SNL decides not to go looking to dig up Ellen Cleghorne, instead are rumored to be getting Queen Latifah to be their Gwen Ifill.
(I agree with one of the Defamer commenters, Tracy Morgan in drag might be teh funny, though)
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
03 October 2008
08 January 2008
I Admit It, This Post Is Really Just an Excuse to Show A Photo of Jeri Ryan . . .
. . . but the hard part, choosing just one. Being a nerd/geek, had to go with one in full 7 of 9 gear.
Did her divorce from Jack Ryan pave the way for Pres. Obama?
I blame the California judge who unsealed the divorce documents over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan. There was no reason for this to be public, and Jack Ryan shouldn't have dropped out, they went to France, he wanted to do some kinky stuff with his smoking hot wife in front of other a bunch of foreigners, big deal, end of story.
04 January 2008
Ugggghhh.
Iowa Republican Caucus goers turned out in record number (but dwarved by the record numbers who turned out on the Dem side), and picked a populist-rhetoric spewer with a heavy dose of conservative Christianity as their favorite candidate. Not the first time they've done such, Pat Robertson got 25% of their vote in '88 (but didn't win), and Pat Buchanan got 23% of their vote (but didn't win).
If Huckabee were to attempt to govern as he is running, he'd be dangerous for this country. But it was only about 40,000 folks who showed up to vote for him, which was a plurality of Republican caucus goers, but rather than Huckabee "winning" 34.29% of the vote I'd rather think of this as 65.71% of Iowa Republican caucus goers who rejected his brand of populism.
As far as the Democrats go, I don't hate Obama nearly as much as I hate Huckabee, he'd be less awful for the country as President. All the Dems run on populism, too, on the populist rhetoric front, he's far less crazy than Edwards, and on par with Clinton. I doubt he'd govern like he's run, but there's a long time till November, and he managed a pretty good victory in a state that wouldn't seem to be a natural fit for his campaign. Iowa Democrats don't believe in releasing the number of folks who vote for each candidate, instead releasing delegate numbers, by that measure Sen. Obama garnered 37.58% of state delegates selected. The total turn out was 227,000 people, smashing last year's record attendance, largely attributable to Independents showing up to vote for Obama, and folks under the age of 29 showing up in unprecedented numbers. But again at most Obama energized 80,000 people to vote for him, which means there were 140,000 Iowa Democratic caucus goers who weren't impressed with Sen. Obama.
Also, his "I AM THE DREAM" speech rankled (at least me). To paraphrase his victory speech, Obama basically claimed that what Martin Luther King, Jr. saw up on that hill when he peered into the future and saw racial equanimity and inclusiveness, that it was Sen. Obama's smiling visage beaming back at him. Talk about audaciousness. I don't know that this sort of audacity will sell well as the campaign goes on. It sold well with its target audience. Today, many liberals (just watch any random 3 hour stretch of CNN or MSNBC) are suffering from dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back so hard for their willingness to overcome racial prejudice and vote for Sen. Obama in Iowa. For some reason, they are not punishing themselves equally for their disgusting show of rank prejudice in their rejection of Sen. Clinton and how that clearly shows the continued unlevel playing field faced by women in our horribly gender-biased culture.
In summary, there were two winners in Iowa, Obama and Huckabee, and four losers.
Sen. Clinton's defeat in Iowa was a huge chink in her armor, and destroyed her, 'I'm the inevitable candidate' strategy. The next biggest loser was Gov. Romney, he spent $7million and received around 30,000 votes. That's $233 per vote cast. That's a lousy return on his investment. The third biggest losers were the race-hustling "black leadership" establishment. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world just saw their hold over white liberals smashed forever. White liberals can now point to Obama as proof that they are no longer prejudice, so they don't need to kowtow to these race pimps. Sharpton was on Kimmel last night (and crossing a picket line to do it), and he didn't seem at all happy, and was claiming he may jump into the campaign. The fourth biggest losers were unions. They split their support between Edwards and Clinton, and saw both those candidates do poorly.
