 |
 |
Steve Gilliard, 1964-2007
It is with tremendous sadness that we must convey the news that Steve Gilliard, editor and publisher of The News Blog, passed away June 2, 2007. He was 42.
To those who have come to trust The News Blog and its insightful, brash and unapologetic editorial tone, we have Steve to thank from the bottom of our hearts. Steve helped lead many discussions that mattered to all of us, and he tackled subjects and interest categories where others feared to tread.
Please keep Steve's friends and family in your thoughts and prayers.
Steve meant so much to us.
We will miss him terribly.
driftglass: "Ubik"
Ubik Labels: 2008 race, GOP, wingnuttery
is
Reagan.
“Jump in the urinal
And stand on your head.
I’m the one that’s alive.
You’re all dead.”-- Doggerel/quote from “Ubik” by Phillip K. Dick, and also the vibe that came reeking unmistakably off of the Great GOP Reagan Salad Toss last night.
Nope, didn’t see it. Saw the clips, skimmed the transcript, so in case you were all twitchy/curious about the GOP debate, others have already parsed it thoroughly, from various facets and points-of-view.
The penile…(HuffPo)
The British Isle (The BBC)
Absinthial…(via Peggy "The Cetacean Whisperer" Noonan:)"They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest.
"But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson."
Antediluvial…"Three of the candidates indicated that they did not believe in it.
None is a front-runner but even so there will be American scientists who will feel deeply depressed that serious politicians in 2007 can be disputing the entire thrust of modern knowledge about how the world was formed and how it, well, evolved. "
Ductile… (Adj. “Easily led or influenced: capable of being fashioned into a new form:.)
From the transcript:(“ Starting with you, Governor, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America.
Romney: Absolutely.
Moderator: Senator?
Brownback (?): It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
Moderator: Governor?
Gilmore (?): Yes, it was wrongly decided.
Moderator: Governor?
Huckabee (?): Most certainly.
Moderator: Congressman?
Hunter (?): Yes.
Moderator: Governor?
(Unknown): Yes.”
There was excrementitial (every time Tancredo opened his hole) and funebrial (”Dubya Who?”)
Gubernatorial…Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Former Gov. James Gilmore, R-Va.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y.C.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R- Ark.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R- Mass.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, R-Wis. .
Ventriloquial…(From every silken pocket of St. Ronny’s burial jammies came tiny, squeaky voices thrown from the platform yipping ‘No, I’m Reagan!’)
And, of course, puerile…(HuffPo again)
And yet curiously, no one chose the obvious: A science fiction overview.
So here you go.
Once upon a time there was a writer named Phillip K. Dick. Or you might know him as Horselover Fat. Anyway, he wrote lots of fine novels, many thousands of which seem to have been made into movies, which is kind of a pity, since he hacked around at the margins of success his whole life and only got rich after he shuffled off his mortal coil.
There is a lesson in there somewhere probably.
He also wrote a nifty short story called “Faith of Our Fathers” about an alien invader and/or God that passes itself off as a Mao-like dictator by saturating the food and water with hallucinogens and keeping everybody doped to the retinas every minute of every day. It was a memory collision of that story with Ubik that led to the graphic above.
Anyway, “Ubik” is one of his novels which involves a very unusual future (Or is it the present? Or the past?) dominated by some kind of aggressive entropy on steroids...and a consumer product called “Ubik’. Which can be anything. Cigarettes. Peaches. Cars. Dessert topping. Floor wax. Pomade. Liver pills. Anything.
Here may or may not be some of the advertisements for Ubik lifted from various sites:"Friends, this is clean-up time, and we're discounting all our silent electric Ubiks by this much money. Yes, we're throwing away the bluebook. And remember: every Ubik on our lot has been used only as directed."
"Wake up to a hearty, lip-smacking bowlful of nutritious Ubik toasted flakes, the adult cereal that's more crunchy, more tasty, more ummish. Ubik breakfast cereal, the whole-bowl taste treat! Do not exceed recommended portion at any one meal."
"If money worries have you in the cellar, go visit the lady at Ubik Savings and Loan. She'll take the frets out of your debts. Suppose, for instance, you borrow fifty-nine postcreds on an interest-only loan. Let's see, that adds up to- "
“And remember: every Ubik in our lot has been used only as directed.”
“The best way to ask for beer is to sing out Ubik.”
“Your husband will say, Christ, Sally, I used to think your coffee was only so-so. But now, wow! Safe when taken as directed.”
“Remember: Ubik is only seconds away. Avoid prolonged use.”
“So try Ubik. And be loved. Warning: use only as directed. And with caution.”
“If money worries have you in the cellar, go visit the lady at Ubik Savings and Loan.”
And all the while, our protagonist -- the very confused Joe Chip -- desperately tries to figure out what in the Hell is going on.
Like the GOP, he does not know for sure what is real anymore and what is not...
[[SPOILER ALERT. Advance no further if you want to remain blissful virginal regarding certain Exciting!Plot!Points of the novel. SPOILER ALERT]]
Why are the people and things he knows aging, dying and putrefying around him at phenomenal speed?
Is it some ravaging disease?
Or is everything around him devolving through time? Is something flinging him backwards towards 1939 like a stone skipping across a pond?
Or is he trapped in a cryonic mausoleum in his own time with other half-deads just like him. Sealed into his own mind and hoving between this world and the grave while his life force is gobbled up by something unseen and unstoppable.
The cues he gets via every mass media outlet he sees, reads or hears seem to be directed at him personally, but the messages are deformed and cryptic. All he gets are the ads, and comes to understand that it is only the proper and continuous application of the omniproduct -- “Ubik” (use as directed) -- that is keeping his reality propped up.
Only Ubik keeps terrifying forces beyond his reach and comprehension safely at bay.
Joe never quite truly learns what Ubik is; only that it is the salvation of his reality, and is being offered you today only for the Low!Low! Price of...“So if looming political annihilation and the end of your theocrat sprint towards Democracy’s end-zone is giving you the collywobbles, remember there is nothing as full of electorally refreshing, memory-wiping, pig-people-pleasing, Elmer Gantrifying, hyperpatriot yumminess as good ol’ fashioned American-made Ubik.
*(Prolonged use may cause gastric distress, uncontrollable anal leakage and fascism.)
“Remember, Ubik/11/2001 changed everything, and you are either with Ubik or with the terrorists”*
- posted by driftglass
Ice Weasel: "Our Ruling Class"
Our ruling class (with a large hat tip to Ezra Klein)
Some questions and an image from ice weasel
bush-Clinton-Clinton-bush-bush
The above are the names of men who served the last five presidential terms in this country. Think about that for minute. The ponder the rest of the family legacies in congress and in state government. Then add in some thought about the small group of people in private industry that wield influence and create legislation. Senators sons become governors and then, senators. There's a small pool of names that seem to always be somewhere in the mix that our government is. In a nation of hundreds of millions, why is that? And perhaps more importantly, is that good for us a nation?
Representative democracy was devised in a time when getting around was difficult. In a nation that could, quite literally, take days or weeks to travel the length and breadth of representative democracy made sense. In a time when the fastest form of communication was something on horseback (and later the railroad). Electing representatives was just that. "This person speaks for me" (or speaks for "us" if you prefer) because I can't find out in a reasonable time what is going at the capitol.
But in a day of cellular communications, email and the net how much representation do I need?
The large mammal in the room I'm ignoring here is, how many people are truly able to represent themselves even in the modern age.
So leaving that aside, I'll the question again. Does representative democracy serve us or do we, the vast majority of citizens, serve it?
I'm not playing concern troll trying to score some libertarian points. Frankly, while idealistically I see some of the classic libertarians ideals as intriguing in practice it's never been more than a cover for republicans who didn't want to be called republicans. Libertarians are mostly spoiled children who only want government to protect them and no one else. A nation of rugged individuals with trade restraints. What representative democracy has given us is the concentration of civil power in a smaller and smaller group of people that have tended to be more and more disconnected to the actual people they represent. So in a time when we don't
necessarily need the mechanics of a representative government, why do we cling to it? Or is it perhaps the government itself that's clinging to it?
bush-Clinton-Clinton-bush-bush
What's next?
- posted by Ice Weasel
Uncommon Sense: "Man arrested for threatening to Kill Hillary"
This news item from Uncommon Sense Labels: 2008 race, Hillary, wingnuttery
A Shreveport man was arrested for threatening to kill Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is scheduled to be in Baton Rouge to address the National Conference of Black Mayors.Richard Ryan Wargo, 10301 Evangeline, Shreveport, was booked into Parish Prison on counts of terrorizing, communicating false information of planned arson, simple possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
State District Judge Mike Erwin set the $1 million bond Thursday.
