A Day Without Partisan Sniping

It was a relief yesterday to be able to commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 events without having to listen to shrill negative campaining. The two candidates appeared jointly at an event in New York, for example, which appears to have been free of that kind of thing. Some bloggers observed the ban, some didn't. At the heart of it all was a very public agreement between McCain and Obama that this day needed to be above that kind of behavior.

As it turns out, maybe not the whole day. Salon reports that McCain's campaign aired an anti-Obama ad in the Denver area. It's this one.



Well, we can blame the TV station I suppose... maybe the got it and ran it by mistake. Then again, ithe ad was also uploaded to YouTube by the McCain campaign, and there is a September 11 date stamp.

In addition to it just breaking an AGREEMENT WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, the ad is another one that got on the wrong side of FactCheck.org. They take issue with most of it.

The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.'" But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,'" But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama -- who is the one pictured -- didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.

So they broke the pact, they distorted quotes (so they went out of their way to break the pact) and to my mind they used 9/11 in a cynical way to attempt to gain a tactical advantage. Now THAT'S classy.

Instant Update - The Next Palin Interview

FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S HANNITY & COLMES TO PRESENT FIRST CABLE INTERVIEW WITH GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

Interview to Run In Two Parts: Tuesday September 16th and Wednesday September 17th At 9PM ET

FOX News Channel (FNC) will present a special interview with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin. The interview will be conducted by FNC’s Sean Hannity and will be presented on Hannity & Colmes in two parts on Tuesday, September 16th and Wednesday, September 17th at 9PM ET. This is Palin’s first cable news interview.

An array of topics will be discussed in the interview including being the Vice Presidential nominee, her role in the McCain campaign, Iraq and foreign policy, amongst others.

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, entertainment and business news. For more than six years, FNC has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country, presenting the top eight out of ten programs in the genre for 2008 to date. Owned by News Corp., FNC is available in more than 90 million homes.

I can see the thinking behind the strategy, but it hasn't helped Dick Cheney's numbers any.

The Palin Floodgates Crack Open

Finally Sarah Palin takes questions from a guy! The guy in this case is Charlie Gibson, a journalist with roughly a quarter of the gravitas of Barbara Walters. Still, he is said by many to be fair and doesn't appear stupid. I guess. I rarely watch the nightly network newscasts, perhaps because judging by the commercials I'm about twenty years away from being their target audience. Boniva anyone?

This is all to say that even though I taped the news I didn't watch the segment. In fact, I watched an excerpt of the segment this morning, and they were using the excerpt to tease another segment tonight, which in turn is a tease for the 20/20 episode later tonight. I'm going to watch that. Its all a poor substitute for spending an hour with the candidate and just asking the questions yourself, but that would be impractical. I'm just too busy.

So, let's go straight to the "gotcha". (When I call it that, don't get me wrong - I don't think Gibson was trying to trip her up. The way he reacts, he seems more thrown off track than she was.)

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: (beat) In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: (helpful but annoyed) The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

It's pretty obvious that Palin wasn't famliar with the phrase "Bush Doctrine." To be fair, that doesn't mean she isn't aware of the policy, in fact she surely is. I'm sure a lot of Men-In-The-Street aren't aware of the phrase either. So this exchange doesn't make me think she isn't prepared to lead.

However, it does suggest that she isn't ready to campaign. It reinforces the whole last-minute-hail-mary-VP-choice meme that we've been hearing since she was first announced. It says that Palin has been concentrating on running Alaska rather than following the national political scene. Since the most unpopular president we've ever had (if he ain't, he's pretty close) has made it a badge of honor that he doesn't complicate his thinking with too much information, I don't know how much patience the voters are going to have with Republicans offering up more of the same in Palin.

We've got a whole hour tonight to see how much of the rest of the interview is like this; and after that probably, a handful of interviews tops. And the debate. Of course, even if she winds up being Dan Quayle, remember that guy made it in.

Of course, Republican voters LIKED Bush Sr.

Rating The Conventions

On my showbiz podcast BOX OFFICE WEEKLY I covered the TV ratings for both conventions, and they were historically high. Obama held the record for most-watched acceptance speech, that is until McCain took the record by another 500,000 viewers. Palin was pretty close too. Biden, not so much.

