Cynical Nation

When I first learned of John McCain's VP pick I had mixed emotions. I already knew something of Alaska's governor, and admired what I'd heard, but also feared that her rookie status might pose a problem for a ticket that valued "experience."

The first thing I did was to Google all her appearances I could find, including interviews on network television and debates from the gubernatorial contest. In all cases, I found her to be thoughtful, intelligent, and self-confident.

I was somewhat reassured, but still felt a bit on edge prior to her speech at the Republican National Convention. Two minutes into the speech, however, and I just sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed.

But now what's happened? Her latest media appearances have been absolute abortions, and are totally out of character with the "Sarah Palin that I knew (™ Obama.)"

What happened? I guess some of it may be the star high school quarterback who chokes on the big game, when the stakes are high and all the recruiters are watching. But the RNC speech was a homerun (to mix a metaphor), so I don't think that's entirely it.

Rather, I think she's been overcoached. I think the McCain campaign, sensitive to criticism that she may be lacking on foreign policy, drilled her mercilessly, cramming her head full of figures and angles, and training her to always bring the dialog back to the touchstones of memorized talking points and pat rote answers.

In fact, I don't think it, I know it. You can all but see the gears spinning as she's asking herself "How can I bring this back to one of the half dozen points I was trained to focus on?"

That's a damn pity. Sarah Palin was chosen specifically to compensate for some of John McCain's shortcomings, so why all the effort to turn her into John McCain?

Count me squarely in the "Let Sarah be Sarah!" camp. I'd love to get back that spunky, intelligent, self-assured, first-term governor. I'd like to see her be herself and let the chips fall where they may. If she gaffes, she gaffes, but so what? Biden does it every time he opens his mouth.

Sadly, though, I'm not sure this kind of overcoaching can easily be put back in the box. It's one thing to say "Okay, we've changed our minds, just be yourself, " but it's another to actually be able to do it.

Ah well. We'll see. Thursday night.

Posted by BNJ at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) |Discuss

Nancy Pelosi has come under a fair share of criticism for her partisan tirade leading up to the failed bailout vote today. I'll grant you that that kind of partisanship is misplaced if you truly believe a national emergency is at hand, but I don't believe for a minute that it swayed enough votes to turbo this bill.

It comes down to this. Is Nancy Pelosi too stupid to count? Some right-wingers might think so, but I'm not buying it for a second. She can count votes, and she knew damn good and well this thing would go down in flames, IMO. But she also knew what a "House Rejects Bailout Plan" headline would do to stocks, and she knows that continued economic uncertainty and turbulence will benefit Obama in the upcoming election. She just handed the election to Obama on a silver platter.

Posted by BNJ at 07:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) |Discuss

I assumed that one of the benefits of having the Democrats take over Congress was that we'd no longer have to put up with crap like this. No such luck.

U.S. lawmakers approved the creation of a cabinet-level position of copyright czar as part of sweeping intellectual property enforcement legislation that sailed through the Senate on Friday.

Just what we need, another cabinet level czar, this one no doubt designed to spend billions in taxpayer money to harass kids swapping songs online. Oh well, we can always hope he'll be every bit as successful as the "Drug Czar." But that's small consolation. The problem with the war on drugs is not just that it's failed, or that it's squandered vast sums, but that it's caused a genuine erosion of civil liberties in the process.

You know what else is interesting about this article? The Democratic Senate tried to give the dictatorial Bush Administration broad powers to sue copyright offenders on its own, but the White House declined.

However, a controversial measure granting the Justice Department the authority to sue copyright infringers on behalf of Hollywood and the music industry was removed after the White House lobbied against assuming those new powers.

Interesting, huh? It doesn't really fit with the narrative espouse by Bush critics who love to bandy about the term "unitary executive" without understanding what it means, though.

Posted by BNJ at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) |Discuss

It's about 10 minutes, but stick with it. Pity John McCain didn't watch it before last night's debate. It's pathetic how the Democrats are being allowed to frame the narrative on this debacle.

(HT: Patterico)

Posted by BNJ at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) |Discuss

Farewell, Luke To the day I die, I'll never be able to think of you without remembering this.

