« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »
Howard Stern sends a microphone to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and hilarity ensues. But what's even more hilarial is that the folks who are all smug and condescending toward those who don't know the candidates' positions completely misrepresented McCain's position on stem cells themselves.
All right, so the idiot girl from Pittsburgh pulled a Morton Downey. Big surprise there. And just like I said yesterday, a huge chunk of the right-leaning blogosphere pissed away a whole news cycle flogging a story that, even if true, would have had no direct bearing on the principals of this presidential campaign. Happy now, guys?
Sigh. Anyway. Can we get back to actual news stories now please?
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see some so-called journalists in the MSM show some goddamn curiosity and do their jobs for a change. The official website of the guy who'll probably be our next president will happily process credit card contributions from "Bill Adama, 123 Caprica Way, B Galactica, NJ 12345" with no questions asked. (That's the address I used yesterday to make a test $20 contribution -- which was happily processed, much to my chagrin. Meanwhile, I recently struggled for about 20 minutes trying to make a legitimate contribution through McCain's campaign website because my zip code had recently changed from 07087 to 07086.)
Anyway, you'd think something like that would merit a little bit of looking into, don't you? I mean seriously? Oh well, I guess the media's too busy with the really important stuff, like trying to figure out what the RNC paid for Willow Palin's training bra. Welcome to Journalism, 2008. No wonder this guy's "ashamed" to call himself a journalist. I would be too.
While many of you right-wing bloggers are wasting precious time and energy on some sensational Drudge headline, the real story we should be focusing on is now languishing just when it was starting to gain some traction.
I feel badly for this girl, but at the end of the day it's a local police matter that has no direct bearing on Barack Obama or his campaign. Meanwhile, we've learned that not only can Mickey Mouse and Spider-Man register to vote, but they can also make campaign contributions directly on the campaign's official website!
I don't know exactly what happened in this mugging incident, and to a certain extent I don't really care. Even if she were deliberately targeted for her political views, or whether she staged the whole thing herself for attention, it's a sideshow. And guess what? We're in no position to be expended valuable time and energy trying to substantiate or debunk a sideshow.
Please, people, get some sense in your heads and focus on stuff that might actually matter.
The issue seems to be that he accepted speaking fees in violation of Illinois law during his days as a state legislature. This wasn't learned from reading the New York Times, of course, but rather from citizen journalists perusing Obama's tax return.
Now I don't want to make a big deal about these penny-ante speaking fees, because they're not really the issue. The issue is why do have to learn this from bloggers? Does anyone doubt for a second that you would have been able to read about it in the printed pages of your favorite broadsheet had it been Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama? Or John McCain? Or even Joe the Freakin Plumber?
I don't, and that's my biggest problem with this whole campaign. It's not Obama, it's the way the media has completely abdicated its professional responsibilities on his behalf.
I'm guessing exactly no one will be shocked by this.
Late-Night Comics Skewer Republicans 7-to-1, Study FindsIf you're a fan of Jay Leno or David Letterman, you may already know this: You have to listen to seven Republican jokes for every one the late-night comedians tell about Democrats.
Fine, we all knew that already. But here's my question. Whenever I'd point out lopsided political skewerings in the media a few years ago, I was always told it was because Republicans run everything! Who were these folks supposed to rag on?
But of course the Democrats have controlled both the House and the Senate for the past two years now, and it's looking increasingly likely that they'll take the White House as well. I wonder what justification they'll give for their anti-Republican fixation then? Gotta wait and see I guess.
Hey look, Joe the (Fake) Plumber's dog looks a lot like my Zora.
That's cute, but we should not let it detract from the larger point, which is that Joe the Plumber is a terrible person because he asked Obama a question that wasn't "How come you're so awesome?" That means, of course, that we have to investigate his licensure, his legal woes, his income, and everything else we can find and publicize it so as to make an example of what happens when to one of those bitter, clingy folks when they get "uppity."
Meanwhile, Ace has a Spartacus moment.
This time I'm hoping it gets physical.
