Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category
Karl Rove and Pig Lipstick
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008Paleofeminism II
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008On the last day of last year, I said…
I hope 2008 sees the end of this brand of feminism, I really do. The subject of the link in question is Page 8 of possible reasons Home Improvement jumped the shark, and “Guest” writes in with…
The show jumped with the “sandwich episode” where Jill really started to assert her own special brand of aggressive feminism. It was angering to watch Jill call her son a sexist because his girlfriend did his housework; the problem couldn’t possibly be on the girlfriend’s end, it must be the EVIL MISOGYNIST BRAD at fault because he LET her do his housework. In the end, everything was resolved, of course, when Jill converted everyone over to her point of view, aka the right one, including dimwitted Tim, who, of course, buckled under his wife’s demands yet again. Was there ever a single episode where Tim said, “Tough crap, Jill, this time it’s my way”?
I was watching this episode with my ten-year-old son, and found myself answering some complicated questions.
I went on to point out the flaw in Jill’s logic. I was garrulous, so let me sum it up in a single short paragraph here:
It’s the knight who is drawing this tangible benefit from the lady’s attentions. What, exactly, is he supposed to do according to this moral code handed down on high from matriarch paleofeminist Jill? The answer according to the script of the episode was — STOP the thoughtful girlfriend from making him sandwiches. Yeah that’s right. Snatch the peanut butter and jelly right outta her hands. That’s the scripted answer; the answer, in spirit, was “I don’t know.” That’s the trouble with paleofeminism. Paleofeminists won’t admit that their goal is really to get rid of men — but the elephant comes lumbering into full view in the middle of the room, when they are observed spraying instructions and orders at everyone in earshot, like some fully automatic rapid-fire trebuchet — or to invent a metaphor more functionally fitting, a claymore — and at the same time don’t know what to tell the men to do. We’re sexist pigs if our girlfriends make us sandwiches…how, then, do we remedy the situation and stop being sexist pigs? Catch the samrich-makin’ bitch in a full nelson and force her to drop the mayonnaise? It just doesn’t make any sense.
So I had good reason for wishing 2008 would see the end of paleofeminism. Very good reason. I like it when pretty ladies make me samriches. That’s because I’m sane.
Good reason…but not high hopes. And rightly so. For the frost is nearly upon the pumpkin, and what did blogger friend Cassy Fiano find for us. That’s right, another screeching screed at Feministing.
Check out this 1970 ad for bath oil (via Found in Mom’s Basement):
The text reads:
Sure. You live with him and take care of him and hang up his clothes. But just because you do the things a wife’s supposed to do, don’t forget you’re still a woman.
One of the nicest things you can do for a man is take care of your skin. That means Sardo. No other bath oil or bead has Sardo’s unique dry skin formula. It’s pure bath oil. The richest. The best. 3 out of 4 women saw and felt and loved the difference after just one Sardo bath.
How about you? Why don’t you do something soft and young and special for him. Feel wonderful all over with Sardo.
Wow, this is really taking some early-nineties Bryan Adams to its sexist extreme. I wonder if, when she wipes her ass, she’s also doing that for her husband?
Cassy unloads. And as usual, it’s pretty priceless:
What’s hilarious is how offensive the feminists say this ad is, but the commenters have zero problem whatsoever insulting and deriding the man for the hair on his arms. So it’s OK to criticize men for their looks but not women? What if a bunch of men were making fun of a woman because of something beyond her control, like her arms being hairier than normal, these same women would be shrieking with outrage.
It’s stories like these that make modern feminism so out-of-touch with reality and the average woman. When you’re worried about trivial bullshit like an ad from thirty years ago, or a Bryan Adams video that’s over fifteen years old, and make abortion the holy cow of your entire movement, and then call it fighting for women’s rights, it makes people not really take you very seriously. The thing is, there is real sexism in the world, and real women who are fighting real oppression. Most of this does not take place in the Middle East, but modern American feminism finds things like thirty-year-old bath oil ads and abortion more important than, oh, say three girls being buried alive for the “crime” of choosing their own husbands.
What motivates these bitter women? It obviously is not the “rights” of the modern woman. If it was about that issue, the girls being buried alive would at least register as a blip on the radar, one would hope. In fact, the samrich issue would not — Brad’s girlfriend wants to make him a samrich, she can go ahead and make him a samrich…the “choice” is hers, you see.
*sniff* *sniff* Smells like…some sort of collective bargaining.
Yes, that’s exactly what I think it is. Start out slow, and slack off. You get hired on to the team, which pumps out eight widgets per man per hour — you start cranking out twenty widgets an hour, boss gives you a big atta-boy, life will be all wonderful. Until you go home from work that day. It’s your co-workers, you see. You’re making ’em look bad.
This is exactly the same principle. You’re a woman, taking baths in oils to make your skin soft for that man o’ yours, make him a samrich or two…you know how those uppity men are, sooner or later they’ll start talking! And this puts pressure on the other jealous wrinkled up old gals. Can’t have that.
Perhaps this is why the feminists aren’t too interested in the teenage girls being buried alive, Cassy. See, not being murdered is an individual right. Forcing one amongst your peerage to start out slow & slack off, so that mediocrity can continue to be confused with excellence, that is a group right. A collective-bargaining right. Don’t do good works as an individual person, because you’re making the group-collective look bad.
Lower the expectations. For the good of the collective.
Just as union management demands to step into the role of the “real” boss…the wrinkled up old paleofeminist harpies are demanding to become the “real” husband. That hairy ape you’re living with, he’s just in the way. Don’t do anything to please him, or we’ll make you sorry.
Okay that explains everything — except one thing. With all this Sarah Palin news floating around, we’re already getting a crash-course that the feminist movement is pulling a bait-n-switch on us. They’ve been pissing and moaning that not enough women are winning high offices because not enough women are seeking those high offices…and that must have something to do with us grubby, awful, icky sexist men. Along comes Gov. Palin. To a rational mindset, she would appear to be the fulfillment of everything the feminists had been demanding all these years. Well, the feminists don’t like her, which proves the “womens’ rights” movement never had anything to do with women, and most certainly didn’t have much to do with their rights. It was all about a political agenda. Putting pressure on people to vote for unqualified angry women, was just a tactic for enacting that agenda.
What’s really awful for the feminist movement, is that Sarah Palin and the attacks against her don’t clearly state this for the understanding of whacky bloggers like myself. These events make all this plain to the average, Main Street voter. It’s the kind of damage only self-evident truth can do.
So why now for the attack on the Sardo ad? Why choose right here-and-now to really solidify that message to us…that feminism is all about marginalizing men, and driving a wedge between the sexes — that it has little or nothing to do with womens’ rights? It’s as if Feministing is terrified someone out here was not quite clear on things, and wanted to make sure the message was really spelled out for everyone.
Heyyyyyyy, here’s an idea. Let’s make the 2008 elections all about this. Vote McCain/Palin if you want men and women to get along, vote Obama/Biden if you think whenever a lady is softening up her skin or making samriches for her man, someone should jump in and force her to stop, whether she wants to stop or not. In the name of womens’ choice.
Meanwhile, if any nice-lookin’ ladies come along and start making me hot juicy pies and fetching me cold beers, I fully intend to support womens’ rights. I intend to let them. Sorry if that offends anyone.
On Perfection
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008Blogger friend Virgil sends along his thoughts about Bill Maher’s asinine monologue — the one that ridicules, among other things, Baby Trig and his big sister Bristol.
Virgil writes:
Basically for many many years, we have [always] hired PERFECT people who have no baggage, defects, etc..
Problem is, as I get older and wiser, I now realize that they are perfect because they have NEVER done anything outside their comfort zone.
Hopefully I will get the names right here, but give me people like Lincoln who failed 6 or seven times.
With those failures, comes wisdom which you can’t get from a book or a college.Give me people like grant who drank way too much, but when people approached lincoln about him he said “Find out what he drinks and send a case to all of my officers”
you ask for perfect, you get nada…
You know what? I’m going to put aside what, exactly, offends me about Maher’s comments…although those items of offense are significant and numerous.
What Virgil is addressing when he says “ask for perfect, you get nada” — is — bathosploration.
Opposite of Exploration. A progressive movement over time which endeavors toward an ideal, rather than toward a frontier. This makes fulfillment of the Exponential Growth Instinct absolutely impossible over the long term.
Which is important, because the Exponential Growth Instinct is…
The desire endemic to the human condition, to achieve something on par with what’s been achieved before, but on a more massive scale. This compulsion has a symbiotic relationship with the health and vitality of the human spirit; neither one can truly thrive without the other.
To bottom-line it — we are programmed by a deity…or, if you prefer, we are molded and shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution…to try to do tomorrow what we did yesterday, plus a whole lot more. If we can’t do this, we end up unhappy.
And any time you hear someone using the word “perfect” you have to watch out for comes next. You have to be wary even if you detect a sense of that objective, even if no one actually uses the P-word; and I certainly catch more than a whiff of that when people complain about Alaska’s “mooseburger” governor. They want perfection.
The trouble with perfection, is not that it will everlastingly elude you. You might actually catch up to it — and that is where the trouble starts. Perfection is antithetical to exploration. It is bathosploration; a ludicrous descent into a downward spiral of nit-picking away at ultimately meaningless flaws that aren’t even flaws.
Whether we’re talking about selecting candidates for high office, or cleaning up a house, the predicament in which we ensconce ourselves is the exercise in Trudging Toward Zero:
That part of Bathosploration that endeavors toward an ideal rather than toward a frontier. It is a sanitizing process, that starts from some measured level of contamination and endeavors toward eradicating as much contaminant as possible. Activities of this type can be gratifying to some personality types, because they are definite in scope, and achievement against pre-established goals is always measurable. If there are hazards to be involved then they are absolutely predictable in magnitude. However, trudging toward zero can be boring for other personality types, and regardless of who is involved it is ultimately susceptible to the Bathosplorific Crash
Read over that first sentence again. It endeavors toward an ideal rather than toward a frontier. There is, therefore, some “ground zero” of what the thing is supposed to be. And once reality aligns with that, the dog has caught the car. We end up frustrated because our exponential growth instinct can no longer be fulfilled. All we can do is detect more and more minute bits of residue in the reality-to-ideal delta, and eradicate them on a more and more surgically-precise scale.
Which leads, inexorably, to the bathosplorific crash.
The depressing and frustrating sensation people experience when they have been engaged in Bathosploration and realize they cannot fulfill the Exponential Growth Instinct without re-defining their goals.