But there's all kinds of fascinating qualifiers for these ratings, and they add up to nothing. For example, Obama's speech wound up in the top ten for the week while McCain's did not. It's a weird fluke of statistics - the ABC feed made the numbers, but the speech was carried live on 11 networks. A few more viewers on CNN or Fox would have meant less on ABC. McCain's speech was carried on 8 networks (BET, Telemundo and Network One declined on McCain but carried Obama) but still got larger overall numbers, but none in the top ten. I think he was edged out by sports on Sunday.

McCain may have also benefitted from a couple of good lead-ins - there was a football game on just before his speech. Had it run long or McCain started earlier, it probably would have hurt him but as it is, people are already in front of the TV anyway, right? Also Bill O'Reilly sported the first night of a multi-night interview with Obama, which garnered O'Reilly his second-best ratings ever. This preceeded the McCain speech, so arguably you couldn't ask for a more appropriate prelude. On the other hand, Obama had the advantage of being first, so he had to do less battle with convention fatigue.

And interestingly, the Neilsen company picked the month of September to add about 100,000 more people to its sampling pool; so they were sampling differently between the Democratic and Republican conventions. Does this skew the numbers any? Not really. More people in the sample presumably means a more accurate sample because there is more data, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the conclusions that Nielsen reaches.

Coming Around Again

The anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks is today. This is the most traumatic American event in living memory, and not surprisingly people have very strong feelings about it and what it means. Some of these interpretations differ dramatically from each other, and I'm not going to stir up trouble by pointing out how. We've had enough trouble.

My good wishes go out to anyone who was affected by the attacks. Which is everyone.

Smeared and Smearing at the Same Time

Trust the people at factcheck.org. Their only agenda is the truth, their only mission is to clear up lies told by public figures. They've caught the Obama campaign in lies, and McCain as well. And as you might expect, there's plenty of material on both sides.

But don't misquote them, because that pisses them off.

The ad quotes a factcheck article put on on Monday, and I'd encourage you to read it because it does put to rest a few crazy myths about Sarah Palin. So what's their problem with the McCain ad?

The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Because you see, Obama is conspicuously taking the high road with Palin. It's a strategy, and it makes sense. By the way...

There is no more basis for attributing these viral attacks to the Obama campaign than there is for blaming the McCain campaign for chain e-mail attacks falsely claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or a "racist," or that he is proposing to tax water. The anti-Palin messages, like the anti-Obama messages, have every appearance of being home-grown.

See? Voice of reason.

In a better world, people would read this and (pardon the expression) move on. Of course in a better world, factcheck.org would kinda be unnecessary.

SIDE NOTE: Like both candidates, I'm taking off the partisan hat tomorrow. No negative campaigning for a day! Y'all can do what you want - that's what makes America great. Me, I'm choosing to honor our fallen by being a uniter.

Careful Who You Associate Yourself With

I'm ready to give up on this lipstick-on-a-pig thing, now that I've seen it on the morning news stripped of ALL context. That battle to smear someone by inferring thoughts they obviously never intended has been won, I think. Point goes to the those RNC boys.

Still, it makes things said in speeches fair game, right? 

So this Mrs. Palin woman said an interesting thing in her acceptance speech at the convention: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." A lovely sentiment. It's a quote, but is it her own thought? Hard to say. We know she didn't write her nomination speech, though she may have had input. I'd like to think she did. For one thing, it makes her less of a cute puppet and more of a hands-on leader. For another thing, it would mean she's familiar with the work of Westbrook Pegler.

Most people aren't familiar with Westbrook Pegler, a right-wing columnist popular in the mid-twentieth century. But Ben Smith, at The Politico, did some digging.

It's an odd source because Pegler, who moved further right as his career went on, ended up very, very far out... he talked hopefully of the assassination of Franklin Roosevelt.

He was also known for what Philip Roth described as his "casual distaste for Jews," which had become so evident by the end that he was bounced from the journal of the John Birch Society in 1964 for alleged anti-semitism. According to his obituary, he'd advanced the theory that American Jews of Eastern European descent were "instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared."

Does Sarah Palin share these views too? Have you seen her and Leiberman in the same place?

Maybe she can dispel this nonsense during her interviews.