Sen. Obama has the potential to win the Democratic nomination without having to pander to two of the groups that Democrats have traditionally pandered to, the unions and the race-hustlers. That gives him a great opportunity to change the kind of issues that a viable Democratic candidate can tackle. He could attack school unions, support vouchers. He could praise welfare reform, and push even stronger entitlement reforms. He could begin tacking towards the middle if he does very well in South Carolina. If he doesn't, then he'll have to stick to his mix of lefty rhetoric leavened with talk of hope, inclusiveness, and working across the aisle (but no specifics).
Nothing's been decided yet, there's a lot of campaigning left, but Obama and Huckabee have strengthened, Romney and Clinton have been wounded, Thompson may have helped himself quite a bit by coming in a narrow third, and Giuliani may still end up looking very smart by ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
If Huckabee were to attempt to govern as he is running, he'd be dangerous for this country. But it was only about 40,000 folks who showed up to vote for him, which was a plurality of Republican caucus goers, but rather than Huckabee "winning" 34.29% of the vote I'd rather think of this as 65.71% of Iowa Republican caucus goers who rejected his brand of populism.
As far as the Democrats go, I don't hate Obama nearly as much as I hate Huckabee, he'd be less awful for the country as President. All the Dems run on populism, too, on the populist rhetoric front, he's far less crazy than Edwards, and on par with Clinton. I doubt he'd govern like he's run, but there's a long time till November, and he managed a pretty good victory in a state that wouldn't seem to be a natural fit for his campaign. Iowa Democrats don't believe in releasing the number of folks who vote for each candidate, instead releasing delegate numbers, by that measure Sen. Obama garnered 37.58% of state delegates selected. The total turn out was 227,000 people, smashing last year's record attendance, largely attributable to Independents showing up to vote for Obama, and folks under the age of 29 showing up in unprecedented numbers. But again at most Obama energized 80,000 people to vote for him, which means there were 140,000 Iowa Democratic caucus goers who weren't impressed with Sen. Obama.
Also, his "I AM THE DREAM" speech rankled (at least me). To paraphrase his victory speech, Obama basically claimed that what Martin Luther King, Jr. saw up on that hill when he peered into the future and saw racial equanimity and inclusiveness, that it was Sen. Obama's smiling visage beaming back at him. Talk about audaciousness. I don't know that this sort of audacity will sell well as the campaign goes on. It sold well with its target audience. Today, many liberals (just watch any random 3 hour stretch of CNN or MSNBC) are suffering from dislocated shoulders from patting themselves on the back so hard for their willingness to overcome racial prejudice and vote for Sen. Obama in Iowa. For some reason, they are not punishing themselves equally for their disgusting show of rank prejudice in their rejection of Sen. Clinton and how that clearly shows the continued unlevel playing field faced by women in our horribly gender-biased culture.
In summary, there were two winners in Iowa, Obama and Huckabee, and four losers.
Sen. Clinton's defeat in Iowa was a huge chink in her armor, and destroyed her, 'I'm the inevitable candidate' strategy. The next biggest loser was Gov. Romney, he spent $7million and received around 30,000 votes. That's $233 per vote cast. That's a lousy return on his investment. The third biggest losers were the race-hustling "black leadership" establishment. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world just saw their hold over white liberals smashed forever. White liberals can now point to Obama as proof that they are no longer prejudice, so they don't need to kowtow to these race pimps. Sharpton was on Kimmel last night (and crossing a picket line to do it), and he didn't seem at all happy, and was claiming he may jump into the campaign. The fourth biggest losers were unions. They split their support between Edwards and Clinton, and saw both those candidates do poorly.
Sen. Obama has the potential to win the Democratic nomination without having to pander to two of the groups that Democrats have traditionally pandered to, the unions and the race-hustlers. That gives him a great opportunity to change the kind of issues that a viable Democratic candidate can tackle. He could attack school unions, support vouchers. He could praise welfare reform, and push even stronger entitlement reforms. He could begin tacking towards the middle if he does very well in South Carolina. If he doesn't, then he'll have to stick to his mix of lefty rhetoric leavened with talk of hope, inclusiveness, and working across the aisle (but no specifics).
Nothing's been decided yet, there's a lot of campaigning left, but Obama and Huckabee have strengthened, Romney and Clinton have been wounded, Thompson may have helped himself quite a bit by coming in a narrow third, and Giuliani may still end up looking very smart by ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
10 December 2007
That Paragraph is Looking Less Far-Fetched Compared to When I Wrote It in July . . .
