, as we see every day when we turn on the news too often there is this, this opaqueness, there is this, this spin, this contortion of a person's words and intentions and that does more harm than good, so it's a greater challenge for me and for John McCain to try to get our message out there without that filter of I think some of the world's media.
So if Palin says she'd rather chat with Joe and Jane Sixpack than do nasty robocalls, the rabid dogs in the GOP base aren't going to think she's going soft. They're going to hear it as a repurposed variant of her answer about the evil media. That'll get their juices flowing. (By implication, robocalls are another way around that all-powerful totalitarian liberal media filter.)
Also, they're going to hear it as whining and excuse-making. They like whining and excuse-making. It makes them feel besieged and put upon, which is one of their favorite feelings in the world.
Jason Zengerle of The New Republic is puzzled:
Is Palin Posing for Posterity?
Some interesting comments from Sarah Palin on the subject of those McCain robocalls:
"If I called all the shots, and if I could wave a magic wand," Palin said, "I would be sitting at a kitchen table with more and more Americans, talking to them about our plan to get the economy back on track and winning the war, and not having to rely on the old conventional ways of campaigning that includes those robocalls...."
It's a strange sentiment coming from Palin, not only because it's off-message (McCain was defending the very same robocalls yesterday) but because she was the one who was recently urging McCain to take the gloves off. The obvious thought here is that she's saying this with an eye toward her political future--disassociating herself from what's looking like it'll be a losing campaign. But when you consider that, in the event of a McCain defeat, there's going to be a large number of conservates who'll blame that defeat on the fact that McCain wasn't negative enough against Obama, you'd think Palin would be making that CYA critique....
But it's not really mysterious. What Palin is saying is just a variation on McCain's preposterous argument that he simply had to run negative ads because Barack Obama wouldn't join him in a series of town meetings.
In each case, when the McCain-Palin campaign can't defend the indefensible, some alternate scenario is presented that is -- alas! -- impossible. Because that other scenario is impossible, it's argued that the campaign is forced to resort to methods that -- regrettably! -- are very, very ugly. Darn it, they don't want to do any of this! They just have no choice!
Also, a preference for talking to voters directly is Palin's one-size-fits-all answer whenever she's asked about freezing out "MSM" journalists, as in her CBN interview with David Brody:
Well sometimes [speaking to the media] just doesn't do any good. I mean you set yourself up just to continually be mocked, you know so sometimes that doesn't do any good, but what I have done in this campaign is in reaching out to the American voters through our rallies, through the one on ones, through the small meetings that we've had trying to get our message out, our plans for this country out there minus the filter of some of the filter of the mainstream media because, because that filter as, as we see every day when we turn on the news too often there is this, this opaqueness, there is this, this spin, this contortion of a person's words and intentions and that does more harm than good, so it's a greater challenge for me and for John McCain to try to get our message out there without that filter of I think some of the world's media.
So if Palin says she'd rather chat with Joe and Jane Sixpack than do nasty robocalls, the rabid dogs in the GOP base aren't going to think she's going soft. They're going to hear it as a repurposed variant of her answer about the evil media. That'll get their juices flowing. (By implication, robocalls are another way around that all-powerful totalitarian liberal media filter.)
Also, they're going to hear it as whining and excuse-making. They like whining and excuse-making. It makes them feel besieged and put upon, which is one of their favorite feelings in the world.
NOT THAT SHE'S BITTER OR ANYTHING
A few highlights from Sarah Palin's interview with David Brody of Pat Robertson's CBN.
On God: she says she's being mocked.
Palin: ... I think the saddest part of that is that faith, not just my faith, faith and God in general has been mocked through this campaign.... that was kind of a surprise in the last couple of months that people would misconstrue and spin anything that has to do with my faith or anybody else's and turn it into something to be mocked....
On Katie Couric's question about newspapers: she says if she answered it she'd have been mocked.
Palin: ...I knew that whatever I threw out there, whether it's the USA Today, or New York Times or whatever I said, that's just more fodder for someone to not only mock, but tear apart and presume to at least claim that that is a reflection of my own beliefs, so you know, so I just felt like, let's just move on to the next question.