I'll Take Those Rights, Thanks

In 1998 the DMCA was signed into law. That's Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's unpopular with podcasters, normal people, librarians and free speech advocates, but oh so popular with Media companies. So by the rest of us, not well-liked. Still it is the law of the land (and it got through the Senate with unanimous approval!) so we are obligated to play by those rules.

Say you're a lawmaker who wants to distribute an ad which whips up phony outrage over a comment your rival for public office made. You slap together some out of context footage, pad it out with some other stuff, and call it "Lipstick." Guess what? CBS can make you pull it down, if you use footage of Katie Couric without getting clearance first.

McCain, who was IN THE SENATE at the time when the DMCA passed, and hopefully read the thing, has used the work of artists without obtaining their permission first 6 times in the course of this campaign. So what is it? End justify the means? Doesn't care about the rights of others? Naturally assumes everyone loves him? For a guy who has stopped talking to the press, with a running mate who hasn't yet started, relying on other people to get his message across is going to be stickier than he apparently thought.

MSNBC Off To A Good Start

The folks at MediaBistro (mmmmmm- media!) report that ratings for the first Rachael Maddow show are pretty good. She beat Larry King and Glen Beck in her timeslot though not Hannity and the Cartoonishly Weak and Ugly Liberal.

Actually MB just provided the ratings. They reported it. You decide!

A Republican Strategy I Like

GOP HOUSE CANDIDATE CALLS BLACK REPORTER "UPPITY"

I assume that he's trying to take the sting out of the word, as evinced by this:

The Goddard campaign didn't deny that he was discussing Ron Allen, telling the Journal-Constitution that Goddard "simply evoked a word -- that by definition -- described the reporter's demeanor as being superior, arrogant and presumptuous."

Yes, keep calling black folks that and telling them it's not racially charged. That'll settle this racism accusation once and for all! McCain, please please please! Lead on this one!

Wait, no one listens to McCain... Palin! Please!

Say something!

The Desperation Is Back! Pt. 2

Oh, now I get it.

Maybe I'm Not Listening Hard Enough

I mean, it sounds like Sarah Palin is supporting the "bridge to nowhere" here:

And here:

And it's true she didn't support it EVENTUALLY. But when she says this:

"I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska,"

I hope I don't seem racist when I say that I find it a little hard to swallow. Only two more days until the hard-hitting Gibson interview!

The Desperation Is Back! ***UPDATED***

Convention bounce, Obama is up 8 points. Second convention bounce, McCain is up 9 points. So before the end of August they were close to dead even and now, after the conventions, we're back where we started. Some Democrats are worried because the White Women Demographic has swung toward McCain in a big way, 50% to 42%. But since the general number is back where it was, doesn't that mean Obama gained in all other categories to compensate?

Still, at least for today McCain is up a point. So why, today, did I see two of the most desperate talking points ever from Republicans?

Item number one: Hugh Hewitt et al accuses Obama of dissing Sarah Palin in a speech! The line "lipstick on a pig" according to them, obviously refers to Palin. Here's the clip that WHERE ARE MY KEYS put up to prove it:

A fasciating insult, lacking as it does ANY CONTEXT AT ALL IN THE SPEECH. Interestingly, McCain used the same expression last year, talking about Hillary Clinton's health care plan. So there is a little tempest raging over this, and the Obama people issued a statement that amounts to "Oh, come ON."

Enough is enough. The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy – the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year. This phony lecture on gender sensitivity is the height of cynicism and lays bare the increasingly dishonorable campaign John McCain has chosen to run.

I gotta say also, Obama is savvy enough to know that crudely insulting your popular opponents femininity probably wouldn't win him back those white women. So I'm going to file this one under "implausible outrage."

Meanwhile my other favorite source of Conservative Outrage, Warner Todd Huston, offers this:

OBAMA LIES ABOUT SIGNING UP FOR THE DRAFT!!!!! ZOMG!!! (Okay, everything after the word "draft" was my addition.) Here's the talking point. On Sunday Obama talked to GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS and said this:

You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii, and I had friend whose parents were in the military, there were a lot of Army, military bases there. And I always actually thought of the military as some ennobling and honorable option. But keep in mind: I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. So it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue.

Huston, letting Newsbusters do his thinking for him, calls this a "lie" because: there was no selective service requirement in 1979! He's lying, don't you see!