I'm giving it 20 minutes. If it's as boring as last week, I'm declaring John McCain the victor and turning off the TV.
Well, it's not really different, I guess. In fact it's the same ol' anti-Palin same ol'. Except it's from John Cleese, so people are posting it around as if it's actually news.
And why not? Why shouldn't we be primarily concerned with the opinions of decrepit old British has-been comedians who were last funny during the Nixon administration? Would you even dream of entering a polling place without first having taken the sage counsel of Benny Hill or Spike Milligan?
Next up, Joe Piscopo expounds on the deficiencies of the Tory candidate for Exchequer.
So Glenn published a letter the other day that began like this.
I consider myself a libertarian/conservative. Like many people of that bent, I was uncomfortable with Bush when he was nominated. But Al Gore's increasingly-erratic behavior during the 2000 election made me hope Bush won.Once Bush won, and it became clear that the Florida democrats were trying to steal the election, I became something of a Bush loyalist. Throughout his first term, I took note of all the really horrible things that were said about him, saw that a large portion of the left would rather see Bush fail than see America succeed, and was alarmed by the complicity (and often, participation) of the MSM and mainstream Hollywood. It wasn't far into his second term that I succumbed to Bush Fatigue, due to his inability to make the case for his foreign policy to the American people, and his inability to find the veto pen. He has truly been a terrible steward of the Republican brand, and because of this, the Conservative and libertarian causes are suffering.
So far, I couldn't agree more. I might have written every word myself, verbatim. After that, however, the author and I part company.
I'm no fan of McCain , but as I dislike Obama (and love Palin), I'll be pulling the lever for McCain in November.This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.
Obama's thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle - squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be "racist" (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN - suggests that I won't have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign's "get out the vote fraud" activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of "plausible deniability" as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.
I've seen a President that I am generally-inclined to like get crapped on for eight years, and I've seen McCain and Palin (honorable people both, despite policy differences I may have with them) get crapped on through this election season. If the Democrats think that a President Obama is going to get some sort of honeymoon from the folks who didn't vote for him, as a wise man once said: heh.
The author doesn't speak for me. I'm more inclined to agree with with this guy. If Obama wins, I'm going to give him a fair chance until he has demonstrated he deserves otherwise. This blog is not going to become a daily, anti-Obama harangue for the duration of his presidency, as I'm afraid some other right-leaning blogs may. If Obama wins, he will be my president, and I want him to succeed, not to fail.
I think there is a good chance that Obama will make a fine president. The paucity of his record makes it difficult for me to substantiate that claim, and that's one reason I'll be voting for McCain next month, but I do see some hopeful signs from the guy. All of this is subject to change, of course, if he really starts pissing me off. But I at least owe it to him to wait until he does so before I go bad on him.
But at the same time? I do understand where the author of that letter is coming from. And while it's not the path I'm choosing for myself, I can't really say I blame him either. And at times, in my pettier moments, I'm sure I'll probably derive occasional satisfaction from watching the tables get turned by guys like him. It's much easier (not to mention more fun) to sit back and piss and moan and bitch than it is to lead.
I suppose that's where we still are as a nation. No matter who wins this next election, we'll be entering our third consecutive presidency with a deeply divided populace, in which one side demonizes the other with irrational hatred. And that's something that Obama, try as he might, is not going to change. Oh well.
I find Tina Fey an attractive woman. I also think Sarah Palin's attractive. So why is it that I find Fey-as-Palin singularly repulsive?
The racism doesn't stop. Now McCain vows to "whip" Obama's you-know-what in the next debate. Hello? "Whip?" Like a plantation master? Can't believe he got away with that one. (Oops, I made a racist comment myself with the last two words of the previous sentence!!)
We all know that middle names are racist, but now it appears as if using them is a federal crime. Isn't everyone looking forward to eight more years of this?
Ugh. Fred is right. I can't bring myself to watch the first hour of the debate. I tried for a few minutes, and I haven't been that bored since I was dragged to see Portrait of a Lady. Besides, I think the main reason we watch these debates is the same reason we watch NASCAR -- because there might be a wreck. But that didn't happen in this one (unless of course you count "ZOMG!! He said 'THAT ONE!'" as an earthshaking development.)
