Bluebelle

More media reactions to Palin

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek: Palin Is Ready? Please.

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. [. . . .]

In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, it is simply not true.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of The National Review:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. [. . . .]

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

 

Conservatives are committing mutiny (or, "Republicans now eating their own")

From David Brooks at the NYT:

In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

Ouch. I certainly wasn't expecting that from David Brooks, but kudos to him for valuing the truth over party loyalty.

Richard Cohen in the Washington Post writes:

Following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain did something extraordinary: He confessed to lying about how he felt about the Confederate battle flag, which he actually abhorred. "I broke my promise to always tell the truth," McCain said. Now he has broken that promise so completely that the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised. [. . . .]

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. 

[. . . .]

What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that.

I guess Cohen doesn't plan on attending any more of McCain's legendary BBQ cookouts for the press. Then again, I doubt that he'd be invited again.

To top it all off, McCain himself got McSnarky with Mika Brzezinski on today's Morning Joe.

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post writes about the exchange here:

Most glaringly, McCain openly sparred with Brzezinski, whom he accused of being an open supporter of Obama. Asked by the host to assess whether an ad attacking him on the economy was out of bounds, McCain replied:

"I'll leave that for the American people to decide. I still say to you, and I know you are a supporter of Senator Obama, if you would urge him to come and do town all meetings with me as I have asked him to do time after time the whole tenor of the campaign would change."

The charge created an awkward and tense environment for the rest of the segment, with Brzezinski forced to note (as she has done in the past) that one of her brothers works for the McCain campaign (another brother works for Obama, and her father was once an adviser).

"Senator," she said, "as a characterized Barack Obama supporter, I take objection. I'll just say, take care of my brother working at the campaign."

"Thanks," replied McCain, "that was a cheap shot."

No, Mittens isn't looking ahead to 2012 . . . of course not!

Wow, when someone as unctuous as Mitt Romney blasts McCain for lying, you know it's bad.

I think Senator McCain was called for what everyone has said is a false accusation. The New York Times, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Bill Bennett -- everybody is saying what he said is simply wrong, reprehensible. I think it was a huge mistake on his part. He wants to stick with it, so he is going to take the shots for it, as long as he is doing that. I think people are going to say, "What is the heart and soul of the Republican Party going forward?"

Now for the fun tidbit: This video is from 1/31/08. Still is perfectly usable though, isn't it? It shows that McCain still hasn't kicked his Pinocchio habit.

Aren't conservatives big fans of Alan Greenspan?

Because if they are, these videos should make an impact:

On Bloomburg News:

And on This Week:

Before the right-wing spin machine tries to deflect the impact of this statement by saying that Greenspan is some kind of "liberal elitist" (yeah, we all know that's BS, but so is everything else they're saying), remember this: Greenspan endorsed McCain in April. His exact words: "I'm Republican and I support John McCain, who I know very well and who I respect a lot."

Just for fun, here's a clip of McCain talking about Alan Greenspan last October:

UPDATE: Sorry, I forgot to add this handy-dandy graphic from The Washington Post which shows how McCain's and Obama's tax plans compare. Sounds good to me . . . I could use an extra $1K+ . . . how about you? (Click to enlarge the graphic.)

Why I'm Voting Republican

(Got your attention, didn't I? I didn't write this, but I thought it was worth passing on. Maybe I'll work on updating it for this election, although the bulk of the issues remain the same -- more of the same, that is....)

I'm voting Republican because being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

I'm voting Republican because Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money, but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

I'm voting Republican because "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

I'm voting Republican because a woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all of humankind without regulation.

I'm voting Republican because the best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

I'm voting Republican because if condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

I'm voting Republican because a good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

I'm voting Republican because HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

I'm voting Republican because providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

I'm voting Republican because global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

I'm voting Republican because Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

I'm voting Republican because a president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

I'm voting Republican because Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

I'm voting Republican because what Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

I'm voting Republican because trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

I'm voting Republican because Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

I'm voting Republican because I live by the Golden Rule, except when it comes to elections. Then I sacrifice my honor and integrity in favor of gaining a few more votes.

Flippity floppity fleeeee . . . .

(DISCLAIMER: I didn't write it, and I don't know who the original author is, but this thing needs to go viral.)

Think about it . . . then pass it along.

