April 28, 2008

Jeremiah Wright is a terrible person

Why? Because we all know that using Barack Obama's actual middle name is the worst thing anyone could possibly do, ever.

"Barack HUSSEIN Obama," [Wright] said, emphasizing the Illinois senator's middle name dramatically, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. There are Arabic-speaking Christians, there Arabic-speaking Jews, Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking atheists. Arabic is a language, it is not a religion. Stop trying to scare folks by giving them this Arabic name like it's some disease."

April 27, 2008

The NYT is pathetic

When I read this headline in today's New York Times

McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost

my eyes glazed over before I even got to the first paragraph. Nonetheless, I forced myself to wade through the article, because as a dedicated political blogger I post here once a month, whether I need to or not. At the end of it all, I found it a rather sad, pathetic effort on the part of the Grey Lady.

Look, I realize that the Times is going to pull out all the stops to see that the Obamessiah is elected president this year. McCain may be their favorite Republican, but at the end of the day, he's still, well, a Republican. But if this is the horse shit is the best they can up with, I can't help but feel pretty damn good about the McCain campaign.

Deep into the story, the Times grudgingly admits that McCain broke no laws, yet somehow they think it unseemly that his campaign paid so little for leasing the plane in question. But it doesn't take much imagination to envision what the NYT headline would have been if he'd done exactly what they wanted:

Candidate Pays More than Required for Wive's Plane! Inappropriate Transfer of Funds from Campaign to Wife?

Oh well. The good news is that the New York Times is even worse financial shape than McCain's campaign. Gee, I wonder why?

April 19, 2008

Can we distort McCain's record?

Yes we can!

This is beginning to be a pattern. Obama has never appealed to me as a candidate, but I was at least hopeful that he'd represent a break from the sleazy, dirty soundbite politics we've seen too much of lately, in which one side seizes on a phrase or sentence, lifts it completely out of context and deliberately mischaracterizes it.

I guess I was naive. Perhaps Obama fears he can't win an honest campaign against John McCain. He may be right.

(via Glenn)

April 17, 2008

Last night's debate

Lol. Atrios says that Charlie Gibson and George Snuffleupagus were "gang raping democracy" last night because they asked Obamessiah confrontational questions rather than simply genuflecting and prostrating themselves. Yes, that's right. If your preferred candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of facing and uncomfortable question, it's the very same thing as Democracy Herself suffering one of the most brutal, violent crimes imaginable. Whatever.

Anyways, I actually watched the debate last night. I hadn't planned to, but I happened to be visiting some pro-Obama friends' house, and they had it on, and, well, I got sucked in. I thought Obama did better than most of the Monday morning quarterbacks seem to be giving him credit for. I was a bit surprised this morning to find the punditocracy nearly unanimous in viewing Obama's performance as dreadful, but oh well. I often disagree with those folks.

And even though I thought he performed as well as could be expected, he also finally and definitively destroyed any chance that I could be sanguine about an Obama presidency. Hillary I can live with. Obama I can't. He lost me in this exchange with gang-rapist Charlie Gibson. In it, Gibson points out that cuts in the capital gains rate often results in more revenue, while increasing rates results in less. In response, Obama seems to be saying that raising revenue is less important than taking money away from rich people. That's a bit too socialist for my tastes.

Look, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the whole "tax fairness" thing, but why does tax fairness always seem to mean raising taxes? Why couldn't fairness be achieved by cutting rates on earned income to bring them in line with long term capital gains? Or be revenue neutral about it and split the difference. Set them both at (say) 25%.

But no, that doesn't seem to be the direction Obama wants to move in. He seems more inclined to raise every tax he can find -- income to 39.5%, capital gains to 28%, dividends to 39.5%, and the estate tax all the way back up to 55%. To top it all off, his elimination of the FICA cap would add an additional 12.4% at the margin for self-employed entrepreneurs. (For salaried folk, you'd have a 6.2% increase, along with a de facto increase in our corporate tax, already among the very highest in this tax-competitive, global economy, a fact which even Charlie Rangel seems to appreciate.)

Oh well. I'm sure none of this stuff will prevent him from winning the Democratic nomination. Come November, however, I think it'll be a different story.

April 12, 2008

Good luck with that in November

Glenn and Tom have some pretty good roundups on Obama's recent campaign cock-up. I'd have expected this kind of insulting, bone-headed condescension from Michelle, but am a bit surprised that it came from Barack himself.

The Democratic success in 2006 was due in large part to making the party more salable to heartland America. Well, so much for that. This kind of elitist paternalism, so carefully avoided in the mid-term campaign, won't help him make inroads into red America.

I guess I can go ahead and start planning the menu for my John McCain inauguration party. I'm thinking maybe something with a Southwestern motif.