[...]
The warrant says a classmate of Wargo?s told an LSU police officer the two students were talking when Wargo made the threat.
Wargo told the other student that he was interested in committing an act of terrorism, and that it would be a "national event," the warrant says. He asked if the other student was interested in participating, the warrant says.
When asked if the act of terrorism was politically motivated, Wargo nodded his head, and said, ?Hillary Clinton,? the warrant says.
- posted by Uncommon Sense
Jesse "Doc" Wendel: "Abraham, Martin and John"
Labels: 2008 race, obama, wingnuttery
No Black Men Allowed in the Big House
Breaking news -- The US Secret Service has been ordered to give protection to presidential candidate Barack Obama, by the Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, after consulting with Congress. No details of Obama's protection, or of the deliberations leading to the decision will be released. (This is normal for any Secret Service protection.)
According to their website, the US Secret Service normally provides protection of major presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and their spouses, within 120 days of a general presidential election.
In the words of Sesame Street's Cookie Monster, One of these things is not like the other things. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you guess which thing is not like the other thing, before I finish my song...
Gee children, how many of you can guess how Senator Barack Obama is not like all the other presidential candidates?
One of my earliest memories is my mother crying They've killed him, they've killed him, the day President Kennedy was shot, and all the women in our long block/cul-de-sac weeping on each other, the father's being as stoic as they could, us children only understanding something terrible had happened.
I was older when Reverend King was murdered and then months later when Bobby Kennedy was killed as well. I remember in both cases how I lost part of my heart. Years, many years later, in my twenties (the 1980's), I volunteered at self-help courses held in the old Ambassador Hotel in LA, and as I took breaks in the kitchen, sometimes I'd just stop and think, Here. He died right here.
People are threatened by the idea of a woman president. You and I don't get the threat part of Hillary's race, because she's, well, Hillary, and she's lived under the bubble since roughly 120 days before President Clinton was elected, way, way, way long ago. That half of the United States can't stand her, and 30% of the US hates her breathing guts... well, we don't think about it. That some people would almost rather die than see a woman elected; we don't think about that either. Her Secret Service protection is rock solid and knows how to protect the Clintons. A presidential campaign is one more day at the office for them and it's Hillary, so we don't think about it.
Obama... now, that's a horse of a different color. Pun intended. If there's one gut emotion even more triggering, even more dangerous to that part of the US than a woman president, it's a black president. Unless Obama announces he is not only black, but gay, there isn't anything he can do to be more of a emotional threat to the part of those people which is the non-thinking emotional knee-jerk racist response they learned in childhood at their daddy and mommy's kitchen table. And nothing is going to change that except them growing older. It's a demographics issue and we're winning, but that doesn't help right now.
So...
For the people who wonder why Affirmative Action. For the people who wonder why Busing. For the people who wonder why projects targeted to help people in the inner cities, and genuine welfare, and all the programs of the federal government for the poorest among us, many of whom are African-American...
Just please notice that the simple act of a black man running legitimately for President of the United States is enough to bring enough bullshit, enough hatred, enough credible threats, so much goddamn heat down that Congress asked Homeland Security who ordered the US Secret Service to provide protection to the candidate over one and a half years before the election. Not 120 days -- 1.5 years.
This is how scared some fools are of a black man sitting behind the desk in the big house.
I don't know whom I'm voting for yet, but I tell you what. Obama's got serious stones. Go baby go. Make those mother-fuckers eat their hatred. Make them eat it raw.Obama placed under Secret Service protection
Raw Story
Published: Thursday May 3, 2007
The US Secret Service will provide a security detail for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as he continues his presidential campaign, the Department of Homeland Security announced today.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff authorized the security detail after consulting with Congress, CNN reported today. No further details about Obama's protection were announced.
It is unclear whether any specific threats against the senator led to the Secret Service protection. The Secret Service commonly provides security details assigned to high-profile presidential candidates.
Obama's campaign clashed earlier this year with a self-described pedophile who posted pictures of Obama's daughter online. The Smoking Gun published a letter from Obama's attorney to the man, Lindsay Ashford, demanding the pictures be removed, as RAW STORY reported previously.
Text of Secret Service statement follows:
#
Secretary Chertoff has, after consultation with the congressional advisory committee, authorized the United States Secret Service, to protect presidential candidate Senate Barack Obama.
As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations or assessments that led to protection being initiated. For security reasons we will not release the timing, scope or details of any protective operations.
#
- Posted by Jesse "Doc" Wendel
Edwards commercial
i like it. what about you?
- posted by Jim in LA
Uncommon Sense: "John McCain - Presidential Hopeless"
Image of the year - thanks US Army!
Thanks to Uncommon Sense for this great crosspost!
There is more evidence that "presidential hopeful" John McCain's campaign is over even before it has formally begun.
McClatchy reports that in New Hampshire, where McCain gave George W. Bush the fright of his life during the 2000 primaries, Republicans consider him old, sad news.``Compared to a year ago, he’s not doing so well,’’ said Dick Bennett, a New Hampshire-based pollster. ``He’s lost support. It isn’t like it was eight years ago. He’s holding his own, but it isn’t anything like it was.’’
I find ironic the New Hampshire pollster's opinion that McCain is not doing as well as he was "a year ago." It was exactly one year ago that I observed a serious structural problem with McCain's candidacy. The problem was McCain. He did not seem to have any idea what he was doing. His craven currying for favor with the extreme right was accompanied by a political tone deafness that was surprising in someone the media took so seriously as a presidential aspirant.
The most recent survey by Bennett’s firm, the American Research Group, found McCain still holding an edge over the field, but by a much narrower margin. He lost 6 percentage points in the first three months of this year - as did Giuliani - while Romney gained 8.
A common complaint among Republicans here is that McCain lost the rebel quality that they liked so much in 2000.
``He’s trying too hard to appeal to all parts of the Republican Party. Appealing to all parts of the party is a death knell,’’ said Carlisle. ``He looks old and tired. He is old and tired.’’
``His time is past,’’ said John Tinios, a caterer and restaurateur from Portsmouth.
In April, 2006, McCain was attempting to find a coherent, politically viable position on the immigration debate that was raging at the time.
He challenged an audience of AFL-CIO tradesmen on the question of whether Americans were willing or able to work the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrants are performing increasingly. As the Associated Press reported at the time:McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.
A few things about this account were astonishing. First, the idea that McCain did not seem to know how much money is 50 dollars per hour. At 40 hours a week, that's an annual income of $104,000. Is there anybody reading this who would not pick lettuce for $104,000 a year? Show of hands. That's what I thought. For a hundred grand a year, I would pick lettuce with a hypertensive rhesus monkey tied to my back. It was an incredibly stupid way to illustrate whatever point McCain was trying to make.
Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.
"I'll take it!" one man shouted.
McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."
Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.
But aside from that, I could not understand why a candidate for the presidency of the United States thought nothing of walking into a union hall and insulting the work ethic of unionized tradesmen. While you're at it, why not go to the Vatican and call Jesus' mother a whore? More or less the same thing.
A year ago, McCain was desperate, flailing and clueless about immigration. Today, he is desperate, flailing and clueless about Iraq. The only difference between McCain's hopelessness then and his hopelessness now is that the news media have begun to recognize it for what it is.
- posted by Uncommon Sense
Nikkos: "Tancredo Joins La Raza"
Tancredo supporters rejoice at the news
Thanks to Nikkos for this piece!
The Tancredo for President Campaign would like to remind you, the American voter, that Rep. Tancredo was bashing Spanish and the ghetto-dwelling people that speak it LONG before ol’ Newt even knew the difference between a Taco Bell Crunch Wrap and a Crunch Wrap Supreme (turns out it’s the sour cream).
Why, it was only yesterday that I entertained the nativist’s wet dream ticket for 2008: Gingrich/Tancredo. Apparently Newtie’s not the only one concerned that the rest of the GOP herd will leave them in the proverbial dust, as Tancredo made it official and announced his candidacy via ham radio from an undisclosed location in Iowa.
Finally, a politician that’s serious about the issues facing America today: immigration, immigration, immigration and Duane “Dog” Chapman.
It should be fun watching Newt and Tancredo trying to out-crazy each other, although announcing separate bids for the Presidency may simply be shrewd strategy on their part: I mean, it's not like Newt and Tom can be at EVERY gun range in the country at the same time. This allows them to divide and conquer, as it were. Plus, just think how relieved the rest if us will be when they ultimately join forces and combine their respective campaigns into one huge electoral juggernaut (ahem).
