Heels in the Ground, Head In The Sand

It looks like Republicans are again playing to the base and don't mind losing the rest of us. First of all, here's what the rest of us think.

WaPo/ABC News: 73 percent say Obama is “trying to compromise with the Republican leaders in Congress” while just 34 percent believe Republican leaders are trying to compromise with Obama.

NYT/CBS News: 74 percent think Obama is “trying to work with Republicans in Congress” while just 31 percent think Republicans in Congress are trying to work with Obama.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics: 68 percent believe that Obama “has sincerely tried to reach out to Republicans and be bipartisan” while only 33 percent believe Republicans have “sincerely tried to be helpful to Barack Obama and be bipartisan.”

And if you're a Republican, you're looking at all these results and saying "Message received!" They're going to be running on that. They're viewing it as a plus that they defied popular programs championed by a popular president.

It could work too. After all, Obama is one of a handful of senators who voted against the popular Iraq war, and it carried him to victory. The key, of course, is how the stimulus looks in 2010 and 2012. If we're not better off enough by then, Repubs could pick up some seats again. If there's enough improvement, there'll probably be historic supermajorities for Democrats.

Something else to consider though is whether Repubs are perceived as wanting a return to power MORE THAN responsible governance. Historically the latter is what always saved them, but I'm not so sure they'll be able to use that frame this time, because they're not offering any alternatives to the stimulus package.

Mind you, they will get votes out of this, but the hard right base is not enough to generate serious numbers. Even when Karl Rove was working his magic and neutralizing the independent vote, the best he could manage was a bare minimum majority.

By the way, I keep hearing that one of Bobby Jindal's claims to fame is that he participated in an exorcism. Again, great for the base, not so great to the rest of us. He and Sarah Palin are the party's brightest hopes right now. I won't wish them luck, but I do hope the campaigns shape up exactly the way they want them to.

Please, PLEASE Don't Think Different

News that strikes at the very core of my being - Karl Rove loves his iPhone. Burbles the K-man:

I mean it is just shocking how much better, how much more productive I am. I no longer carry around a giant address book, if I don’t have my calendar close at hand, I can quickly check it out of my– I don’t have to carry, I used to carry several notecards, now it’s just as easy to scribble on my little notepad, I can take photographs and forward them on immediately, it’s just remarkable.

You understand, he could use a Blackberry for all that stuff, or a Palm Centro, but the weasel insists on shouldering into my turf. Come to think of it, even I don't have a damn iPhone!

Look Republicans, superior technology, like science itself, is the provence of Democrats and Libertarians. You have to use Windows-based gadgets. Its just how the divide falls. Did you know that Steve Jobs is a vegan AND a buddhist? You know what was featured prominently in the early ads for the iPhone?

A front page of THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Rove might as well be puttin' Cindy Sheehan up in his guest room.

Tell you what, if that guy tries to link to my MySpace page, I am NOT approving.

Clear As Kristol

William Kristol, one of the far-left fringe communists writing for the New York Times, was forced to issue a retraction today. Apparently Kristol has claimed that Barack Obama was attending a sermon by Jeremiah Wright on a certain day, which would have proved that Obama agreed with everything the Reverend said; in fact, Obama was enroute to a campaign stop in Miami that day, which still proves that he agrees with everything the Reverend says. Whatever.

This puts me in an interesting position, because I was whining atop my high horse (it sounds like a mixed metaphor but it's not!) about the burden of columnists to provide facts just a few weeks ago. And you may recall that I concluded that since they aren't writing straight reportage, they have no such burden. I'm sticking to that opinion.

Kristol is a columnist. He was quoting what he believed is a legitimate news source, in this case Newsmax. As far as he has a source, he can write whatever crazy shit he wants. In fact, as long as he admits he hasn't got a source he could do the same thing. The burden is on you, the reader. If he's proved wrong often enough, stop reading. Or keep reading, but stop believing.

In other news, struggling fringe network FOX NEWS admitted their New York offices are infested with bed bugs (don't let 'em bite!) AND they just recently hired Karl Rove as a commentator to provide some much needed conservative-biased commentary for their coverage of our glorious successes on the battlefront and elsewhere. The bugs came in at the same time as Karl did. Just sayin'. I do not have a source, but it's painfully obvious.

Name-Callin' Not Cool, Says Turd Blossom

Karl Rove, the man who leveraged the "wedge issue" strategy so far that it's finally going to split the Republicans permanently, is advising right-wingers to avoid calling Barack Obama "Barack Hussein Obama". From the linked article: Rove said that the use of “Barack Hussein Obama” would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party. And we wouldn't want to perpetuate THAT notion. Especially now that African Americans have finally acheived complete equality!

Then again, maybe it's important, just to distinguish the candidate from other Barack Obamas. You know, a clarity issue.

In the early nineties, George Bush Sr. ran a campaign against Bill Clinton that seemed to rest entirely on referring to him as "Slick Willy" whenever he spoke. "There goes Slick Willy," he'd say. How'd that work out for him?

I've called my wingnut blogger friends on this behavior. I probably should shut up, because it makes them look worse to keep referring to Hillary! and Hitlery and Juan McCain and the whole Obama/Osama thing. Name calling is a form of insult shorthand, and in a lot of these cases it's an empty meaningless reference. It's a way to be insulting without taking the trouble to know what you're saying, and people catch wise to that usually around 4th grade.

I invite examples of the same bad behavior to the left. This is not a challenge; I know we do it too. I want to be balanced; I just don't think I have to be the one giving the specifics.

Real Borders Aren't Photogenic

The President gives a speech at a simulated Border crossing in Glynco, Georgia to push the immigration bill.

Glynco, Georgia? Surrounded by the United States on three sides, and a small beach town on the fourth. What border crossing do you know that abuts a lush forest?

So I can see giving a speech in Georgia about immigration. And I can see a photo op at a border being a good idea. BUILDING a border crossing for the purposes of a speech has a bit of a let-them-eat-cake quality to it though.

Well, I'm sure they'll find some use for the structure after today, like, uh, a carpet warehouse or some kind of immigration theme park. Work with me here, people.