THE SECOND TIME AS FARCE?
On the subject of the McCain campaign's new attack on the media, Michael Crowley of The New Republic makes this fairly obvious point:
The timing is interesting, if you think about it. The McCain team first came after the media hard in the early-mid summer, sneering about Obama Love in the press corps. You'll recall how, back then, Obama had all the momentum in the race and McCain was looking for a way to change the dynamic. Sound familiar?
Here's the difference, though: Obama actually was getting some pretty good press when the McCain campaign produced the Frankie Valli "Obama Love" ads and the first of the "Celebrity" ads -- this was the time of Obama's European trip.
By contrast, lately Obama hasn't been getting good press -- maybe his coverage was good for half a news cycle after his convention speech, but that got wiped out literally within hours by the Palin announcement. Sure, McCain's getting bad press, but Obama continues to be portrayed as an underachiever who's plummeting in the polls (even though he's reversed that post-GOP convention drop).
The only one of the four candidates who's getting any good press is -- still -- Sarah Palin. Sure, she's mocked, but she's also the subject of story after story about the huge, giddy crowds she's drawing and the renewed enthusiasm she's inspiring within the GOP.
A woman in the crowd at a Scranton McCain rally yesterday -- a plant? -- complained about the media "picking on" Sarah Palin's kids. "Shame on you," the woman said.* McCain, delighted by the woman's oh-so-convenient reiteration of the campaign's line of the day, replied, "That is a great question."
Really? The press, apart from supermarket tabloids, has utterly ignored the Palins' brood since the convention ended and Palin emerged as the apparent Queen of the Hill.
This McCain line of attack might be somewhat more successful than attacking the Times -- it's quite possible that the McCainites will now repeatedly bring up the kids even though no one else is doing so, then complain that the kids' privacy is being violated.
But I'm not sure even this is going to work. Even when we were first hearing about Bristol Palin's pregnancy, polls showed that non-Republicans believed press coverage of Palin was fair.
As for The New York Times, the McCain campaign can attack the paper all it wants, but most Americans don't read The New York Times. John Cole says the McCain campaign seems to be run by wingnut bloggers; Steve Schmidt certainly seem to be running it as if the target audience is exclusively wingnut bloggers and fans of wingnut blogs and discussion boards and radio. Free Republic readers and Limbaughnistas are the only people who think the Times is the principal tool we liberal fascists use to keep Republicans out of power (or at least out of the White House for, oh, twelve out of the last forty years). The rest of America doesn't.
*****
*UPDATE: The woman who asked the Palin question is a PUMA, as Kevin K. notes in comments.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
IS JOHN McCAIN LOSING THE RIGHT-WING PUNDITOCRACY AGAIN?
When an ABC News panel lit into John McCain on Sunday (the Huffington Post has the video), a lot of people focused on Sam Donaldson's raising of the age issue. But note what George Will said:
The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said "let's fire somebody." And he picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate.
As I told you on Friday, Christopher Cox has been widely praised on the right; I don't think it's just style or tone or lack of gravitas that's bothering Will, I think it's that specific recommendation.
I think McCain is losing corporatist right-wingers with this stuff.
And then, after criticizing Cox, McCain, speculating on a possible replacement, pulled a name out of his keister -- and some right-wing pundits were even more horrified.
Here's Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator's blog:
Cuomo for SEC???
John McCain has now officially jumped the shark, the whale, the ocean, and the intergalactic space creature, all at once. He is recommending naming Andrew Cuomo to be chairman of the SEC. That's like giving Ted Kennedy prosecutorial power against pharmaceutical companies, or like asking Putin to head a U.N. investigation of Georgia's Saakashvili. It's absolutely friggin' nuts....
Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard? Horrified. Mark Levin of National Review? Horrified.
And here's another American Spectator post, from Spec's Philip Klein. The key word is "whim":
... after saying he wanted to fire Chris Cox as SEC Chairman, McCain said he wanted to appoint Andrew Cuomo to replace him. There isn't much rationale behind either choice beyond McCain wanting to show, in the case of Cox, that unlike Bush, he holds people accountable, and in the case of Cuomo, that he would be a bipartisan leader willing to appoint a liberal Democrat who disagrees with him on almost every issue to a key position. But it really does raise questions about what type of people McCain would appoint as president, which seems to be dictated by odd whim, rather than thinking about who would be best at implementing policies that he publicly supports....
Even the VP decision seems to have been a bit quirky. Most reports suggested that McCain really wanted to pick Joe Lieberman -- somebody with vast foreign policy experience who would be unacceptable to conservatives. But when he realized that he couldn't do that, he seemed to go for the polar opposite selection -- somebody who has no foreign policy experience, but who energizes conservatives.
... the signals he has given us during the campaign are so idiosyncratic, that we really have no idea what to expect from his administration.
The more McCain feels he has to go populist, the less these guys are going to want to help catapult his propaganda. They didn't trust him before and they don't trust him again. They don't think he's going to be true to their precious conservative movement. It reminds me a bit of 1992, when some movement conservatives didn't really think it would be a huge tragedy if Poppy Bush lost, because they didn't think he was one of them. Remember how that wound up.
And it's not as if McCain is making up for it with suggestions that really appeal to the swing voters: fire who? replace him with who?
So I hope McCain keeps flailing, trying to be more and more populist. He may really lose the influential conservatives who closed ranks around him after he clinched the nomination.
*****
UPDATE: George Will just revised and extended his remarks in a Washington Post column titled "McCain Loses His Head." Ron Beasley at Newshoggers asks,
Did George Will just say John McCain is too hot headed to be President?
I think George Will just said John McCain is too hotheaded to be a conservative. You judge:
... Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."...
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either....
When Will says "disconnected from knowledge and principle" he means "disconnected from conservative principles, which are the root of all knowledge."
When an ABC News panel lit into John McCain on Sunday (the Huffington Post has the video), a lot of people focused on Sam Donaldson's raising of the age issue. But note what George Will said:
The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn't John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said "let's fire somebody." And he picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason... It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate.
As I told you on Friday, Christopher Cox has been widely praised on the right; I don't think it's just style or tone or lack of gravitas that's bothering Will, I think it's that specific recommendation.
I think McCain is losing corporatist right-wingers with this stuff.
And then, after criticizing Cox, McCain, speculating on a possible replacement, pulled a name out of his keister -- and some right-wing pundits were even more horrified.
Here's Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator's blog:
Cuomo for SEC???
John McCain has now officially jumped the shark, the whale, the ocean, and the intergalactic space creature, all at once. He is recommending naming Andrew Cuomo to be chairman of the SEC. That's like giving Ted Kennedy prosecutorial power against pharmaceutical companies, or like asking Putin to head a U.N. investigation of Georgia's Saakashvili. It's absolutely friggin' nuts....
Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard? Horrified. Mark Levin of National Review? Horrified.
And here's another American Spectator post, from Spec's Philip Klein. The key word is "whim":
... after saying he wanted to fire Chris Cox as SEC Chairman, McCain said he wanted to appoint Andrew Cuomo to replace him. There isn't much rationale behind either choice beyond McCain wanting to show, in the case of Cox, that unlike Bush, he holds people accountable, and in the case of Cuomo, that he would be a bipartisan leader willing to appoint a liberal Democrat who disagrees with him on almost every issue to a key position. But it really does raise questions about what type of people McCain would appoint as president, which seems to be dictated by odd whim, rather than thinking about who would be best at implementing policies that he publicly supports....
Even the VP decision seems to have been a bit quirky. Most reports suggested that McCain really wanted to pick Joe Lieberman -- somebody with vast foreign policy experience who would be unacceptable to conservatives. But when he realized that he couldn't do that, he seemed to go for the polar opposite selection -- somebody who has no foreign policy experience, but who energizes conservatives.
... the signals he has given us during the campaign are so idiosyncratic, that we really have no idea what to expect from his administration.
The more McCain feels he has to go populist, the less these guys are going to want to help catapult his propaganda. They didn't trust him before and they don't trust him again. They don't think he's going to be true to their precious conservative movement. It reminds me a bit of 1992, when some movement conservatives didn't really think it would be a huge tragedy if Poppy Bush lost, because they didn't think he was one of them. Remember how that wound up.
And it's not as if McCain is making up for it with suggestions that really appeal to the swing voters: fire who? replace him with who?
So I hope McCain keeps flailing, trying to be more and more populist. He may really lose the influential conservatives who closed ranks around him after he clinched the nomination.
*****
UPDATE: George Will just revised and extended his remarks in a Washington Post column titled "McCain Loses His Head." Ron Beasley at Newshoggers asks,
Did George Will just say John McCain is too hot headed to be President?
I think George Will just said John McCain is too hotheaded to be a conservative. You judge:
... Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."...
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either....
When Will says "disconnected from knowledge and principle" he means "disconnected from conservative principles, which are the root of all knowledge."
PALIN: POLITICIZING IRAN BY SENDING A DOG WHISTLE TO PUMAS (AND MISLEADING VOTERS ABOUT OBAMA)
Sarah Palin was going to address a rally in New York today by the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now; the invitation to Palin was withdrawn when Hillary Clinton, who had been scheduled to address the rally, announced that she wouldn't attend.
Palin's handlers wrote a speech for her that was mostly standard-issue Iran-bashing; The New York Sun reproduces it today. This passage, however, was pure politics:
... Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans....
This, obviously, was yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to drive a wedge between Clinton supporters and Obama. It's also an attempt to deceive voters -- although the McCain campaign doesn't want you to believe it, Barack Obama did, in fact, co-sponsor a bill in 2007 that designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization (FactCheck.org has the details); the bill Obama didn't support was the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which, as FactCheck notes,
did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."
Would Hillary Clinton have used the event to score political points? I don't know. I do know that Palin would have -- and the McCain-Palin team is clearly happy to let you know that.