Here's an AP Video (with annoying ad before video starts) report of the O&O show. From this immodest blog many months ago, a throwaway paragraph in a post about something else...
Did I know back then that Oprah would publicly campaign with Obama back then?
She had mentioned she backed Obama back in May, but that's very different from actually stumping with him.
Would she give up her day job to run for VP?
And those folks who set up the Oprah/Obama08 site on cafepress must be doing great lately.
All this talk about whether or not The Oprah can help Sen. Obama in the Democratic primaries is just talk. Of course support coming from Her Most High and Holy Oprahness counts for alot amongst a lot of voters (especially in the Dem primaries).
Is this just a sister trying to help a brother out? Or is there a quid pro quo thing going on (as in VP Winfrey)?
Although if somehow a Obama/Winfrey ticket were to actually win, I'd be worried about some crazed Oprah fan getting too impatient with regards to a hoped for Winfrey presidency. I'd watch my back if I were Pres. Obama.
(and when you see "Pres. Obama" in type or hear it in your mind, it seems such an unlikely last name for an American president, same with Dukakis, he was defeated by his name alone (and his old school left liberal policies which were way out of step with the majority of American voters))
When Oprah is President Obama's Vice President (you know the O&O ticket makes sense, don't you?), I'll bet she does things that would make even Cheney blush. I also bet there won't be a single lawsuit brought against her by some petty bureaucrat fearful of her secretive ways.
Did I know back then that Oprah would publicly campaign with Obama back then?
She had mentioned she backed Obama back in May, but that's very different from actually stumping with him.
Would she give up her day job to run for VP?
And those folks who set up the Oprah/Obama08 site on cafepress must be doing great lately.
All this talk about whether or not The Oprah can help Sen. Obama in the Democratic primaries is just talk. Of course support coming from Her Most High and Holy Oprahness counts for alot amongst a lot of voters (especially in the Dem primaries).
Is this just a sister trying to help a brother out? Or is there a quid pro quo thing going on (as in VP Winfrey)?
Although if somehow a Obama/Winfrey ticket were to actually win, I'd be worried about some crazed Oprah fan getting too impatient with regards to a hoped for Winfrey presidency. I'd watch my back if I were Pres. Obama.
(and when you see "Pres. Obama" in type or hear it in your mind, it seems such an unlikely last name for an American president, same with Dukakis, he was defeated by his name alone (and his old school left liberal policies which were way out of step with the majority of American voters))
21 October 2007
The More Things Change . . .
The NYT has opened up their archives, sort of. Stuff from 1851 to 1922 is free, as is stuff after 1986, between you have to pay. Bill at So Quoted complains about this turn of events, here.
Out of curiosity, I checked articles about Warren Harding during the election year 1920. Election coverage was a bit lighter back then compared to now, to say the least. Here's Harding's answer to the NYT regarding why he should be elected, printed on Oct 31st 1920, along with his opponent's reply as well (PDF at this link). I've eliminated references to party affiliation (in brackets), for reasons that will become obvious as you read further:
Partisanship is nothing new. Fear of an overcharged executive branch is nothing new. For those playing along at home [my party]=Republican Party, [other party]=Democratic Party, and [foreign entanglement]=joining the League of Nations.
The more things change . . .
I wonder how much of this script will Sen. Clinton pick up? Will she suggest ending 'divided government' be a good thing? Will she suggest that she will rein in the executive branch? Will she offer a foreign policy that gives "peace in industry"? Will she offer the people "relief from anxiety and gratitude for a common-sense future"?
I think any of the potential GOP candidates this time around will have an easier time than Cox did in distancing themselves from the previous administration and run as an agent of change even as they run to extend the control of the executive branch under their party for another 4 years. And given that much of Sen. Clinton's appeal is as being deeply enmeshed in 'the establishment' for her to run as a DC outsider will be impossible, so the choice in 2008 is very different than the one in 1920, but there are a few interesting resonances between then and now, anyway.