And THERE is the treachery of perfection! It is not an infinity. It is a zero. You do not acquire it by accumulating things; you acquire it by getting rid of things. It lies at the end of a sanitizing process, and therefore, has very little to do with existence itself. It has little or nothing to do with life. It is a low nadir. It is cleanliness. It is stillness. It is death.
What does this have to do with Gov. Palin? Is this yet another plea that we should lower our sites, and excuse her little imperfections? Kinda. Sorta yes, sorta no. The case against Gov. Palin has not yet been made. Look at Maher’s clip minute by minute, second by second, frame by frame. What’s his argument? He calls her a redneck, makes fun of her youngest child with the birth defect, announces that he doesn’t quite yet know how to pronounce her name (?!?). Calls her “mooseburger.”
The theory of the Bathosplorific Crash says if you indulge in the labors toward an ideal rather than indulging in the labors toward a frontier, you will indulge in a patently absurd exercise of sanding off burrs that stick out from the pattern of a stencil — and, ultimately, achieve nothing of note, because you will have succeeded in systematically expunging anything remarkable or extraordinary in the raw material you were given. You will ultimately succeed at nothing, save for reproducing a pattern that was defined elsewhere. And throughout this, you will nurture and incubate within you the instincts of an explorer — which will come into conflict with your actual achievement after you’ve completed the work of a walking, talking, breathing copy machine.
And then you have your bathosplorific crash. That moment when you realize the goals toward which you have been working, frustrate the passions within you.
I think we’re at that point. We’re actually several years past it. Barack Obama represents the zero. As it comes within our power to be able to elect him President, it comes within our power to be the dog whose teeth graze up against the bumper. He puts on a good show of resembling a “Perfect Being” — although for a modern Messiah, he is quite dirty in many places. But he talks his talk. He enunciates. He articulates. He wears a suit well.
And he’s inexperienced. Inexperienced in a way that really matters. He is as clean as he is…which isn’t very clean at all…because he hasn’t really held a lot of jobs in which there is a real potential to measurably fail at something.
He says he is the change we have been waiting for. He’s absolutely right; that is exactly the problem. He is not, contrary to the rhetoric of his followers, a remarkable person. He is wholly unremarkable. He’s a soft-spoken, articulate, presentable, outgoing average-man who is not spectacular, and that’s his appeal.
Bill Maher has found some comedy sound-bites he can throw out that make it sound like it’s a good idea to trash Sarah Palin, and support Barack Obama. These sound bites are valuable and precious to him, and to his audience. I find that telling. Things become valuable and precious when they are rare. If these people were backing a decent candidate, the sound bites that make that evident, wouldn’t be so valuable and precious because they wouldn’t be rare. But for that to come about, that candidate has to stand for something…be something…offer himself or herself to us, after trudging toward a frontier rather than toward an ideal. Into infinity rather than toward zero. Which means, as an interesting person with some stories to tell. Like Sarah Palin.
Not like Barack Obama.
He doesn’t offer the cleanliness that is the least we should have in hand after a bathosplorific pursuit. But he offers the zero in abundance. He matches the cookie cutter. He is unscrupulous and stands for nothing. Palin, although a neophyte to politics, is a neophyte in ways that are good. And we know what she’s all about, because she’s done stuff. We can debate it, but at least we have something to debate — because she has had jobs in which it is possible to fail.
Glad I got that off my chest. Next, sometime soon, I’ll go through what was in Maher’s monologue that crinkled my eyebrows up together and made my teeth grind. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The Hope Has Changed
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008Our Obama backers are feelin’ kinda glum right about now. There is the despair over the abandonment of principles that may have been probably were purely mythical from the get-go, as we discussed yesterday. And then there is Adam McKay’s column in the Huffington Post…the headline of which, says it all.
We’re Gonna Frickin’ Lose this Thing
“Stop saying that!” my wife says to me. But this is not a high school football game and I’m not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an election and as things stand now, we’re gonna frickin’ lose this thing. Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We’re coming off the worst eight years in our country’s history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R’s have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we’re going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That’s not odd as a difference of opinion, that’s logically and mathematically queer.
It’s our turn, dammit! Waaaah!
Things aren’t any more encouraging on the most popular and prestigious resource the left side of the blogosphere has ever known…because the KOSsacks have just seen the poll results.
New Gallup: McCain up 10, 54-44 (LV), 50-46 (RV)
Don’t shoot the messenger. A new poll coming out in tomorrow’s USA Today has McCain up 54 to 44 amongst LVs, 50 to 46 amongst RV. Here’s the link
The only good news is that Kerry was behind by more at this time in 2004. Then again, that isn’t such great news.
I always thought McCain was likely to win this election, once he won the primary and Obama was the Dems nominee.
HRC would have likely done better. But honestly at this point, I think things are bleak for Obama. He’s not a great debater and John Kerry actually was quite good. His media campaign sucks.
I think some people need to start thinking more deeply about the toughness of the task at hand.
To add: I really like Obama and have donated a good amount of money to his campaign. I have been a member of this community since 2003, which I imagine is longer than most of those calling me a troll. I wish it weren’t so and I wish I didn’t see it coming, but I [get] sick of a lot of the spinning and wishful thinking I’ve been seeing on this website today. L[o]ok Obama, as it stands, is going to lose this election unless he gets his ass in gear.
It gets worse, because if you read the comments in the thread under this posting, scanning in particular for some actual ideas on how The Chosen One can get his divine ass in gear, you aren’t going to find a whole lot. The usual crap-fest you’ve been seeing if you’ve followed this stuff…oh, we’ve gotta play dirty like those Republicans do…we need to highlight what’s wrong with Sarah Palin…we should call John McCain an old man…we liberals tend to appeal to intellect rather than emotion (snarf!).
Yeah. Good luck on that.
I’d say if this election was a movie, it would be The Phantom Menace. Right up until the final square-off it’s been just so much absurdity and nonsense someone thinks I should be wanting to watch…maybe the special effects hold my interest the first time, but when the same flotsam and jetsam and “yoosa peepul gonna die?” is repeated ad nauseum it gets old quick. Right up until Darth Maul walks through the door, and suddenly it all changes. You don’t even want to hit “pause” to go on a potty break.
In my world, Darth Maul just walked through the door.
You know what I’d like someone to answer for me, because I don’t know if this is the case or not. I have my disagreements with the conservative wing, call ’em what you will — Republicans, McCain backers, people who know we’re screwed of Obama is elected, extremists, moderates, whatever. From these disagreements, I know the folks to the political right of the aisle are quite willing to discuss why they want the election to turn out the way they want it to turn out. Hell, they’re not only willing, they’re anxious to say this out loud.
Is there a page on DailyKOS somewhere about “Why I want to see Obama win”? I mean, something with some meat to it. Not Oh Boy, That Guy Is The Real DealTM. Seen it. I’m talking something to mirror what I see on the conservative side: I care about abortion…I care about national defense…I care about putting the kibosh on this global warming hooey…I care about capital punishment…I care about an end to affirmative action quotas…
Are you not allowed to talk about that on the left? Or is there something I’ve somehow managed to miss? I’d really like to know.
Quote of the Week
Sunday, September 7th, 2008Pollster John Zogby, on updates to the 50-state electoral map.
As we saw in our August 14-16 Reuters/Zogby poll that has McCain ahead nationally, the dynamic of the race appears to be changing. Our August 15-19, 2008 battleground poll of 10 states reflects that change, and is the basis for moving Florida into the McCain column and Colorado and New Hampshire from Obama to undecided. Obama has lost some support to the point where he is now below the electoral victory threshold of 270.
Now, there are over a hundred electoral votes that are “purple” and considered to be toss-ups, and in order to conclude Obama’s about to be returned to the Senate to start his quibbling with an incoming McCain/PALIN! administration, you have to assume all of these purple guys turn red…each and every single one of them…or all but eight or nine, tops.
But Obama cannot convert to his side. That’s my theory — every single voter destined to punch Obama’s chad in November, is already in his camp now. He’s not getting any more. The “Sarah Palin and that old guy she’s running with” ticket, on the other hand…
Here’s Where He’s Way Too Liberal
Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008On this issue of so-called torture. This is why I folded my arms across my chest and faced away while everyone else joined in on the party. There are a few other reasons too, but this is the big one.
“I obviously don’t want to torture any prisoners. There is a long list of areas that we were in disagreement on,” [Sen. and Presumptive Republican Nominee John] McCain said of [President George W.] Bush.
Fox interviewer Chris Wallace asked McCain if he was suggesting that Bush did want to torture prisoners.
“Well, waterboarding to me is torture, OK?” McCain responded. “And waterboarding was advocated by the administration, and according to a published report, was used.”
Bush has said the United States does not practice torture. But the Central Intelligence Agency has admitted using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, and a recent Justice Department probe cited cases of sleep disruption, “short shackling” and other physical techniques against terrorism suspects captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.
To me, this is the very essence of liberalism. To pull some kind of rule out of your ass, along with a definition to a word that doesn’t make much sense, or any sense at all. And then to say, now that I got that rule pulled outta my ass, everything takes a back seat to it no matter what.
And to not put any thought into where exactly that puts you. Okay…we don’t torture…torture is ANYTHING you can do to someone I wouldn’t want to have done to me. Well? Isn’t that what he’s saying? If I don’t wanna have it done to me, then it must be torture. So that’s our rule. I want it done to me, you can go ahead and do it to these guys — if I don’t want it done to me, then you can’t.
And don’t worry about the ticking time bomb scenario because it isn’t going to happen. Nor will anything that resembles it meaningfully. There. I just kind of pulled that out of my ass, too.
Liberal. Completely liberal. And this annointing of Saint McCain as some kind of a demigod uniquely qualified to decide these situations because of what he went through back in Nam, that’s liberal too. I don’t buy it. For one thing, I have the God-given right and privilege and obligation to noodle this stuff out between my left ear and my right one. That’s become a conservative value today; it’s supposed to be a liberal one, but the liberals gave it up with all their bullying about this guy’s Nobel peace prize, and that guy’s “doing so much for the planet,” and some other guy being such a wonderful President (to our liberals) — that they’ve positioned themselves atop the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy as a way of shutting down debate. Where McCain’s campaign intersects with the torture issue, that’s exactly what this is. He has his opinion; any opinion held by any of the rest of us, isn’t worth anything unless we were in the Hanoi Hilton with him.