Posted by BNJ at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) |Discuss

Meh, not too much to say. I liked the format. A little less sound-bitey than most of these things have become.

McCain frustrated me at first by his bizarre refusal to confront Obama's repeated assertion that the whole of our current fiscal crisis is attributable to "eight years" of anti-regulatory ideological zeal on the part of Republican leadership. Granted, there is plenty of blame to go around here, but McCain squandered two great opportunities to highlight specific examples of Democratic culpability. Oh well. And McCain also twice referred to "deductions" as "dividends." Anyone else notice that?

But other than that, did anyone else think that McCain did better on the economic half than the foreign policy bit? Maybe it's just where expectations were set, but I thought McCain was pretty strong on the economy overall.

I think Obama did pretty well too, but after the first hour I could no longer pay attention throughout his lengthy, meandering, rambling responses. According to Lehrer, they both used about the same amount of time, but McCain held my interest with his straightforward and conversation tone, while my eyes would sometimes glaze during Obama's blahblah.

And just like at his convention speech? I though McCain finished strong, and probably did himself some good tonight overall. Thoughts?

Posted by BNJ at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) |Discuss

All right. As I predicted, John McCain is in, and it looks like we're on for tonight. I even went to the trouble to hook up my new cable box so I can actually watch it tonight. I may not liveblog it, but you can always check in tomorrow morning to get my take on it (I'll claim McCain won no matter what, of course.)

So does anyone really believe they'll confine the discussion to foreign policy tonight? What are your predictions? I think it'll probably go something like this.

Obama: “This is a Republican financial crisis, let me just highlight that. Solution? Change. Because we don’t need more of the same.”

McCain: “First of all, let me go on record as saying Black is Beautiful — and that yes, Republicans share the blame for the culture of corruption in Washington. Beyond that, though — are you fucking kidding me with that bullshit?”

Moderator: “Thank you, gentlemen. Incidentally, point deducted from Senator McCain for coded racism, which we’ll identify once we have a chance to think about it.”

Posted by BNJ at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) |Discuss

I doubt I'm the only person to misread this as "Bailout Talks Retarded."

Posted by BNJ at 03:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) |Discuss

You know what pisses me off about the Paulsen plan? He and Bernanke have had months to put together some kind of a plan for addressing this crisis (how long ago did Bear Stearns go under, fer cryin out loud?) Then at the last second, as we stand on the precipice, Paulsen throws together a "THE GOVERNMENT'S JUST GOING TO BUY ALL THE CRAPPY PAPER!!!" plan that reeks of sheer panic, provides for no oversight or accountability, and then presents it to Congress as a done deal. Our elected officials cannot even be allowed to do their jobs and debate the issue, we're led to believe. We simply have to trust Paulsen and rubber stamp the blank check NOW, and hope to holy Hell that the plan has enough zeroes in it to impress the markets and that Paulsen will spend it correctly.

Congressional Democrats had some problems with this too, and led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank (you either have to laugh or cry at that) they slapped together a modified plan, which, if Lindsay Graham is to be believed, contains goodies like funneling a huge chunk of the money to crazy-left organization ACORN.

Not surprisingly, the Republicans balked at that. They in turn proposed a plan that might would have done some good a year ago, but with capital markets seizing up now seems kind of pointless.

So which plan is worse? I think it's all academic at this point, since Nancy Pelosi has already made it clear that she doesn't intend to bring a damn thing up for a vote unless she can be sure that a solid majority of Republicans will go along for the ride. That's leadership for ya.

Bottom line? Congress and the American people aren't scared enough yet. My prediction is that they'll natter on until the DJIA crashes another thousand or two points and then they'll panic and sign whatever bailout package is handy, and we can all just cross our fingers and hope it's something that won't cause more problems than it solves 10 years down the road.

Posted by BNJ at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (21) |Discuss

In a nutshell.

Posted by BNJ at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) |Discuss

Up until this week, you had to read between the lines to see which side the Clintons were on. No more. If I had any lingering doubt, Clinton's refusal to campaign until after the Jewish holidays finished them off. (If you take a careful look at a Jewish calendar this year, you'll see that pretty much means he'll hit the campaign trail for Obama sometime in November.)