****
MORE: Hillary Clinton issued a statement with not even a hint of partisanship.
Sarah Palin was going to address a rally in New York today by the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now; the invitation to Palin was withdrawn when Hillary Clinton, who had been scheduled to address the rally, announced that she wouldn't attend.
Palin's handlers wrote a speech for her that was mostly standard-issue Iran-bashing; The New York Sun reproduces it today. This passage, however, was pure politics:
... Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.
Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans....
This, obviously, was yet another attempt by the McCain campaign to drive a wedge between Clinton supporters and Obama. It's also an attempt to deceive voters -- although the McCain campaign doesn't want you to believe it, Barack Obama did, in fact, co-sponsor a bill in 2007 that designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization (FactCheck.org has the details); the bill Obama didn't support was the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which, as FactCheck notes,
did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."
Would Hillary Clinton have used the event to score political points? I don't know. I do know that Palin would have -- and the McCain-Palin team is clearly happy to let you know that.
****
MORE: Hillary Clinton issued a statement with not even a hint of partisanship.
SHOUT THIS FROM THE HOUSETOPS, PLEASE
The Obama campaign likes to say John McCain is running for Bush's third term. The Obama campaign likes to enumerate the Washington lobbyists in the McCain campaign.
So why doesn't the Obama campaign seem to want to enumerate the Bushies in the McCain campaign? Why no attack ads that resemble this story from today's Washington Post?
...Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, [the McCain campaign] is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years....
Nicolle Wallace ... was communications director at the White House and is now offering senior-level communications expertise to both McCain and Palin (and joined Palin on her Alaska trip). Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is now McCain's domestic policy adviser (and accompanied Palin to Alaska as well). Bush confidant Mark McKinnon stopped formally advising McCain once Obama became the Democratic nominee -- but he, too, is continuing to advise the group and crafted Cindy McCain's convention speech. A former Bush speechwriter, Matthew Scully, wrote Palin's convention speech....
And, of course, as this excerpt notes -- though the Obama campaign, with its determination to keep the focus on McCain, probably won't ever want to focus on the fact -- the person who's really surrounded by Bushies is Palin:
When Gov. Sarah Palin flew home to Alaska for the first time since being named the Republican vice presidential nominee, she brought along at least half a dozen new advisers to conduct briefings, stage-manage her first television interview and help her prepare for a critical debate next month.
And virtually every member of the team shared a common credential: years of service to President Bush.
From Mark Wallace, a Bush appointee to the United Nations, to Tucker Eskew, who ran strategic communications for the Bush White House, to Greg Jenkins, who served as the deputy assistant to Bush in his first term and was executive director of the 2004 inauguration, Palin was surrounded on the trip home by operatives deeply rooted in the Bush administration.
...Stephen E. Biegun, a former member of Bush's National Security Council, was on the trip, too; he is helping give Palin foreign policy briefings.
Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt worked on the Bush campaigns and, more recently, at the Republican National Committee. Two other Palin press officers, Maria Comella and Ben Porritt, worked on Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. W. Taylor Griffin, who worked on the 2004 campaign, is helping manage Palin's communications effort in Alaska. Another Bush advance pro, Chris Edwards, is helping to stage-manage Palin's appearances around the country....
Wouldn't America be terrified at the prospect that the people teaching this utter neophyte about foreign policy are some of the people who brought you the last eight years of U.S. foreign policy? And that the people who are stage-managing her ascent are many of the people who stage-managed Bush's?
Why on earth isn't this an attack ad? Or several?
The Obama campaign likes to say John McCain is running for Bush's third term. The Obama campaign likes to enumerate the Washington lobbyists in the McCain campaign.
So why doesn't the Obama campaign seem to want to enumerate the Bushies in the McCain campaign? Why no attack ads that resemble this story from today's Washington Post?
...Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, [the McCain campaign] is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years....
Nicolle Wallace ... was communications director at the White House and is now offering senior-level communications expertise to both McCain and Palin (and joined Palin on her Alaska trip). Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is now McCain's domestic policy adviser (and accompanied Palin to Alaska as well). Bush confidant Mark McKinnon stopped formally advising McCain once Obama became the Democratic nominee -- but he, too, is continuing to advise the group and crafted Cindy McCain's convention speech. A former Bush speechwriter, Matthew Scully, wrote Palin's convention speech....
And, of course, as this excerpt notes -- though the Obama campaign, with its determination to keep the focus on McCain, probably won't ever want to focus on the fact -- the person who's really surrounded by Bushies is Palin:
When Gov. Sarah Palin flew home to Alaska for the first time since being named the Republican vice presidential nominee, she brought along at least half a dozen new advisers to conduct briefings, stage-manage her first television interview and help her prepare for a critical debate next month.
And virtually every member of the team shared a common credential: years of service to President Bush.
From Mark Wallace, a Bush appointee to the United Nations, to Tucker Eskew, who ran strategic communications for the Bush White House, to Greg Jenkins, who served as the deputy assistant to Bush in his first term and was executive director of the 2004 inauguration, Palin was surrounded on the trip home by operatives deeply rooted in the Bush administration.
...Stephen E. Biegun, a former member of Bush's National Security Council, was on the trip, too; he is helping give Palin foreign policy briefings.
Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt worked on the Bush campaigns and, more recently, at the Republican National Committee. Two other Palin press officers, Maria Comella and Ben Porritt, worked on Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. W. Taylor Griffin, who worked on the 2004 campaign, is helping manage Palin's communications effort in Alaska. Another Bush advance pro, Chris Edwards, is helping to stage-manage Palin's appearances around the country....
Wouldn't America be terrified at the prospect that the people teaching this utter neophyte about foreign policy are some of the people who brought you the last eight years of U.S. foreign policy? And that the people who are stage-managing her ascent are many of the people who stage-managed Bush's?
Why on earth isn't this an attack ad? Or several?
BREAKING NEWS: REPUBLICANS LOVE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE!
The biggest blog story when I woke up this morning, according to Memeorandum, had nothing to do with the financial mess -- the (Drudge-driven) big story was that Sarah Palin had drawn a crowd of 60,000 in The Villages, Florida.
Or, um, maybe not quite 60,000, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin:
Mike Tucker, a local fire marshal, estimated 60,000. But reporters on the ground, including AP's Brendan Farrington and my colleague Ken Vogel, would only say "tens of thousands," suggesting the marshal's estimate was on the high side. The St. Pete Times's Adam Smith had another fire official in the crowd say it was about 25,000.
And it's not exactly a huge surprise that the GOP's new Messiah would draw a crowd in The Villages. Here's a 2007 Miami Herald story:
Retirees' dreamland is Republican bastion
In the sprawling Central Florida retirement mecca called The Villages, Republican voters from the Midwest are as plentiful as golf carts.
...In the Central Florida development that sprawls over three counties and two Zip Codes, Republican voters outnumber Democrats roughly 2-1. Turnout in Sumter County, where the bulk of the community lives, was among the highest in the state in the 2004 presidential election.
"It's safe to say that the road to the White House is through Florida, and the road to Florida is through The Villages," said Richard Cole, president of the largest of the community's four Republican clubs. "We're a substantial political force." ...
It was former Gov. Jeb Bush who put The Villages on the political map. He saw that one of the fastest-growing developments in the nation would be a treasure trove of votes, not to mention campaign cash. Developer Gary Morse was one of the top donors to Bush and his brother's presidential campaign, and he gave $500,000 -- the single largest donation -- to the Republican Party of Florida last year.
...In many ways, The Villages is an oversized, overprogrammed version of South Florida's retirement meccas, where the heavily Democratic populace pines for the days of FDR and Harry Truman....
About 250 miles northwest, The Villages boasts bigger homes and younger residents who worship Ronald Reagan....
The cluster of Republican voters in The Villages is no accident. While South Florida draws liberal-leaning Northeasterners via Interstate 95, The Villages is just a little ways off Interstate 75, which winds through the nation's conservative Midwest...
Even a crowd of 25,000 is pretty big, of course -- as Martin points out, George W. Bush drew 15,000 in 2004. As I keep saying, don't underestimate Palin's enduring appeal, at least to the base.
But "base" is the key word here -- if Palin's going to draw a huge crowd, this is where she's going to draw one.
The biggest blog story when I woke up this morning, according to Memeorandum, had nothing to do with the financial mess -- the (Drudge-driven) big story was that Sarah Palin had drawn a crowd of 60,000 in The Villages, Florida.
Or, um, maybe not quite 60,000, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin:
Mike Tucker, a local fire marshal, estimated 60,000. But reporters on the ground, including AP's Brendan Farrington and my colleague Ken Vogel, would only say "tens of thousands," suggesting the marshal's estimate was on the high side. The St. Pete Times's Adam Smith had another fire official in the crowd say it was about 25,000.
And it's not exactly a huge surprise that the GOP's new Messiah would draw a crowd in The Villages. Here's a 2007 Miami Herald story:
Retirees' dreamland is Republican bastion
In the sprawling Central Florida retirement mecca called The Villages, Republican voters from the Midwest are as plentiful as golf carts.
...In the Central Florida development that sprawls over three counties and two Zip Codes, Republican voters outnumber Democrats roughly 2-1. Turnout in Sumter County, where the bulk of the community lives, was among the highest in the state in the 2004 presidential election.
"It's safe to say that the road to the White House is through Florida, and the road to Florida is through The Villages," said Richard Cole, president of the largest of the community's four Republican clubs. "We're a substantial political force." ...
It was former Gov. Jeb Bush who put The Villages on the political map. He saw that one of the fastest-growing developments in the nation would be a treasure trove of votes, not to mention campaign cash. Developer Gary Morse was one of the top donors to Bush and his brother's presidential campaign, and he gave $500,000 -- the single largest donation -- to the Republican Party of Florida last year.
