They Are Who We Thought They Were

A newsletter mailed out from a California local Republican Party Office:

Yep.  I've definitely lost my sense of humor.  More on this later.

So What Was All This Really?

Two videos from last night's Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner.  In order of appearance, first up, Sen. McCain and then Sen. Obama:

McCain was more at ease and frankly funnier, not that Obama embarrassed himself.  He was funny, too.  His line about being "awesome" had me laughing for 5 minutes.

But here is what irritates me.  Why couldn't the campaign have had this kind of esprit de corps?  Was it all some in-joke among politicians on how to manipulate the public?  Lookit, I'm as irreverent and obnoxious as the next loudmouth.  Those whom I work with can vouch for this.  But I don't have the fate of a country hanging on my words and actions.  And I am sure the Alfred E. Smith is a worthy charity, but something mildly turns my stomach watching combatants from all corners dressed up in white tie and tails, with heavy silver service, Wedgewood bone china, Lalique crystal and linen table cloths snarking it up on each other weeks before the election.

And as for McCain, clearly this is the man the press continues to give homage, despite his campaign not reflecting one iota of what this man supposedly is.  Which begs the question...  If McCain cannot keep his campaign on message and in line with his ideals, bowing instead to party pressure or ambition or whatever the fuck supposedly compelled him to sell his soul, how can I trust that he would not do the same running the country?

I've lost my sense of humor.  I wonder why.

WTF!?

I...  I just don't know what to say.  I need a crazy-face master cleanse.  Ah!  Here we go. 

Asked and Answered

This exchange below between a plumber and Sen. Obama is impressive.

Since I have absolutely no head for numbers, much of this went over my head.  I just pay my bills every month.  That Obama has an answer to a specific question by a voter knocks my socks off.  He doesn't issue platitudes; he answers this gentleman's question.

In Sen. Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC, he put forth the case for liberal thinking.  You work hard until you get in a position to be able to kick in more...to help those who are in the position you were in when you started out.  As a wage slave, I've never begrudged someone driving their Mercedes; I just don't want them to make it hard for me to have my Camry.

I'm trying to be equitable, here, but I cannot imagine Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin answering this man in this fashion.  President Bush, of course, would be completely in the weeds.

A Nerd We Can Believe In

Yeah, clever guy below.  No screed from me.

Sense and Sensibility

See.  This drives me nuts.

John Lewis, Democratic Representative from Georgia, wrote a "harsh appraisal" of the tone that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin's rallies have taken of late.

During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.

McCain was hurt by these comments, most likely because at the Saddleback Church Forum held earlier in the summer, he specifically referenced Lewis as a person he admired.

This is understandable.  To have one's object of admiration criticize one's behavior is bracing.  Accordingly, McCain issued the following statement:

"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale.  The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign.

"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track.

"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."

This misses so many points, it's hard to know where to begin.

Rep. Lewis is a grown man with his own opinions.  To call on Sen. Obama to "repudiate" them is ludicrous.  Why should he?  Because they are both in politics?  McCain has defended himself ably.  Because they are both male?  Again,  McCain emphatically and Palin winkingly, have done nothing but express the conviction that he is manly enough to drill and bomb, if that be the measure.  That, of course, leaves one other ludicrous option.

That McCain would call for Obama to repudiate another adult leveling criticism McCain's way is astonishingly obtuse.  Lewis, as witness to what can happen, admonishes the danger of doing nothing when your supporters are calling for unfathomable things, when it is within your power to do so.  Must it be expressly said that McCain's argument is with Lewis, not Obama?  To lump them into one category calling for one to be responsible for another based on a gene gives credence to the frenzy; McCain believes one is the same as the other.  That he doesn't see that is maddening and indicative of the kind of thinking that says these things and allows them to be said.

No one's arguing that criticisms of Obama are out of bounds.  Lewis is taking exception to McCain's standing silent and doing nothing while the vocal behavior of his supporters becomes dangerous and threatening.  His point is that all Wallace had to do was allow the worst to emerge and do nothing.  If McCain has, as he professes, the true understanding and respect for what Lewis endured then he should not be surprised at Lewis' reaction to the verbal aggressions expressed at his rallies.

Puppies!

This is a video that made my day.  It's entitled "My Dogs Greeting Me After 14 Months In Iraq."  It was prearranged but set me bawling on my keyboard at work.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan via Nicola Karras).

Now I'm in a good frame of mind to read Charles Krauthammer.

Chucky's Back In His Envy Wheelhouse--I think

I skimmed this article by my misguided boyfriend Charles Krauthammer and want to write about it but will have to do it this weekend.  I'm a wage slave and have to go to work.  Read it and tell me what you think.

Yeah, We Know How It's Done

The Jed Report put up an interesting video of Sen. Obama from July.  With YouTube, politicians cannot do or say anything that someone won't find and either proves or disproves what they do or say.  Jed Lewison makes it his mission to not only find these videos but also composes some to reflect his point of view.  And he's a wild Obama supporter.