Out of curiosity, I checked articles about Warren Harding during the election year 1920. Election coverage was a bit lighter back then compared to now, to say the least. Here's Harding's answer to the NYT regarding why he should be elected, printed on Oct 31st 1920, along with his opponent's reply as well (PDF at this link). I've eliminated references to party affiliation (in brackets), for reasons that will become obvious as you read further:
You have asked me to state the reasons of [my party] for asking the nation's approval on Election day; I prefer with your permission, to state why the American people will give that approval. They will give it because long ago they turned away from an Administration and its proposal to continue its wastes, follies and perversion of constitutional government, by an extreme and undemocratic centralization of authority. The American people are now thoroughly alarmed by a regime of reckless waste, leading business toward chaos, and the American laborer toward unemployment. Unpreparedness for war and for peace has resulted in hideous losses, with the national burden upon the taxpayer. Throughout the campaign no admission has come from the [other] side of the grotesque errors for distended power misused for nearly eight years. No constructive suggestion for restoring America to firm prosperity or for uniting her people upon a program of going forward has come from the [other] party, nor from its representatives. Most of their attention has been spent upon an insolent suggestion that America shall accept without change of form a membership in a particular [foreign entanglement], as to which Americans were not consulted, and which they have long ago rejected. The election of a [President from the other party], provided he kept faith with his program, would mean four more years in which a President and the representatives of the people would each be able to block action upon the part of the other.
The American people, therefore, will turn to [my party] because it offers assurance of an end of wasteful, willful, and inefficient government, which has menaced our prosperity and the safety of our national institutions. They will turn to it because it offers a plan of peace in industry, a rehabilitation of our agriculture, and because its policies are based upon social justice and a united America. They will turn to it with relief from anxiety and gratitude for a common-sense future and assurance that only under [my party] may they expect America to work out her part in an association of nations which shall not wipe out the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but which shall represent in full our obligations to ourselves and to mankind.
Partisanship is nothing new. Fear of an overcharged executive branch is nothing new. For those playing along at home [my party]=Republican Party, [other party]=Democratic Party, and [foreign entanglement]=joining the League of Nations.
The more things change . . .
I wonder how much of this script will Sen. Clinton pick up? Will she suggest ending 'divided government' be a good thing? Will she suggest that she will rein in the executive branch? Will she offer a foreign policy that gives "peace in industry"? Will she offer the people "relief from anxiety and gratitude for a common-sense future"?
I think any of the potential GOP candidates this time around will have an easier time than Cox did in distancing themselves from the previous administration and run as an agent of change even as they run to extend the control of the executive branch under their party for another 4 years. And given that much of Sen. Clinton's appeal is as being deeply enmeshed in 'the establishment' for her to run as a DC outsider will be impossible, so the choice in 2008 is very different than the one in 1920, but there are a few interesting resonances between then and now, anyway.
17 July 2007
Boxing Metaphors Are So 19th Century, I'm In the OCTAGON, Baby . . .
My Liberal Identity:
You are an Eco-Avenger, also known as an environmentalist or tree hugger. You believe in saving the planet from the clutches of air-fouling, oil-drilling, earth-raping conservative fossil fools.
I was cited as a "green journalist" before, so I guess this makes sense.
My Conservative Identity:
You are a Freedom Crusader, also known as a neoconservative. You believe in taking the fight directly to the enemy, whether it’s terrorists abroad or the liberal terrorist appeasers at home who give them aid and comfort.
And that's just silly, I'm much more of a paleo-conservative than a neo-con.
Nuance isn't the strong suit of internet quizzes.
(hat tip RIA and Cal at Done With Mirrors)
UPDATE:
Reader I Am responds in the comments (read it for yourself) and here's a partial response to her response:
The OCTAGON reference is to Mixed Martial Arts which is the newer, shinier, and growing in popularity version of man on man violence as spectacle.
"Duking it out" is an appropriate metaphor for politics, but Marquess of Queensburry rules are the 19th century part, in the 21st century we're seeing a return to valuing combatants who are capable of multiple modes of kicking another guy's (or gal's) ass (grappling, boxing, kickboxing).
Politics aren't by Queensburry rules, either, the politicians and political movements that thrive in the United States over the next few decades will be the ones that are willing to challenge the rules, skirt the rules without getting caught, and push the rules as far as they'll go while still being appealing to the spectators (like a good MMA combatant).