...In many ways, The Villages is an oversized, overprogrammed version of South Florida's retirement meccas, where the heavily Democratic populace pines for the days of FDR and Harry Truman....
About 250 miles northwest, The Villages boasts bigger homes and younger residents who worship Ronald Reagan....
The cluster of Republican voters in The Villages is no accident. While South Florida draws liberal-leaning Northeasterners via Interstate 95, The Villages is just a little ways off Interstate 75, which winds through the nation's conservative Midwest...
Even a crowd of 25,000 is pretty big, of course -- as Martin points out, George W. Bush drew 15,000 in 2004. As I keep saying, don't underestimate Palin's enduring appeal, at least to the base.
But "base" is the key word here -- if Palin's going to draw a huge crowd, this is where she's going to draw one.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
WHAT'S WRONG WITH JOHN McCAIN
(it's not dementia)
A lot of you look at John McCain -- especially the John McCain who apparently couldn't place the name of Spain's prime minister in a recent interview -- and say, "He's senile," "He has dementia," "He has Alzheimer's."
I don't buy it -- I've had one relative (an aunt) who developed Alzheimer's-like memory loss, and her behavior wasn't anything like this (it was more a sort of pained, helpless groping as words she was sure she should be able to access simply eluded her). On the other hand, I have an extended family in which several members are older than John McCain, and none has dementia or, as far as I can tell, anything more than "senior moment" memory loss. (Approaching fifty myself, I have a bit of that, too.) McCain is 72, an age at which this kind of memory loss is far from inevitable; he seems more like my older relatives who still have all their faculties.
So why did McCain struggle with that interviewer? I think James Traub, writing about Annapolis for today's New York Times Magazine, explains it:
The Naval Academy that John McCain entered in 1954 featured the same "lock-step curriculum" that his father and grandfather studied. All students took the exact same courses, with a heavy emphasis on engineering. There were no majors. The department of English, history and government, which included the whole of the humanities and the social sciences, was known by the nickname Bull. The classroom, in any case, scarcely constituted the core of the midshipman experience. McCain hardly mentions classes in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." In a novel of the academy, "A Sense of Honor," James Webb, class of '68 and now a senator from Virginia, begins one of his few descriptions of classroom life as follows: "The instructor, a balding man in a frumpy brown suit, was telling them how to determine the water pressure on the side of a ship's hull at various depths." The one character who actually loves learning and thinking, a hapless plebe named John Dean, is widely treated as a pitiful specimen.
John McCain was the son and grandson of men shaped by this institution, which didn't in any way reward intellectual curiosity or a love of learning. Then he was shaped by it. And prior to Annapolis he was a troublemaker and an indifferent student, and had a temper.
So he's never liked learning -- not the way overachievers like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton seem to like it. And he was a legacy at school, not a striver like Obama or Clinton. I'm sure he felt he could often coast.
His temper, his orneriness, and perhaps his endurance of physically painful hazing at Annapolis (Traub discusses that as well) helped get him through his years in Hanoi. But apart from those nightmare years, he's had a life in which he relied a lot more on charm than smarts.
So maybe he couldn't make out the name Zapatero -- and maybe it didn't even vaguely call up anything in his memory bank. I don't think that's dementia -- I'm not sure he's ever had Zapatero in the forefront of his mind. I'm not sure he's thought it was worth bothering to think about Zapatero. So he blew it off, assuming he could just wing the rest of the interview with the talking points on Latin America he had at hand.
That's not a sign of dementia. That's a sign that McCain is more than a little bit like George W. Bush.
(it's not dementia)
A lot of you look at John McCain -- especially the John McCain who apparently couldn't place the name of Spain's prime minister in a recent interview -- and say, "He's senile," "He has dementia," "He has Alzheimer's."
I don't buy it -- I've had one relative (an aunt) who developed Alzheimer's-like memory loss, and her behavior wasn't anything like this (it was more a sort of pained, helpless groping as words she was sure she should be able to access simply eluded her). On the other hand, I have an extended family in which several members are older than John McCain, and none has dementia or, as far as I can tell, anything more than "senior moment" memory loss. (Approaching fifty myself, I have a bit of that, too.) McCain is 72, an age at which this kind of memory loss is far from inevitable; he seems more like my older relatives who still have all their faculties.
So why did McCain struggle with that interviewer? I think James Traub, writing about Annapolis for today's New York Times Magazine, explains it:
The Naval Academy that John McCain entered in 1954 featured the same "lock-step curriculum" that his father and grandfather studied. All students took the exact same courses, with a heavy emphasis on engineering. There were no majors. The department of English, history and government, which included the whole of the humanities and the social sciences, was known by the nickname Bull. The classroom, in any case, scarcely constituted the core of the midshipman experience. McCain hardly mentions classes in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers." In a novel of the academy, "A Sense of Honor," James Webb, class of '68 and now a senator from Virginia, begins one of his few descriptions of classroom life as follows: "The instructor, a balding man in a frumpy brown suit, was telling them how to determine the water pressure on the side of a ship's hull at various depths." The one character who actually loves learning and thinking, a hapless plebe named John Dean, is widely treated as a pitiful specimen.
John McCain was the son and grandson of men shaped by this institution, which didn't in any way reward intellectual curiosity or a love of learning. Then he was shaped by it. And prior to Annapolis he was a troublemaker and an indifferent student, and had a temper.
So he's never liked learning -- not the way overachievers like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton seem to like it. And he was a legacy at school, not a striver like Obama or Clinton. I'm sure he felt he could often coast.
His temper, his orneriness, and perhaps his endurance of physically painful hazing at Annapolis (Traub discusses that as well) helped get him through his years in Hanoi. But apart from those nightmare years, he's had a life in which he relied a lot more on charm than smarts.
So maybe he couldn't make out the name Zapatero -- and maybe it didn't even vaguely call up anything in his memory bank. I don't think that's dementia -- I'm not sure he's ever had Zapatero in the forefront of his mind. I'm not sure he's thought it was worth bothering to think about Zapatero. So he blew it off, assuming he could just wing the rest of the interview with the talking points on Latin America he had at hand.
That's not a sign of dementia. That's a sign that McCain is more than a little bit like George W. Bush.
I'M MAUREEN DOWD. DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.
Maureen Dowd's latest column is an imagined dialogue between Barack Obama and Jed Bartlet, the fictional president on The West Wing. Dowd says it was written for her by Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing's creator, though the unbridled disgust directed at Obama -- specifically, the feeling that Obama is more contemptible for not being 8000 points ahead of McCain in the polls than McCain is for being a sleazebag and liar and Palin is for being an ill-informed creationist and mountebank -- makes the column seem like at least partly her work.
Well, it's a free country, and Dowd and Sorkin have a right to their own opinions --but not their own facts. Consider this exchange:
BARTLET ... you're losing a ton of white women.
OBAMA Yes, sir.
BARTLET I mean tons.
OBAMA I understand.
BARTLET I didn't even think there were that many white women.
OBAMA I see the numbers, sir....
What's wrong with this? Just the fact that Dowd and her editor apparently don't even read their own damn newspaper:
So far, white women are evenly divided between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, and Ms. Palin has had no effect in expanding the Republican ticket's appeal among women and independents.
If Obama is merely breaking even among white women, he's doing a hell of a lot better than John Kerry, who, according to CNN's 2004 exit poll, lost white women by 11 points.
That poll appeared on Wednesday. Dowd didn't have time to tweak the column so it bore at least a glancing resemblance to the truth? Or did she and her editor simply not want to bother, because "women love Palin and hate Obama" is a story they like, even though it's not true?
Maureen Dowd's latest column is an imagined dialogue between Barack Obama and Jed Bartlet, the fictional president on The West Wing. Dowd says it was written for her by Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing's creator, though the unbridled disgust directed at Obama -- specifically, the feeling that Obama is more contemptible for not being 8000 points ahead of McCain in the polls than McCain is for being a sleazebag and liar and Palin is for being an ill-informed creationist and mountebank -- makes the column seem like at least partly her work.
Well, it's a free country, and Dowd and Sorkin have a right to their own opinions --but not their own facts. Consider this exchange:
BARTLET ... you're losing a ton of white women.
OBAMA Yes, sir.
BARTLET I mean tons.
OBAMA I understand.
BARTLET I didn't even think there were that many white women.
OBAMA I see the numbers, sir....
What's wrong with this? Just the fact that Dowd and her editor apparently don't even read their own damn newspaper:
So far, white women are evenly divided between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, and Ms. Palin has had no effect in expanding the Republican ticket's appeal among women and independents.
If Obama is merely breaking even among white women, he's doing a hell of a lot better than John Kerry, who, according to CNN's 2004 exit poll, lost white women by 11 points.
That poll appeared on Wednesday. Dowd didn't have time to tweak the column so it bore at least a glancing resemblance to the truth? Or did she and her editor simply not want to bother, because "women love Palin and hate Obama" is a story they like, even though it's not true?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
RIGHT-WING COMIC THINKS TRIG PALIN'S DOWN SYNDROME IS A BARREL OF LAUGHS
A few years ago, a stand-up comic name Julia Gorin began moonlighting as an attack-dog columnist -- mostly for Web sites and publications read only by wingnuts, and occasionally for the New York Post. Yesterday, for Jewish World Review (which is far more wingnut than it is Jewish), she published a column about Sarah and Todd Palin's youngest child.
I'm trying to imagine the outrage on the right if a left-winger had written something similar:
I want to have Sarah Palin's baby
I don't mean that in a romantic way. I'm talking about Trig. How cute is he! No doubt even the most avid pro-abortionist was thinking as much when little Trig was on the convention stage with the rest of the Palin family. I wouldn't be surprised if Palin's choice started a new fad: Everyone is going to want to get themselves a Down Syndrome baby....