On cable news channels: she says they'd mock her.
Brody: Let me ask you a little bit about media scrutiny because some of the media networks...wonder why you don't go on some of the 24/7 cable networks. What is your response to that?
Palin: Well sometimes it just doesn't do any good. I mean you set yourself up just to continually be mocked....
This is just the standard-issue post-Nixon right-wing culture of victimization talk. But let me state the obvious.
Is it true that Sarah Palin is mocked? Sure.
So is Barack Obama -- a lot. He's been mocked as a monkey and a shoeshine boy and a terrorist and a face on food stamps and in a thousand other ways. Everybody who's in the arena at this level gets mocked -- McCain and Biden and Hillary and Rudy and Huckabee and Romney and all the rest.
Speaking just about Obama, he's been out there nearly two years, and I'm willing to bet that, if you compiled all his interviews and other public statements throughout that period, you wouldn't find four instances total in which he spoke of himself as being "mocked."
You're in the big leagues, Sarah -- where we know you want to stay. So grow a thicker skin or go home.
A few highlights from Sarah Palin's interview with David Brody of Pat Robertson's CBN.
On God: she says she's being mocked.
Palin: ... I think the saddest part of that is that faith, not just my faith, faith and God in general has been mocked through this campaign.... that was kind of a surprise in the last couple of months that people would misconstrue and spin anything that has to do with my faith or anybody else's and turn it into something to be mocked....
On Katie Couric's question about newspapers: she says if she answered it she'd have been mocked.
Palin: ...I knew that whatever I threw out there, whether it's the USA Today, or New York Times or whatever I said, that's just more fodder for someone to not only mock, but tear apart and presume to at least claim that that is a reflection of my own beliefs, so you know, so I just felt like, let's just move on to the next question.
On cable news channels: she says they'd mock her.
Brody: Let me ask you a little bit about media scrutiny because some of the media networks...wonder why you don't go on some of the 24/7 cable networks. What is your response to that?
Palin: Well sometimes it just doesn't do any good. I mean you set yourself up just to continually be mocked....
This is just the standard-issue post-Nixon right-wing culture of victimization talk. But let me state the obvious.
Is it true that Sarah Palin is mocked? Sure.
So is Barack Obama -- a lot. He's been mocked as a monkey and a shoeshine boy and a terrorist and a face on food stamps and in a thousand other ways. Everybody who's in the arena at this level gets mocked -- McCain and Biden and Hillary and Rudy and Huckabee and Romney and all the rest.
Speaking just about Obama, he's been out there nearly two years, and I'm willing to bet that, if you compiled all his interviews and other public statements throughout that period, you wouldn't find four instances total in which he spoke of himself as being "mocked."
You're in the big leagues, Sarah -- where we know you want to stay. So grow a thicker skin or go home.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
SORRY, COLIN -- YOU DON'T GET TO FEEL GROUP SOLIDARITY
So Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbsugh, and George Will are all harrumphing that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because they're both black.
Um, weren't the women who voted for Hillary Clinton all supposed to flock to John McCain because Sarah Palin is a woman? Aren't hockey moms and outdoorsy people and small-town people and mothers of developmentally disabled children all supposed to vote for Palin and McCain because Palin is all four of those things? Aren't veterans supposed to vote for John McCain because of his military service? Why are all those forms of identity politics, some of which are working as expected, deemed perfectly acceptable, whereas any sense of racial identity on Powell's part -- which we can't determine wuith any precision -- is inappropriate? Was the bargain we felt we'd made with Colin Powell that he would not root for a black person, ever?
So Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbsugh, and George Will are all harrumphing that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because they're both black.
Um, weren't the women who voted for Hillary Clinton all supposed to flock to John McCain because Sarah Palin is a woman? Aren't hockey moms and outdoorsy people and small-town people and mothers of developmentally disabled children all supposed to vote for Palin and McCain because Palin is all four of those things? Aren't veterans supposed to vote for John McCain because of his military service? Why are all those forms of identity politics, some of which are working as expected, deemed perfectly acceptable, whereas any sense of racial identity on Powell's part -- which we can't determine wuith any precision -- is inappropriate? Was the bargain we felt we'd made with Colin Powell that he would not root for a black person, ever?