Note that Obama knows how this campaign shizzat is done and can therefore prepare for it.  He's completely got Sen. McCain's number.  Watch and chuckle.

This is the kind of stuff that gets McCain spitting mad...when you point out how transparent he is.  I must say, though, it's not fun to watch a man prostitute his public reputation to win an election.  I say public because I don't know how he really feels.  But McCain has branded himself for years (a brand I bought because I was only superficially interested in politics) and except for his most ardent supporters, everyone can see that he has thrown that brand on the heap.

This Is How We Do It

***Note that this is from my guest-post on Attackerman yesterday.  Dear Spencer was celebrating Yom Kippur***

Good morning! I'm very glad to fill in for Spencer again. I didn't get a chance to express to you, Attackerman's legion, how grateful I was for your engagement with me during my last guest-blogging stint. Thank you. You're some of the smartest folks around and I'm honored that you have me so graciously.

Now...forgive my early morning ramble:

I can't seem to figure out how to embed it, but there is video of Michelle Obama on Larry King (h/t This Week With Barack Obama). It's long -- 22 minutes -- but I think worth it.

Unsurprisingly, she is an excellent example of how to behave as a public political figure. She's prepared. She answers questions without holding forth on talking points, unless the talking points are directly applicable. What is most admirable is how she says she deals with what I term as "lying vitriol." She says she rolls with it, which honestly, can be the only way to deal. She is a better man than I am. As is Sen. Obama.

The McCain campaign's well-worn GOP strategy to win by using inflammatory tactics makes me grieve for meaningful political discourse. (See what I did there?) This behavior is nothing new but I now admit to being naive. I thought surely this year, with so much dangerously amiss with our country, the candidates will be forced to deal with issues. Hahahahahahahahaaaa. And yet...Mrs. Obama graciously waves off the McCain attack without assigning blame to either Sen. McCain, Cindy McCain or Gov. Palin.

Of course, this is poli-speak, but her reaction gives me the opinion that even when hearing the lying vitriol in the privacy and comfort of her own home, she merely shakes her head and "mmm, mmm, mmm's." Which, I venture to say, is what gets Sen. McCain's goat. Neither Sen. Obama nor Michelle Obama will engage in those tactics completely undermining his scorched-earth strategy. (Did I do it again?) Sen. McCain is bombing barren territory; no one is there to either be harmed or fight back. They're somewhere else dealing with something else. My mother was right. If you walk away from a bully, you take away his armament.

That's not to say that I believe Sen. Obama can't throw down when it's necessary. Part of the reason I support him is also because he's no punk. I suspect, though, his throwing down is performed with surgical instruments. If you watched during the debate as Sen. McCain was angrily prowling the stage issuing (untrue) attacks, Sen. Obama sat there in his chair, long legs splayed assuredly, with a benign smile betraying no animosity whatsoever. Good lord, that's the man I want across the table from those who would murder us -- smile on his face, thinking 3 moves ahead with Petraeus in his pocket.

Happy new year, Spencer.

Hunting Wolves in Alaska

I can't watch this all the way through.  Aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska is a practice endorsed by Sarah Palin.  Because of her endorsement, the Humane Society Legislative Fund (the branch of the Humane Society of the United States that can endorse candidates)  has, for the first time, endorsed a presidential candidate.  They endorsed Sen. Obama.

Sen. Obama has also been endorsed by the Defenders of Wildlife Fund.

I don't get hunting.  I mean, I do if it's for food or protection.  And even if wolves were an endangerment to society, shouldn't it be mano a canus?  Eeccch.

Was the video bad?

America's Cocktail Waitress

I linked below but thought it should be posted more prominently.  Rich Lowry at the National Review Online wrote the following review of Sarah Palin's performance in the debate:

A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic posted the following letter he received (he doesn't do comments).

In reaction to Rich Lowry, I'm sure I'm not the only woman who, upon reading his words, sat up a little straighter and said, "Is he kidding? Is he goddamn kidding me?"Is this the kind of reaction the women in this country should want men to have to the possible first female Vice Presidential candidate in history? Holy hell.

I thought Palin's performance at the debate was downright embarrassing and on top of that I have to read this clown's blog, stating more or less that Palin gave him an erection? Little starbursts my ass. Here's what I thought when Palin "dropped" that first wink at us: "Did she just wink at us like she was America's cocktail waitress?" Rich Lowry is on the verge of slapping Sarah Palin on the ass and asking her for another of those fantastic whiskey sours.

Exactly.  This is why I bristle at the whole conservative "family values" schtick.  That seemingly serious men are agog with her vapidity makes me think that's how they prefer their women.  Winking, giggling, fertile and vacuous.

And it's why I'm happily single.

Odds and Ends

Rebecca Traister does not feel sorry for Gov. Palin.