... now that the country has had a taste of Trig, people are going to be aborting if the baby doesn't have Down Syndrome. The Special Olympics will be more watched than the unspecial Olympics....
Yup, Gorin is riffing on the subject of a five-month-old developmentally disabled baby. Her point (read the whole column) is that, unlike the Palins, evil nasty liberals choose to terminate pregnancies in which pre-natal tests reveal Down Syndrome. Trig isn't a baby, he's a useful political tool.
And Gorin thinks his disability is comedy gold. She fantasizes about being an over-40 mother with a little Trig of her own:
... The way I see it, any kid is going to be a pain in the behind and is physically exhausting, what with the chasing around a parent has to do as a constant spotter for the child, whose primary directive is to get himself or herself killed in the first six years of life. So if I get one that's a little slow, that's less chasing around I'll have to do. It'll be perfect: I'll be retired and the kid'll be retarded.
Yeah, she actually wrote that.
Between the time I throw the Frisbee and the time the kid retrieves it, I can get all my napping in. And I can still become a stage mom and force the kid to live out my dreams for me. Just look at Corky from "Life Goes On." That's right -- we've been killing off Corky, that lovable, tenacious TV character. At least that kid had an acting career, which is more than I can say for myself. I've never passed an audition, but the Down kid did.
No, wait, she's got one more Down syndrome riff:
I'll tell you what they should have a prenatal test for -- to see if a baby is allergic to nuts. That's some defective stuff right there. At least a Down Syndrome kid isn't going to die from a peanut. Who ever heard of dropping dead from a Planters? Every dessert has traces of nuts. Not being able to eat dessert?! Now there's a handicap for life. Is that a life worth living? ...
Yuk it up, folks, these are the jokes.
So what have we learned? That it's OK to use Trig Palin as a political football -- but only if you're a right-winger. Oh, and I'd add that Trig's Down syndrome makes him a sort of holy innocent in the eyes of the right -- which is pretty much the way fetuses are regarded by anti-choicers. People -- or at least non-right-wing people -- are sinful and depraved, but fetuses and Trig (and their advocates) are innocent and victimized. So Trig's not a person -- he's a living, breathing rebuke.
Fortunately for him, I don't think he'll ever understand that he's being used this way.
A few years ago, a stand-up comic name Julia Gorin began moonlighting as an attack-dog columnist -- mostly for Web sites and publications read only by wingnuts, and occasionally for the New York Post. Yesterday, for Jewish World Review (which is far more wingnut than it is Jewish), she published a column about Sarah and Todd Palin's youngest child.
I'm trying to imagine the outrage on the right if a left-winger had written something similar:
I want to have Sarah Palin's baby
I don't mean that in a romantic way. I'm talking about Trig. How cute is he! No doubt even the most avid pro-abortionist was thinking as much when little Trig was on the convention stage with the rest of the Palin family. I wouldn't be surprised if Palin's choice started a new fad: Everyone is going to want to get themselves a Down Syndrome baby....
... now that the country has had a taste of Trig, people are going to be aborting if the baby doesn't have Down Syndrome. The Special Olympics will be more watched than the unspecial Olympics....
Yup, Gorin is riffing on the subject of a five-month-old developmentally disabled baby. Her point (read the whole column) is that, unlike the Palins, evil nasty liberals choose to terminate pregnancies in which pre-natal tests reveal Down Syndrome. Trig isn't a baby, he's a useful political tool.
And Gorin thinks his disability is comedy gold. She fantasizes about being an over-40 mother with a little Trig of her own:
... The way I see it, any kid is going to be a pain in the behind and is physically exhausting, what with the chasing around a parent has to do as a constant spotter for the child, whose primary directive is to get himself or herself killed in the first six years of life. So if I get one that's a little slow, that's less chasing around I'll have to do. It'll be perfect: I'll be retired and the kid'll be retarded.
Yeah, she actually wrote that.
Between the time I throw the Frisbee and the time the kid retrieves it, I can get all my napping in. And I can still become a stage mom and force the kid to live out my dreams for me. Just look at Corky from "Life Goes On." That's right -- we've been killing off Corky, that lovable, tenacious TV character. At least that kid had an acting career, which is more than I can say for myself. I've never passed an audition, but the Down kid did.
No, wait, she's got one more Down syndrome riff:
I'll tell you what they should have a prenatal test for -- to see if a baby is allergic to nuts. That's some defective stuff right there. At least a Down Syndrome kid isn't going to die from a peanut. Who ever heard of dropping dead from a Planters? Every dessert has traces of nuts. Not being able to eat dessert?! Now there's a handicap for life. Is that a life worth living? ...
Yuk it up, folks, these are the jokes.
So what have we learned? That it's OK to use Trig Palin as a political football -- but only if you're a right-winger. Oh, and I'd add that Trig's Down syndrome makes him a sort of holy innocent in the eyes of the right -- which is pretty much the way fetuses are regarded by anti-choicers. People -- or at least non-right-wing people -- are sinful and depraved, but fetuses and Trig (and their advocates) are innocent and victimized. So Trig's not a person -- he's a living, breathing rebuke.
Fortunately for him, I don't think he'll ever understand that he's being used this way.
Friday, September 19, 2008
WOULD McCAIN HAVE HAD TO DEMAND THE FIRING OF HIS OWN RUNNING MATE?
I don't have anything clever to say about this, but I just want to point out that the person (besides Barack Obama) who's being blamed the most by John McCain for the current financial crisis, Christopher Cox, is someone who was believed by many right-wingers to be an excellent VP choice for McCain -- if not the best possible choice:
Lisa Schiffren, National Review, February 11, 2008:
Chris Cox is fabulous. He should be president.
Quin Hillyer, American Spectator, March 6, 2008:
The best choice, bar none. This thoughtful and reform-minded chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made his name for 16 years as the brainiest and perhaps most principled Reaganite conservative in Congress, as well as one of the best on TV....
Cox is well thought of by just about every conservative columnist around, and respected by the David Broder institutionalists for his brains, diligence, and decency....
There will be more to say about Cox in the months ahead. The good news is, McCain has a number of excellent choices from which to choose. The better news is that with so many already-excellent choices, there is one, Cox, who excels even those, and who would be capable of handling any job McCain could possibly throw at him.
Robert Novak, March 17, 2008:
Former conservative colleagues in the House of Representatives are boosting Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission since 2005, to be Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate.....
Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 3, 23008:
Mr. McCain could choose no better than Chris Cox.... Handsome, articulate and personable, and with no skeletons rattling around in his closet, Mr. Cox is described by friends as "scary smart."
Brendan Miniter, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2008:
Mr. McCain needs to bolster his economic street cred, especially after admitting minimal expertise on the subject. He needs to rally pro-growth Republicans and calm the fears of ordinary voters amid the mortgage meltdown. Who to call? California Republican Chris Cox was on George W. Bush's shortlist eight years ago and didn't get the nod. Now his moment may have arrived, judging by a growing murmur among his GOP fans.
At 55, he's youthful and confidence-inspiring.... He has a reputation as a serious and sober minded politician....
McCain-Cox? It would have been an interesting general election campaign, to say the least.
That widespread admiration for Cox explains some of the fury of this Wall Street Journal editorial today:
Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.
Hillyer of the Spectator adds:
McCain's outburst was flagrantly ignorant, disgustingly demagogic, and pathetically panicky. Just when he had a chance to prove his mettle as someone who could be level-headed in a crisis, he instead showed himself to be a hothead and a bully who goes off half-cocked while firing blanks.
Hey, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
The Journal editorial says McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does" and accuses McCain of "running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000." Those are two of the lowest insults imaginable in that neck of the ideological woods. I think that's a sign that the coverage from this wing of the right really might revert to "Screw it -- we don't see a difference between McCain and Obama now, so we don't care if Obama wins." I won't complain.
I don't have anything clever to say about this, but I just want to point out that the person (besides Barack Obama) who's being blamed the most by John McCain for the current financial crisis, Christopher Cox, is someone who was believed by many right-wingers to be an excellent VP choice for McCain -- if not the best possible choice:
Lisa Schiffren, National Review, February 11, 2008:
Chris Cox is fabulous. He should be president.
Quin Hillyer, American Spectator, March 6, 2008:
The best choice, bar none. This thoughtful and reform-minded chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission made his name for 16 years as the brainiest and perhaps most principled Reaganite conservative in Congress, as well as one of the best on TV....
Cox is well thought of by just about every conservative columnist around, and respected by the David Broder institutionalists for his brains, diligence, and decency....
There will be more to say about Cox in the months ahead. The good news is, McCain has a number of excellent choices from which to choose. The better news is that with so many already-excellent choices, there is one, Cox, who excels even those, and who would be capable of handling any job McCain could possibly throw at him.
Robert Novak, March 17, 2008:
Former conservative colleagues in the House of Representatives are boosting Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission since 2005, to be Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate.....
Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 3, 23008:
Mr. McCain could choose no better than Chris Cox.... Handsome, articulate and personable, and with no skeletons rattling around in his closet, Mr. Cox is described by friends as "scary smart."
Brendan Miniter, Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2008:
Mr. McCain needs to bolster his economic street cred, especially after admitting minimal expertise on the subject. He needs to rally pro-growth Republicans and calm the fears of ordinary voters amid the mortgage meltdown. Who to call? California Republican Chris Cox was on George W. Bush's shortlist eight years ago and didn't get the nod. Now his moment may have arrived, judging by a growing murmur among his GOP fans.
At 55, he's youthful and confidence-inspiring.... He has a reputation as a serious and sober minded politician....
McCain-Cox? It would have been an interesting general election campaign, to say the least.
That widespread admiration for Cox explains some of the fury of this Wall Street Journal editorial today:
Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential.