The truth of the matter, though, is that his experience doesn’t qualify him to have this opinion. If anything, it leaves him with a lot more explaining to do because at the time he was captured, the United States was a signing party to the Geneva Conventions. Now, admittedly, having not been there, my knowledge base is inferior, but it seems to me the operative question is: How much good did that do Sen. McCain in those dark days of his? And the answer would appear to be…not a whole hell of a lot. So shouldn’t he understand, better than anyone else, that this high-minded “United States Does Not Torture” rhetoric is just meaningless symbolism and nothing more? Shouldn’t he understand especially that expanding our definition of torture, and then resolutely insisting we still don’t do it, is particularly unlikely to win us any friends?
This is serious stuff, because if you say “The United States Doesn’t Torture Except In Certain Circumstances” that doesn’t mean a whole lot, nor is that the pledge anyone expects to be made, or to make. This is about absolutism. It’s about extremism. Just like banning the death penalty — it’s about the word never. And just like the death penalty, it’s all about saying the lives of United States citizens are worth a limited amount, so they can be subordinated to something else.
It’s all about cheapening life. It’s completely at odds with his pro-choice position.
Update: Since he done gone ‘n ticked me off, the day after I declared my support for him — you see, bandwagoneers, it does work the way I told you it works! — I went and changed my logo. The fine folks at IMAO speak for me. They usually do.
It even matches my color scheme; almost precisely. Hope nobody gets the idea that I’m the guy who designed it.
Tremble before the wrath of The Blog That Nobody Reads, Maverick.
In the Tank
Sunday, August 31st, 2008Okay, bandwagoneers, you win. They’re in the sidebar, up at the tippy-top. See?
Let’s just be clear though, that party support is pencilled in. And the record should show my support because of her. NOT him.
Having said that though…I’ve never disagreed with any of you on the point that if The Messiah wins, we are screwed. SCREWED. We’ve got to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening.
An Ignorant Conversation
Sunday, August 31st, 2008Becky says this is a thoroughly ignorant conversation…
…and on that statement, she gets an approving nod outta me.
In fact, what the GOP campaign managers really should do, is sit down in front of this one clip and see how many chinks in the left-wing armor they can find. These “gentlemen” are not just speaking for themselves.
My favorite? The thing at the beginning is tempting — it’s cute when liberals believe in God so selectively, as in “proof there is a god,” small-g, and then tacking on afterward as an afterthought, oh yeah, right, hope nobody gets hurt — but my mind wanders closer to the end. There’s a contradiction between choosing a woman as a running mate, and chuckling in tacit approval when Hillary is called a bitch? There’s hypocrisy there? How so? Where lies the logical contradiction in proffering the notion, presuming McCain did so proffer (which he didn’t), that Hillary’s more of a bitch than Sarah Palin?
I’m tempted to defend the notion just to make a show of how big a heap of evidence there is to legitimize it; but of course, in so doing, I’d be legitimizing the attack.
Instead, I’m inspired to think of an occasion yesterday in which I was called out by a leftward-leaning gentleman in Canada, for another one of my crass generalizations: “Liberals are sexists.” The usual retort — I know of more than a few liberals that aren’t. He does have a point, since it’s always an invitation to re-think when individual attributes are ascribed to aggregate entities.
But can it not be denied, that there is something to the liberal mindset that treats men and women differently? With men, I get to pick and choose where to fling my criticism, with surgical precision, and our liberals won’t utter a peep of protest so long as I don’t say anything nasty about liberals. That guy is a jerk; this guy over here is an asshole; that other guy over there is a slob. Liberalism, being the modern embodiment of all breezy, casual, weak and lazy thinking, sees all of womanhood as part of a common unicellular construct — and so by implication McCain called Sarah Palin a bitch when he chuckled along with someone else calling Hillary one.
Future generations of younglings will wonder why, in our day & age, there was something wrong with calling certain women “bitches” after they had labored for so long and hard to be thought of that way. I’m not talking about children-of-children-yet-unborn, or anything. I think the children asking that question at some future point, are already breathing and suckling and filling diapers right now.
And among the “ladies” who have renounced any right or privilege of indignantly demanding “how DARE you call me a bitch??” by laboring long and hard to be thought of in exactly that way…Hillary Rodham Clinton ranks sky high. It is her political identity. It is her schtick. It is what she brings to the table in politics. It has been her persona since Gennifer Flowers’ face was on the tabloids. In sixteen years, she really hasn’t had too much else to say about things or too much else to demonstrate to us about herself.
And don’t even ask which one, between Clinton and Palin, I’d prefer to hear talking about something for a couple hours at a time. The former First Lady makes my head hurt. Whoever’s been coaching her that she should talk like that all the time is probably responsible for saving the country.
Update: Cassy has an excellent roundup at Right Wing News as well as at her own site, of some more leftist idjits jumping on this “wonderful that Gustav hits when it does” bandwagon. Including this.
And others.
It would appear a talking point got faxed out from some central location.
She offers a hat tip to Michelle, who adds,
God is not on your side, gloating sleazeballs.
And you should just see how, over the years, I’ve seen people work their cackles up when I dare to suggest that perhaps when liberal politicians measure their own policies in terms of how those policies would “help the least among us,” they’re setting themselves up to have a stake in more people falling into the demographic of those “least” — miserable…dependent…perhaps even endangered, or terminally sick. Supposedly “non-partisan” people just fly off the handle at the suggestion. How dare I imply that politicians and journalists might actually want people to suffer?
I’m pointin’ on up to the video clip…and I’m a-restin’ my case.
VPILF
Saturday, August 30th, 2008Twelve Thoughts (Plus Some Miscellany) on the Palin Pick
Saturday, August 30th, 2008Just some stuff I’ve been noticing since the news broke about Sarah Palin. Apart from sharing blogger friend Phil’s sense of alarm that my age is very close to that of one of our fifty state governors. And training my brain to remember, when the eyeballs see “Palin” in written form, that the name rhymes with “sailin’.”
1. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Hold-outs, like me, are vindicated. If we all “banded together” and “showed our support” as my right-winger brethren were telling me, today we’d have a McCain/Lieberman ticket. I guaran-damn-tee it. When people who own decisions are sleeping restlessly, or not sleeping at all, good things happen. And, in politics, if you want to decide things…DON’T. Nobody gives up anything to make friends with someone who is already thought of as a friend. Especially a devoted, loyal friend. It just doesn’t make strategic sense to do that. Loyalty is not rewarded here, and that’s why people don’t like politics very much. Nervous nellies and nay-sayers, like me, gave you Sarah Palin. You’re welcome.
2. No question about it, the chicks are excited. It’s Easter Sunday in the Church of The Goddess. This was a very smart move for McCain. We’re talking millions, maybe tens of millions, of votes. Dare I hope California will turn RED? Yeah that’s still far-fetched…in fact, Obama still might win…but it shows the scope of what an advantage this is, that California going for McCain has become a possibility worth pondering. I just hope with all this estrogen lathering up, the shirts are still being ironed and the samriches are still being made.
3. There is some consternation about the real possibility that history will be made by a pro-life conservative Republican woman. Being from a planet called “Earth” and having warm blood, I’m naturally inclined to accept there was something insincere, from the very get-go, about the whole “Get A Woman In There” thing. Otherwise, Palin’s ideology would inspire no such squeamishness. People who face this conundrum need to examine their own motivations and examine them hard. They are NOT quite so much in favor of “equality” as they’ve been fooling themselves into thinking.
4. The child born with Downs Syndrome. I didn’t mention it for two reasons. Nobody would be mentioning it if she was a man; and if I was the child, I wouldn’t be too pleased, years down the road, with all these archives of articles about how my mom is the second coming of Florence Nightingale just because she didn’t kill me. C’mon, she’s pro-life, and she isn’t a damn hypocrite. Good on her, but some things don’t need to be talked about ad nauseum.
5. A lot of gals are saying what Hillary said. Some are considering voting for the McCain ticket even though “[Palin’s] policies would be terrible for the country.” What a bunch of disgraceful, embittered old cows. I hope they vote for McCain/Palin, and then never vote in anything again. They just admitted to wanting to hurt the country to support a woman! It’s a national disgrace. Oh, and yeah, Hillary still can’t stop talking that way ALL THE TIME.
6. A lot of references to Palin’s speech, which, frankly, I found offensive. And not just a little bit. Glass ceiling, shmass shmeiling; yes, it’s irritating when you are judged by your class membership, because you have no control over that. You rise above it by running on your individual attributes. And people aren’t actively keeping you out of things when they’re being mentally lazy — it’s a passive obstruction, not an active one. Men run for office because in order to run for office you have to leave yourself open to confrontation, attack, and ridicule. Women are up to enduring ridicule, occasionally, like an occasional cat is willing to go for a swim. Palin, I believe, understands this was a load. I see it as something she had to say. She had to hit a “home run” on this, and that was the magic elixir. It reflects on the rest of us, not so much on her. I’ll look past it.
7. I do NOT see anyone falling for the “inexperienced” talking point. Just a handful of DailyKOS folks…that’s about it. I’m still surprised the Obama camp had the big brass balls to trot that one out.
8. I do NOT see anyone falling for the “town of 9,000” talking point. Not at all. And this idea of having everyone who lives in a town with 9,000 or fewer people call & fax the Obama campaign, is a fantastic idea. I’ll be paying close attention to that one.
9. A lot of guys “would hit that.” Interesting that this prurient desire sports just a hint of the “forbidden fruit” about it; when childish schoolgirls squeal around Obama as if he were the reincarnation of Johnny Fontaine, there’s a slightly different connotation involved. Anyway, I think Gov. Palin is pleased with what she’s got at home. I’m happy with what I’ve got at home too, so I’ll follow her lead. But NO question, the lady is a looker.
10. If I didn’t know one thing about Sarah Palin or any of the other players, and didn’t give a rat’s ass about conservatives and liberals, I’d vote McCain/Palin because there’s someone on that ticket who isn’t a senator. I’m a little surprised McCain hasn’t been talking that one up.
11. I’m looking forward to seeing Palin repeat some of what George W. Bush said about defending the country vs. appeasing foreigners — following up “the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others.” That line drew APPLAUSE. So take that “Bush’s third term” thing, and shove it down Obama’s throat. Something along the lines of “yep, that’s our goal.” You’ve got the political capital to do that now.