I think the MMA days of politics will be better, once everyone adjusts to the shift. More contact between the participants, will lead to more sharply defined positions during the campaigns, hopefully. With all the mud that will get slung, I think a return to ideas is inevitable. When every potential politician has a hard drive full of pictures of drunken high school and college bacchanals, they'll have no choice but to compete on ideas instead of which candidate is 'more pure'.
09 May 2007
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself (Patrick Ruffini Edition)
Today 09th of May, 2007 shall henceforth be known as 'couldn't have said it better myself' day.
Patrick Ruffini posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog lays down some knowledge.
Word.
Patrick Ruffini posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog lays down some knowledge.
As has been pointed out time and time again, the idea that only those who serve or who've served are qualified to comment on matters of war and peace is ridiculous on its face. (Actually, they usually stack the deck like this: only if you've served can you support a war, but anyone, regardless of past service, is qualified to oppose a war.) Last I checked, we do not have a military government and we do have a First Amendment. It's curious to see the left at cross-purposes with these two very basic tenets of Constitutional government.
But the case that seldom gets made is this. If we did follow the Kossacks' advice and let only interested parties decide our Iraq policy (service personnel and their families), the decision would be clear and it would be for victory. Want to know once and for all if the mission is worth it? Just ask the troops on the ground.
Be careful when you invoke Absolute Moral Authority (tm). You might not like the answers you get.
Word.
15 October 2006
11 October 2006
Bulletin Board Material
It's a cliche in the sports world, bulletin board material. I guess it can happen in politics, too.
Will it effect the election?
Unlikely.
But . . . . . .
Cheeky (Scottish) Monkey
Craig Ferguson is easily the best monologuist amongst the late night talk show hosts currently airing. Plus with the right guest he's also one of the better interviewers. Conan, and the last half of Jimmy Kimmel are faint memories (we shall not even mention those aging, well past their prime denizens of 11:35).
During his opening monologue last night, he was commenting on the film Man of the Year and musing about the possibility of different talk show hosts becoming President (as in the film).
Of Oprah he said (I'm paraphrasing, didn't record the show) that she'd be great cause everyone would get a free car. OK, not that funny, but it was a set up pitch for the screwball that he threw next.
Of Ellen he said (more paraphrasing), I think she could be president, I think the country could be ready for a blonde, pantsuit wearing lesbian as president.
He let that hang there a bit, and mugged for the camera so as to make it obvious as to who else he might be suggesting by that joke.
Brilliant stuff, that.
OK, maybe not that brilliant, it was all in the delivery.
During his opening monologue last night, he was commenting on the film Man of the Year and musing about the possibility of different talk show hosts becoming President (as in the film).
Of Oprah he said (I'm paraphrasing, didn't record the show) that she'd be great cause everyone would get a free car. OK, not that funny, but it was a set up pitch for the screwball that he threw next.
Of Ellen he said (more paraphrasing), I think she could be president, I think the country could be ready for a blonde, pantsuit wearing lesbian as president.
He let that hang there a bit, and mugged for the camera so as to make it obvious as to who else he might be suggesting by that joke.
Brilliant stuff, that.
OK, maybe not that brilliant, it was all in the delivery.
07 October 2006
The Democrats DO Support OUR Troops, OK, Maybe Not OUR Troops, But At Least They Support Some Country's Troops, Right?
Supporting our troops, DNC style.
(and please, no jokes along the lines of, 'Who knew they even still had an Army?'. They fight along side us in Afghanistan, and have been staunch allies in the past)
UPDATE: Just noticed a more in depth exploration of this particular faux pas at LGF.
(and please, no jokes along the lines of, 'Who knew they even still had an Army?'. They fight along side us in Afghanistan, and have been staunch allies in the past)
UPDATE: Just noticed a more in depth exploration of this particular faux pas at LGF.
29 September 2006
Sure, She Can Use That Line . . .
And yes, to answer one of those lost Zawahiri lines, that grey beard does make you look gay
Tammy Bruce writing about Ayman al-Zawahiri latest release (at least latest video release, his latest release most likely is still inside some poor abused she-goat's vagina (those caves are lonely places, and she-goats are easier to come by than human females))
I couldn't get away with that line. If I said that I might be accused of being a homophobe by the likes of Andrew Sullivan.
Some folks aren't disturbed by the shockingly similar rhetoric spewing from the mouths of Al Qaeda spokesgoats and Democratic Party stalwarts.