Hillyer of the Spectator adds:
McCain's outburst was flagrantly ignorant, disgustingly demagogic, and pathetically panicky. Just when he had a chance to prove his mettle as someone who could be level-headed in a crisis, he instead showed himself to be a hothead and a bully who goes off half-cocked while firing blanks.
Hey, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
The Journal editorial says McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does" and accuses McCain of "running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000." Those are two of the lowest insults imaginable in that neck of the ideological woods. I think that's a sign that the coverage from this wing of the right really might revert to "Screw it -- we don't see a difference between McCain and Obama now, so we don't care if Obama wins." I won't complain.
PALIN'S NOT BEING PRESUMPTUOUS IF THE BASE AGREES WITH HER
Steve Benen thinks Sarah Palin is acting like "a presumptuous celebrity" for talking about a "Palin and McCain administration" and calling John McCain her "running mate." But is that presumptuous -- or just realistic?
If you want to know who the GOP base thinks is the star of this show, check out the current front page of the wingnut site Newsmax. Here's a partial screenshot (click to enlarge)
Number appearances of "McCain" on the Newsmax front page: 9.
Number appearances of "Palin": 19.
(My personal favorite among the links: an article speculating on whether Palin could be the next Margaret Thatcher.)
As Steve notes, people are walking out of McCain rallies after Palin speaks. As The Washington Post has noted, Palin is driving volunteers to GOP offices. The two top-rated Hannity & Colmes shows for this year have been Palin's convention speech and part one of her interview, according to TV Newser.
I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure we're in "the post-Palin campaign," as Skimble said in comments here. I know Palin's popularity is down among people who aren't Republicans or GOP leaners, but I think the end of the first wave of Palinmania is just the result of this week's focus on the financial meltdown. That could change once Wall Street settles down and Steve Schmidt figures out how to deploy Palin next -- which is what I think is going to happen.
In addition to her obvious effect on evangelical voters, I fear she's still looking good to just enough low-information swing voters to make a difference. Remember the anti-Palin ad I was praising last week -- the one about aerial shooting of wolves? Nate Silver now tells us that, in focus groups shown the ad, a viewing of the ad is enough to wipe out a 6-point margin in favor McCain/Palin.
That tells me there are still a lot of people who just think Palin is an awfully nice, decent, competent person and who are voting for McCain to a large extent because of her -- until they're exposed to anti-Palin information. So why not carefully, judiciously work to change her image from that of the plucky, competent, very nice Everygal? This is still a close race --and Obama's current lead in the polls could be partly just a financial-meltdown bounce -- so why not talk about her? She's still the McCain campaign's star -- do you think they're not going to work hard to maximize her usefulness?
****
TBogg:
I find that people are willing to brush off or justify Sarah Palin's lack of experience, qualifications or, well. smarts because of her novelty factor. But the one thing that stops them dead in their tracks is the story of Sarah Palin and the Pay As You Go Rape Kits....
Yup. So can't there at least be one ad about that?
****
UPDATE: Skimble notes in comments that he didn't mean "post-Palin" in that way -- he meant "following Palin's selection." Apologies foer my misreading.
Steve Benen thinks Sarah Palin is acting like "a presumptuous celebrity" for talking about a "Palin and McCain administration" and calling John McCain her "running mate." But is that presumptuous -- or just realistic?
If you want to know who the GOP base thinks is the star of this show, check out the current front page of the wingnut site Newsmax. Here's a partial screenshot (click to enlarge)
Number appearances of "McCain" on the Newsmax front page: 9.
Number appearances of "Palin": 19.
(My personal favorite among the links: an article speculating on whether Palin could be the next Margaret Thatcher.)
As Steve notes, people are walking out of McCain rallies after Palin speaks. As The Washington Post has noted, Palin is driving volunteers to GOP offices. The two top-rated Hannity & Colmes shows for this year have been Palin's convention speech and part one of her interview, according to TV Newser.
I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure we're in "the post-Palin campaign," as Skimble said in comments here. I know Palin's popularity is down among people who aren't Republicans or GOP leaners, but I think the end of the first wave of Palinmania is just the result of this week's focus on the financial meltdown. That could change once Wall Street settles down and Steve Schmidt figures out how to deploy Palin next -- which is what I think is going to happen.
In addition to her obvious effect on evangelical voters, I fear she's still looking good to just enough low-information swing voters to make a difference. Remember the anti-Palin ad I was praising last week -- the one about aerial shooting of wolves? Nate Silver now tells us that, in focus groups shown the ad, a viewing of the ad is enough to wipe out a 6-point margin in favor McCain/Palin.
That tells me there are still a lot of people who just think Palin is an awfully nice, decent, competent person and who are voting for McCain to a large extent because of her -- until they're exposed to anti-Palin information. So why not carefully, judiciously work to change her image from that of the plucky, competent, very nice Everygal? This is still a close race --and Obama's current lead in the polls could be partly just a financial-meltdown bounce -- so why not talk about her? She's still the McCain campaign's star -- do you think they're not going to work hard to maximize her usefulness?
****
TBogg:
I find that people are willing to brush off or justify Sarah Palin's lack of experience, qualifications or, well. smarts because of her novelty factor. But the one thing that stops them dead in their tracks is the story of Sarah Palin and the Pay As You Go Rape Kits....
Yup. So can't there at least be one ad about that?
****
UPDATE: Skimble notes in comments that he didn't mean "post-Palin" in that way -- he meant "following Palin's selection." Apologies foer my misreading.
ONE RACIST WORD?
Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo suggest that the ad below is racist because it links Obama to former Fannie Mae head Franklin Raines, who's black:
Maybe, maybe not. On one hand, as Sargent and Kleefeld point out, the ad focuses on Raines and ignores Jim Johnson, a white former Fannie-ite with stronger ties to Obama, and the average-American victim shown at the end of the ad is white. On the other hand, Raines is the typical ad attack-ad villain, a prominent guy who screwed up, and Obama can actually be linked to him (although, as Sargent and Kleefeld note, the McCain campaign greatly exaggerates the link), so how different is this from any other attack ad?
But there's one word in the ad that bothers me. It's near the end. Obama is shown, and next to his head we see this (which we also hear):
BAD INSTINCTS
It's "instincts" that gives me pause. I think it taps into creepy old racist notions of blacks as primal, elemental people who act on primitive drives (some of them quite sinister) rather than on intelligence or knowledge.
I remember that, back in the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson era in the NBA, it was noted that many sports commentators automatically ascribed the success of Bird and other white players to "intelligence" and "court sense" and other cerebral-sounding attributes, while black players were said to thrive because of "athleticism" and intuitive (rather than learned) mastery of the game. Whites were basketball scholars; blacks were, well, instinctual players.
Maybe I'm overreading this, but that's what I think is behind that one word.
****
By the way, Obama's returned fire with this ad about McCain's advisers -- Fiorina, Gramm, and Bush. It's a really good ad.
****
UPDATE: Time's Karen Tumulty looks at the Obama/Raines ad and says flatly that this is McCain playing the race card. On the other hand, the McCain campaign now has an additional ad featuring Jim Johnson.
Does the Johnson ad make any reference to Obama's "instincts"? No, it doesn't.
According to Tumulty, the McCain campaign says the ad with the Sinister Black Guy "will be airing nationally." I'm not sure what plans there are for the Sinister White Guy. If the Raines ad gets a much bigger ad buy than the Johnson ad, then we know what's going on.
Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo suggest that the ad below is racist because it links Obama to former Fannie Mae head Franklin Raines, who's black:
Maybe, maybe not. On one hand, as Sargent and Kleefeld point out, the ad focuses on Raines and ignores Jim Johnson, a white former Fannie-ite with stronger ties to Obama, and the average-American victim shown at the end of the ad is white. On the other hand, Raines is the typical ad attack-ad villain, a prominent guy who screwed up, and Obama can actually be linked to him (although, as Sargent and Kleefeld note, the McCain campaign greatly exaggerates the link), so how different is this from any other attack ad?
But there's one word in the ad that bothers me. It's near the end. Obama is shown, and next to his head we see this (which we also hear):
BAD INSTINCTS
It's "instincts" that gives me pause. I think it taps into creepy old racist notions of blacks as primal, elemental people who act on primitive drives (some of them quite sinister) rather than on intelligence or knowledge.
I remember that, back in the Larry Bird/Magic Johnson era in the NBA, it was noted that many sports commentators automatically ascribed the success of Bird and other white players to "intelligence" and "court sense" and other cerebral-sounding attributes, while black players were said to thrive because of "athleticism" and intuitive (rather than learned) mastery of the game. Whites were basketball scholars; blacks were, well, instinctual players.
Maybe I'm overreading this, but that's what I think is behind that one word.
****
By the way, Obama's returned fire with this ad about McCain's advisers -- Fiorina, Gramm, and Bush. It's a really good ad.
****
UPDATE: Time's Karen Tumulty looks at the Obama/Raines ad and says flatly that this is McCain playing the race card. On the other hand, the McCain campaign now has an additional ad featuring Jim Johnson.
Does the Johnson ad make any reference to Obama's "instincts"? No, it doesn't.
According to Tumulty, the McCain campaign says the ad with the Sinister Black Guy "will be airing nationally." I'm not sure what plans there are for the Sinister White Guy. If the Raines ad gets a much bigger ad buy than the Johnson ad, then we know what's going on.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
WHERE'S THE MAN I MARRIED?
Adam Nagourney of The New York Times sighs with regret over a lost love:
Senator John McCain's campaign events were once free-wheeling journeys marked by flashes of humor, candor and arch observations from the candidate about presidential politics -- and John McCain. Oh, and moments that left no doubt that Mr. McCain was not working from any script.