And then there's this.

Former President Clinton says if Democrats want someone to dump on John McCain, he's not the guy.

Some members of his party have been complaining that Clinton has not been enthusiastic enough in his support for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, who defeated Clinton's wife in the primary campaign, and heaping too much praise on McCain.

But Clinton told CNN's "Larry King Live" on Wednesday that he doesn't think "dumping" on McCain or his running mate, Sarah Palin, is a winning strategy. He said undecided voters aren't interested in attacks but solutions for the problems they face.

"I just don't believe that getting up here and hyperventilating about Gov. Palin, or Sen. McCain for that matter, is a productive use of a former president's time and is not a vote-getter," he said, adding that he admires McCain even though he disagrees with several of his positions.

And this

Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward. ... "We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."

Hillary has a career and a political future to think about, and therefore at least has to act like she's working to elect Barack Obama. Evidently her husband no longer feels any such obligation, however.

Posted by BNJ at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) |Discuss

I spent the better part of yesterday evening and last night posting on numerous blogs and discussion boards about what a shrewd tactical move I thought it was for John McCain to suspend his campaign to head back to Washington and deal with this bailout bill head on.

I spent so much time and energy commenting on other people's sites that I forgot I had a blog of my own. That's too bad, because if I'd posted all that stuff here (and some of my lines were really, really good) then I would have looked much more prescient and wise and intelligent than I already am!

Why? Because there's some evidence that the polls are already starting to bear me out. Gallup's track shows that McCain has completely closed the gap. It's all tied up now, even though Obama has led by at least three points for more than a week -- and only one third of the data in the mix was taken after McCain's dramatic announcement. Moreover Zogby (yeah, yeah, I know) has McCain up by 2 today, after being down three in the most recent survey.

I recognized this as a winning move as soon as I saw it. It reinforces his whole "Country First" narrative ("I would rather lose and election than blah blah blah...") while at the same time putting Obama in a no-win situation. Either he takes McCain's cue and hurries back to Washington himself (in which case McCain comes across as the leader and Obama a follower) or Obama refuses, and comes across as a glib freshman senator unwilling to set aside temporarily his quest for the White House during a time of national crisis.

Was it a campaign stunt? Of course it was! (Although as Frank points out, one involving motorcycles would have been cooler.) But I also think it was a very effective stunt, and one that also happens to be sound policy.

The reality is that the Fed, the Treasury and Congress are on the verge of putting taxpayers on the hook for the better part of a trillion dollars, in what is arguably one of the most important pieces of financial legislation in a generation. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect both senators to get their asses back to Washington and do the job that the voters elected them and the taxpayers pay them to do -- to debate the merits of this bill and then stand up to go on record with a "yea" or a "nay."

I think that Obama really believed he and McCain were going to get a pass on this one -- that because they were out on the campaign/debate trail, they were going to be able to whistle past the graveyard with a "present" vote. Well it doesn't look that way anymore.

And stunt or no, McCain can pull it off better than most. He has a lengthy track record of subordinating GOP interests for the sake of shepherding through some supposedly important piece of legislation or another, and everyone knows it. The mantle he assumed yesterday looked familiar and natural on him, not affected.

I also predicted (and continue to maintain) that McCain will indeed attend the debate. The suggestion that McCain is afraid to debate Obama one-on-one is ludicrous. The whole debate issue was designed to get Obama to go on record with his priorities. McCain will show up and he will debate, and if he has to do it wearing yesterday's clothes because he just rushed in from DC? Well, that's okay too.

The funny thing is, McCain's been pulling this kind of rope-a-dope with the Dems for as far back as I can remember. You'd think they'd learn.

Posted by BNJ at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) |Discuss

Hanging out with coal miners in rural Virginia, Joe Biden (who boasts an "F" rating from the NRA) bragged up his own supposed "coal miner" cred and tried to allay their fears about the Second Amendment under an Obama administration.

“I guarantee you, Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said angrily. ... “I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.”