It looks like Ta-Nehisi Coates does, but he doesn't.

My misguided boyfriend Charles Krauthammer is still envious but knows stupid when he sees it...only in a woman because it completely escaped him in Bush.  (How double entendre was that?)

The Field Negro wasn't impressed.

You wanna be CIC, you gotta know the generals...so sayeth VetVoice.

I understand little about Pakistan.  Fortunately, I have friends and people I wish were friends, who do.

Rich...honey...she winked at ME.

Funny.

Funnier.

Funniest.  NSFW (Not Safe For Work).

It Only Matters If You're Not...

I've been sidelined with a wicked nasty cold that laid me flat out for a week.  I don't remember Monday through Wednesday.  Apparently I went to the grocery store though, because there are several bags of cranberry juice on my kitchen floor.  Wow.

I saw the headline of this article by Scott Shane in the NYT -- Obama Has Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close -- and went "uh-oh."  Does the desperate smear start here?

It's mostly an accounting of all the ways that William Ayers,  who helped found the sixties militant group the Weatherman, is not in Obama's life.  You really couldn't tell from the headline, but whatever.

This paragraph caught my eye, though.  Quoting Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, 

“I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings,” Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.

“If you’re in public life, you ought to say, ‘I don’t want to be associated with this guy,”’ Mr. Chapman said. “If John McCain had a long association with a guy who’d bombed abortion clinics, I don’t think people would say, ‘That’s ancient history.”’

Yes, Mr. Chapman, that's exactly what people would say.  They would regale Sen. McCain's dedication to the culture of life, bemoan the fact that people make mistakes, assert that Sen. McCain was a POW when clinics were bombed, and call you a traitor for bringing it up.

Sometimes Paranoia is Wise

Honestly.  It is somewhat heartening to know that my racial paranoia is grounded in reality.

Mark Krikorian, writing for the National Review Online's blog The Corner, has a snotty "Hmmm.  Coincidence?" post about WaMu's failure and their strong practice of diversity.

This concept has been picked up and there is a dash toward the end zone:  blame for the present financial crisis should fall on ill-abled minorities buying houses in the sub-prime market, bolstered by the Community Reinvestment Act.

Rep. Michele Bachmann said as much during a Senate hearing on Thursday.  From ThinkProgress:

During a Senate hearing on Thursday, Rep. Michele Bachmann pinned blame for financial crisis on President Clinton, “blacks,” and “other minorities.” To make her point, she read from an article written by Terry Jones in the right-wing publication Investor’s Business Daily. Jones criticized the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and said Clinton was misguided for pushing “homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.” Watch Bachmann’s speech, followed by sharp criticism from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) here.

Yeah.  She actually said that out loud in the Senate, for God's sake.  I'm feeling awfully strange fruity.

This theory has been debunked by conservative UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge:

When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom [ed.-my favorite minority minority hater Michelle] Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian.

I cannot bring myself to link to Malkin.  Google her.  By the way, that's over-represented in relationship to percentage of the whole U.S. population, not in sub-prime loans.

So, if I understand Rep. Bachmann's concern, it is the 16.2% deadbeat subprime Negroes and Messcans that tipped the scale into this mess, not the 72.5% of whites.  Are we assuming that the whole 16.2% Negroes and Messcans were deadbeats?  Well, of course they were.  They would have to be for this mess to be happening.  And the whole 72.5% of whites were not...obviously.

In what they are saying, though, I think it is not the deadbeat minorities that are being totally blamed, but the Act compelling banks to lend money to them.

See, here is where dominoes start falling in my head.  It is a given to me, racial paranoia firmly in hand, that the umbrella white male ruling class will, for the most part, not do the right thing unless compelled to do so or unless they get something substantial out of it.  As I see it, every gain in equality garnered by minorities, women, homosexuals, has to be legislated to death before an inch of territory is relinquished.  They don't do it unless you make them.

If banks, successful high-falutin' ones, had in their core principles, a socially (not socialist) responsible business mandate to assure home-ownership for all people, structured in a way that was satisfactory to the lender as well as the borrower, then the CRA would not have been necessary.  Don't talk to me about how they couldn't do it.  Somehow they come up with exorbitant salaries for executives.  Knock off a million or two and give some little folks a loan that can be paid.  This is an example and I'm sure very unsophisticated, but again, I'm in the "I refuse to believe" roundhouse.  Of course it could be done.  It's just that it wasn't part of their business model to do so.

So CRA was created to make it so.

That is the fundamental difference, I suppose, between conservative thinking and liberal thinking.  I agree with Sen. Obama.  From their point of view, you're on your own.  That is, of course, until $700,000,000,000 is needed.  Then we're all in this mess together.

And it's the negroes' and messcans' fault.

UPDATE:  Read this Ta-Nehisi Coates blog entry, particularly the comments.  They have a much more sophisticated grasp on the insult than I.