... Not these days. As Mr. McCain worked his way through Florida and Ohio as the Republican Party's nominee for president this week, he was a candidate transformed. The Arizona Republican unsmilingly raced through a series of relatively brief speeches, reading often from a Teleprompter, and served up a diet of the kind of sound-bite attacks that he used to dismiss with an eye-roll.
... He takes far fewer chances, meaning there are fewer risque jokes, zingers at a familiar face in the crowd, provocative observations on policy or politics, or exercises in self-derogatory humor.
And, in the privacy of theboudoir campaign plane:
... There are now not one but two firmly drawn curtains separating Mr. McCain's spacious quarters on his plane from the press corps. Left idle is the couch that was built in the front of his plane -- called "Straight Talk Air" -- to reproduce at 30,000 feet the free-wheeling chats with reporters that were the stock-in-trade on his bus; the other morning it was covered with newspapers....
Heartbreak!
We've all noticed that the press is actually criticizing the McCain campaign for lies and distortions. I think this is why: The magic is gone. McCain's no fun to have a beer with anymore, on the stump or (in particular) on the plane.
Previous GOP candidates attacked the media, but I suspect they knew enough not to alienate the media. I don't recall anyone ever writing a story like this about a Karl Rove political operation.
But Rove's protege Steve Schmidt made a calculated decision to genuinely alienate reporters, and to make McCain less "colorful." If McCain were still colorful and fun to be with, I think he could have campaigned against the media and lied to his heart's content in speeches and TV ads, with no negative repercussions.
Unfortunately, Schmidt actually seems to believe the wingnut anti-media rhetoric his side usually uses so effectively. That may turn out to be the fatal flaw of the McCain campaign.
Adam Nagourney of The New York Times sighs with regret over a lost love:
Senator John McCain's campaign events were once free-wheeling journeys marked by flashes of humor, candor and arch observations from the candidate about presidential politics -- and John McCain. Oh, and moments that left no doubt that Mr. McCain was not working from any script.
... Not these days. As Mr. McCain worked his way through Florida and Ohio as the Republican Party's nominee for president this week, he was a candidate transformed. The Arizona Republican unsmilingly raced through a series of relatively brief speeches, reading often from a Teleprompter, and served up a diet of the kind of sound-bite attacks that he used to dismiss with an eye-roll.
... He takes far fewer chances, meaning there are fewer risque jokes, zingers at a familiar face in the crowd, provocative observations on policy or politics, or exercises in self-derogatory humor.
And, in the privacy of the
... There are now not one but two firmly drawn curtains separating Mr. McCain's spacious quarters on his plane from the press corps. Left idle is the couch that was built in the front of his plane -- called "Straight Talk Air" -- to reproduce at 30,000 feet the free-wheeling chats with reporters that were the stock-in-trade on his bus; the other morning it was covered with newspapers....
Heartbreak!
We've all noticed that the press is actually criticizing the McCain campaign for lies and distortions. I think this is why: The magic is gone. McCain's no fun to have a beer with anymore, on the stump or (in particular) on the plane.
Previous GOP candidates attacked the media, but I suspect they knew enough not to alienate the media. I don't recall anyone ever writing a story like this about a Karl Rove political operation.
But Rove's protege Steve Schmidt made a calculated decision to genuinely alienate reporters, and to make McCain less "colorful." If McCain were still colorful and fun to be with, I think he could have campaigned against the media and lied to his heart's content in speeches and TV ads, with no negative repercussions.
Unfortunately, Schmidt actually seems to believe the wingnut anti-media rhetoric his side usually uses so effectively. That may turn out to be the fatal flaw of the McCain campaign.
WHY I WANT SARAH PALIN TO KEEP TAKING SOFTBALL QUESTIONS
I watched Sarah Palin's interview with Sean Hannity last night (transcript here; video clips from Fox here or at YouTube here).
I really tried to watch her the way an undecided voter might. And I'll admit it: maybe I can't actually do that. Maybe I can't put myself in a heartland swing voter's shoes.
But I think Palin, trying to come off as a potential national and global leader, seemed instead like the HR representative who's summoned America into the conference room to do a presentation on the bosses' new, crappy, drastically diminished health-care plan.
You can't tell whether she actually understands what she's telling you because she's determined to stick to the script of the PowerPoint presentation -- and when you ask her a pointed question about how this is going to affect your ability to get treatment for your chronically ill seven-year-old, she just reverts to a variation on a bullet point in that script, or she launches into banal generalities and folksy homilies, along with the occasional cheery verbal punch to the shoulder ("Well, I'll tell ya"). Does she simply not know the answer you want? Or is it her strategy to offer nothing but the script and some happy talk because that's the way she's going to keep you mollified?
When you encounter a person like Palin in real life, you don't think, This person is in charge. You think, The people in charge installed this person as a big, perky roadblock so I can't possibly get to them. She's a human phone tree.
She loses every bit of the vigorous pugnacity that made some people think, after seeing her convention speech, that she could be a world-beater and a champion of ordinary citizens. She might still have that pugnacity in stump speeches, and it may well come back in the Biden debate, but when she's not taking on an enemy, she seems toothless. She's a functionary, a bureaucrat.
So I hope she does a lot of very polite sit-down interviews. They reduce her to almost nothing.
*****
Here's Palin talking to Hannity and really drilling down to the specifics of the financial crisis:
... we've got to get a more coordinated and a much more stringent oversight regime.
Not that government is going to be solely looked to for the answers in all of the problems in Wall Street, but government can play a very, very appropriate role in the oversight as people are trusting these companies with their life savings, with their investments, with their insurance policies and construction bonds and everything else.
When we see the collapse that we're seeing today, you know that something is broke and John McCain has a great plan to get in there and fix it.
In other words: Something is wrong and we're going to do something.
That's the kind of answer she gives Hannity throughout -- just like the much-mocked answer she gave at a Michigan rally yesterday when she (gasp!) took questions from the crowd and was asked to list "specific skills" she has in foreign policy:
Well, I think because I'm a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.
And if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead and you can ask me. You can even play stump the candidate if you want to. But we are ready to serve.
Translation: You asked me what my specific foreign policy skills are, and my answer is that I have them, and you're free to ask me about them -- anytime!
And here's another one from the same campaign rally -- it's getting less attention, but it's just as shamelessly evasive. Palin is asked by a former Hillary Clinton supporter to provide "some details and examples of your strategies and plan for economic empowerment for women." After talking about being a Title IX beneficiary as a high school basketball player, she says this:
Now if we have to still keep going down that road to create more legislation, to get with it in the 21st century, to make sure that women do have equality especially in the work place, then we're there because we understand that in this age we have all got to be working together. I respect you so much that you are a Democrat recognizing that John McCain and me as a team of mavericks understand where you're coming from, and we can work together on these issues. But yup, equality for women, for all, that’s going to be part of the agenda and I thank you for that question.
Wow. Her "strategies and plan" are: I don't know if we'll need more legislation, but if we do, then, yup, let's have some!
She doesn't even seem to be answering the questions. I think even low-information voters want more than this -- you can avoid giving specifics, but if so I think you have to provide some kind of point of view, or rally voters around a real or imagined culprit, or something. Palin identified plenty of culprits in her convention speech -- but now she's just mouthing platitudes.
She's not going to fire voters up that way. Which is why I hope she never stops taking this kind of question, and never stops giving this kind of answer.
*****
(Last link via American Street.)
I watched Sarah Palin's interview with Sean Hannity last night (transcript here; video clips from Fox here or at YouTube here).
I really tried to watch her the way an undecided voter might. And I'll admit it: maybe I can't actually do that. Maybe I can't put myself in a heartland swing voter's shoes.
But I think Palin, trying to come off as a potential national and global leader, seemed instead like the HR representative who's summoned America into the conference room to do a presentation on the bosses' new, crappy, drastically diminished health-care plan.
You can't tell whether she actually understands what she's telling you because she's determined to stick to the script of the PowerPoint presentation -- and when you ask her a pointed question about how this is going to affect your ability to get treatment for your chronically ill seven-year-old, she just reverts to a variation on a bullet point in that script, or she launches into banal generalities and folksy homilies, along with the occasional cheery verbal punch to the shoulder ("Well, I'll tell ya"). Does she simply not know the answer you want? Or is it her strategy to offer nothing but the script and some happy talk because that's the way she's going to keep you mollified?
When you encounter a person like Palin in real life, you don't think, This person is in charge. You think, The people in charge installed this person as a big, perky roadblock so I can't possibly get to them. She's a human phone tree.
She loses every bit of the vigorous pugnacity that made some people think, after seeing her convention speech, that she could be a world-beater and a champion of ordinary citizens. She might still have that pugnacity in stump speeches, and it may well come back in the Biden debate, but when she's not taking on an enemy, she seems toothless. She's a functionary, a bureaucrat.
So I hope she does a lot of very polite sit-down interviews. They reduce her to almost nothing.
*****
Here's Palin talking to Hannity and really drilling down to the specifics of the financial crisis:
... we've got to get a more coordinated and a much more stringent oversight regime.
Not that government is going to be solely looked to for the answers in all of the problems in Wall Street, but government can play a very, very appropriate role in the oversight as people are trusting these companies with their life savings, with their investments, with their insurance policies and construction bonds and everything else.
When we see the collapse that we're seeing today, you know that something is broke and John McCain has a great plan to get in there and fix it.
In other words: Something is wrong and we're going to do something.
That's the kind of answer she gives Hannity throughout -- just like the much-mocked answer she gave at a Michigan rally yesterday when she (gasp!) took questions from the crowd and was asked to list "specific skills" she has in foreign policy:
Well, I think because I'm a Washington outsider that opponents are going to be looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize and they can kind of try to beat the candidates here, who chose me as his partner, to kind of tear down the ticket. But as for foreign policy, you know, I think that I am prepared and I know that on January 20th, if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your president and vice president, certainly we’ll be ready. I’ll be ready. I have that confidence. I have that readiness.