Sweet Jesus, did he really say "ain't?" It's funny, but I'm almost too embarrassed for him to laugh. Fortunately for Biden, he understands that his coal-mining brethren are simplistic rubes who lack the intellectual sophistication to see through his shallow, insulting schtick. Otherwise, if his audience weren't hayseed idiots, such a ploy might well backfire!

Dear God, please let Joe Biden go into his "blue-collar gun-loving" burlesque during the debate with Sarah Palin. Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease....

Say, does anyone else remember a time when the Democratic Party didn't have to struggle so mightily to demonstrate that it could relate to the working class? Those were the days, huh?

Posted by BNJ at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) |Discuss

I think my wife wrote this.

What I feel for [Sarah Palin] privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage... When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.... When I see people crowing about her 'acceptable' speech last Wednesday ... I literally want to vomit with rage.

That's quite an image.

Posted by BNJ at 08:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (17) |Discuss

In more avant-garde news from the continent, we learn that a Swiss restaurant is serving food cooked with human breast milk.

Is that legal? It seems to have spawned a bit of regulatory confusion in Zurich.

"Humans as producers of milk are simply not envisaged in the legislation.

"They are not on the list of approved species such as cows and sheep, but they are also not on the list of the banned species such as apes and primates," Rolf Etter of the Zurich food control laboratory said.

The alert reader will note that humans are in fact primates, and therefore presumably covered by the existing ban. Geez, don't those Europeans learn anything in biology class?

Posted by BNJ at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) |Discuss

It's not often I agree with Thomas Frank, but I do think he makes some good points here.

Now comes the fall culture-war offensive, catching the Democrats by surprise as it always does and spreading panic and desperation among their ranks. As the depth of the Republican breakthrough becomes apparent to Democrats, they launch the same feeble counterattacks that failed them last time, prudishly correcting misleading GOP advertisements and crying for the recess monitor when the other side plays dirty.

And none of this works.

Things would go better for Democrats if they recognized the culture war for what it is: a debased form of class war, a false populism in which an "authentic" America rises up against its would-be masters, an effete bunch of arugula-eaters who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." But a visceral feeling of class conflict is what lies at the core of the whole thing: a righteous grievance against wrongful, pedantic rulers. It is so attractive emotionally that I often wish I could sign up for it myself.

Since the 1970s, and with only a few exceptions, the Democratic response to this endlessly recurring attack has been to regard it as something beneath contempt -- which only reinforces the persecution fantasies at the heart of the culture-war myth. Take GOP vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin, for example, the flag bearer for this year's fall offensive. Like every other culture warrior before her, Mrs. Palin presents herself as a person looked down on and sneered at by the high and the mighty, defined as the liberal elite. Look down on or sneer at Mrs. Palin and you have merely reinforced the story, offered an illustration of what the lady is talking about.

Then he goes on to say a bunch of Thomas Frank-y stuff and I lost interest. But it is curious how Democrats have simply dusted off the old 2004 playbook of late, even though it didn't prove especially helpful in 2004... or in 2000, for that matter... or indeed in any recent presidential election in which the Democratic nominee didn't have sterling Bubba credentials. Wasn't that Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

To be fair the GOP also has fallen back on the same old tactics that it has employed ever since Lee Atwater convinced Bush 41 he needed to pretend to like pork rinds in order to defeat Dukakis. That may be no way to run a campaign in an ideal world, but it's hard to argue with its success rate. The only presidential races Republicans have since lost were against Bill Clinton, who's clearly immune from the charges of being an arugula-eating elitist.

Posted by BNJ at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (13) |Discuss

Check it out. If McCain is elected, abortion will be illegal!

Now I'm as pro-choice as they come, but haven't I heard this somewhere before? Beginning, say, around 1980?

OMG!! If Reagan is elected abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Sandra Day O'Connor is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Rehnquist is Chief Justice abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Scalia is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Kennedy is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Reagan is re-elected abortion will be legal! OMG!! If Bush is elected abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Souter is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Thomas is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Bush is elected abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Bush is re-elected abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If O'Connor resigns abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Roberts is appointed abortion will be illegal! OMG!! If Alito is appointed abortion will be illegal!