April 10, 2008

It's that time of year again

The political junkie's favorite map is back up and running, although the map on the main landing page is a bit schizophrenic. The red and blue states, as you'd expect, show where McCain is winning or losing to the Democrats, but the brown and pink colors represent which of the Democratic candidates lead the other, and doesn't necessarily suggest that they lead McCain. (Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that the dude used brown and pink to represent Obama and Hillary? I lol'd.)

Anyway, the map will probably make more sense after the Dems are done duking it out. There are previews here and here.

Meanwhile, here's a bizarre poll that has to be regarded as an outlier, but is interesting nonetheless.

A Republican presidential ticket of John McCain and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would beat a Democratic ticket of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama - in either combination - in heavily "blue" New York, a surprising poll showed yesterday.

The Marist College-WNBC survey found a McCain-Rice team ahead of a Clinton-Obama ticket, 49 percent to 46 percent, and an Obama-Clinton ticket, 49 percent to 44 percent.

I happen to think (hope) such a pairing is extremely unlikely. It's hard for me to see what benefit Rice would bring to the ticket, unless it's just naked identity politics ("we'll see your black person and raise you a woman!") I guess I'm a bit skeptical, but still, if you're a Democrat, you can't be too happy about this. If the Dems even have to compete in New York, that's a very bad sign.

March 15, 2008

Another bold prediction

It's time for me to go on record with this one: If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama this year, they will lose. It's possible they could lose with Hillary as well, but I believe that a HRC-McCain race would at least be competitive. By contrast, I think John McCain will beat Obama like a drum.

I've always questioned the conventional wisdom, common in both parties, that Hillary would be easier to beat than Obama. Folks who subscribe to this logic seem to be taking a snapshot of a moment in political history and fallaciously assuming the same political dynamics will obtain in November.

If the election were held today, they may have a point, since early head-to-head polls have thus far seemed to indicate that Obama would fare better against McCain than Hillary (although now that I check the latest numbers, it seems that Obama's advantage, never more than a couple of points, may have already evaporated.) The problem as I see it is that Hillary's numbers are fairly stable, whereas Obama's have nowhere to go but down. I think one would have to be incredibly naive to believe that his current stratospheric popularity can survive intact for 8 more months.

A Democratic friend of mine with no especial fondness for Obama recently confessed that he'd voted for him in the primaries, primarily because he thought Obama stood a better chance at defeating McCain. When I asked, skeptically, why he believed that, he said of Hillary "they're going to swiftboat the shit out of her."

Well yes, they will. But so what? She's been through it all before. What are they going to say about her that hasn't already been said? She's a known quantity, and I doubt that rehashing cattle futures or the White House travel office yet again is going to change her ranking in the polls significantly (unless it's in the upward direction, there being a historical pattern that such attacks often backfire by engendering sympathy for Mrs. Clinton.) Obama, by contrast, has never even faced serious political opposition, much less the no-holds-barred smashmouth brawl that modern presidential campaigns have become. Who knows how well he'll hold up? Judging from the week he's just had, it doesn't look promising.

When you look at the electoral map, the picture looks even more grim. Obama's been kicking ass in states like South Carolina, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Mississippi -- in other words, in states that he doesn't have a prayer of winning in November. In the swing states that could actually decide this election (e.g., Ohio and Pennsylvania) Hillary usually polls much stronger. I can look at the 2004 electoral map and find several blue states that represent possible opportunities for McCain. Can anyone show me a single red state that Obama can win?

I suppose that as a McCain guy, I could just sit back happily and enjoy the train wreck, but I can't. I can't bring myself to hope for an Obama nomination. You never know what might happen. What if McCain's cancer comes back? What if he turns out to be Client Number Eight? I confess that I'd much rather have Hillary there to pick up the ball than Obama.

And I'm sensing that more and more Democrats are beginning to think the same way. We all knew the honeymoon couldn't last. It's winding down now, and I think buyer's remorse is starting to kick in. But will it be too late? Has the contract already been signed, or is there still time to get out of it?

March 10, 2008

Recession

All right, I'm officially ready to use the "R" word now. If Wall Street can't muster a rally on this news, the party's over.

Yay, more deadly sins!

Via K, I learn that the the Vatican has apparently doubled the number of Deadly Sins. Sloth and gluttony will have to make room for new friends such as "genetic modification" and "becoming obscenely wealthy."

Hooray! This brings the percentage of deadly sins I've committed down from 100% all the way to 64%!

March 04, 2008

She's a student of history

Politics makes for great theater. When I heard Hillary say she'd "earned every wrinkle," I had to stop and think why it sounded familiar. Then I remembered the stories of George Washington being called to testify before Congress. He would mount the podium (heh) with a sheaf of papers containing his prepared remarks, examine them, pause, and then very theatrically pull out a pair of spectacles. "Gentlemen," he would say. "I have grown old in the service of this country. And now, it seems, I am growing blind in its service as well." Not particularly subtle, but nonetheless effective. There's nothing new under the sun. Well, not in politics, anyway.