(Being a speechwriter for either of these guys must be hell. See, when you're a raving nativist posing as a viable candidate, there are an awful lot of turns of phrase that are simply verboten, due to their unfortunate historical connotations. There I go again.)
Link 1: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5176541,00.html
Link 2: http://myfriendscallmenikkos.blogspot.com/2007/04/keeping-those-stereotypes-alive.html
Link 3: http://www.teamtancredo.com/issues.asp
Link 4: http://www.teamtancredo.com/chapmansupporters.asp
Link to my blog: http://myfriendscallmenikkos.blogspot.com/
- posted by Nikkos
LowerManhattanite: "Frog and Toad"
Labels: 2008 race
See Mike and Fred walk/half-run, Walk/half-run boys....walk/half-run!
Thanks to LowerManhattanite for this great piece!
I read the news today, oh boyyyy....about a lucky man who made the grade...
So. Rudy's supposedly--gasp!--"p*ssy-whipped", and now albatrossed with his mobbed-up former BFF?
Ooh! Like, can you believe McCain was like gonna...like totally friggin' back-stab his like...own friggin' party in '01? Like...whoa!
Romney's flippin' around like a meth-ed up halibut. ¿Tom Tancredo? ¡Es mas loco! P*ss-poor few "heart" Huckabee.
Who you gonna call?
Say hello folks, to Frog and Toad. Respectively, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and fake-*ss New York D.A. Arthur Branch--a.k.a. Tennessee's own Fred Thompson. At least...that's who certain desperate GOP kingmakers seem to be trying to foist on their listless. knuckle-dragging maybe-sorta-kinda likely voters. But, it begs the question--"Why, oh why wouldn't the mucho-married and ethically compromised Rudy, the doddering retread McCain, and the fork-tongued Romney ultimately...be...really...
You know...attrac-...
-tive...
Um. Uh. You know--like to the uh...voters. Hmmmm.
Yeah. I gotcha. Well, let's look at the two "studs" folks are so hot to draft, shall we?
His name is Michael R. Bloomberg...billionaire. He owns a mansion and a yacht. And several jets. And a business news empire. A skyscraper or two. As well as the office of Mayor Of The City Of New York, presently. His credentials? Five billion of 'em, baby--with George Washington's face printed in green on each one. He's a "moderate" republican--which means he'd never, never ever let the word "n*gger" cross his lips, so stop bothering him about those other mean republicans who would, dammit! He's too busy "moderating" stuff, okay? And this froggy-visaged, elfin savior of the GOP is able to call his good friend, Me-first-o-crat Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman on the phone and GET. SH*T. DONE!
Why, look at this joint to-do list from the fellas:
From The Desk Of Joe Lieberman and Michael Bloomberg
TO DO:
1.) Speak in a grave faux-important monotone about EVERYTHING--This will give your Napoleonic *ss some GRAVITAS!
2.) Go to skate shop to get new kneepads. Recycle old ones as coffee filters.
3.) Pat each other on back. Remember to wipe yellow residue from hands afterward.
4.) Remember to tear Dems new *ssholes at least twice daily. (*Joe, as this will constitute Cold Turkey for you, you get three.)
5.) Don't forget method acting class take-home exercise: Portray a human Tucks Medicated Pad. Your motivation? The President's *ss.
Yes... the key component in the Bloomberg charm--beyond the five billion self-financed ones, is that well-documented, down-the-middle, moderate stance on things. He appeals to the mushy center, that flabby, spare-tire of voters too lazy to work themselves into informed-voter condition. You know...supposedly everybody. How mellow it must be to come down on no one side or the other and be completely, blissfully non-partisan.
Or you know...not.
"For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.
----------------------------------
But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.
These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.
The totally down-the-middle Mr. Bloomberg not only signed off on this gross abuse, but backs it still--defending the city's withholding of info about the over-the-top spying on progressives using the day-old, dishwater-weak excuse that release of the documents would inflame and put the city at a disadvantage in defending against the numerous lawsuits resulting from the city's extreme "gulag-ing" anti-GOP protesters. Why, oh why pray tell, would disclosing the truth prejudice a case...unless the truth indicated some level of wrong-doing? You see, I take a very, very dim view of governmental spying on American citizens. My family was a target of government surveillance in the 60's and 70's--victims of the pre-Cointelpro excesses of the FBI and the NYPD's infamous "Red Squad". Bristling at overzealous police surveillance and agent provacateur-ism doesn't spring from mere tin-foil hat paranoia. Google the name Fred Hampton to see what unfettered, crazed police skullduggery can result in. It ain't f*cking pretty. Nearly 2000 people were rounded up and locked away during the convention--often with none of the due process mandated by law. Marchers herded by police and tricked into arrest traps, detained for days without outside contact, with their personal property unjustly withheld (including medicines)--in some cases to this very day--and destroyed. And the vast majority of those arrested broke no laws--they were merely in many cases in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in draconian, willy-nilly sweeps. Yet Bloomberg, this so-called paragon of fairness supports this ridiculously partisan bullsh*t---In addition to displaying a general and well-enforced distaste for public exercises of First Amendment rights via protests of any sort in the city. Sprinkle in an officious disdain for the plight of the city's middle class, as evidenced by his "thugs" name-calling during the transit strike, his uncaring, "let them eat cake" attitude while hammering NY'ers with unfair post-blizzard fines and tickets, and his misplaced Mike Brown-ish backing of ConEd when they pig-f*cked the handling of the Astoria blackout last year, and the Mister Perfect veneer he's cultivated assiduously through a compliant media tarnishes like a "gold" chain bought from an alley hustler.
Oh, and don't let his bottom-of-the-deck finagling of the West Side Stadium deal get out to the rest of the country, where people as a rule give the voodoo stink-eye to even hints of municipally-funded stadium bullsh*t.
"Ding!" Bellhop! take Mr. Bloomberg's baggage will you? Yes...I think you'll need to make two trips.
Onto Mr. Thompson now. Or, "Toad" for this discussion. Leave us to peruse his appeal. This lumbering, hangdog, mountain of southern manliness! This champion of the rope-belted Perfesser Glenn Reynolds--fellow disingenuous scolds and Tennesseans both. Possessor of a honeyed, Eeyore-ish drawl, which he wraps around folksy catchphrases and homilies that'd make even Dan Rather say "Um...what the f*ck did that mean?" A "star" of Law & Order in his role as the anachronistic, imported-from-East-Bumf*ck, Manhattan D.A. Arthur Branch--antagonizing the belief suspension of every viewer of the show, save for those few flyovers who you can best bet, rooted for William Windom's Prosecutor Gilmer to triumph over Gregory Peck's Atticus Finch in "To Kill A Mockingbird".
But, but--the real selling point of the Shar-Pei faced, would-be candidate lay in something more tantalizing. It's that pathological GOP quest for someone new to slip on the smiling Reagan mask. The glamorous mask that allows one to push for the vilest, most retrograde sh*t imaginable, but get away with it because of a bit of Hollywood charm. So, as Ron Silver's too C-list these days (and too Jewish for a hateful Grand Olde Party), and Schwarzenegger can't "Hasta la Vista" the Constitution away, the mantle falls to ol' croaky Fred--who make no mistake, deftly espouses the freeper wet-dream list of poisonous policies, baked deep in a rich, gooey cupcake of message delivery for those whose addiction to political "sweets" trumps the common sense of how bad they are for you in the long run.
Alas, our "baker" is a well-known lazy son-of-a-b*tch. Reknowned for his sloth and flagging interest during his brief tenure in the Senate, and doubly demonstrative in his ponderous, galumphy performance style. Not a helluva lot of fire in that broad, prosperous belly of his. The image the right wants to sell of Thompson is that of folksy Sheriff Andy Taylor. The reality is more like Griffiths' twisted, down-home Lonesome Rhodes character--shot through with a heapin' helpin' of "Paw" from "The Hillbilly Bears".
So there they sit...the two of 'em. Frog and Toad--croaking out their talking points for all to hear. Waiting for the call to come from on high, for a draft, or for the other candidates to stumble...for opportunity to alight upon their lazy lips. Closer...closer, until..."shlup!" a quick lick of the tongue--and down the hatch it goes. Mmmmm-mmmmm! Ain't the party's nomination tasty? 'Specially when you don't have to work too hard for it. I mean, yeah, the waiting part's kinda hard to swallow--like hairy fly's legs, but oooooh, that not having to "bust your *ss like everybody else" part? Man, that goes down insect entrails smooth.