How much credibility do these folks think they have at this point? Do they really think anyone's listening?

If I thought for a minute that I had the luxury of being a single-issue voter on the issue of abortion, then yes, I would vote for Obama/Biden in a heartbeat. But the reality is that there are many important issues out there, and I come down in the McCain camp on more of them than I do the Obama camp, and will vote accordingly. Still, reproductive freedom is an important issue, and it's unfortunate that its most vocal proponents have diminished their voices to mere background noise with their incessant knee-jerk melodrama and wolf-crying.

Posted by BNJ at 08:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) |Discuss

That's not news to most of us who get our information from sources other than the left-wing smear-and-slander machine, but is worth noting nonetheless. From USA Today:

Weeks after taking office as Alaska's governor in December 2006, Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that sought to ban benefits for the same-sex partners of state workers. It was unconstitutional, she said.

This year, she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted her to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session on oil and gas policy, even though she supported the bills. Former aide Larry Persily said she didn't want to risk offending Democrats, whose votes she needed on energy legislation.
...

[I]n her 21 months as governor, Palin has taken few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. Instead, after she knocked off an incumbent amid an influence-peddling scandal linked to the oil industry, Palin pursued a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules and raised taxes on oil and gas companies.

And she did so while relying on Democratic votes in the Legislature.

"She has governed from the center," says Rebecca Braun, author of Alaska Budget Report, a non-partisan political newsletter. "She has in some small ways supported her religious views -- for example, proposing money to continue the office of faith-based and community initiatives -- but she has actually been conspicuously absent on social issues. She came in with a big oil and gas agenda, which really required Democratic allies to get through."

(h/t: Tom)

Posted by BNJ at 07:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (28) |Discuss

Gallup has the Democrats' edge on the "generic ballot" question down to a mere 3 points, and posts it under the headline "Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive."

I think there is exactly zero percent chance of the Republicans retaking the House this year (because of the sheer number of GOP retirements alone if nothing else) but this poll is nonetheless interesting, given that the Republican "brand" has been in the toilet for years. It's interesting because it proves me right about something I've said for some time now. Now matter how bad party identification numbers and generic ballot preferences look, they can change on a dime, literally overnight, if a sufficiently popular candidate heads up the ticket.

Posted by BNJ at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) |Discuss

I don't watch much TV, even during the silly season. I figure if anything really important happens I can always catch it on YouTube. Consequently I first heard of Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson from some (primarily left-leaning) blogs I was reading last night. What I learned was that Palin was itching to go to war with Russia. Indeed, she said she can't wait to get her finger on that button to nuke those godless commies and turn Moscow into a ruin of smoking cinders. But not immediately! First she's going to burn all books by Russian authors and ban Chicken Kiev from the White House menu (yeah, that's actually a Ukrainian dish, but what do I know? I'm not even governor of Alaska.)

I guess I was a little skeptical, so I went to the Toobs. What I saw was Gibson deliberately pulling her into drawing conclusions based on a hypothetical scenario with Georgia as a NATO member state being attacked by Russia. Palin observed that under NATO's charter, aggression against one member is regarded against aggression at all (the point of NATO being to prevent wars by using this clause as a deterrent.) She went on to add that our response need not necessarily be military. She could have answered the question more eloquently, but I see nothing to fault in the substance of her remarks.

One can, of course, question the wisdom of including a nascent proto-state like Georgia into NATO at this point, but (unless there's been another flip-flop I don't know about) Obama and Biden both seem pretty sympathetic to the idea themselves.

But let's be clear about one thing, conservatives. Foreign policy is not Sarah Palin's strong suit (although honestly, she performed much better in the foreign policy segment than I expected.) I'll defend her when I think it's merited, but in the meantime let's not pretend she's Henrietta Kissinger. Her lack of foreign policy experience is not surprising. She's a governor. No, I'm not saying that's a disqualification, and yes, governors often make excellent national leaders, but no candidate is perfect, and let's not have any illusions about Palin's shortcomings here. She may not be the second coming of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, but there are plenty of other reasons to like her, and like her I do.