12. I do NOT see any conservatives expressing newfound reluctance now that they have to have to vote for a girl. I have not seen so much of a speck of evidence for that. C’mon guys, we’re supposed to be a bunch of damned sexists here. Doesn’t living up to a reputation mean anything to anyone anymore?? Well, I’ll live up to mine — I’m an equal-opportunity sexist. Palin’s a good running mate for McCain, but if somewhere there was a man who would make a better one, I’d say he made the wrong choice. There isn’t. She was, as I said before, the best choice he could’ve made, and being a woman has nothing to do with being a good Vice President. I hope, while the Republicans gulp this intoxicating elixir of identity politics by the gallon, they don’t get punch-drunk on it like the democrat party has been since the 1950’s. But…they probably will. That’s bad for the G.O.P., over the long term, because it diminishes what distinguishes them from the democrats. But good for the country if Palin shows the kind of leadership she’s been showing in Alaska. That’s a trade I’ll take.
I have a dream, that one day our children and our children’s children, will judge each other by the content of their character…and not by the configuration of their genitals.
I wonder if my “girlfriend” from third grade has ever thought of me. Probably not. But chicks-in-glasses have meant something completely different to me over the last 34 years, than they did in the eight years that came before. That’s just an added plus for Sarah.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News.
A More Serious Voter Test
Saturday, August 30th, 2008About a week ago I put out a voter test, because contrary to popular belief, the United States Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote. That test was tongue-in-cheek; it didn’t make much of a point about anything, other than that we have a lot of extreme dimwits walking around voting.
That seems a perfectly innocent state of affairs — until you stop and realize everyone gets one vote and only one vote. So when a mouth-breather goes out and casts a vote without knowing what he’s doing, it cancels out your vote, along with all the research you might have conducted behind it. You might as well not have engaged in any of it.
But anyway. What follows is a far more serious test. It raises a point for each of the ten questions on it…along with an eleventh point. And the eleventh point is, we have a lot of people walking around who are not stupid, not dimwits, in fact are perfectly productive and intelligent people. But they don’t put too much thought into voting. That problem is worse than the problem with dimwits voting, because these folks understand they’re not stupid, and they’re right. They’re intelligent. But thoughtless.
So give it a try, to make sure you’re not one of them.
1. When the minimum wage is increased from a lower rate of X to a higher rate of Y
a. Everybody who previously earned something between X and Y, now earns Y
b. All jobs that pay between X and Y, are outlawed
2. When it is illegal to own guns
a. Guns disappear
b. People who follow the law can’t have guns, but people who don’t follow the law, might
3. When the tax rate on a commodity is raised 10%, you can count on collecting 10% more revenue from this tax
a. True
b. False
4. People hurt and kill other people because
a. They’re impoverished
b. They are lacking in respect for human life
5. What we know about illegal aliens is
a. That they’re here to work hard, follow the law, and take care of their families
b. We don’t know anything about them, including who they really are, because they’re illegal
6. If you run an office with ten black women working in it, and two of them quit, and you hire two white guys in their place, you have
a. Decreased the diversity of the office
b. Increased the diversity of the office
7. If you inherit money from someone who paid taxes while they were earning it, and estate taxes are collected, that money has been taxed
a. Once
b. Twice
8. If your husband asks you nicely to bring him a beer, and you refuse to do it, you are
a. Standing up for the rights of women everywhere
b. Being an obstinate, irascible bitch
9. When people engage in discrimination, the rest of us have to
a. Force them to stop doing it, until the day discrimination is gone forever
b. Draw our own conclusions about their judgment and character
10. American values are
a. Separation of church and state, equal protection under the law, womens’ right to choose, fair and equal distribution of wealth, diversity
b. Privacy of religion, free exercise thereof, inalienable rights granted by a Creator, equal protection under the law, freedom over security
Scoring:
Ten percentage points for every question answered with “b”.
90-100: Go ahead and vote
70- 80: Vote with caution
50- 60: Discuss issues with friend or relative who got higher score, then vote
40 and lower: Don’t vote; there are wonderful reruns on the idjit box on Tuesday nights
Palin
Friday, August 29th, 2008Via Wizbang: NBC is reporting Palin is the pick. It’s coming up on the idjit box right now, channel 31 or whatever.
Awesome. I love everything about her. Almost everything. I still think identity politics are reprehensible, but it is what it is. Millions of people make their decisions according to this…and not just a few of them, are in the support base on which The Messiah was counting.
For those who are not in the know: Palin is young and inexperienced, in a good way. She’s roughly my age, and offsets a resume that is thin like The Savior’s with common sense, which His Holiness has demonstrated over and over again he does not have. She’s up to her armpits in kids — five, including one in the Army, eighteen-year-old son Track, being deployed to Iraq next month. And get a load of this — she goes by a name different from her maiden name, because she happens to be married.
Let me clarify the comments about her resume. Her net (political) resume is thin, but her gross (all of it) resume is not. She’s actually done stuff. Sports reporter. Commercial fisherman. Husband Todd, a Native Eskimo, was Sarah’s high school sweetheart; he works for BP on Alaska’s North Slope and is a champion dog racer. In other words, she is not a career politician. She is a three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood real person.
Pro-life. Lifetime NRA member. Used marijuana once, didn’t like it.
Ran on a clean-government campaign for Governor two years ago — won, based on that — and followed through. Shelved pork projects, opposed other Republicans in doing so; passed an ethics bill; fired a whole bunch of people; took on Ted Stevens. So aside from sporting anti-corruption credentials that are battleship-steel tough, this woman, personal-character-wise, has some real balls. And yet, somehow, she finds it possible to be in love with men…one man…and conduct herself as if she’s pleased to be married to him. So, you see, it can be done.
And what is it about chicks in glasses?
Great move, Maverick. I think you just won this thing. Now tweak your platform in a few places here & there, and who knows you may even get my support. I’m speaking specifically of firing Juan Hernandez. “Immigrant rights” has nothing to do with it and is not an accurate description of this issue. Hernandez is an open-borders whack-job. And, ejecting that whole climate-change thing. Palin does not deliver a hint of change here. She’s drunk some of the kool-aid herself.
But I can get past that.
Palin, in modern times, is the absolute best walking-breathing argument we have for allowing women to continue to vote. There are other walking-breathing arguments for taking the vote away from them…Oprah…those four dingbats on The View…The Pantsuit…my two flibbertigibbet senators…Barbra…
Gov. Palin renews faith. That is exactly what’s needed; this is about the best you could’ve done, Mac. By a long shot. I’ll have to take back some of that bad stuff I said.
Update: Forgot to read the fine print. The cover is ‘shopped, and credit is due to Kodiak Konfidential. Thanks to Gerard for pointing it out.
Update: The man who would have made the very best Next President possible this year, that the powers-that-be didn’t want us to be able to choose, weighs in. Fred Thompson on the Palin pick:
I am absolutely delighted by this selection. Once again, John McCain has shown that he is an independent thinker who paints in bold strokes. Sarah Palin is a conservative reformer with executive experience who will bring a breath of fresh air to Washington. She will be an ideal running mate for John McCain, and will make a major contribution to our country’s future.
Looks Like McCain Is Going To Blow It
Thursday, August 28th, 2008Romney, Pawlenty, Lieberman. One of those guys. Of course I don’t really know what “speculation is increasingly centered” means.
Bad on you, Yahoo News. Even the National Enquirer has the balls to use active voice.
ALSO revealed in The ENQUIRER’s new issue are the shocking intimate details of the Edwards- Hunter Affair from First Encounter to numerous secret rendezvous even after Edwards admitted the affair to his wife Elizabeth!
A friend of Rielle’s told The ENQUIRER that when Edwards and Rielle met, “She wanted to pick him up. According to her, the chemistry was instant. They ended up sleeping together that night!”
See? Completely unverifiable tidbits that make up a story lacking in any accountability whatsoever. But at least I understand why I’m supposed to believe these details. “A friend of Rielle’s.”
But regarding McCain: He blew a sizable opportunity here. A Palin pick would have been a guaranteed win. Yes, that would be two strongly pro-life candidates and I know pro-choice people are out there…and they do vote…but show me the woman who makes pro-choice an issue, who does not also place emphasis on the identity politics thing. Really, identity politics is just super-late-term abortion, when you get down to it. It says “Now that I’m safe and I’m where I want to be, I want people who are just like me to have power and I want everyone else to go away.” It says you have to have a Hispanic representing you if you’re Hispanic, women representing you if you’re women, black people representing you if you’re black.
I’d have been completely in favor of encouraging it through Sarah Palin. Those who believe in it, for one thing, you’re not going to be able to discourage them. Ever. They just hate straight white men, especially straight white men who are part of the same ol’ same ol’ beltway crowd. And Obama just picked one of those. This was a golden opportunity for McCain, and he seems to have passed it up.
So now we get to hear about old-white-guys looking out for their rich friends, and “I want to be part of this thing” with electing Obama. And just for the next two months, it’ll be quite alright to make fun of old people, just like in ’96. Screamin’ Dean will spout his nonsense about the Republican party being a party of white people…and it’ll work. This stuff always works.
McCain’s ticket needs credentials. His pro-life credentials are looking very good, with him up there just all by himself. That’s about all he’s got going for him, and he can eject even that by picking the wrong V.P. His immigration credentials are in tatters. Lieberman would do absolutely nothing to help that. Pawlenty, from what I can see, would be a decent choice…but the Governor of Minnesota is on record saying he’s going to be the Governor of Minnesota and nothing else through 2010. I think we can rule that one out.
I wish I had more faith in this guy. When he’s about to make a decision, I don’t have any confidence. I start to worry.
Update 8/29/08: WELL, now. You ask me any day of the week “which of the thousands of posts at The Blog That Nobody Reads would you prefer to have to update, even if it meant eating a few words?” This would be the one. Hands-down.
I’m very happy to be forced to update it.
I wonder if His Maverickness is actually reading it? Hmmmmm…
Regarding Hillary’s Call for Unity and Support
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008I have questions about this…
1. Let me start off with basic unfairness and pick on her for things on which Republicans share guilt, since I just have to get this off my chest about conventions in general. Why are these speeches always set up as if they are appeals to the opposition? I think if I could fly to Denver and ask everyone there, “what is the one thing on which you ALL agree?” it’s going to be “that Obama should win the election and McCain should lose it.” These are delegates after all; party loyalists. And yet, every single speech I’ve heard thus far, every word within, exists to substantiate that point and for no other purpose. At about 1:50 you say every single one of us can “recite the reasons” why Obama must be elected. Well hey…you’ve got time.