Of course, in reality...nothing goes down quite that smoothly. The GOP's '08 Presidential standard bearer's gonna have to face up to the brutal burden of...well, being the GOP's '08 Presidential Standard Bearer--a thing as desirable to the American people these days as hearing Sanjaya Malakar warble Caruso's greatest arias. Backwards. To techno beats. And both of these men are too easy to tie to this runny bed-sh*t of a presidency through their supportive words and ugly actions over the years. Plus, you read the papers these days, kiddies-- "It's hard out here for an amphibian" . :)
Problematic? Oh, you damn well betcha. And with that, let's leave it to the noted late-20th Century philosopher, Chief Clancy Wiggum to ask the question we'll all be asking before too long. :)
- posted by LowerManhattanite
LowerManhattanite: "Charlatan"
Two iconic images, brought together as one
Thanks to LowerManhattanite for this fantastic piece!!!
Sung to the tune of Glen Campbell's "Galveston")
Charlatan, a Char-la-tan...
My menda-ci-ty's a' showin'.
I know my legacy I'm blowin'...
And still I run...though I'm a Char-la-tan.
Charlatan, a Char-la-tan...
I can't stop my campaign's crashing.
Remaining integrity I'm trashing...
I'm damn near done...'cause I'm a Char-la-tan.
Helplessly, I see my fiefdom totter,
Without a care--sold my soul selfishly.
And pity poor war-whore, meeee.
All the "Straight Talk" sh*t I used to run...
Charlatan, a Char-la-taaaaaaan!...
I can't help my pro-surge lying...
'Bout who is, and who ain't dying...
'Bout a senseless war, I know deep down cannot be woooooon...
I'm a Char-la-tan! A Char-la-taaaaaaan!
(Song fades out to the percussive “Booms” of mortar rounds and hi-hat sniper fire accents.)
(With apologies to the great Jimmy Webb)
- posted by LowerManhattanite
Sky Bluesky: "Bad Interviewing 101"
Sexy or just manipulative?
Thanks to Sky Bluesky for this great and insightful cross-post - THANKS SKY!
The interviewer: Katie Couric.
Subjects: John and Elizabeth Edwards.
First question: establish the terms of the discussion.Elizabeth, first and foremost, how are you feeling?
Translation: we're not going to talk about anything except for your cancer.
Next, keep the interview focused on the single area that you've selected.Have you found that people are relating to you a bit differently with this news?
Have you received any additional information the last couple of days about where the cancer might have spread other than this area of your ribs?
Tell me about that roller coaster.
Tell me what went through your mind when you looked at that bone scan?
Were you terrified you might lose your wife?
Note: use loaded, subjective words whenever possible. If you can, tell the subject what to think.That must have been hard once again to have to face your kids and to talk to Emma Claire and Jack who are 8 and 6. That is tough.
Make sure to remind your subject about their children and their ages. They may have forgotten.Can you describe the decision making process for me in terms of what should we do now? Do we stay in? Do we suspend it temporarily? Do I call the whole thing off? Do we call the whole thing off? How did that unfold?
If you ask about another topic, make sure it's in the frame that you have already cho. In the case, ask about the presidential race in terms of the cancer. Don't ask any questions about why the subject might actually want to run for president.At your press conference, you were both extremely confident, very upbeat.
Elizabeth said, "Right now we feel incredibly optimistic. I don't expect my life to be significantly different."
And I think some people wondered if you were in denial, if you were being realistic about what you were going to be facing here.
"Some people" is a good way to avoid saying "cynical right-wing commentators."Your decision to stay in this race has been analyzed, and quite frankly judged by a lot of people. And some say, what you're doing is courageous, others say it's callous. Some say, "Isn't it wonderful they care for something greater than themselves?" And others say, "It's a case of insatiable ambition." You say?
Again, use the pronoun "some" to cover up that you're pulling questions from right-wing blogs and commentators.Here you're staring at possible death...
And you're thinking, "I don't want to deprive the country of having my husband lead us."
Politics, as you know, can be a cynical business. You didn't know that? Glad I... (laughter) I'm glad I could teach you something today.
It's a clever strategy to make jokes about cynicism while you're asking cynical questions of the subject. It throws them off.Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this.
See how helpful the "some would say" construction is? This is a great way to call someone a goddamn liar without actually putting yourself on the spot.Some people watching this would say, "I would put my family first always, and my job second." And you're doing the exact opposite. You're putting your work first, and your family second.
I guess some people would say that there's some middle ground. You don't have to necessarily stay at home and feel sorry for yourself, and do nothing. But, if given a finite – a possibly finite period of time on the planet – being on the campaign trail, away from my children, a lot of time, and sort of pursuing this goal, is not, necessarily, what I'd do.
They're 6 and 8. They're still baby birds.
Again, they may have forgotten how young their children are. If you can, bring photos so they remember what their children look like.Even those who may be very empathetic to what you all are facing might question your ability to run the country at the same time you're dealing with a major health crisis in your family.
Can you understand their concern, though, Senator Edwards, that gosh, at a time when we're living in a world that is so complicated and so dangerous that the president cannot be distracted by, rightly so, caring about his wife's situation?
If you talk politics at all, make it as vague and meaningless as possible. Extra points if you can subtle refer to terrorist threats without using the word "terrorism."You said, this weekend, "I am definitely in the race for the duration." If you want to give the honest answer, how can you say that, Senator Edwards, with such certainty? If, God forbid, Elizabeth doesn't respond to whatever treatment is recommended, if her health deteriorates, would you really say that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some people would say that Katie Couric should lose her job. Others have suggested that Couric should be kept on light-hearted stories: interviewing musicians, actors, and Muppets. You say?
- posted by Sky Bluesky
Jo Public: "JOE KLEIN on Obama and Sharpton"
Takes no guff
thanks to Jo Public for this good grab from Joe Klein's TIME blog - THANKS JO!
You know, being a white girl from Bensonhurst, I tend not to actively participate in discussions on race -- only because I know I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the subject. So in the past, when discussions would crop up here about, say, Barack Obama or Al Sharpton, I preferred to simply read what Steve, Lower Manhattanite and others have to say. I figured they're much better informed than I am, and if I shut up, I'll learn a thing or two. And I HAVE learned, and I appreciate it.
But those days are over. Everyone here can get outta the way. Because JOE KLEIN's on it.
link
Sharpton, obviously aggrieved by Obama's good press, says "Why shouldn't the black community ask questions? Are we now being told, 'You all just shut up?'"
No, just you, Al.
Well, I guess Sharpton has no choice but to shut up now. Because Joe Klein said he should. And what Joe Klein says, you know, matters and all.
- posted by Jo Public
DeeLuzon: "A Dream Team for the Ages"
Labels: 2008 race
Cute, cuddly, and electable
Thanks to DeeLuzon for this FIRST EVER POST - nice work, Dee!
if you're reading this, it's been accepted. as this is the first time i've ever posted anything more than a brief comment, please be kind!
anyway, here goes. i have a fantasy of how a bloodless revolution could be pulled off right here in the land-that-once-dreamed-of-a-more-perfect-union.
i was a post-war kid (born 1951) and learned most of what i know from new york's wor's "million dollar movies." this means that my sense of the twenty years before my birth was formed by a bunch of leftie hollywood writers (yeah, the more things change...). so, thanks to the brothers warner and sam goldwyn, i have always believed that the new deal was a really good thing which led inexorably to the civil rights movement, the great society and, among many other services originally devised for the benefit of the people and not the corporations, the food & drug administration. all good things. when i was a kid, we learned (in school, mind you. hell, in ELEMENTARY school!) about the tva bringing electricity to the rural south and desperate, depression oppressed masses finding work and dignity building great projects for the improvement of their country. by the time i was in college, bobby kennedy (who was the last politician who knew how to take our romantic awareness of the recent past, fuse it with the idealized hope of accomplishing similarly great things and then energize people to actually DO something) was dead and Nixon was in, bringing with him the young men who grew up to be the the lipless, white guys who've finally realized THEIR dreams of wiping out everything i thought was good about america in order to leap backwards in time to exactly the day before things began to get better. [on a side note - maybe, after the revolution, the reeducation program should consist of being confined to one's home with a cable selection that ranges from Turner Classic Movies to AMC to programming provided by the late, great Z channel in L.A.] What's amazing is that, despite interludes of carter (remember, the one who was destroyed for suggesting we turn down the thermostats and cut back on gas consumption?) and clinton (who hardly inspired civic idealism, but did eliminate the deficit and didn't want to feed school children catsup for lunch), the aging, lipless, white guys have managed to kill enough time working their self-interested magic that there's really no "recent past" about which to wax nostalgic, anymore.