PALIN: THE VP CANDIDATE AS DRIVE-TIME RADIO SIDEKICK
Well, you could make a ton of money shorting my prognostications -- Joe the Plumber wasn't on Saturday Night Live with Sarah Palin last night, as I predicted on Friday. Oh well.
But give me credit for repeatedly telling you that Palin's appeal is to men rather than women. The New York Times discusses that today, noting that about two-thirds of the people in her crowds are guys:
It is not unusual for fans of Sarah Palin to shout out to the Alaska governor in the midst of her stump speeches. It is noteworthy, however, that the crowds are heavily male....
"I feel like I'm at home," Ms. Palin said, looking out at a boisterous crowd of about 6,000. "I see the Carhartts and the steel-toed boots," she said, the first reference being to a clothing brand favored by construction workers and the burly types who make up much of the "Sarah Dude" population. "You guys are great," she said while signing autographs.
... Ms. Palin's stoutest defenders are often the Joe Sixpacks in her crowds, who shrug off her critics, ridiculers and perceived adversaries in the news media. They say they appreciate Ms. Palin for, above all else, how "real" and "like us" she is....
... Ms. Palin tells 'em, peppering her rallies with references to guy-themed stuff -- hunting, fishing, hockey....
When these guys say she's "like us," do they mean she's blue collar -- or do they mean she's sort of like a guy?
What I'm getting at is something you see in a lot of different cultural subgroups -- guys with guy obsessions wishing they could find a woman who shares those obsessions.
In the same way that record-collector or sci-fi or obscure-film geeks often wish they could find a female pop-culture soul mate, someone just as obsessed with mid-sixties garage-rock rarities on vinyl or obscure Hong Kong martial-arts films on pirated DVDs, these guys want a woman who doesn't think they're excessively obsessed with hunting or fishing or tinkering with old cars. And Palin gives 'em just what they want.
Palin is like the chick sidekick on a guy-oriented morning radio show who laughs at the masturbation jokes and the gags based on race stereotypes, the one who thinks it's funny rather than infantile. If this politics thing doesn't pan out, radio sidekick is definitely a possible second career for Palin.
Will these guys even vote? I'm not sure. But if so, I think they would have voted GOP anyway.
(Maybe Steve Schmidt is hoping the women will go for Joe the Plumber?)
****
And meanwhile, Barack Obama has just been endorsed by Colin Powell -- who, however flawed his judgment was in the run-up to the Iraq War, is, I think, a somewhat more impressive figure to people of both genders that Joe or Sarah.
(Wonder how Fox and the other bottom-feeders of the right are going to trash Powell in the next 48 hours.)
****
UPDATE: Part of my Colin Powellsentencde sentence got lost because of a sloppy HTML error. It's been restored.
Well, you could make a ton of money shorting my prognostications -- Joe the Plumber wasn't on Saturday Night Live with Sarah Palin last night, as I predicted on Friday. Oh well.
But give me credit for repeatedly telling you that Palin's appeal is to men rather than women. The New York Times discusses that today, noting that about two-thirds of the people in her crowds are guys:
It is not unusual for fans of Sarah Palin to shout out to the Alaska governor in the midst of her stump speeches. It is noteworthy, however, that the crowds are heavily male....
"I feel like I'm at home," Ms. Palin said, looking out at a boisterous crowd of about 6,000. "I see the Carhartts and the steel-toed boots," she said, the first reference being to a clothing brand favored by construction workers and the burly types who make up much of the "Sarah Dude" population. "You guys are great," she said while signing autographs.
... Ms. Palin's stoutest defenders are often the Joe Sixpacks in her crowds, who shrug off her critics, ridiculers and perceived adversaries in the news media. They say they appreciate Ms. Palin for, above all else, how "real" and "like us" she is....
... Ms. Palin tells 'em, peppering her rallies with references to guy-themed stuff -- hunting, fishing, hockey....