2. What — exactly — is being yelled at the teevee screen over the last eight years? Why is she tip-toeing around that? She wants party unity, so maybe she should define what the grievances are. “Nine One One Was An Inside Job”? Our troops are rapists and babykillers? We have to have more abortions? Burn food for fuel and leave our oil in the ground? If you’re clamoring for party unity, and your party agrees on what it wants, besides getting a democrat into the White House; SAY what those things are. You’ve passed the point, long ago, where you’ve taken on the appearance of not being able to afford putting this into words.
3. What is up with that adverb responsibly? The year’s halfway over, and to date I’ve not heard any democrat of any importance talk about “ending the war” without using that word. It’s obviously been disseminated from some central point of authority, with regard to this one issue. Why is that? Aren’t all issues handled by our nation’s executive branch, to be handled responsibly? Is there some other major political party somewhere, of which I personally have yet to learn, that has taken the position that the war in Iraq is to be ended irresponsibly?
4. When you make the economy work for hard-working middle class families again…does this mean a person has to be working in order for the economy to work for them? I’ve found through the years that with democrats, “working” is an opposite word. You talk about people who are doing it, more often than not what you’re really talking about is the people who aren’t doing it and have no intention of doing it. So this (about a minute in) is another place in which your speech could benefit from more specificity.
5. Do we have people uncovered for health care because our politicians haven’t been talking about it loudly enough?
6. “Every single American” implies “everyone,” which is another opposite word. Do you want quality health care for everyone, really? All democrats are united on this? Should rich white males be covered? Conservative Republicans? Bible-thumpers? Gun-toting rednecks? I’ve not yet seen a democrat use the word “everyone” and mean it. Not once; not yet. So is this the first time?
7. It doesn’t look to me as if conservatives have any problem at all standing up and saying, loud and proud, “WE WANT MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LIKE SAMUEL ALITO AND JOHN ROBERTS.” How come liberals can’t say the same about — wait, no. I’m not going to name them. Their initials are SB and RBG. The initials of the other two, whom your husband did not nominate, are JPS and DHS. You liberals think it’s so important to nominate people like these. How come most of you, even the most well-educated and politically involved among you, not only can’t call out these justices as defining the template for the kind of justice the nation needs on the Supreme Court — but you’re going to have to open a new browser window and go running off to Wikipedia to find out what their names are?
Update 8/29/08: Dr. Melissa Clouthier has — at least — five good reasons why government-controlled healthcare wouldn’t be such a hot idea. For those among us who need to be told.
Morgan Freeberg, democrat
Wednesday, August 27th, 2008The democrat party wrote me a letter, with Joe Biden’s signature at the bottom of it.
Morgan —
The past two days have been truly extraordinary. I received such a warm welcome as the newest member of the Obama campaign.
Now that our team is complete, it’s time for our party to unite — as Democrats, as voters, and as Americans committed to change.
I recorded a short video message about what we need to do in the weeks ahead, and how I plan to help.
Please take a minute to watch the video and join the movement…
Barack has built an incredible movement over the past 19 months, and I’m so honored to be part of it.
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be rolling up my sleeves and joining the work that thousands of people all across the country are already doing — reaching out day after day in neighborhoods and communities, connecting with people who are hungry for the change we need.
This is no ordinary time, and this is no ordinary election. I plan to do everything I can to help Barack take back the White House.
I don’t need to tell you that John McCain will just bring us another four years of the same. You can’t change America when you supported George Bush’s policies 95% of the time.
Barack has the vision and the courage to bring real change to Washington. But even he can’t do this alone.
Please watch this video and join this incredible movement:
http://my.barackobama.com/BidenWelcomeVideo
Thank you,
Joe
To which I replied, since I’m evil, and couldn’t resist…
So Joe,
Tell me, please. Has the presidency, lately, begun to “lend itself to on-the-job training?”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/23/new-mccain-ad-biden/
The democrat party must have liked my response a lot, although I still don’t have an answer forthcoming to the question I asked. But they did write me another letter, this time from that guy who Joe Biden pointed out was so clean and articulate, Barack America. I mean Obama.
Morgan —
The Democratic convention starts today, and my new running mate Joe Biden and I recorded a message about what we all need to do next.
When we started this campaign, very few people thought we would make it this far.
But we put our faith in the power of ordinary supporters like you coming together and building a movement for change from the bottom up. And that’s exactly why we’re here.
I’d like you to watch this special message — and I have a request.
We have our team, and this week the eyes of the entire country will be on our movement. Now is the time to take the next step and own a piece of this campaign.
Watch our video message and make a donation of $5 or more today…
Over the next four days, the Democratic convention will define what change means and highlight our differences with John McCain to every voter who’s tuning in.
We’ll show the change we will be bringing the country on the economy, health care, energy, foreign policy, and the issues that affect all Americans.
But make no mistake about what we’re up against. John McCain has embraced the same old politics of fear, division, and Karl Rove-style attacks — which makes sense coming from someone who’s voted with George Bush literally 95% of the time.
From the very beginning, this campaign has been in your hands. Now more than ever, we’re counting on you to see it through.
Watch the video Joe and I recorded and make a donation of $5 or more now:
https://donate.barackobama.com/messageofchange
Thank you,
Barack
I thought it was peculiar that a movement built from the bottom up, like this, would make a choice about the number two guy in the manner that it did. It’s traditional to pick the guy out in secret and make a flashy announcement with absolutely no leaks, if you can get that to happen. I understand that. But the Obama campaign stands alone in its unique ability to piss off lots of its own supporters by doing so. PUMA and all that. I suppose I can cut ’em some slack for this, since it was unavoidable that large numbers of someone to be annoyed no matter what happened, given the situation they were in.
But it takes some balls to come in right after that and say you’re running a grassroots campaign.
I wrote back,
Wonderful video.
This one is EVEN BETTER. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoJUcsaptW4
I’m afraid that must have gotten someone’s cackles up. I received no follow-up e-mail wondering where my five dollars was. I didn’t hear from them at all, in fact. For several days.
I was worried that maybe I’d been kicked out of the democrat club. I wouldn’t be the first guy…
But then, I found out this morning much to my relief that my name’s still on the list. Screamin’ Dean himself wrote in, giving me helpful pointers on how I can get more involved. Thanks, Howie!
Morgan —
What an amazing convention this has been already — and how inspiring it is to see Democrats from all 50 states united as one party.
As Hillary Clinton pointed out in a rousing call to action last night, “We are on the same team, and none of us can afford to sit on the sidelines.”
Barack and Joe are going to defeat John McCain and transform Washington.
But there’s no way they can do it alone.
We all need to reach out to our friends, family, and neighbors and work to get every single vote we can — even in places where Democrats haven’t competed in a generation.
Our moment is now — sign up to get involved.
Tomorrow night, people all over America will come together at Convention Watch Parties to see Barack accept the Democratic nomination.
These parties are a great opportunity to come together with fellow supporters, watch Barack’s speech, and plan for the next 10 weeks. This Labor Day Weekend, we’re going to kick off the biggest voter registration drive in the history of politics.
Sign up for a Convention Watch Party and find Weekend of Action events in your community:
http://my.barackobama.com/organizeforchange
Millions of Americans are tuning in to the convention this week and paying attention to this election for the first time.
As Democrats, we need to seize this opportunity to stand united and let them know what is at stake.
John McCain has voted with George Bush 95% of the time and pledged to continue the same disastrous policies that have damaged our economy, ruined our reputation in the world, and left millions of middle-class families without jobs and health care.
We need to register new voters, reach out to people who haven’t voted in years, and work to get out the vote like never before.
Attend a Convention Watch Party and host or sign up for a Weekend of Action event near you.
Our party has never been stronger. Let’s keep this momentum going through November.
Thanks,
Howard Dean
I wrote back,
Is there someone advising Hillary Clinton, telling her it’s somehow a good idea to talk that way ALL THE TIME? You know what I mean.
I dunno if I’m going to hear back again.
Awesome
Saturday, August 23rd, 2008Great move, Barry Huss. And here I was worried that you might actually have had a shot.
Sen. Barack Obama has selected Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, according to his official Web site and a text message the campaign sent to supporters on Saturday.
“Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee,” the text message, sent at around 3 a.m. ET, said.
“Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois — the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago,” Obama said in an e-mail sent to supporters Saturday morning.
Let the jokes about ethnic groups running convenience stores begin.
Really, what in the hell does this guy add to the ticket. Oh, wait…I get it. Ebony and Ivory. And then that whole “experience” thing.
They’re also two senators. And two buffoons. But I repeat myself.
Someone needs to explain to me, before this is all over, why the senate is thought of as a stepping stone to the White House. It hasn’t really been one, in recent years, you know. But more importantly, the voting public has not expressed any kind of hunger for the kinds of things senators do, and the talents senators show, in our presidential candidates. Yeah, we chuckle a lot when senators step in it like Biden chronically does (and Obama too, come to think of it) but that doesn’t mean we want to promote verbal incompetence to a higher position — especially when half of your platform is making fun of the current president for mispronouncing “nuclear.”
The other thing sure to arouse comment from all sides, is — what does it have to do with “Change Change Change!” to bring on board to your #2 slot, some guy who’s been sitting in there for all of his constitutional ability to do so — for thirty-five years? That would mean he is the architect of this stuff you’re wanting to change, right? That would include the October 2002 final resolution to support the war in Iraq, right?
Awkwaaaaaard…
I was just reading how nobody wants to go to the Republican convention. (“LOL!,” says DailyKOS…wow…”LOL” just keeps getting funnier, every time they do that.) And here I thought it was because Republicans had nothing to say, beyond “our left-wing guy isn’t as left-wing as that other left-wing guy”…I thought, y’know, that didn’t exactly get the blood pumping. But now I see the game plan — the GOP is going to skip its own convention, and somehow, through spies and plants and Manchurian candidates and what-not, make all the important decisions for the opposition.
Because, if they were doing that, who’d they pick besides Biden?
Good going, Republicans. First thing you’ve done right this year. No, really, I mean that. I want to grab a bag of popcorn and see what happens next. First time I felt that way since Fred dropped out.
Update: Via Michelle, I learn about a clip the McCain campaign would appear to have had locked, loaded and ready to go:
Pretty damn good. This is a major problem Obama Biden bin Laden has, and the spot hammers home the point very well. Good on ya, Mac.
(Credit to Jane from Exurban League for the pic; H/T to My Pet Jawa.)
First Hundred Days
Friday, August 22nd, 2008A reminder/refresher course…
democrats…
HOPENCHANGE!!!