in other (and lots fewer) words - if they're not teaching kids about evolution, i'm guessing there's not much talk of the tva, anymore. and i KNOW they're not teaching about how the titans of industry pooled their resources to create the materiel of WWII, let alone about guys like boeing and douglas working together to develop and streamline the production of planes and ... with the help of tens of thousands of people on the home front and at war, actually doing it. in a matter of months.
which moves me along to the notion of doing things, not talking about things. it ought not be just a nike slogan. they've turned us into a "service society" and all anyone does is talk about doing things or watch other people doing things on tv . it's not like there's nothing to do, either. there are all those roads to rebuild, all those schools to rebuild, all those hospitals to rebuild, all that liberty to rebuild. not to mention all those solar powered roof panels to build and install, all those efficient batteries to develop and mass produce, all those local farms and businesses to reestablish (so that safe, healthy food is available without having to ship it). and there are children to be taught. there are always children to be taught. and not just how to pass tests, but about what we are and how we've come to be what we are and how we might become even better. oh, there's plenty to do and there will be plenty of glory to go around for those who figure out a way to get it done.
so here's my fantasy... the press are beckoned for a major event at the democratic party's headquarters and the curtain goes up and standing on the stage are gore and clinton and obama and edwards and richardson and pelosi and dean and wes & richard clark(e) and bill gates and steve jobs and maybe even colin powell and whoever else is a true patriot with a really high profile. and bill clinton introduces president carter who takes the microphone to introduce them all as... the Democratic Party's candidate for... the government of the united states. seriously... split up the jobs - hillary, mightn't it be enough for your ego to be, finally, the person who creates a just and affordable single payer health insurance program? al could clearly live with being tasked with grappling with the climate crisis. edwards, once one of the top civil litigators in the country, could certainly bring a passion for what the law can do to the office of attorney-general. gates and jobs, haven't you made enough money that you can afford to collaborate on overseeing the technical revolution that will surely stand with the industrial revolution? OSX and Windows will be long forgotten in the future, should we have a future, but your names and some true measure of glory could live far longer if you were to do such a thing. everyone to sign on would instantly guarantee her/his place in history as someone comparable to the founding fathers, just for making it clear that you were going to stop wasting your and our time bickering amongst yourselves and, instead, assign yourselves jobs in a government-for-consideration by the american voters and then... DO IT.
why should i have to choose one of you to front the most enormous bureaucracy in history when there isn't a one of you who could possibly handle it all by yourself? i and the rest of the country (the world, in fact) need ALL of you working together to stand a chance of getting all the critically important jobs begun, let alone done, so please don't pretend that you don't need one another.
if it was a good idea for bill clinton to pick al gore so early (and it definitely was), why can't it be a better idea to sell an already staffed, top o' the line government of the best, the brightest, the most capable team of dedicated american public servants as a comprehensive democratic ticket? what's the worst thing that could happen? things might not work out? well, things are definitely NOT working out now and fretting about who's going to raise the most money in hollywood is not, in any way whatsoever, going to accomplish a single thing that matters to anyone but you folks and the campaign/media industry that's grown up around and utterly corrupted the entire process.
believe me, everyone but you and those who make their livings from it are utterly bored with the news being about the competition. the democrats could rewrite history - and benefit from the element of surprise associated with the revelation that the whole bunch of you are, after all, creative, dedicated patriots - simply by agreeing to join forces. imagine - a dozen "candidates" from the package, any of whom is qualified to be a decent president, criss-crossing the country selling the notion of a bloodless revolution led by those at the very top of their games who were willing to give up their own personal ambitions of winning "the big one" for the sake of our all winning back our republic. and, as to the question of which one of them fronts the team and gets to be "president," frankly, let 'em draw straws, because, if they are ALL on board, it won't matter. and then, finally, things would get done. it could be a whole new deal for a potentially great society; the greatest "do over" in history.
- posted by DeeLuzon
Schwinn: "Gingrich's Fake Mea Culpa"
I..can't quite...remember...was she really 23 years my junior? Man, I ROCK!
Thanks to Schwinn for this great cross-post on Newtie - THANKS SCHWINN! LOVE YOUR BIKES! (the pre-china ones)Gingrich admits to extramarital affair
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 9, 3:48 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
We already knew the details of this affair due to Gingrich's circus divorce trial in 1999, which was held in open court because he refused to settle with his second wife. As admitted in testimony, he was banging a paid aide 23 years his junior, sometimes on his Congressional desk, during the Clinton impeachment period. So why is he admitting to this now in front of Dobson? It means he wants to run for President and has to get this past the Christian Right gatekeepers. But look what he's forced to say in the process of defending the indefensible:
"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."
The fact that he would reiterate how intolerable "perjury in your highest officials" is within hours of the Libby verdict just shows how bad he wants into the GOP primary race. As his 2nd wife said in 1995, "I don't want him to be president and I don't think he should be."
- posted by Schwinn
Danny Doom: "The Shit Talk Express"
Not-so-straight talk express
Thanks to Danny Doom for this great cross-post - THANKS DANNY!
The remarkable amount of flip-flopping that GOP candidates Romney, Guiliani and McCain are doing in order to appease, well, just about anyone, is something that will be tallied up at a later time, but let's just say that when it all comes down, the Bible-thumpers and the neo-cons and the homophobes will cast their vote for thrice-divorced Rudy. Despite anything that he's ever said or done. Because Rudy, see, is a "straight-talker."
John McCain used to hold that title — he was, in fact, the conductor on the train — but then the shit began to flow out like diarrhea and the tracks began to rust and it turned out he was stuck on the Blue Line in a 6 mph speed zone. After years of criticism against Bush's handling of the war in/with Iraq, McCain realized that too much straight talk would derail the Republican nomination for him (studies told him that Bush voters like to be coddled, lied to and kept generally afraid), and so now he is for the "surge" and prolonging this unjust and illegal war.
But now he's really done it this time, appearing on the David Letterman show to announce his candidacy and then pandering to his New York audience (he thought) with this line, speaking of our troops in Iraq: "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."
Wait a minute. Isn't that what Barack Obama said? That we are "wasting lives" in Iraq? Mr. McCain may be riding that train right back into the GOP Black Hole with comments like that, or worse, he may find out that he has fathered another illegitimate black child. And we all know what that can do to a Republican presidential hopeful.
But there should be no apologies by McCain, just as Obama should not have after his comments. What they said is true, we are wasting lives in this war and all the hypocritical psuedo-patriotic-car-magnet-support-the-troops-armchair-generals know it.
Three thousand and counting wasted, for a war of choice against a contained dictator who posed no threat to the United States, with the result being an even more unstable region and civil war and thousands of untallied civilian deaths. And the soldiers that survive, maimed or broken, get to convalesce at places like Walter Reed, sharing rooms with mice, mold, and cockroaches. "Supporting the troops" sounds like something you may hear from the Shit Talk Express now, doesn't it?
It all sounds like a big waste to me.
- posted by Danny Doom
Uncommon Sense: "The Rudy You Know"
There's something about a man in fur, isn't there?
Thanks to Uncommon Sense for this great piece on St. Rudy - THANKS 'SENSE!
Democrats have been spending a good bit of time and energy contemplating their own navels the last few weeks, so I think there has been an insufficient appreciation for just how good our prospects are in the 2008 presidential contest.
Yes, Barack and Hillary appear to be at each others' throats, although there is a measure of ginned-up hysteria with regard to the David Geffen flap, and the degree to which it is accurate is, frankly, to be expected. These are two charismatic, alpha personalities, each of whom aspires to the most important and prestigious job on earth. If you think it looks like a blood sport now, just wait until the primaries start.
The bottom line, though, is that there is nothing - nothing - alarming or unhealthy taking place right now in Democratic Party politics. All that is taking place is politics.
On the other side of the aisle, however, 2008 is shaping up to be the most disastrous year since, well, 2006.
Absent a man-boy-sex or murder-for-hire scandal, the Democrats will pick up more congressional seats in '08. The only one I'm worried about holding on to is Mary Landrieu's senate seat in Louisiana. A well-organized Republican could take it away from her, although this is by no means certain; her most threatening challenger is, in my opinion, Rep. Bobby Jindal, who is likely to run for governor against embattled Democrat Kathleen Blanco. But even if we lose Landrieu's seat, Norm Coleman is toast in Minnesota. We will expand our congressional majority in '08.