But, many folks are (follow the Tammy link for many other voices joining the chorus). Callimachus also gets stirred up by the disgustingly symbiotic relationship between our declinist and defeatist media and those that wish for our decline and our defeat.
al-Zawahiri is the real Jackass#2. That movie, currently in theatres, don't got nothing on him.
They Really, Really, Really Hate Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is being attacked as usual. Here's the photo in question. It's clearly a photoshop job.
Dissertations may one day be written about how those on the left feel the need to spread rumors and sexualize attractive, young, overtly Christian, non-white conservative women.
Even if this photo was real, which it clearly isn't, who would really care? Maybe they chose a fairly inoffensive pose to lend their piss poor photoshop job some credibility. Every reasonably attractive woman who places herself in the political sphere will most likely face images like this of their supposed wild days in college. Some of those photos will be real moments of college hijinks, others will be made up ones. But, it's all white noise and pure stupidity. There will be no political value in these sort of attacks in the future given that everyone will have the same kind of photos in their past (or not). I think this attack stems from an abiding belief amongst 'progressives' that all women must be feminist, and all feminist must be socially permissive and liberal (see the whole recent Ann Althouse mess)
It feels like a 'put her in her place' campaign. That's awfully progressive of those folks. And we aren't talking about small fringe types. This is the mighty Nick Denton empire spreading this bile.
I'll still blogroll Defamer, Gizmodo, Kotaku anyway. I don't read Wonkette, and Gawker is too NYC for me (other than the Blue States Lose weekly feature, that's a must read every Friday).
I don't think legal action would be wise, either. Just point out the obvious nature of the fraud, attack it, ridicule it, and move on.
And in that spirit here is my "I am Spartacus" moment (inspired, in part by Capt. Ed). If they attack Michelle Malkin in that manner, they'll attack everyone they disagree with, we all are the poorly photoshopped head on top of that bikini clad body.
Are you sufficiently disturbed/amused/puzzled/confused by the above image?
Dissertations may one day be written about how those on the left feel the need to spread rumors and sexualize attractive, young, overtly Christian, non-white conservative women.
Even if this photo was real, which it clearly isn't, who would really care? Maybe they chose a fairly inoffensive pose to lend their piss poor photoshop job some credibility. Every reasonably attractive woman who places herself in the political sphere will most likely face images like this of their supposed wild days in college. Some of those photos will be real moments of college hijinks, others will be made up ones. But, it's all white noise and pure stupidity. There will be no political value in these sort of attacks in the future given that everyone will have the same kind of photos in their past (or not). I think this attack stems from an abiding belief amongst 'progressives' that all women must be feminist, and all feminist must be socially permissive and liberal (see the whole recent Ann Althouse mess)
It feels like a 'put her in her place' campaign. That's awfully progressive of those folks. And we aren't talking about small fringe types. This is the mighty Nick Denton empire spreading this bile.
I'll still blogroll Defamer, Gizmodo, Kotaku anyway. I don't read Wonkette, and Gawker is too NYC for me (other than the Blue States Lose weekly feature, that's a must read every Friday).
I don't think legal action would be wise, either. Just point out the obvious nature of the fraud, attack it, ridicule it, and move on.
And in that spirit here is my "I am Spartacus" moment (inspired, in part by Capt. Ed). If they attack Michelle Malkin in that manner, they'll attack everyone they disagree with, we all are the poorly photoshopped head on top of that bikini clad body.
Are you sufficiently disturbed/amused/puzzled/confused by the above image?
Best Quote Ever (At Least This Week)
(via Drudge)
No link provided, just a quote from Tony Snow about the latest Bob Woodward book
Snow: 'The average Washington memoir ought to be subtitled, 'If only they'd listened to me'...
Tony Snow is fantastic. He should be White House Press Secretary for Life.
I'd bet he'd do just as good of a job for a Democrat (assuming a Democrat will be elected in his lifetime).
No link provided, just a quote from Tony Snow about the latest Bob Woodward book
Snow: 'The average Washington memoir ought to be subtitled, 'If only they'd listened to me'...
Tony Snow is fantastic. He should be White House Press Secretary for Life.
I'd bet he'd do just as good of a job for a Democrat (assuming a Democrat will be elected in his lifetime).