And let's be honest about something else, too. Foreign policy is important in this election. Honestly, if Sarah Palin were running for president against Barrack Obama I'd be a bit freaked out, because I think he is every bit as insubstantial as she is on such matters. But guess what? That's not the choice we face. John McCain is running against Obama, and that's about as big a no-brainer as I've ever been presented in my voting life (that means I'm voting for McCain, wiseass.)

Posted by BNJ at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (17) |Discuss

Look what's new on Intrade:

Posted by BNJ at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) |Discuss

Ya think?

Posted by BNJ at 08:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) |Discuss

...is that Andrew Sullivan will be fired before this is all over. In a few short years he's gone from being my favorite blogger to mildly annoying to unreadable and then finally to a grisly train wreck that I can't stop watching. He's clearly been reprimanded for losing his shit under the masthead of a reputable magazine, after which he maintained radio silence for a day or so, but then began to act out in typical passive-aggressive fashion.

But now meltdown has resumed. I think he's no longer capable of restraining his hysteria, no matter how much damage it does to his career or his employer's reputation. It'll be interesting to watch. I feel a bit guilty deriving entertainment from someone's nervous breakdown, but what are you gonna do.

Posted by BNJ at 02:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) |Discuss

I think McCain's "lipstick" ad is a bit silly. Winning candidates don't need to do that kind of thing. Nor do I think Barack Obama intended to call Sarah Palin a pig.

But I also don't think "community organizer" is a racial epithet, and herein lies the irony. We've been taught for years by the left that vicious slurs lie everywhere, hidden and obscured within "dog whistles" or "code words." With an attuned ear, we're told, one can tease them out and decipher them. (Ironically, the left seems better able to decode these "dog whistles" than the right, which kind of defeats the purpose of a dog whistle, but whatever.)

It's a fun game for the left to play -- kind of a cross between a Rorschach test and one of those hidden word search puzzles. But God forbid a Republican wants to take a turn at their fun game for a change. Then they get their backs up and bluster "YOU KNOW DAMN WELL THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT!!!" and Barack Obama goes off another whine fest about how mean and nasty the press is.

But Obama, of course, has dished out worse himself. Doesn't he remember that disingenuous "100 years in Iraq" meme that he clubbed McCain over the head with for weeks when he knew damn good and well what McCain actually meant? Isn't it hilarious that of the four national candidates it's Obama who's complaining about negative press coverage? LOL! Good God, man, sack up! If you really want to be president you'll have to deal with much worse than this.

Heh. Funnest. Election. Ever.

Posted by BNJ at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) |Discuss

I don't really think the whole "lipstick" story is a big deal, but this did make me lol.

Posted by BNJ at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) |Discuss

We have news that the state of Florida will require voters to, you know, actually be who they claim to be before they can vote. Although I can't really explain why, I'm certain that this must be pure, naked racism in its most vitriolic form and must be stopped.

Posted by BNJ at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) |Discuss

A friend of ours sent us a mass-forwarded e-mail of a list of books that Sarah Paln tried to ban while mayor of Wasilla. The list looked awfully familiar to me, so I did some cursory research and determined it to be, as I thought, a hoax.

After sharing the results of my discovery, I was berated for "defending" this "fascist." Evidently I am a terrible person for assuming that healthy, political debate is best served by having access to true, factual information rather than made-up bullshit. The point, evidently, is not to get so hung up on what's "true" or not, but to focus on the fact that Sarah Palin is Evil Incarnate and a fascist-nazi-seal-clubbing tyrant. Silly me.

Posted by BNJ at 07:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (24) |Discuss

I think Ace is right. New marching orders have obviously gone out from the Obama campaign. After two weeks of intense and sustained anti-Palin hysteria have proved ineffective (or perhaps achieved the inverse of their goal) someone decided it was time to shift gears.

Andrew Sullivan has been at the center of this anti-Palin maelstrom from the beginning, breathlessly throwing any morsel of smear or innuendo he can find at the wall to see what sticks (most don't.) Nothing was sleazy or tawdry or unsubstantiated enough to be off-bounds for Sully. Fake baby rumors? No problem. Baseless innuendo about court documents that proved to be nothing? Fine.