In the presidential race, the Republican Party's prospects are just dismal. The New York Times on Sunday illustrated what is shaping up to be a cataclysmic confrontation between the pragmatic and ideological wings of the GOP. Social conservatives don't see anything to like about the three highest-profile Republican contenders for the nomination.Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as ?agents of intolerance,? and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.
Many were also suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; members have used the council as a conduit to distribute a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. (Mr. Romney has worked to convince conservatives that his views have changed.)
It cannot be encouraging to the party's power brokers that the thrice-married, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, authoritarian narcissist, absolutely nuts Giuliani has surged in the polls past McCain, his only real competition for the nomination. With the election almost two years away, such results reflect name recognition more than anything else, of course. The reason most Americans outside of NYC know Giuliani's name is because of 9/11. Because he responded to the World Trade Center attack with composure, the media dubbed him "America's Mayor." Remember that the vast majority of Americans do not follow politics as obsessively as political bloggers do. Most people spend their days focused almost exclusively on the details of their own lives, and only pay attention to political news that rises above the din. What rises above the din in early 2007 is "America's Mayor, the man who held it together on 9/11." As the party's primaries approach, expect Giuliani's Republican opponents to take the gloves off.
Of course, it is entirely possible that Giuliani will get the nomination. McCain is tanking in no small measure due to his having made his name synonymous with the escalation of the Iraq war, which is about as popular as foot fungus. It is hard to see him shedding that baggage to regain front-runner status. Mitt Romney's Jekyll-and-Hide positions on, literally, every public policy issue known to man makes him more of a punchline than a presidential contender. Besides, religious conservatives simply won't support a Mormon.
So, let's say it's Giuliani. Right now, he's America's Mayor to those who don't know him well. What about those who do know him well?Over and over again, wherever he goes, America?s Mayor evokes 9/11. And over and over again, wherever he goes, people cheer. Whenever Rudy talks about anything other than the September 11 terror attacks, he?s just another Republican presidential hopeful with his particular set of strengths and weaknesses. When he talks about 9/11, he becomes something else: a national hero.
New Yorkers may find that hard to believe. Anyone who lived here at the time remembers the 9/10 Rudy: strong on crime and the economy, yes, but arrogant, bullying, and terrible on race and civil rights. And while it?s impossible not to respect what Giuliani did for the city on 9/11 and in the days afterward, New Yorkers have experienced an inevitable September 11 fatigue. The 9/11 story has been told so many times that the Rudy-as-hero narrative, however moving, has lost much of its power. Except for those who have a personal connection to the tragedy, people have generally moved on. Besides, it?s common knowledge that a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights, thrice-married Catholic northeastern Republican is unelectable, right?
The rest of America sees a far different Rudy. West of the Hudson, the 9/10 Rudy doesn?t exist and never did. For them, September 11 was never so much a real day as a distant televised drama. It has more symbolic meaning than actual meaning: It?s equal parts Pearl Harbor and resurrection. And guess who plays the role of national savior? Not George Bush. Not John McCain. Not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
In a profile of Giuliani slugged, Him?, Rodrick acknowledges the very real advantage that 9/11 gives the former mayor of NYC. He documents the worshipful awe that Giuliani inspires on the speaking circuit to people who only know him in that context. But...... even 9/11 has its limits. Later, I do a little push-polling of my own. I ask Max Kaster, a local pastor and party chair for Calhoun County, a half-hour south of Columbia, what people down here would think of America?s Mayor if they knew he had moved in with a gay couple after separating from his second wife. ?Really?? Kaster says. He fiddles with a lapel pin that combines an American flag and a cross. ?I think that would roll a lot of people?s socks down.?
Admittedly, I have to wonder about any reporter who considersBob Shrum an expert on anything, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Shrum is right about this. Rudy Giuliani might look good compared to such hopeless cases as Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback, but he looks good only in comparison to them. If he survives the primaries, then he will be at the mercy of Democratic opposition researchers who, let us hope, have learned something since 2004. They will have a lot to work with. The American people will come to know the real Rudy, one way or another.
September 11 or no September 11, Rudy?s still vulnerable on social issues. No matter how skillful his pandering, there are those on the right who simply won?t vote for a pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights candidate. Giuliani?s supporters like to point out that the South is trending more moderate. Still, Rudy is seeking an office that has been held by a centrist southern Democrat or right-leaning Republican southerner or westerner for four decades. The last president from the northeast was JFK.
It?s true that 9/11 gives Rudy credibility on Iraq, but not much. If the war continues to go badly?as just about everyone believes it will?Rudy?s pro-Bush, pro-surge stance, like McCain?s or anyone else?s, for that matter, could still derail him.
Rudy?s lack of experience is a weakness as well. The highest elected office Giuliani has ever held is mayor, and no one has ever made the leap straight from City Hall to the White House. The chatter among political insiders is that even 9/11 can?t cover that up. ?There?s a reason Giuliani?s using 9/11 as an asset,? says Bob Shrum, political consultant to a half-dozen Democratic presidential candidates (not to mention David Dinkins). ?It?s his only asset. He?s not even running on his mayoral record. He?s running on a few weeks. September 11 doesn?t change the fact that Rudy has no foreign-policy experience, and his foreign-policy record is limited to having the same position on Iraq as George Bush.?
As the Democratic Party approaches its own primary season, we need to keep in mind that we are working to pick a nominee from a field of extremely strong presidential hopefuls. You might not have any personal affection for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, but their genuine substance and star power cannot be denied by any rational observer. We have an embarrassment of riches with our roster of contenders. The Republicans are simply sifting through the chaff to find a piece that is least likely to cause a catastrophic ruputure in its electoral coalition. McCain is tainted by his shameless pandering to the religious right and is identification with Bush's war strategy. Romney is a joke. Giuliani has a target painted on his back, and no matter what his spinmeisters say, is just standing there until somebody decides to shoot at it.
If the Republicans choose McCain, Romney or Giuliani, religious conservative voters will stay home in large enough numbers to throw the election to the Democrats, and that's the best-case scenario. It is just as likely that they will throw their support to a Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee, who will run as a social conservative third-party candidate. Either way, it doesn't look good. He might have said all the right things on 9/11, but there is nothing that America's Mayor or any other Republican can say to put a pretty face on the GOP's ugly presidential prospects.
- posted by Uncommon Sense
LowerManhattanite: "Political Masturbation Theatre Presents: William Shakespeare's 'Obamo'"
Quite the couple
THANKS to LowerManhattanite for this great piece - THANKS LM!
(Curtain rises on a smoke-filled, oak-lined study. In it stands OBAMO, a noble Moorish/Amfrerican, newly chosen to the Senate and HILLAMONA, a proud, steely blonde of noble lineage, also to the Senate selected. They are at opposite ends of the room—brooding in smoldering silence. The tension between them could be cut with a plastic spoon/fork hybrid {“spork”}. Hillamona wheels on Obamo suddenly with fire dancing in her eyes)
HILLAMONA: (Flushed and holding her throat as if just choked) Varlet! You sought to steal the air from my lungs—my campaign’s very lungs!
OBAMO; You drape your anger ‘pon a hook in the wrong man’s castle. T’was not I, Hillamona—your quarrel lay with King David of the Western Hills. Yet you assail me.
HILLAMONA: He mouths words as thy proxy, Obamo—deny it not, for you know it to be true.
OBAMO: He is his own man. I do not control him.
HLLAMONA: Thy denial fairly rings with implausibility, Moor.
OBAMO: (with venom) Hah! Irony abounds woman. You who would cast doubt ‘pon my words! Look thee to the linens—and find there a bib to sop the mendacity that drips from thy mouth. I pray one will do.
HILLAMONA: (enraged) Stripling!
OBAMO: Virago!
HILLAMONA: (hissed) A Virago favored by your own Moors!
OBAMO: (stepping back for a moment) Your words…ring of an anger contrived. Thou art are a snake, snapping fangs at the air madly, as blood leaks from thy own body.
HILLAMONA: I do not hear thee!
OBAMO: The wolves smell your blood. (He sniffs)’Tis sweet in the air. Your war vote wound betrays you.
HILLAMONA: I do not regret it, Moor. You say it wounds me, but is it not a graver wound to retreat? To renege? Yea, bleed I do, but die I will not. While you…
OBAMO: I?
HILLAMONA: Risk not, lose not, hatch-ling. When the vote was cast, thy were but an egg. Barely a’ borning.