And it doesn't matter anyway. These debates (unless they do contain a crash into the wall) seldom really move the numbers in an election. This race, not surprisingly, is being driven by the economy. Right or wrong, the party that controls the white house gets the blame or the credit for economic conditions. Consequently, John McCain's poll numbers are following the DJIA into the sewer. What's another debate going to change, really?
First, on the issue of Pock-ee-ston (and see, I pronounced it in the cool, Barack Obama fashion, thus lending me the gravitas necessary to pontificate on such matters) I didn't really have a problem with Obama's original statement on the matter. Nevertheless, I think it's a safe bet that if Bush or McCain had said the same thing (about invading a nuclear-powered ally for the purposes of killing or capturing a single individual) the Democrats would have had a field day portraying it as reckless cowboy foreign policy.
So why did I pick Pock-ee-ston as the one point to blog about before I go to bed? Because I missed the entire first hour due to a work-related phone call, that's why. I'll watch it later and give you my thoughtful insights and analysis (although I'm sure I'll proclaim a McCain victory, as usual, regardless. And why not? It's my blog, and I can do what I want. If you want objectivity go read the New York Times.... HAW HAW HAW HAW!!!! I wrote that with a straight face.)
Every time I'm in the city, I see at least one example of graffiti that just makes me scratch my head. One day I should compile them into a book.
Yesterday morning I was buying coffee in Hoboken when I overheard three college-age guys planning their evening around the "comedy show" of another Sarah Palin train-wreck performance. I'm guessing they were ultimately disappointed, unless of course they were hitting the bong pretty hard, because it wasn't really much of a "zany laff riot." As with the Obama/McCain debate, I thought both sides did pretty well, and there were no huge mistakes or knockout blows. So with this ridiculous expectations game we play, I guess that means Sarah won.
But I liked her performance for another reason. She repeatedly spoke of getting the government "out of the way" of free men and free women. That warmed the cockles of my heart (whatever cockles are) because it's something I've heard damned little of in this campaign (okay, except for Ron Paul) and almost none at all from the other three candidates. It also took some real stones to say that, given how hard the Democrats are pushing this "deregulation is to blame!" narrative during our current fiscal crisis. But there's some evidence to indicate she's on pretty safe ground there, and it reminded me of why I became a Republican in the first place.
UPDATE: BTW, did anyone but me watch it on CNN? Watching the analysts scorecards was more entertaining than the debate itself.
I mean how many does he need?
Back during the primaries, when Hillary Clinton related her exaggerated "sniper fire" account of a trip to Bosnia, it seemed like the media reported on little else for two solid weeks. Why then has this received so little attention in comparison? I was all ready to blame media bias. Media bias doesn't always have to be against Republicans, and I certainly this Hillary endured more than her share throughout her campaign.
But then my wife pointed out an alternative explanation: No one cares about Joe Biden. It's as if everyone has forgotten he's running. I think she has a point. Every day I read the latest poll numbers for McCain, Obama and Palin. Each day I see Op-Ed pieces passionately attacking or defending McCain, Obama and Palin. It really is almost as if there are three people running for national office and not four. Anyone else notice that?
I realize Mike Bloomberg is hardly the first politician to reverse his stance on term limits, but there's something particularly galling about this. It's probably because I recall how critical he was of a proposal during the darkest days of post-9/11 New York, not to repeal the two-term limit, but to extend Giuliani's second term by three months. While Giuliani favored this proposal for a time, the idea did not originate with him, but from a concerned and frightened citizenry who were desperately seeking stability (Giuliani, for the record, is supportive of Bloomberg's bid.)
Bloomberg attributes his reversal to the current economic climate, claiming the city needs his guidance through uncertain times. Sorry, but I'm still not convinced that the current liquidity crisis in the credit markets rise to the level of 9/11. And even so, it turns out that New Yorkers made it through the mayoral transition in 2001 just fine.
Some good gun rights news in New Jersey.