And if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead and you can ask me. You can even play stump the candidate if you want to. But we are ready to serve.
Translation: You asked me what my specific foreign policy skills are, and my answer is that I have them, and you're free to ask me about them -- anytime!
And here's another one from the same campaign rally -- it's getting less attention, but it's just as shamelessly evasive. Palin is asked by a former Hillary Clinton supporter to provide "some details and examples of your strategies and plan for economic empowerment for women." After talking about being a Title IX beneficiary as a high school basketball player, she says this:
Now if we have to still keep going down that road to create more legislation, to get with it in the 21st century, to make sure that women do have equality especially in the work place, then we're there because we understand that in this age we have all got to be working together. I respect you so much that you are a Democrat recognizing that John McCain and me as a team of mavericks understand where you're coming from, and we can work together on these issues. But yup, equality for women, for all, that’s going to be part of the agenda and I thank you for that question.
Wow. Her "strategies and plan" are: I don't know if we'll need more legislation, but if we do, then, yup, let's have some!
She doesn't even seem to be answering the questions. I think even low-information voters want more than this -- you can avoid giving specifics, but if so I think you have to provide some kind of point of view, or rally voters around a real or imagined culprit, or something. Palin identified plenty of culprits in her convention speech -- but now she's just mouthing platitudes.
She's not going to fire voters up that way. Which is why I hope she never stops taking this kind of question, and never stops giving this kind of answer.
*****
(Last link via American Street.)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
PALIN: I THINK DUDES STILL DIG HER
(but America digs Obama again)
Excellent news from the new New York Times/CBS poll:
Poll: Obama Retakes Lead Over McCain
In a sign that John McCain's convention bounce has dissipated, Barack Obama has taken a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over his Republican rival among registered voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
McCain had a two percentage point lead among registered voters in a CBS News poll released on September 8th, just after the Republican National Convention....
Add that to the fact that Obama's regained the lead (by 2 points) in the latest Gallup tracking poll and things are looking good now.
And remember that 20-point swing to McCain among white women in an ABC poll taken just after the Republican convention? Well, right back at ya:
Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.
And:
Palin's favorable rating stands at 40 percent, down 4 points from last week.... Her favorable rating among women has fallen 11 points in the past week.
Now, here's the thing: According to the results for the VP part of the poll (PDF), Palin's down 11% among women, as stated. But she's down only 4% overall. If I'm doing the math correctly, that means her numbers are up among men.
And the poll's main results (PDF) note that while Obama has turned a 2-point deficit into a 5-point lead overall, and has had a +21-point turnaround among white women, he's actually doing worse among white men -- 40%-52% last week, 36%-54% this week.
Is that because of McCain, Palin, or both?
(but America digs Obama again)
Excellent news from the new New York Times/CBS poll:
Poll: Obama Retakes Lead Over McCain
In a sign that John McCain's convention bounce has dissipated, Barack Obama has taken a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over his Republican rival among registered voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
McCain had a two percentage point lead among registered voters in a CBS News poll released on September 8th, just after the Republican National Convention....
Add that to the fact that Obama's regained the lead (by 2 points) in the latest Gallup tracking poll and things are looking good now.
And remember that 20-point swing to McCain among white women in an ABC poll taken just after the Republican convention? Well, right back at ya:
Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.
And:
Palin's favorable rating stands at 40 percent, down 4 points from last week.... Her favorable rating among women has fallen 11 points in the past week.
Now, here's the thing: According to the results for the VP part of the poll (PDF), Palin's down 11% among women, as stated. But she's down only 4% overall. If I'm doing the math correctly, that means her numbers are up among men.
And the poll's main results (PDF) note that while Obama has turned a 2-point deficit into a 5-point lead overall, and has had a +21-point turnaround among white women, he's actually doing worse among white men -- 40%-52% last week, 36%-54% this week.
Is that because of McCain, Palin, or both?
A NEW WORD ENTERS THE LANGUAGE
Um, I don't think Sarah Palin is misusing the word "verbiage" in the clip below from her upcoming Sean Hannity interview....
It was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use....
I think she's defending McCain's "verbage" -- no "i." To the best of my knowledge, "verbage" isn't even a word.
Watch:
Yup, it's "verbage." Twice.
****
UPDATE: Well, Urban Dictionary has "verbage," referring to either word misuse or bad T-shirt slogans, but it seems to be a deliberately fake Andy Bernard-style word, like "tuneage" for "music." I don't think that's what Palin had in mind....
****
UPDATE: In comments, phleabo notes that "verbage" does show up in the OED, with one citation from 1787.
Um, I don't think Sarah Palin is misusing the word "verbiage" in the clip below from her upcoming Sean Hannity interview....
It was an unfair attack on the verbiage that Senator McCain chose to use....
I think she's defending McCain's "verbage" -- no "i." To the best of my knowledge, "verbage" isn't even a word.
Watch:
Yup, it's "verbage." Twice.
****
UPDATE: Well, Urban Dictionary has "verbage," referring to either word misuse or bad T-shirt slogans, but it seems to be a deliberately fake Andy Bernard-style word, like "tuneage" for "music." I don't think that's what Palin had in mind....
****
UPDATE: In comments, phleabo notes that "verbage" does show up in the OED, with one citation from 1787.
DEAR ANONYMOUS: THANKS FOR NOTHING
I know Sarah Palin used private e-mail accounts in order to circumvent public records laws. I know she's stonewalling on Troopergate. I know she cc'd her husband on some official e-mails and then claimed that they should remain confidential, even though he's not a government employee.
But breaking into her Yahoo e-mail account, as the hackers known as Anonymous have apparently now done, is now going to set off a tsunami of self-righteousness on the part of the GOP and its backets in the punditocracy and blogosphere. It's going to arouse quite a bit of sympathy for Sarah Palin just as her star is beginning to fall. It's going to be hung around the necks of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and "liberals" and "the left" in general.
We're going to be hearing from a lot of hypocrites, of course -- the same people who, for instance, thought it was outrageous to suggest any connection between right-wing talk radio and Timothy McVeigh.
But in this case, there just isn't the slightest connection between the few people responsible for this invasion of privacy and the people who are going to be the subject of the right's outrage broadsides.
I want Sarah Palin's deeds in Troopergate investigated responsibly. I don't want Bristol Palin's phone number exposed, or her deputy communications director's address. That's out of bounds.
I hope these hackers go to jail. They're gone over the line and they've made the GOP's scary, dangerous VP nominee seem sympathetic again. Both of those deeds are unforgivable.
****
UPDATE: Exactly what I was talking about:
LIBERALS ATTACK PALINS-- HACK PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT! Splash Private Photos, Phone #'s and Emails On Internet!
MORE HOPE AND CHANGE
The Left continues its attacks on the Palin Family---
Liberals hack into Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's private e-mail account!
Liberal Blog Gawker reposts the private information! ...
The McCain spinners will be reading from this script within hours, if not Palin and McCain themselves. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
I know Sarah Palin used private e-mail accounts in order to circumvent public records laws. I know she's stonewalling on Troopergate. I know she cc'd her husband on some official e-mails and then claimed that they should remain confidential, even though he's not a government employee.
But breaking into her Yahoo e-mail account, as the hackers known as Anonymous have apparently now done, is now going to set off a tsunami of self-righteousness on the part of the GOP and its backets in the punditocracy and blogosphere. It's going to arouse quite a bit of sympathy for Sarah Palin just as her star is beginning to fall. It's going to be hung around the necks of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and "liberals" and "the left" in general.
We're going to be hearing from a lot of hypocrites, of course -- the same people who, for instance, thought it was outrageous to suggest any connection between right-wing talk radio and Timothy McVeigh.
But in this case, there just isn't the slightest connection between the few people responsible for this invasion of privacy and the people who are going to be the subject of the right's outrage broadsides.
I want Sarah Palin's deeds in Troopergate investigated responsibly. I don't want Bristol Palin's phone number exposed, or her deputy communications director's address. That's out of bounds.
I hope these hackers go to jail. They're gone over the line and they've made the GOP's scary, dangerous VP nominee seem sympathetic again. Both of those deeds are unforgivable.
****
UPDATE: Exactly what I was talking about:
LIBERALS ATTACK PALINS-- HACK PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT! Splash Private Photos, Phone #'s and Emails On Internet!
MORE HOPE AND CHANGE
The Left continues its attacks on the Palin Family---
Liberals hack into Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's private e-mail account!
Liberal Blog Gawker reposts the private information! ...
The McCain spinners will be reading from this script within hours, if not Palin and McCain themselves. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
DAN QUAYLE: JUST ABOUT AS SELF-AWARE AS HE WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO
Righty columnist Cal Thomas recently talked to Dan Quayle about Sarah Palin. Here's part of what we learn from their conversation:
Mr. Quayle ... said every criticism leveled at Mrs. Palin was leveled "almost verbatim at me." He said, "People who supported us were called by the media and our opponents 'dumb' and 'mean-spirited.' " He added, "The liberal media are scared of effective conservatives."
Yes, you read that right. Why did people make fun of Quayle? Not because he was a spoiled, incurious, inarticulate gaffe machine. No -- it was because he was so darn effective.
Righty columnist Cal Thomas recently talked to Dan Quayle about Sarah Palin. Here's part of what we learn from their conversation:
Mr. Quayle ... said every criticism leveled at Mrs. Palin was leveled "almost verbatim at me." He said, "People who supported us were called by the media and our opponents 'dumb' and 'mean-spirited.' " He added, "The liberal media are scared of effective conservatives."
Yes, you read that right. Why did people make fun of Quayle? Not because he was a spoiled, incurious, inarticulate gaffe machine. No -- it was because he was so darn effective.