PC lesson number 3682

It's okay to imply, as folks have done for seven years, that the current White House occupant looks like a chimp (which he does), but you're a racist to even chuckle at the suggestion that Barack Obama bears a passing resemblance to Curious George (which, now that I think about it, he kinda does.)

At the crux of this disparity seems to be the fact that Obama is black -- which to mind, he isn't, since he's as much white as he is black, except for those who'd have us go back to the Mississippi "one drop" rule, which I'd like to think we've outgrown by now, except that in some progressive circles we obviously haven't. Sigh.

Anyway, now you know. Don't make that mistake again, h4t3rz!

Hillary, Obama and McCain

When I first read this theory about Hillary's "phone rings at 3 AM" commercial, I dismissed it as conspiratorial.

The Clinton campaign did not release that ad for the sake of Clinton 2008. It is to defeat Obama, for sure. But not now.

Hillary knows she's going down. They issued that ad because they want McCain to win. She thinks she can be a star in the Senate, leader of the Democratic party when he loses.

But the more I thought about it, the more plausible it sounded. It would free Hillary up to have another go in 2012, when McCain would be what, like 90? And even if she were to sit 2012 out, a McCain win would secure the Clintons' positions as party leaders for the foreseeable future.

The only part of it I really don't buy is that she's given up. This may be a plan B, but I think she'll fight for the nomination until the very last superdelegate has been threatened/cajoled/bribed. Not only that (and you can call me crazy) I still think it's possible that she'll bag both Texas and Ohio tonight. We'll see. Either way, it'll be a late night for those of us on the East Coast.

March 03, 2008

Whoa...

...what happened?

February 18, 2008

Just words

I'm sure that by now everyone's seen this video in which Barack Obama supposedly plagiarized Deval Patrick. Do you know what I find fascinating about this video? It's not the alleged purloined words, but the fact that they're so much more compelling and inspiring when delivered by Patrick than by Obama, who's supposedly the Cicero of our times. Forget the plagiarism issue and just watch the video and tell me that Obama doesn't come out looking wan and lackluster in this side-by-side comparison.

February 11, 2008

I'm not dead

Just busy. I'll be back with a proper treatment of the recent development in the primaries soon.

February 08, 2008

PETA is weird

What the hell is wrong with PETA? I am so disappointed in them. And believe me, that's a damned ironic thing for me to say. I usually don't expect much from them other than arrant foolishness, but the one thing I thought I could count on them for was to vigorously and aggressively advocate for the lives and wellbeing of, well, you know, animals and things.

But then Soobee sends me this gem of a news item in which PETA battled (and lost, fortunately) with dog rescue groups to have Michael Vick's pit bulls euthanized. Yes, you read that correctly.

So have to ask, what good is PETA, other than an occasional source of unintentional entertainment?

February 06, 2008

This made me lol

Check out this explanation of why Romney lost last night.

People don't like him because he is richer, smarter, better-looking and more successful than they are, and so much so, that it is impossible for him to camouflage the difference. Oh, they will make claims such as religion or flip flops, but it's all hogwash.

I'm glad to know Mitt's Minions are capable of such brutally honest and unsparing introspection.

February 05, 2008

Identity politics at home

My black lab Zora is wondering what to do tonight. On the one hand, she's black, and likes Obama, but on the other, she's a girl, so she likes Hillary. And yet she likes John McCain because she's been in prison. What's a girl to do?

McCain Derangement Syndrome reaches a new low

Okay, I will not even link to this. I effing refuse. But I've just read right-wing criticism of John McCain that focused on two points.

  1. He was "pampered" in that North Vietnamese prison cell because his father was an admiral.
  2. His refusal to be released and leave his men behind violated his sworn duty as a soldier to seek escape if at all possible.

You sad, pathetic, knuckle-dragging idiots. Do you really want to go to war against McCain with this? If John McCain really violated his oath as a soldier, do you believe for one second that it's somehow a mark against his character, or will hurt him in his campaign?

What the blue f*ck is wrong with you people? I don't even know you! I'm also hearing "conservative" slams against McCain for "pulling strings" in order to get him into Vietnam. Not out of it, but into it. For God's sake, what kind of Republicans are you?

Super Duper Tuesday

Heh, I hope y'all are having as much fun as I am. Listening to right-wing radio hosts having a total meltdown over John McCain is making this one of the funnest days of my life. Mark Levin's voice is actually cracking (heh.) More later when we know more.

North State Blogs
Glenn Reynolds Says
    "If Barry were the last blogger on Earth, I'd read him."
Proud Member of the Alliance


Powered by
Movable Type 3.2