Nominee Yes, Standard Bearer No
Thursday, August 21st, 2008Two years ago…Aryeh Spero:
So thank you, John McCain, for your tireless efforts in behalf of McCain-Soros, clean money and motives and “reform.” You have helped bring your party down. Thanks for being the gang leader of the “Gang of 14,” which stood in the way of up-or-down confirmation of conservative justices. Hats off to you for redefining torture so that effective interrogation of jihadists is forever impossible. As a reward, you wish, now, to lead the party and become its Presidential nominee and standard bearer. I don’t think so.
Twenty months later, it would seem McCain is, indeed, the nominee of a party he has never truly represented.
I have nothing against principled opposition to a party label, understand. But thanks to McCain’s “finance reform,” and that sham of a nomination process that took place this year — the Republican party has been crippled to the point where it can no longer communicate a message. Just forget it, they tell me; that other guy is way too dangerous. Whatever it takes for the G.O.P. to “win.”
But what then? What happens on the issues that arouse my interest, if a Republican Party led by John McCain wins? What happens with…oh, let’s take the one issue with which the McCain bandwagon zealots most frequently ambush me…nominees to the Supreme Court? Anyone want to place their name beneath the statement that McCain will nominate more principled justices than President Obama?
Really? You’ll sign that in a concrete slab? Maybe put money on it? Think hard a few times.
Do the research: Our very worst Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republicans, not democrats. Earl Warren vs. Felix Frankfurter — who was worse? Harry Blackmun vs. Hugo Black. John Paul Stevens vs. Louis Brandeis. Look ’em up. See what they did. McCain, to me, typifies the Republican President who gets snookered by our shakiest Supreme Court justices. The beltway crowd. The good ol’ boys, nominated by Republicans, who seem to figure out they have to make up for that transgression of being nominated by Republicans. Maybe that’s why they sucked so much. Whatever. The fact remains — Supreme Court justices nominated by democrats weren’t that bad.
But the center of my complaint, is the center of Spero’s complaint: The McCain CFR. It has been tested in a laboratory setting — its performance has been found wanting. Who wants to disagree with me about that? What was this supposed to do, anyway? “Get the money out of politics” — FAIL. “Bring an end to negative campaigning, and focus on the issues” — FAIL. “Put government back in the hands of the little guy” — FAIL.
What to do in November? I dunno. I’m still sitting on the fence. I always vote, every two years, no later than 7:15 in the morning. It’s important. This year…meh. Maybe, just maybe, someone will use The Force and fire the photon torpedo just at the right angle into the exhaust port of my Death Star, and say just the right stuff to put me over the edge and punch a chad for The Maverick.
Maybe.
But there’s no way in hell you can get me to nibble at my fingernails in nervous anticipation over what’s going to happen this fall. In my book, this race is done. What’s left, is a comedy of errors. Like a Keystone Cops movie…more pathetic than that, really. And sad. One of two candidates will be our next President, and George Soros is in bed with both of them. Democracy has failed us this time ’round. We just have to fix it before the next show.
Voter Test
Thursday, August 21st, 2008The Conservative Platform, I was thinking, is missing a “voter eligibility test” and it should have one.
I didn’t feel too strongly about sticking one in until I read the comments on Jonathan Martin’s blog, which I referenced here.
I do not wish to make the test time consuming or demanding. I do not even think it should be about “intelligence,” per se. It just needs to weed out people who have absolutely zip, zero, nada, zilch, bubkes…no problem-solving skills whatsoever. You wonder how they get dressed in the morning. We have some politicians trying to push some proposals up to that magical 51% mark, and from where I sit, in a sane world they should be having some real problems getting the support up past 15%. Things are not the way they need to be.
Question One I would steal from that wonderful movie…
If you have one five-gallon jug…and one three gallon jug…how many jugs do you have?
Question Two: What is the difference between a square and a rectangle?
Question Three: Why is it not exactly going out on a limb, when you make a prediction like “It Will Rain”?
Question Four: What is one times one?
Question Five: If you are driving a bus, and you stop and some people get on, who is driving the bus?
Update:
Thinking on it some more…
How do you divide six apples, evenly, among…six people?
And…
Which of the following numbers is a prime number? 2000, 4000, 6000, 8000, 7.
And…
You walk into a room. At one end of the room is a rope. At the other end of the room is a man with a very sharp knife. Your assignment is to cut the rope in half. The man tells you he will cut the rope in half with his knife for ten dollars, or rent you the knife for five dollars. You have five dollars in your pocket. What do you do?
And…
Beneath this question, take your pencil and write a letter. I mean, a letter from the alphabet. Any letter you want. There is no wrong answer so long as it is a letter from the alphabet. Just write it.
They’re Republicans, That’s What They Do!
Thursday, August 21st, 2008Gerard points to Brothers Judd; Judd points to Jonathan Martin’s blog at The Politico; and what is under discussion there?
McCain hit a line drive after Obama teed himself up. That’s what.
Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue…He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment.
Zing! I still don’t support you, Maverick, and I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle…wait, I don’t wanna go there. Anyway. On some other issues, your judgment is not so hot. But I’m gonna have to hand it to ya there. That’s gonna leave a mark. Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.
McCain continues — and The Chosen One responds.
“Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal — regardless of the facts on the ground.”
Speaking at the VFW convention in Florida yesterday, Obama said McCain should acknowledge his patriotism. “I will let no one question my love of this country,” the Democrat said. [emphasis mine]
Morgan’s mind wanders…
CITY STREET: A man is waiting at a bus stop, and he gets bored. He begins to mumble his thoughts aloud. “Hmmm,” he thinks, “I wonder if Barack Obama loves America?” SEVERAL UNIFORMED PARAMILITARY CONSTABLES run up and surround the man, the patented Obama LogoTM imprinted on their shiny new helmets. “I’m sorry, sir,” says the tallest one, “you’re going to have to come with us!”
Look at that. Another democrat for free speech.
But here’s what absolutely blows me away. I mean, really; I’m still undecided about voting for McCain, but at this point I’m starting to seriously think about putting money on him. How can Obama win? Seriously? You want to know what I’m talking about…head on over to Martin’s blog, and check the comments (north of 200, and growing, as of this writing).
Just look at all that garbage. Obama just said, plainly, that he’s going to try to control this debate by refusing to allow anyone to question his patriotism. He’s going to try to give orders to people about what to say and what not to say, what to think and what not to think.
My son had a bad day at school on Tuesday. That night he was saying he wouldn’t be going anymore. That ritual tirade sounded ingenious, inspired and brilliant, compared to what Obama said. What the hell does he mean, he won’t let anyone? It’s a cliche, for one thing; over four years old! For another thing, it’s unenforceable. Hey, Barack, I’m questioning your patriotism! Look at me! Whee, I just did it again! For another thing, it’s a contradiction because America is supposed to be a place where you can say whatever you want and think whatever you want — it’s our democrats who keep telling us it’s so. They also repeat over and over again that it’s the Republicans who are trying to take our freedoms away. And they want to contradict themselves on that within just a few syllables?
Hey, I think I can do that too.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
“Equal opportunity employer, women and minorities encouraged to apply.”
“I’m from the Government; I’m here to help you.”
When did it become unreasonable to expect blatant contradictions to occur across a few sentences, or maybe even paragraphs, from each other?
But out of the hundreds of comments on Jonathan Martin’s blog, most of them, or large chunk of them, are of this flavor: “Hooray, this is an issue we can use to help him win!” No, that’s not what you’re thinking — by “him,” they mean OBAMA!
“Mike” (8/20/08, 11:56 AM) is a good model cookie-cutter, by which a number of other morsels have been cut from the dough.
Of course McRove is questioning your patriotism, they’re republicans – that’s what they do! Now he’s trying to weasel out of it. You should repeat this every day until the election – McCain said you would “rather win an election if losing a war was the cost. He said it. Now whack him over the head with it!
+++snicker+++ By all means, Barry Hussein. And while you’re at it, whack us over the head with how you’re not going to let him say it anymore. Or anybody else either.
These people have no common sense at all. Normally, I’d worry about that — in fact, I still do. But common sense is something you have to have, in order to make things happen and get what you want.
Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. They all expected things to happen, they all used diseased logic — not just weak, but badly diseased — and each and every single one of them must have really expected things to happen as they said they did, because they went very far in staking their reputations on it happening.
To believe Obama will win, I have to believe, first, that he’s going to break some kind of pattern here.
Well…it still is possible. God help us if it happens. But Dear Lord, I don’t wanna be that guy. With a fan base like this, he could use all the help he can get. And he’s not gonna get it.
So Did I Miss Anything?
Wednesday, August 20th, 2008In response to a request from you, sf4.
Your Conservative Platform for 2008.
We shouldn’t be needing it…but since we do…
Comments are solicited by implication. Use the thread below to register your demands for additions, deletions, modifications, or pain-in-the-ass nit-picky grammar police whining.
Best Obama Facts
Thursday, August 14th, 2008Buck thinks this is the best Obama satire site (he says so here).
4. Prometheus was punished for plagiarizing Obama.
17. Obama often says “uh” in his speeches in order to irritate Bill O’Rilley who hangs onto his every word.
32. US Mail Service published Obama’s resume on a new first class stamp.
Conventions are coming up. I wonder if that will be the end of this “Messiah” crap; if it’ll all be more about the difference between Obama and McCain vis a vis policies. Seems the Obama campaign is already trying to head off in that direction, but they’re still keeping one foot on this “Obama’s a Lightworker And You Are Not” platform. I have the impression that word’s gotten around the O campaign that they’ve overdone this and they need to start thinning it out. The hitch in the giddy-up is that if Obama talks “I’m Wonderful,” he doesn’t have to talk policy, and if he talks policy there’s less room for the “I’m Wonderful” stuff. But “I’m Wonderful” is not the presence of substance, it is more like absence. It is a hole. Seems to be a vacuum nature is rather slow to abhor.
Perhaps the campaign has also learned — when Obama declares a policy position on a Monday, he’s surely flip-flopping by Wednesday. The sad truth few are willing to put into words or print: He wasn’t selected for policy positions. He was selected because he’s the Real Deal.
REAL DEAL: Flattering slang attached to an individual who possesses a unique ability to sell products unneeded.
How sad is that.
The democrat party gets all excited about an individual’s ability to sell policy that will probably be bad policy and thus need an excellent salesman — before they even settle on what the policy is going to be.
But it’s an effective technique. It’d be easier for McCain to eat tomato soup with chopsticks, than to take down Obama, because the battlefield is rhetoric and not substance. McCain will never beat Obama on rhetoric. His only hope is that by November, people will be sick and tired of He Who Walks On Water. But…that is more than a fair shot, because a little of Mr. Lightworker goes a long way.