The Personal Usually Becomes Political
Rep. Mark Foley, Republican from Florida resigned today.
His emails are creepy, and if not criminal, clearly abuse his position as a mentor. Regardless of the gender mix of the two folks involved this would be troubling. There's a way to be friendly to someone much younger than you without being creepy. He's a creep, and most likely has done more than just exchange emails with other willing teenagers.
That he didn't choose to quietly fade away and not seek another term speaks to his narcissism and belief that he wouldn't get caught. These exchanges were more than a year old, and judging from statements earlier in the week he was ready to deny, deny, deny.
Incumbency acts like a mental illness on politicians. It corrodes their judgement and inculcates a belief in an immunity from their own bad judgement.
Nevertheless, I question the timing. Ideally they would have put this off even later so that the Republicans would have no hope of replace him on the ballot. But, maybe this revelation has to do with national as well as Florida politics. It fits within the 'culture of corruption' charge the Democrats have been trying to push but hasn't gained much traction in the polling for individual contests.
It may be dirty politics, but this particular mud being slinged was obviously handed to the Democrats by an arrogant, flawed, conflicted, predatory creep.
We don't need to be represented by saints. But, I'd settle for folks who aren't narcissistic creeps. Safe districts make it easier for creeps, both the sexually predatory kind and the feathering their own nests kind, to escape public scrutiny.
His emails are creepy, and if not criminal, clearly abuse his position as a mentor. Regardless of the gender mix of the two folks involved this would be troubling. There's a way to be friendly to someone much younger than you without being creepy. He's a creep, and most likely has done more than just exchange emails with other willing teenagers.
That he didn't choose to quietly fade away and not seek another term speaks to his narcissism and belief that he wouldn't get caught. These exchanges were more than a year old, and judging from statements earlier in the week he was ready to deny, deny, deny.
Incumbency acts like a mental illness on politicians. It corrodes their judgement and inculcates a belief in an immunity from their own bad judgement.
Nevertheless, I question the timing. Ideally they would have put this off even later so that the Republicans would have no hope of replace him on the ballot. But, maybe this revelation has to do with national as well as Florida politics. It fits within the 'culture of corruption' charge the Democrats have been trying to push but hasn't gained much traction in the polling for individual contests.
It may be dirty politics, but this particular mud being slinged was obviously handed to the Democrats by an arrogant, flawed, conflicted, predatory creep.
We don't need to be represented by saints. But, I'd settle for folks who aren't narcissistic creeps. Safe districts make it easier for creeps, both the sexually predatory kind and the feathering their own nests kind, to escape public scrutiny.
26 September 2006
An Admission of Bias?
The English language can be a tricky thing. The multiplicity of available words that have almost the same meaning yet contain a constellation of differing inferrences makes our tongue both clearer and more obfuscatory than most tongues depending on who is using it.
I noticed Drudge's bit of self-promotion through pointing to the book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 written by ABCNews' political director and Washington Post's national politics director John F. Harris.
The first thing I noticed, besides Drudge's gleeful puffing up of himself (which I admire, not condemn), is that the language of the book's title isn't neutral.
Editors inject themselves into the process of titling books, I've watched enough CSPAN Books TV to know that authors often complain that the title a book is published under isn't the one they themselves would have chosen.
Just the same, the choice of verbs tells me something. The book is "taking" the White House. That suggests that the White House is currently possessed by the "wrong" hands. If they were selling this book to Republicans primarily, the editors would have gone with "keeping" as the verb there instead of "taking". Also, in the blurbs on Amazon they speak of demystifying and praising Karl Rove. Again, a book being sold to non-Liberals would not have to justify showing Karl Rove as a non-demonic figure.
Another interesting contrast in the Amazon summary for this book is that for the Bush years they highlight Karl Rove, afterall everyone "knows" that the President is too stupid to be that smart so all the political gamesmanship must have been accomplished by his "Brain". Meanwhile, the Clinton years they highlight Pres. Clinton himself as the political mastermind. Everyone knows that he was always the smartest guy in the room, and that evil little troll Dick Morris had nothing to do with Clinton's political successes.
I'll be interested if media outlets pick this up as an advice book for Democrats specifically, or as a general book on political advice. It seems crystal clear that it is being marketed more heavily towards Democrats/Liberals than it is towards Republicans/Conservatives.