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates, you're a "token hire." If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates, you're a "game changer."

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii, you're "exotic."
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story."

If you name your kid Barack, you're "unpatriotic."
Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual, you're "reckless."
A Republican who doesn't fully vet their VP pick is a "maverick."

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African American voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people, you are an "arrogant celebrity".
If you are a popular Republican female candidate, you are "energizing the base".

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions, you are "presumptuous".
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a "shoot-from-the-hip maverick".

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree, you are "an elitist, out of touch" with the real America.
If you are a legacy graduate of Annapolis (dad and granddad were admirals) with multiple disciplinary infractions, you are a hero.

If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an "empty suit".

If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an "experienced executive".

If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are "extremist".
If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man-made, you are "strongly principled".

If you cheated on your physically disabled wife with an heiress 18 years your junior, then left your wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman for 16 years, with whom you are raising two beautiful daughters, you're "risky".

If you're a black, pregnant single mother of four who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you're an irresponsible parent who is endangering the life of your unborn child.
But if you're a white, married mother of four who waits 22 hours with a high-risk pregnancy, you're spunky.

If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you "First dog."
If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you "beautiful" and "courageous."

If you kill an endangered species, you're an excellent hunter.
If you have an abortion, you're not a Christian, you're a murderer. (Forget about it if the pregnancy resulted from rape.)

If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible, age-appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

And finally:

Quiz question for the RNC, specifically those on the Religious Right.

Who is one of the most revered and famous community organizers in history?

........................... JESUS CHRIST

Hey Republicans -- can we talk? (Episode 2)

Because I've had to do homework this week (boo), I haven't yet been able to write my first issue-centric post for this series.

However, I've got a pretty strong argument from someone else -- a self-described "ROTC Cadet, Air Force Captain, Free Republic diarist, James Dobson quoting conservative, 2 time Bush voter, church worship leader, evangelical Christian, card carrying conservative, Rush/Hannity listener" who is now firmly supporting Obama.

From his diary on Daily Kos:

The sins of the right in this campaign and of the last 8 years do not go unnoticed. The racism, the shameless lying, the demeaning, the assumption that the 'base' is composed of idiots - I see through these things.

[. . . .]

What do I see in Barack Obama? I see an intelligent, thoughtful, unflappable leader. I see a patriot who is rising up and putting himself forth for leadership of this great nation in its hour of need. Goodness knows, I would not want the job. I see a man who will perform the duties of the President of the United States with sober and thoughtful judgement. I see a man with the breadth and depth who can address many of these problems we face as a nation. I see a man who wants to bring us together. [. . . .] I will do my part to convince those I know that a vote for McCain will be a disaster.

Read the rest of his post here.

And here's another excellent post that you should check out, written by a retired Sergeant Major.

Just some food for thought . . . .

I know this is a little late, but I can't pass it up

Dubya speaks at the RNC, followed by Foghorn Leghorn and Droopy Dog.

And another . . . .

Why is Jon Stewart more effective than the Democrats at making the case that John McCain = Dubya? USE THE VIDEOS, DEMS. USE THE VIDEOS.

"Supporting the troops" means more than just slapping a yellow ribbon car magnet on your SUV

Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org isn't holding back:

Last week's Republican convention sure made every superficial effort to come off as pro-Troop and pro-Veteran. And, of course, the media ate it up, not challenging a single thing. But to those of us who did serve, it was offense after offense after offense. Let's count the ways . . . .

Read the whole thing here.

Listen up -- George Lakoff speaks!

Progressives, liberals, Democrats -- lend me your (virtual) ear! If we wanna win this election, we gotta learn how to TALK about it!

From political linguist George Lakoff: Palin Appeals to Voter Emotions -- Dems Beware

An excerpt:

The Democratic responses [to Palin] so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind. [. . . .]

What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. [. . . .]

Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.

Note: I love love love George Lakoff's ideas about political language and linguistics. His book "Don't Think of an Elephant" remains one of my favorites four years after I first read it. I'm currently reading his latest book, "The Political Mind". When I'm finished, I'll definitely write about it here.

So what if I'm a linguistics geek -- I don't care. Lakoff's ideas have the potential to shift the public perception of political parties. (Did you like that 'p' alliteration?) Democrats should take this guy's advice -- language is powerful, especially when its meaning is subconscious.