Then suddenly, an about face. Last night Sully pens a post lauding Palin to the skies for her personal decisions regarding Trig. Then this morning he reminds us that it's not really about Palin after all, even though he's written about little else for two weeks. Nope, In The End, It's About McCain, he reminds us. Yes, let's shift the narrative back to what it was before the Palin pick, when it looked as if Obama actually had a chance.

And here's a similar headline from the Daily Kos, with an even larger font size: It's about McCain! Yeah, that's the ticket! Of course it is! But dedicated readers of Kos and Sully can be forgiven for not realizing that, hence the need for these timely reminders. Please ignore the previous two-week orgy of anti-Palin shitstorming. It wasn't really relevant. It's all about McCain, you see. Really.

Even the New York Times is getting in on the act. Heh, this is going to be the most funnest presidential election ever.

(PS -- Hey Jill, I think I link to Big Orange more than you do!)

Posted by BNJ at 06:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) |Discuss

Today's language lesson is how to say "go f*ck yourself" in polical-ese. From this NYT piece entitled Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin we find this gem:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said that she stood ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged the campaign not to overestimate the impact Mrs. Clinton could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates.

I'd say the convention didn't quite complete the healing process, wouldn't you?

Posted by BNJ at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) |Discuss

I knew last night's "festivities" could never measure up to Wednesday's Giuliani/Palin fireworks, but it was a real snoozefest. I admire Lindsey Graham as a senator, but he just shouldn't talk. I never "got" Tom Ridge. McCain's speech was okay as far as content goes. It had its moments, but the delivery was... well, McCain. Thank God he has Sarah Palin. I finally woke up and got motivated at the end and then it was over. The last 30 seconds were actually pretty effective, I thought, and will probably appear in campaign ads. For now I'm glad I don't have to watch any more political conventions for a while.

Posted by BNJ at 06:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (22) |Discuss

Okay, it was too late for me to post it last night, but just wow.

I loved Rudy's speech, as I mentioned, especially after the lackluster performances on Tuesday night, but I was a bit worried that Sarah Palin would have to follow such a barnburner (Rudy had originally been scheduled for Tuesday night.) Surely even if she did comparatively well, she'd have to pale by comparison, right?

I have never been more wrong in life. Sarah Palin's speech was a political hydrogen bomb. It was better than any speech I've seen so far this election, and probably better than any speech I've seen in years. Any doubts I might have had about whether John McCain knew what he was doing or not are gone. Dead. Buried.

The speech was a bit slow in the beginning with all the bio stuff, but it was sharp, entertaining, and funny. It contained some of the best ani-Obama lines I've heard yet, and it was flawlessly delivered. It was such a refreshing contrast to humorless lecturing from on high of the Democratic nominee, who still sounds like a constitutional law professor. Palin not only connected last night, but she knocked it right out of the park. Not bad for a rookie politician, huh? Look for the attacks against her to intensify, because as of 11 PM last night there were a lot of frightened liberals out there.

Yeah, I now think John McCain knew exactly what he was doing when he picked Palin, and that he struck political gold in the process. The only downside is that tonight he will have to follow her.

Posted by BNJ at 06:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) |Discuss

Whoa! I didn't even know they made cans of whoop-ass that big, did y'all?

Posted by BNJ at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) |Discuss

I recently implied that Sarah Palin's gubernatorial record placed her to the left of the vast majority of Republicans on gay rights. Not so, according to this survey. It says that 49% of RNC delegates support either gay marriage or civil unions, while 46% oppose both. Perhaps I'm not as out of touch with my party as I thought.

Posted by BNJ at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) |Discuss

Is this where Obama's supporters really want him to be? On CNN arguing that he has more experience than Sarah Palin?

And making it look much worse than it already is, Obama's arguments repeatedly pretend that she is still mayor of Wasilla rather than the sitting governor of the state of Alaska. If she's so obviously unqualified, why resort to intellectual dishonesty to prove your point?

Posted by BNJ at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) |Discuss