PALIN: DESIGNER CLOTHES ... AND THE (OTHER) N-WORD
Page Six in the New York Post tells us that Average Hockey Mom Sarah Palin actually has a taste for nicer things:
HOCKEY mom Sarah Palin not only wore lipstick to the Republican National Convention, the vice-presidential candidate wore a shantung silk Valentino jacket worth $2,500.
Insiders tell Page Six Palin has a secretive circle of stylists who dress her for events. For her big speech in St. Paul, where she accepted the GOP's vice-presidential nod, this fashion-conscious team encouraged the Alaska governor to splurge on a $2,500 jacket from Saks Fifth Avenue designed by Valentino Garavani.
... she's springing for designer labels. One source familiar with Palin's primping posse told us, "They do not want the American public to know that Palin is using stylists or that she is paying for expensive clothes this early on in the campaign." ...
Nothing wrong with wearing stylish duds, if you're a female politician at the national level ... unless you're someone who incessantly proclaims your ordinariness, and you're building the entire argument for your candidacy on that posture of ordinariness, while your ticket slams your opponent as "elitist" day after day after day.
*****
Nothing wrong with having a nanny either, if you're a professional woman with kids and you can swing it -- and yet I've never seen the words "Sarah Palin" and "nanny" in the same article. And I know she's had one, because she said so herself in that Wasilla church video, just before she talked about the Iraq War and whether it was God's plan:
... Christie was our -- she was my nanny when my kids were real little....
That's at about 5:23. Do people know this? Hasn't the Palin-McCain campaign conveyed the impression that Palin does it all herself -- you know, firing (or at least reassigning) the chef and all that?
And there's this in the Palin story The New York Times ran on Sunday:
Another confidante of Ms. Palin's is Ms. [Ivy] Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin's campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin's children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as "the babysitter," a title that Ms. Frye disavows.
I'm sure Palin, like all working mothers, can use the help. The problem is, she's being sold to us as someone who doesn't need or want any help. And as someone who doesn't like big-city sophistication. I guess that's true, except when it comes on a hanger.
Page Six in the New York Post tells us that Average Hockey Mom Sarah Palin actually has a taste for nicer things:
HOCKEY mom Sarah Palin not only wore lipstick to the Republican National Convention, the vice-presidential candidate wore a shantung silk Valentino jacket worth $2,500.
Insiders tell Page Six Palin has a secretive circle of stylists who dress her for events. For her big speech in St. Paul, where she accepted the GOP's vice-presidential nod, this fashion-conscious team encouraged the Alaska governor to splurge on a $2,500 jacket from Saks Fifth Avenue designed by Valentino Garavani.
... she's springing for designer labels. One source familiar with Palin's primping posse told us, "They do not want the American public to know that Palin is using stylists or that she is paying for expensive clothes this early on in the campaign." ...
Nothing wrong with wearing stylish duds, if you're a female politician at the national level ... unless you're someone who incessantly proclaims your ordinariness, and you're building the entire argument for your candidacy on that posture of ordinariness, while your ticket slams your opponent as "elitist" day after day after day.
*****
Nothing wrong with having a nanny either, if you're a professional woman with kids and you can swing it -- and yet I've never seen the words "Sarah Palin" and "nanny" in the same article. And I know she's had one, because she said so herself in that Wasilla church video, just before she talked about the Iraq War and whether it was God's plan:
... Christie was our -- she was my nanny when my kids were real little....
That's at about 5:23. Do people know this? Hasn't the Palin-McCain campaign conveyed the impression that Palin does it all herself -- you know, firing (or at least reassigning) the chef and all that?
And there's this in the Palin story The New York Times ran on Sunday:
Another confidante of Ms. Palin's is Ms. [Ivy] Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin's campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin's children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as "the babysitter," a title that Ms. Frye disavows.
I'm sure Palin, like all working mothers, can use the help. The problem is, she's being sold to us as someone who doesn't need or want any help. And as someone who doesn't like big-city sophistication. I guess that's true, except when it comes on a hanger.
FUND-RAISING FROM RICH PEOPLE? REPUBLICANS WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT!
John McCain talks about one fund-raiser that took place yesterday:
...Republican John McCain lost no time pointing out Obama was courting the stars instead of ordinary folk.
"(He) talks about siding with the people, siding with the people -- just before he flies off to Hollywood for a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends," McCain told a rally in Vienna, Ohio, a critical battleground state. "Let me tell you my friends, there's no place I'd rather be than here with the working men and women of Ohio." ...
Funny, he somehow neglected to mention this fund-raiser that took place yesterday:
...first lady Laura Bush showed up ... Tuesday at a private McCain fundraiser that drew more than 100 local Republicans and raised more than $1 million in campaign donations.
The afternoon reception [was] hosted by Anne and John Marion....
Attendees paid amounts ranging from $2,500 per person to $57,000....
Anne Marion? That would be this Anne Marion:
The World's Billionaires
#754 Anne Windfohr Marion
Age: 67
Fortune: inherited
Source: inheritance, oil
Net Worth: $1.3 bil
Country Of Citizenship: United States
Residence: Fort Worth, Texas , United States, North America
Industry: Oil/Gas
More:
...Anne Burnett Windfohr [Marion is the] chairman of the Burnett Oil Company in Fort Worth...
[She] graduated from Miss Porter's School and Briarcliff Junior College. She is also president of Burnett Ranches, which includes four ranches in West Texas, and president of the Anne Burnett and Charles D. Tandy Foundation, a charitable organization. Mrs. Marion is the stepdaughter of the late Mr. Tandy, founder of the Tandy Corporation, a manufacturer of consumer electronics. Her father was a stockbroker....
That's her, second from the left, at a dinner honoring her and her husband at the Frick museum in New York:
...John Marion, America's most famous auctioneer of fine arts and antiques, has been one of the most visible and highly respected figures in the art world. He retired as Chairman of Sotheby's in 1995 and is now the Honorary Chairman and is a member of its Advisory Board.
Anne Marion is the Chairman of Burnett Oil Co., Inc, and the President of the Burnett Foundation, which provided pivotal support for the endowment of the Frick Art Reference Library. She is a trustee of the Kimbell Art Foundation and the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and the founder and Chairman of the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe....
Just a couple of working-class kids! John McCain's supporters are the salt of the earth!
John McCain talks about one fund-raiser that took place yesterday:
...Republican John McCain lost no time pointing out Obama was courting the stars instead of ordinary folk.
"(He) talks about siding with the people, siding with the people -- just before he flies off to Hollywood for a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand and his celebrity friends," McCain told a rally in Vienna, Ohio, a critical battleground state. "Let me tell you my friends, there's no place I'd rather be than here with the working men and women of Ohio." ...
Funny, he somehow neglected to mention this fund-raiser that took place yesterday:
...first lady Laura Bush showed up ... Tuesday at a private McCain fundraiser that drew more than 100 local Republicans and raised more than $1 million in campaign donations.
The afternoon reception [was] hosted by Anne and John Marion....
Attendees paid amounts ranging from $2,500 per person to $57,000....
Anne Marion? That would be this Anne Marion:
The World's Billionaires
#754 Anne Windfohr Marion
Age: 67
Fortune: inherited
Source: inheritance, oil
Net Worth: $1.3 bil
Country Of Citizenship: United States
Residence: Fort Worth, Texas , United States, North America
Industry: Oil/Gas
More:
...Anne Burnett Windfohr [Marion is the] chairman of the Burnett Oil Company in Fort Worth...
[She] graduated from Miss Porter's School and Briarcliff Junior College. She is also president of Burnett Ranches, which includes four ranches in West Texas, and president of the Anne Burnett and Charles D. Tandy Foundation, a charitable organization. Mrs. Marion is the stepdaughter of the late Mr. Tandy, founder of the Tandy Corporation, a manufacturer of consumer electronics. Her father was a stockbroker....
That's her, second from the left, at a dinner honoring her and her husband at the Frick museum in New York:
...John Marion, America's most famous auctioneer of fine arts and antiques, has been one of the most visible and highly respected figures in the art world. He retired as Chairman of Sotheby's in 1995 and is now the Honorary Chairman and is a member of its Advisory Board.
Anne Marion is the Chairman of Burnett Oil Co., Inc, and the President of the Burnett Foundation, which provided pivotal support for the endowment of the Frick Art Reference Library. She is a trustee of the Kimbell Art Foundation and the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and the founder and Chairman of the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe....
Just a couple of working-class kids! John McCain's supporters are the salt of the earth!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
PALIN: DUDES DIG HER! (Part II)
More confirmation of what I was just saying in the last post: Here's Rasmussen discussing a hypothetical Biden-Palin matchup.
Sarah Palin bests Joseph Biden 47% to 44% in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up for the presidency, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey....
Women continue to be more skeptical than men of the Republican vice presidential nominee, only the second woman to be on a national political ticket. While men split 50% to 37% in Palin's favor, women support Biden 50% to 44%....
Hmmm ... maybe it's because they're selling her as the one who's going to do all the heavy "change" lifting and be a supermom at the same time, while Old Man McCain rides around in a golf cart. That sounds to me like what a lot of men want....
(Posting of this image does not in any way, shape, or form imply an endorsement of its sentiments.)
More confirmation of what I was just saying in the last post: Here's Rasmussen discussing a hypothetical Biden-Palin matchup.
Sarah Palin bests Joseph Biden 47% to 44% in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up for the presidency, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey....
Women continue to be more skeptical than men of the Republican vice presidential nominee, only the second woman to be on a national political ticket. While men split 50% to 37% in Palin's favor, women support Biden 50% to 44%....
Hmmm ... maybe it's because they're selling her as the one who's going to do all the heavy "change" lifting and be a supermom at the same time, while Old Man McCain rides around in a golf cart. That sounds to me like what a lot of men want....
(Posting of this image does not in any way, shape, or form imply an endorsement of its sentiments.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)