The book itself may be fair, but Random House is clearly assuming they are going to get the majority of their market share from the left.
If the book just happens to be tremendously biased, though, I don't think anyone would be too shocked.
I noticed Drudge's bit of self-promotion through pointing to the book The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008 written by ABCNews' political director and Washington Post's national politics director John F. Harris.
The first thing I noticed, besides Drudge's gleeful puffing up of himself (which I admire, not condemn), is that the language of the book's title isn't neutral.
Editors inject themselves into the process of titling books, I've watched enough CSPAN Books TV to know that authors often complain that the title a book is published under isn't the one they themselves would have chosen.
Just the same, the choice of verbs tells me something. The book is "taking" the White House. That suggests that the White House is currently possessed by the "wrong" hands. If they were selling this book to Republicans primarily, the editors would have gone with "keeping" as the verb there instead of "taking". Also, in the blurbs on Amazon they speak of demystifying and praising Karl Rove. Again, a book being sold to non-Liberals would not have to justify showing Karl Rove as a non-demonic figure.
Another interesting contrast in the Amazon summary for this book is that for the Bush years they highlight Karl Rove, afterall everyone "knows" that the President is too stupid to be that smart so all the political gamesmanship must have been accomplished by his "Brain". Meanwhile, the Clinton years they highlight Pres. Clinton himself as the political mastermind. Everyone knows that he was always the smartest guy in the room, and that evil little troll Dick Morris had nothing to do with Clinton's political successes.
I'll be interested if media outlets pick this up as an advice book for Democrats specifically, or as a general book on political advice. It seems crystal clear that it is being marketed more heavily towards Democrats/Liberals than it is towards Republicans/Conservatives.
The book itself may be fair, but Random House is clearly assuming they are going to get the majority of their market share from the left.
If the book just happens to be tremendously biased, though, I don't think anyone would be too shocked.
I'll Give You One Guess
Larry Kudlow compares Pres. Clinton to Pres. Reagan.
You only get one guess as to who suffers in comparison.
(no fair, you peeked at the answer)
Meanwhile, Moxie is in possession of a Pres. William Jefferson Clinton blow-up doll, and I find that news very disturbing (but the post and pictures generated from this detail are quite humorous).
You only get one guess as to who suffers in comparison.
(no fair, you peeked at the answer)
Meanwhile, Moxie is in possession of a Pres. William Jefferson Clinton blow-up doll, and I find that news very disturbing (but the post and pictures generated from this detail are quite humorous).
25 September 2006
Idle Speculation
Of all the charges against Pres. Clinton after his performance with Chris Wallase on Fox News Sunday, there's one that sticks in my mind.
Did Pres. Clinton suffer a stroke on air?
My father thought that when he first saw the interview on Sunday, and he should know, he suffered a stroke himself six years ago.
Charles Johnson possibly insinuates the same thing here.
He could be insinuating a chemical, rather than purely physical cause for the symptoms, but there was a slurring, a mouth with a droopy corner, and an overall slackness of muscle on one side of the face.
Given all the pathologizing regarding Pres. Bush's appearances that folks on the other side of the political spectrum enjoy engaging in, I wouldn't take this too far.
But it's worth a mention.
Plus, I hope his health is good, he's too valuable for partisan Republicans like myself to die before the '08 election.
For more substantial takedowns of the diatribe go to Patterico and Powerline, while Prof. Althouse goes after Pres. Clinton on more stylistic grounds.
Did Pres. Clinton suffer a stroke on air?
My father thought that when he first saw the interview on Sunday, and he should know, he suffered a stroke himself six years ago.
Charles Johnson possibly insinuates the same thing here.
He could be insinuating a chemical, rather than purely physical cause for the symptoms, but there was a slurring, a mouth with a droopy corner, and an overall slackness of muscle on one side of the face.
Given all the pathologizing regarding Pres. Bush's appearances that folks on the other side of the political spectrum enjoy engaging in, I wouldn't take this too far.
But it's worth a mention.
Plus, I hope his health is good, he's too valuable for partisan Republicans like myself to die before the '08 election.
For more substantial takedowns of the diatribe go to Patterico and Powerline, while Prof. Althouse goes after Pres. Clinton on more stylistic grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)