OBAMO: And from the moment beak sundered shell, this bird’s song was ‘nay’ to the war you championed. Thou…and the traitorous Joseph of Nutmeg, and other craven practicalists.
HILLAMONA: Misled were we!
OBAMO: Nay, Lead you did not. And now you stand o’er the ashes of defeat and claim to have lit no flame.
(Hillamona brandishes a dagger and points it at Obamo)
HILLAMONA: Thou shalt not quicken the vessel (*1). with me! The first strike shall be mine—
OBAMO: (Standing his ground and deepening his voice) You would raise a hand to me? Thy comrade? We stand on the same side, you and I. Your fight be not with me. ‘Tis with our enemy. Giuliano. MacCain and the Mormom Mitt.
(Hillamona hesitates, blinking, unsure)
OBAMO: (Moving to her) They on whom the nut hath sprouted wings that fly. (grasping her now) Let you,,,and I…and Edwardio—
HILLAMONA: The maned?
OBAMO: And feckless. Let us loose the arrows in our quivers at the real enemy…not each other. Leave us forget the mundaneness of despair…
HILLAMONA: (Grasping him back) And embrace…?
OBAMO: The audacity…of hope.
(He holds her tightly cradling her head back—until, she gasps and gurgles from choking on her own saliva. She wrenches herself away, eyes again ablaze with mistrust and anger.)
HILLAMONA: (Gasping) Again you seek to take the breath from me!
OBAMO: Twas you! Thy choked thyself Hillamona!
HILLAMONA: The injury is from without, cur—as always! And I shall smite he who hath swung at me. I shall smite all!
(She swings wildly with the dagger, missing Obamo who dodges. Hillamona chases him about, catching air instead of flesh, running him off the stage and following close behind. Enter MEDIAGO from the wing, rubbing his hand together gleefully.)
MEDIAGO: (laughing conspiratorially) Yes…yes! Let slip the dogs of war! Mistrust, my mistress! Deceit, my liege! Confusion and rancor ! (Sniffs hard at the air) Like the spoor of fresh roses in the air, that smell so sweet, Obamo thinks me his friend, and Hillamona sees me her coronator, yet neither the two knows me for what I am truly—that which serves neither their interests, but craves only nearness to power. It, the flame…to my nature-drawn moth. Power! Quo of status! I crave theeeeeeeeeeeeee!
(Mediago runs madly from the stage, exiting—pursued by an elephant)
(*1.) quicken the vessel = to swift boat
- posted by LowerManhattanite
Taylor Marsh: "Hillary Hit Piece"
That's right, wingnuts, I'm talkin' to YOU
Thank you to Taylor Marsh who came in out of the blue with this great post - THANKS TAYLOR!
So, after the Carson City forum, I went out to my car and what did I behold? A flyer adorning my windshield ushering in the swiftboating season, targeting none other than Hillary Clinton. Of course, as goes with all hit pieces there is no one responsible, no organization's name attached. This blue sheet of paper with a very dour Hillary Clinton all along the left hand side just appeared out of thin air. Oh, and if you think this picture is bad you ought to see the one on the flyer. It didn't print out well, so I couldn't offer a glimpse, but trust me, it's bad. The flyer is printed on both sides, with the following on the front. The larger bold below is about half the size as it is on the flyer, with everything else exactly as it appears. Why Can't She Win?
If John Kerry had won Ohio in 2004 he would have won the presidential election. Unfortunately, he lost. Why? Many pundits blamed the gay ballot initiative, a statewide measure than mobilized conservative voters to turn out in larger numbers than their liberal counterparts. This should give pause to anyone considering voting for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for the presidency. Consider:
Conservative vs. Liberal Attitudes: Some say that the passion Hillary generates on the left is equal to or greater than the passion she generates on the right. However, after her support of the war (and failure to apologize for supporting it) along with other movements to the right (for instance, introducing legislation in 2005 to make flag burning a crime), her support among the liberal base is waning.
Still not convinced? The why: on Amazon.com are there many more negative books about Hillary than positive ones? are there are (sic) a far greater number of websites devoted to bashing Hillary than supporting her? does right wing talk radio continually bash Hillary, while left wing talk radio has a more mixed response?
Strong Support from Women?: In 2000 when Hillary Clinton ran for senator, Al Gore captured 17% more of the women's vote than Hillary. If her support among women is as soft on the national scene in 2008, the narrow Democratic margins of victory in states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections) will disappear.
Survey Says: One of the lessons of 2004 was that once voters develop a perception about a candidate, it's as immovable as super glue. Once John Kerry became identified in voters' minds as a "flip-flopper," no amount of arguing could change that image, despite the fact that people agreed with Kerry on the issues. For Hillary this could be fatal. Recent survey's show that 42-47% of the country says that under no circumstances would they vote for her (and this is before the right wing smear machine kicks into gear).
The Nadar Factor: Ralph Nadar has indicated that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he will probably mount another presidential campaign. This could siphon off 3-4% of the vote that otherwise would have gone to Hillary, thus costing her the election.
In short, if conservatives are motivated to turnout across the country like they did in Ohio in 2004, we risk losing more than the presidency. We also risk losing the Senate, House, and other statewide offices. Let Sen. Clinton stay in New York and use her intellect and skills to help further the Democratic agenda. We can't afford her at the top of the ticket.
Comparing Hillary to John Kerry? Is the Ohio gay initiative dig supposed to mean something special? Also, you can bet Hillary Clinton would have taken Kenneth Blackwell's smug Ohio butt to court for what Republicans pulled in '04. That's one thing you can take to the bank, baby.
And Ralph Nadar? Who wrote this thing, Dick Morris? After voters "develop a perception about a candidate, it's as immovable as super glue?" Super glue? No kidding. I feel so enlightened. The talk is that local Republicans picketed the event. The writing is about their speed.
And it's not too far a stretch to think that all of those Amazon books are out there bashing Hillary because the right is scared crapless of her candidacy. In the last two weeks I've met more Republicans who think she's inevitable than Democrats! Most are just fine with envisioning President Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's biggest problem with the Democratic faithful is her Iraq war stance. But that's not exactly news to anyone. But as far as her support in the liberal base "waning," there's a case to be made, that her biggest support is among conservative Democrats. You know, like Harry Reid.
On the flip side of the flyer you get Richard Cohen's February 13th column, The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes, printed in full, just in case the political armageddon of losing every office in the country, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, didn't make the point.
But let's get something straight. The Republicans don't have any candidate that compares with the top five of the Democratic field. John McCain? Rudy? Brownback? Malleable Mitt Romney? Give me a break. McCain is in so much trouble right now because of Iraq that he's flipped yet again and is now attacking his Iraq war alter ego, Mr. Bush! Rudy will wither under scrutiny, especially when the base discovers he supports abortion rights, gay unions and is on his third marriage, not to mention that he was at the microphone on 9/11, but everything else about his leadership is pure myth. Brownback is just too Kansas. Mitt is worrisome, I believe, until you envision the oppo commercials. There is Governor Huckabee, but I just don't see it myself. Still, no one comes close to Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Biden and yes, Hillary Clinton.
But considering it's only February 2007 and this flyer was dropped on every car in the parking lot at the Carson City community center after a forum, one thing is sure. It's official. The swiftboating season has already begun.
- posted by Taylor Marsh
Here they come again
Labels: 2008 race, Clinton, wingnuttery
GOP activists circling Clinton's campaign
Conservatives don't hold back on early attacks. 'I know how to defeat them,' she says.
By Stephen Braun, Times Staff Writer
February 18, 2007WASHINGTON — Old enemies of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are out in force. Just weeks after she joined the Democratic Party's flock of presidential contenders, Clinton is being targeted by conservative and Republican-allied activists intent on derailing her campaign before the start of next year's primaries.
They have surfaced with a flurry of planned projects: a Michael Moore-style documentary film, book-length exposes, and websites such as StopHerNow.comand StopHillaryPAC.com.
Conservative admirers of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth media blitz that helped torpedo Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004 are now agitating to "Swift-boat" Clinton.
"People are doing what they're doing because they want to defeat her before she has a chance to win. You can't hold off your silver bullet to the end," said veteran Republican operative David N. Bossie, who is involved in the film project with Dick Morris, a former advisor to Bill Clinton.
The emerging moves against the New York senator reflect the accelerated pace of the 2008 race and conservatives' growing conviction that she poses a formidable threat that requires fast and early footwork.
Clinton has been publicly bracing for "Republican machine" attacks from the moment she launched her exploratory committee last month.