Twenty-Five Signs You Won’t Be Voting for Obama
Tuesday, August 12th, 2008From National Review Online, via Boortz:
It’s unlikely you’ll vote for Obama if you….
1. aren’t a news anchor.
2. read the New York Times for pretty much the same reason the NSA monitors radio transmissions.
3. automatically conclude that the person laughing in the car next to you must be listening to Rush. Or maybe Obama off teleprompter.
4. dislocated your shoulder trying to explain Obama’s position on Iraq to co-workers.
5. find autobiographies generally more interesting when the author has, you know, done something.
…and twenty more. With a scoring system at the end, and everything.
Obama on Term Limits
Monday, August 11th, 2008Via Wall Street Journal. Who is going to apply some mental elbow grease to this, or pretend to, and come to the honest conclusion that Sen. Obama is looking out for the interests of voting and democracy?
Asked about whether he supports term limits, the Illinois Senator was unequivocal: “I’m generally not in favor of term limits. Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They’re called elections.”
Wow, how can you argue with that? He’s even upholding the dignity of the greatest legislative chamber in the world by talking like a snotty teenager, and everything.
Well, WSJ goes on to shed light on what’s going on here:
Even in 2006 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of Congress and voters were angry with incumbents, 94% of incumbents won re-election. Normally, re-election rates in the House are closer to 96% and here’s one reason: Incumbents on average raise $2 million per election — or three times more than challengers.
So, the corrupting power structure in Washington and lifetime politicians can relax. When it comes to cleaning up the swamp of special interests inside the Washington beltway, Mr. Obama may be touting a slogan of “change you can believe in,” but he sounds more and more like a defender of the status quo.
It’s a vicious cycle, and Barack Obama knows it. Incumbents raise more money than challengers; incumbents spend more money on advertising. The price of advertising goes up. As the price of advertising goes up, the incumbent advantage over challengers is widened. As the advantage of incumbents over their challengers is widened, it makes more financial sense for those interested in legislative outcome to donate the incumbents, and so the incumbents raise more money. After a few cycles have been completed, what you have is an entrenched power structure that has a vested interest in the price of advertising staying high, and then the high cost of advertising ensures that the merry-go-round cranks over a few more cycles.
If the incumbent has been in there a long time and is highly likely to win because of it, and you like him, it seems to make a whole lot of sense. That is not true of first-term Sen. Obama, but it’s true of a lot of his friends, fer sure.
The Desert Lover
Sunday, August 10th, 2008Via Rick, a more-impressive-than-usual sampling of just plain raw unfettered stupidity from the Huffington Post.
We like to belabor the obvious here at The Blog That Nobody Reads…so first, we’ll read Ms. Haydn’s remarks in full…then some bullet points.
Have you ever gone through a really dry period sexually? At first you get angry that you’re being neglected and ignored, and you act out. Then one day you wake up with a sense of nonchalance and you start to marvel at how much you’re getting done, and how much easier it is not to care. And then… one day, maybe a stranger comes and begins to romance you and strokes your hair in a sort of contemplative way, uttering the most delightful insights. He touches your hand softly and then a little more firmly, awakening the feelings that you thought you’d left behind, and then you start speaking really poetically and hearing melodies and then suddenly you WANT IN! You want back in the game and you think ‘spring is here’… YES WE CAN!
Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino. We who have felt apathetic, angry at two (likely) stolen elections, K-Street hegemony, the “pornography of the trivial”* in journalism and culture; we who are heartbroken over a war we knew was wrong, we who thought (especially after Baby Bush got in a 2nd time) that America got what it asked for; we who stopped wanting to participate ’cause it doesn’t matter whether we do or don’t; we have a crush. We’re talking about it; we’re getting involved, we’re tuning in and turning out in numbers we haven’t seen in ages. My musician friends and I are writing songs to inspire people and couples all over America are making love again and shouting “yes we can” as they climax!
The downside is that when the Republican fear factory goes into full production come election time, and even superdelegate time, potentially causing the Dems to hand-pick Hillary instead of Prince Charming because we are afraid that America will vote McCain over a candidate who is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, it is quite possible that all the passion and revolutionary spirit being stoked by Senator Obama could turn into an equally powerful force of apathy and even rage. We who never felt like participating in the democratic process before (or when we did our votes were not counted), could end up feeling more disappointed and disenfranchised than ever. It’s almost worse than never having cared at all. Beware the wrath of the forsaken lover.
Obama, and also Clinton, must be unequivocal in their rhetoric that the need for unity, which they both so often espouse, doesn’t just mean unifying around them. It means really unifying around the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for every office, and holding them to task for all the promises of “justice and change.” We newly impassioned citizens need to feel included and incentivized, no matter who gets the nomination.
If Obama is like a lover who has awakened our desire to dream and participate again after so many years in the desert of political apathy, I would just ask that he be responsible and help us channel our newly stirred passion into something even bigger than him, whether or not it works out: the democratic process.
1. The whole point of the essay is not attributes of the “desert lover,” but feelings she has about him when he arrives. Not exactly complimentary to Sen. Obama. Insulting, really, when you think about it.
2. The feelings she has for the “desert lover,” in turn, are inspired by, more than anything else, the long period of time that elapsed before he arrived. Even more insulting toward Sen. Obama. Is there nothing remarkable about him worth mentioning? So many others among his fan base insist there is. Ms. Haydn seems to be the exception!
3. Ms. Haydn never once says definitively whether or not she voted in these two elections she coyly hints might have been stolen. Indeed, there is much verbiage to strongly suggest she did not. It would be strange to have such resentment over the theft of elections in which one did not participate, but by the time I’m done reading her screed I wouldn’t put much past her.
4. Ms. Haydn further insists that democracy is one of the few things that are “even bigger than him”; I wish she spent a few sentences defining what that means to her. She seems to have affection for it only when it produces an outcome she likes, so I believe she is having an Inigo Montoya moment with democracy. I do not believe it means what she thinks it means.
I have one other observation to make about this piece, or rather about a comment that appeared underneath it. I personally marked as a “Favorite” this remark from “Renoir” in response to a certain “Jake” who put down Ms. Haydn’s ramblings as nothing more than a schoolgirl crush:
Hi Jake…Maybe it’s a more mature crush than one of an adolescent, as you wittily describe. After all, he’s a known entity and we know he’s polite to his Mother. Maybe it’s the sort of crush that is mature enough to know the Real Deal and brave enough to try to believe again. You know… a winter romance! Just in the nick of time!
I marked it as a favorite because Renoir managed to work in one of my favorite phrases:
I’m still unconvinced that we have a definition for “real deal,” of any sort. The kind where, you isolate ten people who’ve been caught throwing this slogan around, question them in solitude, and you get back fewer than ten unique answers. One uniform answer? Forget it.
And so it falls to me, to pick out a functional use of the term, one that fits all, or most, of the popular uses of it.
Deep breath…here we go.
REAL DEAL: Flattering slang attached to an individual who possesses a unique ability to sell products unneeded.
I cringe in embarrassment for democrats when I review history and see what kind of individual earns all this adoring, heartsick praise from them. It’s not a 2008 phenomenon. It’s got something to do with being a fairly handsome male, but that isn’t it because they’ve been engaging in a long-term trend of showering “Mr. Universe” type adulation upon gentlemen who were just barely above average in the looks department.
They seem to be confusing mediocrity with excellence. That would make sense; that’s exactly what they want the rest of us to do.
But I’m afraid the truth is even darker than that. The one common trait Sen. Obama shares with Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Clinton, is what is the subject of Real Deal. The ability to sell ice cubes to eskimos. To motivate people to do things toward which they would be less than motivated, without the presence of a salesman who is so ambitious and motivated in his sales acumen, that he can make sales that are clearly less than helpful to the buyers’ interests.
Basically, to lie.
You review the history of overwhelmingly exciting candidates within the democrat party, and the attribute common to all of those super-exciting candidates is that they can sell things.
This is not good.
When the product is needed and decent, the salesmanship of he who sells it, is a non-issue.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News.
D’JEver Notice? VIII
Friday, August 8th, 2008This one is inspired by a comment made by Duffy in regard to a post I put up expounding on George Will’s thoughts re: The Chosen One. Duffy, in turn, may have been inspired by my observations about the cyclical nature of these presidential candidate superstars.
Duffy observes,
Obama’s game is the retread of every Democrat playbook for the last 30 years. Appeal To Emotion. Change change change was all we heard from Stephanapolous and Carville. Same tune, new dancer. Hell even Cliton’s hagiographic film was called “The Man From Hope”. (Yes they were talking about Geography but the double meaning was evident.) Lofty rhetoric is great but I don’t know if it’s enough to get him to the goal line. The shine is wearing off and people are asking, “yeah, ok, hope and change but what does that mean?”
Having asked that for awhile, and having been accumulating little morsels of information useless in isolated solitude but beginning to make some sense cumulatively when one observes them together…I think maybe I’m ready to field that one.
The hope is that Barack Obama will win. But it is not proportionate to popularity. If it was, Ronald Reagan with his 49-state sweep would earn, at least, a grudgingly superior magnitude of acceptance compared to Bill Clinton, who didn’t even win 50% of the popular vote in ’92. Reagan was more conservative than Clinton, but Reagan was much more popular than Clinton. Reagan, the argument could be made, was more charismatic than Clinton, and probably moreso than Obama as well. Nevertheless, Clinton, until Obama came along, was the walking definition of what was/is being sought. Reagan was not.
The reason why this is so, is not entirely related to political ideology. Ideology is a filtering device, of course — Reagan is a Republican, so the slobbering Obama fans are not permitted to think fondly of Reagan in any context. But here is your riddle wrapped in the enigma: Where is the liberal democrat Obama fan, wandering around, wistfully opining “why, oh why, can’t we find someone who shares my beliefs who is capable of a 49-state sweep, like Reagan was?”
Maybe they say this behind closed doors, but demure when the time comes to express the wish out in the open, lest a chink appear in that liberal democrat armor.
Well, I don’t think so. I’ve been watching these people, and I notice they don’t seem to be able to count to fifty-two. By which I mean — any electoral contest that comes up, winning that magical 51% of the vote is just as good for them as winning 99%. Like shoving a heavy Cadillac off a cliff. Just get that center of gravity over the precipice, that’s all that matters.