When these guys say she's "like us," do they mean she's blue collar -- or do they mean she's sort of like a guy?
What I'm getting at is something you see in a lot of different cultural subgroups -- guys with guy obsessions wishing they could find a woman who shares those obsessions.
In the same way that record-collector or sci-fi or obscure-film geeks often wish they could find a female pop-culture soul mate, someone just as obsessed with mid-sixties garage-rock rarities on vinyl or obscure Hong Kong martial-arts films on pirated DVDs, these guys want a woman who doesn't think they're excessively obsessed with hunting or fishing or tinkering with old cars. And Palin gives 'em just what they want.
Palin is like the chick sidekick on a guy-oriented morning radio show who laughs at the masturbation jokes and the gags based on race stereotypes, the one who thinks it's funny rather than infantile. If this politics thing doesn't pan out, radio sidekick is definitely a possible second career for Palin.
Will these guys even vote? I'm not sure. But if so, I think they would have voted GOP anyway.
(Maybe Steve Schmidt is hoping the women will go for Joe the Plumber?)
****
And meanwhile, Barack Obama has just been endorsed by Colin Powell -- who, however flawed his judgment was in the run-up to the Iraq War, is, I think, a somewhat more impressive figure to people of both genders that Joe or Sarah.
(Wonder how Fox and the other bottom-feeders of the right are going to trash Powell in the next 48 hours.)
****
UPDATE: Part of my Colin Powell
Saturday, October 18, 2008
DOES McCAIN HOPE JOE THE PLUMBER MAKES HIM LOOK LIKE THE ALPHA CHIMP?
Watching John McCain's persistent invocations of Joe the Plumber, I find myself thinking about what Frans de Waal, the primatologist, wrote at the Huffington Post after the first debate, in response to David Broder's claim that McCain's debate performance seemed like that of an "alpha male":
...I read the body language between McCain and Obama as that between a senior male being challenged by a remarkably confident junior one....
If McCain was an alpha male, it was an incredibly insecure one....
De Waal went on to say that McCain's choice of a female of reproductive age as a running mate might have alienated other women, while also reducing McCain's chances of displaying the alpha-male behavior of bonding with other men.
I don't know how far I want to go in believing that the thoughts of humans can be reduced to schemas of this kind -- but doesn't it seem as if McCain is trying to suggest that his alliance with Joe makes him, by association, a young, virile, callus-fingered alpha male? He tried to use Palin as his anti-Obama and that didn't work, and now Joe is his anti-Obama -- a guy roughly the same age, but with dirt under his fingernails and an attitude.
More de Waal:
A self-confident alpha male just approaches his challenger and sets him straight, either by attacking him or performing a spectacular display of his own. No avoidance of eye contact: he takes the bull by the horns.
McCain can't seem to do that successfully. But he seems to think a surrogate can.
Watching John McCain's persistent invocations of Joe the Plumber, I find myself thinking about what Frans de Waal, the primatologist, wrote at the Huffington Post after the first debate, in response to David Broder's claim that McCain's debate performance seemed like that of an "alpha male":
...I read the body language between McCain and Obama as that between a senior male being challenged by a remarkably confident junior one....
If McCain was an alpha male, it was an incredibly insecure one....
De Waal went on to say that McCain's choice of a female of reproductive age as a running mate might have alienated other women, while also reducing McCain's chances of displaying the alpha-male behavior of bonding with other men.
I don't know how far I want to go in believing that the thoughts of humans can be reduced to schemas of this kind -- but doesn't it seem as if McCain is trying to suggest that his alliance with Joe makes him, by association, a young, virile, callus-fingered alpha male? He tried to use Palin as his anti-Obama and that didn't work, and now Joe is his anti-Obama -- a guy roughly the same age, but with dirt under his fingernails and an attitude.
More de Waal:
A self-confident alpha male just approaches his challenger and sets him straight, either by attacking him or performing a spectacular display of his own. No avoidance of eye contact: he takes the bull by the horns.
McCain can't seem to do that successfully. But he seems to think a surrogate can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)