Whether she can strike back quickly may prove crucial to winning over Democratic primary voters looking for assurance that she can survive a bruising general election and Swift-boat-style attacks.
"For Democrats, there's a strong sense this time around that they can't allow those same tactics to define Democratic candidates," said Democratic media consultant Jim Margolis.
Aren't these people totally discredited? Bossie, Floyd Brown, Dick Morris? I mean these are not credible people, even to the MSM.
People didn't like this shit when it first happened.
A fundamental misunderstanding
Labels: 2008 race, blogosphere
Fighting words
Can liberal bloggers be both partisan kingmakers and independent journalists? The blogstorm over the John Edwards campaign points to some tough lessons.
By Joan WalshFeb. 16, 2007 | I was on the convention floor in Boston the night Barack Obama unofficially became a candidate for president, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Up to that point, the Fleet Center was like a stale bag of popcorn, with uninspired party stalwarts going through the motions of nominating Sen. John Kerry, largely because he was a decorated Vietnam veteran and couldn't be smeared as a gutless pacifist (can you say Swiftboat Vets?). Then came Obama. You felt history being made as he described, and then began to heal, the nation's ugly red state, blue state divide. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states," the Illinois senate candidate told the crowd. "We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states." I got teary; so did others around me. I found myself imagining a convention where this son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother was the presidential nominee -- but in 2012 or 2016, not 2008.
Yet 2008 is the year Barack Obama is running, presenting me with a choice: Do I put aside reservations about his inexperience and vote that sense of history? Luckily, I have more than a year to decide. The Democrats have a strong roster of 2008 candidates; I like a lot of them; the choice will be tough. But in my heart I know this: If I had to go into a voting booth tomorrow and pick a Democrat, I'd very likely be moved by the memory of that electric moment in Boston, and vote Obama.
So imagine my surprise at finding a vocal cadre of Salon readers and some bloggers claiming a) Salon is crusading against Obama, because b) we support Sen. Hillary Clinton, when in fact we are doing neither. The evidence? Three controversial Obama pieces in the last month (one of them made more notorious by a headline snafu), plus a scoop last week about the John Edwards campaign firing and rehiring two feminist bloggers after they were targeted by Catholic bully Bill Donohue. (This week both bloggers quit.) The backlash to the Edwards scoop, even more than the outcry over our Obama stories, was puzzling but also enlightening. We weren't the only people who had solid information that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan had been told they were leaving the Edwards campaign. But if any bloggers knew, they didn't report it. The bloggers closed ranks around the Edwards campaign, some even claiming that Salon had gotten the story wrong. There were suggestions, in Salon letter threads as well as in blogger-to-blogger whispers -- it was loud; we could hear you! -- that we'd peddled misinformation, or perhaps been peddled it, to help Hillary Clinton.
The controversies over our Edwards and Obama reporting gave me a new window onto the ever-changing terrain of politics, media and the Internet as we head into the 2008 campaign. The two different sets of concerns were nonetheless inspired by a common suspicion: Salon must be in the tank for one of the candidates -- in our case, the common supposition was Clinton -- because, it seems, almost everyone else on the Internet is, or wants to be!
Before the Marcotte-McEwan meltdown, liberal blogfathers Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong came under scrutiny, even attack, for their work on behalf of Democratic candidates, especially former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. (Armstrong was on his payroll; Kos was merely friendly, but surprisingly friendly given Warner's centrism.) Then Warner announced he would forgo a 2008 run, as did netroots favorite Sen. Russ Feingold, leaving the field without an official candidate. When the blog-friendly Edwards campaign -- the candidate's wife Elizabeth has reportedly blogged on lefty sites under an assumed name -- hired Marcotte from Pandagon and McEwan from Shakespeare's Sister, it was hailed as a victory for the blogosphere. Thus preventing their firing, or denying it had ever happened, became crucial for building "the movement," as MyDD's Chris Bowers so often describes his blog colleagues' goal.
That isn't true. People wanted them to keep their jobs so they could eat. It's easy for established people to forget what the value of a good job is.
I don't think Salon is in the tank, but every paper gets this charge.
But Walsh thinks the power lies in the hands of a few bloggers and it doesn't. It isn't about what Bowers or Stoller say, or Kos does, but how people react to it.Instead of the blogosphere joining the search for truth, we encountered a decision to close ranks. The bloggers had never been fired; Salon was wrong; everyone move along, there's nothing to see here; please return to your stations. It started to look as though protecting the Democrats, the Edwards campaign and the role of bloggers in the new political firmament -- or some combination of all three -- was much more important. Only Steve Gilliard at the News Blog defended Salon and confirmed he too knew the bloggers had been fired -- and only in a comments section on his blog. "Anyone who thinks they weren't fired are dead wrong," wrote Gilliard. "I spend much of my day communicating with other bloggers ... I had been told they were fired when the Salon piece ran. Then the negotiations began and a LOT of people held their fire ... I have multiple sources on this, but because of who they are, I won't name them." A few days later Gilliard would denounce Salon for our perceived vendetta against Obama, not entirely unreasonably, given the headline mess.
See, this is bullshit. I don't remember ANY posts on this, because people wanted them to keep their jobs. My readers started to call Salon liars and I knew that was untrue. If they feel that's a pat on the head, fine.
But this was NOT about protecting the Edwards campaign. In fact, the feeling was that the Edwards campaign was going to pay a heavy price for buckling under to an anti-semite like Donohue.
It was personal, intensely personal. Not some grand scheme to protect Edwards from his ineptitude. Something I have zero interest in doing.
Also, once Salon ran their first story, there was nothing more to write. It was known that these women were fired and then not fired, and many people felt that they had a right to keep their jobs.
Not everything has naked political motives. A lot of bloggers are struggling to pay their bills. There is an element of personal loyalty which says we don't try to make each other poorer. Especially, when they move a thousand miles away from their hometown.
But Walsh doesn't get something essential about blogging. A blog has one writer and thousands of active supporters. I can rant as much as I want, but whatever power I have comes from the people responding to my words. Withouth that, it doesn't matter what I say or do.
So while she's worried about people selling out, without supporters, it wouldn't matter. Bloggers are the pointmen and women for people who have their concerns, but not the time or ability to express themselves.
Anyone who thinks differently is delusional
About that war
Slot this in the "cry me a river" category: Mrs. Clinton’s advisers do not relish the idea of someone bringing up her 2002 Senate vote at every campaign stop. Clinton cast a vote that has led to one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in this nation's history -- a vote that even cursory skepticism would've counseled a vote against handing Bush "authority" to proceed. Most of the presidential candidates have gotten the "I fracked up the vote" stuff last year. It's not the most compelling tack to take -- if their judgment was so poor as to vote for the darn thing, why should we promote them. We talk about DC being a place where people fail upward. Do we really want to encourage that within our own party? But in any case, pro-war Dems who have unequivocally admitted their mistake don't have to offer tortured justifications for their war. They can honestly take Clinton pollster Mark Penn's advice: It’s important for all Democrats to keep the word ‘mistake’ firmly on the Republicans and on President Bush. Senator Clinton has been very clear that we, as a party, should keep the focus on Bush — these were his mistakes. Ultimately that’s very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party. Too bad for Penn that just ain't gonna happen. I have no interest in giving a pass to those Democrats who aided and abetted Bush's mistakes, and I especially have no interest in giving a pass to those who demonstrate Bushian inability to offer self-reflection and admit that mistake. It's not a question of offering an "apology". I want acknowledgment of past mistakes. Everyone serious in the field seems to have come to terms with that demand. These Democrats didn't just enable Bush's war, they sat by and let the Right Wing smear machine attack those of us who waged our lonely battles to end this thing. And while most have come around, Hillary remains the notable exception. Those who have admitted their mistakes are now free to train their sights on the GOP. It doesn't absolve them from their terrible judgment, but it mitigates it. While it's best to not make a mistake in the first place, it's even worse to compound that mistake by refusing to come to terms with it. Clinton doesn't have that. And what's worse, she has pretty much lost the window of opportunity to do so. After resisting for so long, she finds herself in the thick of the presidential primary (yes, even a year out) with no room to maneuver. If she suddenly reverses course and decides that yes, she'll take personal responsibility for her vote, it'll feed into the strongest anti-Hillary narrative -- that she's a panderer and will say what is most politically expedient at the moment. It's a sad state of affairs, but Hillary has made her bed. And while her advisors may cringe that voters demand she account for Iraq at every campaign stop, I hope she continues to get grilled on it. She deserves nothing less.
Hillary's Iraq problem
by kos
Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:15:01 AM PST