And that scares the hell out of me. It tells me that when they express all their hatred for people who don’t think the way they do, they have equal measures of hatred for an ideologically-opposed fairly moderate 49% as they would for an ideologically-opposed fringe-kook 1%. It’s a festering, but dull, dismissive type of pustulating hatred they have for the 49%. But it erupts into a rancid, venomous fountain of spite once the 49% reaches 50%.
To put it another way: These people, their catchphrases notwithstanding, have little or no concern about how many people disagree with their values, or what this might say about their culture’s evolving viewpoint — so long as they can still win elections. They look across the aisle to do their sneering. To roll their eyeballs. To elbow each other in the ribs, jerk their thumb in this direction, and say to one another, “get a load of that guy.” Quantity, so long as the car makes it over the cliff, is well outside of their concern.
Conservatives are different. A poll comes out that says 80% of a community is opposed to same-sex marriage, for instance, and this says something better than if the poll said only 55% was so opposed. If the poll said it was 95% percent, that would be even better.
When the issue comes to capital punishment it’s pretty easy to see why conservatives feel this way. If 40% of us are opposed to capital punishment, that means there’s a real chance someone will eventually be released from prison and kill a young woman or a small child who didn’t have to die. So naturally, if only 20% of us are so opposed, that’s a happier situation. Of course there will always be at least 5% and we realize this; we wish we could get it down to zero. Because some people are simply inclined to kill, live for no other purpose, and anyone who has any effect on how the justice system works ought to understand this.
But our liberals don’t care. They can’t count to fifty-two. They want that 51% and that’s all they care about.
It’s two different ways of looking at cause-and-effect. Some of us go around saying “I’ll bet” about the stuff that really matters. I’ll bet it would be a good idea to take the car in for an oil change early. I’ll bet we’re going to get little tiny flies in the kitchen if I leave that pineapple rind out. I’ll bet I’m going to find my kid has homework due tomorrow that he isn’t getting done, if I ask him. In other words, when we make predictions about the future, what we’re doing is engaging in On Your Left Nut thinking.
These people who are the subject of Duffy’s concern, are different.
They only say “I’ll bet” about one thing: The ability of a candidate to get to that magic 51%. Witness all this unbridled exuberance over Bill Clinton sixteen years ago, and Barack Obama now, over something called “charisma.” But not too much charisma, because ninety-nine percent is no better than fifty-one. Just to win.
Didja ever notice this about some people? You see it a lot with ballot initiatives; and therefore you probably see more of it where I live than anyplace else, because California is drunk silly on referendums. Nobody reads ’em all here.
People gather the day after the election and recall how they voted. And some of these people say something like “I voted yes on that one…but it went down 61 to 39.” And they look down at their toes. But they can’t tell you what the referendum was going to do. One gets the distinct impression if they could go back and do it over, they’d vote no. In other words, the object of the exercise of voting, was not to put a policy in place that would have beneficial results for the community, or even for a class of persons living in it. It was simply to win. Just like playing the lottery. Make the call, will this one go through or will it not; then, proceed on to the next choice and do it again.
They do exactly with predicting the outcome of a democratic process, what the rest of us do with other things that really matter — things that are left up to our own individual choices. They learn their lessons, maybe avoid any publicity they can about how the subject immediately under consideration works. Then they resolve to do better next time. They undergo the same paradigm shift that you do, after making an incorrect guess about whether there is a nest of black widows under your kids’ playground equipment. But they only think that way here. And, maybe with the above-mentioned lottery. And spectator sports events, of course. Other than those three things, they just can’t see any point to saying “I’ll bet” and using their noggin to figure out what’s going on. About anything.
We get frustrated with them, because we’re arguing about what happens if guns are banned; what would happen if Saddam Hussein was left alone; what will happen to the unemployment rate if the minimum wage is raised. We might as well be arguing with a brick wall. These people don’t think in terms of cause and effect, except for things watched by many of their peers, with fairly immediate results. Elections, lotteries, and sporting events. That’s all.
And so all this enthusiasm for Obama being the “real deal,” has to do with what I defined that phrase to actually mean:
REAL DEAL: Flattering slang attached to an individual who possesses a unique ability to sell products unneeded.
Obama still has some mob-support, but it has nothing to do with cause-and-effect, sound policies, beneficial results, inflating your tires to bring down gas prices. Nothing to do with any of that.
It has to do with getting to that 51%. Making people ineffectual, who ought to be ineffectual, because they don’t believe what “we” believe. What do we believe, though? Not a whole lot. Whatever Obama tells us to…today. Go check his website.
After all.
He’s the “real deal.”
Levels of Experience
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008Heh. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter downplays his own appeal as a potential VP candidate running with He Who Walks On Water. I’m not worthy…I’m not worthy…
All proceeds according to plan, until Ritter tastes toenail.
…I think there are a lot of things that he has to take into consideration. I’ve been governor for 18 months. My experience before that was as a district attorney. I loved being a district attorney…but I don’t think that’s what Barack Obama’s looking for in a vice president. I’ve been governor for 18 months. It’s been a great experience. But it’s just 18 months…Obama has to think about experience…levels of experience…
:
Caller Richard from Windsor: “Governor, you said 18 months’ experience wasn’t enough experience as governor to be the vice president. Would you want to contrast that with the 143 days’ experience Obama as senator before he decided he had enough experience to be president.”Ritter: All I can tell ya is I am a fan of Barack Obama’s. Met him in 2004 during his campaign for Senate…You meet him and discover there’s something very different about him. That’s all I’ll say.
This brings to mind a couple of the things I know about people, minus what I was told when I was a child:
15. People who have been duped by something and have come to realize it, want everyone else to be duped in the same way.
16. People who are overly concerned about their emotions, don’t want anyone else to be overly concerned with thinking.
The Definitive Obama Puff Piece
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008This is a few weeks old by now, almost “blast from the past” stuff. But I didn’t see it when it came out, I’ve not heard of anyone writin’ ‘er up…and it’s way too good to let float on by, any further.
Apologies to you if you’re a fellow blogger who managed to capture it, and I missed it. We’ve all been there.
But I’m gonna collar it now. Life, as they say, imitates The Onion.
Hailed by media critics as the fluffiest, most toothless, and softest-hitting coverage of the presidential candidate to date, a story in this week’s Time magazine is being called the definitive Barack Obama puff piece.
:
According to political analysts, the Time piece features the most lack-of-depth reporting on Obama ever published, and for the first time reveals a number of inconsequential truths about the candidate, including how he keeps in shape on the campaign trail, and which historical figures the presidential hopeful would choose to have dinner with.“The sheer breadth of fluff in this story is something to be marveled at,” New York Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet said. “It’s all here. Favorite books, movies, meals, and seasons of the year ranked one through four. Sure, we asked Obama what his favorite ice cream was, but Time did us one better and asked, ‘What’s your favorite ice cream, really?‘”
Time managing editor Rich Stengel said he was proud of the Obama puff piece, and that he hoped it would help to redefine the boundaries of journalistic drivel.
On a related note, parent site Webloggin, in linking to us, noted Obama’s “nice flip flop” on the gas tax rebate. Webloggin also wants to know: When is some effort made to find out what exactly a “windfall profit” is?
The Wall Street Journal agrees with that inquiry.
The “windfall profits” tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it?
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s “emergency” plan, announced on Friday, doesn’t offer any clarity. To pay for “stimulus” checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits.
All of which raises some interesting questions, and the WSJ sets about defining what those questions might be. But that is all they can do, without some further information from The Enlightened One. And who knows, maybe someone from the media will ask him.
But don’t count on it. There are those boundaries of journalistic drivel to be pushed out. To say nothing of ice cream flavors.
In the Pocket of Big Oil
Monday, August 4th, 2008New Obama ad reported by Jake Tapper of ABC News:
As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., kicks off a week focused on energy, his campaign will on Monday begin running a new TV ad that attacks Sen. John McCain as “in the pocket of big oil.”
“Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets,” the narrator says as the screen reads: “$143 Billion in Profits Over the Last Year.”
:
As the camera pulls back from the photo of McCain to reveal him standing with President Bush, the narrator says, “After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can’t afford another. Barack Obama: A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.”
I’m missing something here. This is supposed to be Barack Obama’s election to lose? And he’s going to win it by doing what President Bush has been doing, right before the democrats got particularly nasty in criticizing him?
When do they start apologizing for saying these tax rebates wouldn’t do anything? Bad when he does it, good when they do it?
Doesn’t the Irony-O-Meter burst a gasket at some point, if the challenger is continuing the policies of the current President, bragging about doing so, and in the same breath comparing his opponent to that incumbent?
And, of course there’s the million dollar question: How does making a product more expensive for companies to sell, make it any cheaper for that product to be purchased?
I’m sure those questions will be asked. Harshly. On live television. By someone with the balls to say “I’m sorry Senator, that doesn’t answer the question I just asked you.”
Where the Hillary Supporters Go From Here
Monday, August 4th, 2008Me, opining about human nature a little over a month ago…
I do not understand how this fools people. It seems to be a public-relations ploy that goes back to Roman times, and doubtlessly extends back thousands of years before that…unchanged.
The political contender says,
I want people to be unified after they’re forced to agree with me
And what he really means, is…
I want people to be unified after they’re forced to agree with me
And after untold thousands of years of this bait-and-switch game, people still gulp it down like it’s yummy caramel-covered popcorn. Mmmm…look, he wants to unify people!
DRJ, offering a guest post at Patterico’s today:
Now that the primaries are over and Obama is the presumptive nominee, he wants the Michigan and Florida delegations to have full voting rights in the interests of “party unity” … a/k/a party unity for him.
From the story linked:
Obama sent a letter Sunday to the party’s credentials committee, asking members to reinstate the delegates’ voting rights when the committee meets at the start of the convention in Denver.
The delegates were originally stripped because the two states violated party rules by holding primaries before Feb. 5. The delegates from each state were given half-votes at a contentious party meeting in May, as part of a compromise designed to give two important states some role at the convention.
Obama’s former Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had won both primaries, though Obama’s name was not on the Michigan ballot and neither candidate campaigned in Florida.
“I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories,” Obama said in the letter.
Unity! +++chuckle+++
Okay, it wasn’t that much of a prophecy because I was already talking about the Obamessiah. But it is an interesting commentary on how little the tactics change over time, and are likely to change from here on out.
And that — you know, that’s a little bit on the strange side if not on the unexpected one. The dude talks about “change” all the time. But he doesn’t do much of it, does he?
Cross-posted at Cassy Fiano’s.