I commented on the entry and asked Huston to explain what Obama hoped to gain by lying like that. After all, if he had failed to sign up and there HAD been a requirement, that would certainly be a scandal but this, this is nothing. Huston insists that Obama forgot when he signed up, and that's LYING. OMG!!!!

What I'm taking away from these two attempts to spin a scandal outta nothin' is that these guys are running scared. Not these two guys. The whole blogosphere. And that, more than anything else, makes me think that the Democrats got nothing to worry about. I mean, I suppose we shouldn't stop mentioning that Sarah Palin actually supported, and got money for, the Bridge to Nowhere (she just didn't spend it on the bridge) and that John McCain, well, we can just run his old quotes to bring him down. And that if the surge worked, why can't we send the troops home? But we have the luxury of not having to resort to character attacks. Especially weird ones.

***Upadate*** Anna Marie Cox, at Swampland: I don't think Obama meant anything crude with the phrase. And I didn't think the McCain campaign meant to portray Obama as the anti-Christ, either. Neither of these campaigns are quite as together as critics would like to believe. Amen, sistah, especially to that last part.

Bill Kristol With a Kind Word For Obama!

"Character, judgment and the ability to learn seem to matter more to success as president than the number of years one’s been in Washington."

- New York Times, 9/7/08

Fox News, But Without The Enthusiasm

During the conventions, MSNBC's coverage was anchored by Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews. The network has announced that from here on in, David Gregory will chair the debates and the election night coverage, with Olberman and Matthews relegated to commentator positions.

This is interesting. At first I thought that it was a bid by MSNBC to avoid alienating the conservative half of its audience. Olberman is one of about 4 cable news hosts who is explicitly liberal; and Matthews, as I've noted before, is in some kind of weird distorted area where no matter what side you're on, he's against you. So I'll call him neutral. Therefore the coverage for MSNBC skewed left.

However, Glenn Greenwald points out in Salon today that Olberman is by far MSNBC's greatest ratings-grabber. MSNBC is the sad-sack of Cable News Organizations. Olberman is the only guy anyone watches there. In fact, they have just signed liberal lesbian Rachael Maddow to occupy the hour between Olberman's high-rated 7:00pm show and its 9:00pm rerun.

So MSNBC had no audience to lose by keeping Olberman as election maven; in fact, there is an obvious model for making money out of biased coverage. No one watches Fox News because they believe its fair and balanced. Even when it is the reason people tune in is because they already agree with the right-wing positions it usually takes. It's classic narrowcasting strategy, and in a landscape where there are 6 or 7 all-news channels it works just fine.

So why the switch? Because MSNBC responds to complaints by right-wing organizations. If they don't, the organizations tar NBC with the same brush. And these organizations have been screaming for years that the whole network is far-left-liberal because they carry Olberman. It doesn't matter to them that 3 hours a day goes to Joe Scarborough (former Republican congressman, current Republican), or that Chris Matthews has espoused positions like this:

I like [George Bush]. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left . . . We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. . . . Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. . . .

Hat tip to Greenwald for that.

MSNBC people, here's my advice - they keep calling you the liberal network. Go for it. Keep adding liberals until the ratings level off. You got nothing to lose. If NBC complains, do something else they always say - sell out to George Soros. Believe me, GE would jump at the cash, and probably sell out cheap. You're never going to make any scratch by being fair and balanced in this market.

Sarah - Smile!

Why is the Barracuda, the pitbull with lipstick, waiting two weeks to talk to the press? I mean, how tough can she be if she won't even catch a few softballs from O'Reilly?

Yes, she's scheduled to weather the white-hot inquisition of ABC's far-left radical Charles Gibson later this week, but traditionally the VP appears on the Sunday talk shows the week of his/her announcement. Plus, McCain promised Larry King that he would have his pick the day after he announced.

Sarah Palin is AFRAID of LARRY KING!

(Granted so am I, but I have an irrational fear of suspenders.)

It seems plausible to me that as much as the base loves Palin, the RNC is concerned that the more the rest of us learn about her views, the less we'll like her. So they're coaching her in ways to say "I'm really really really to the right of most of you guys" while making it sound like "can't we all just get along?" It's the opposite of the problem that they have with McCain, who is a centrist but is positioning himself as a rightie, but a rightie who represents change from the current administration.

Presumably the congnitave dissonance of these messages will spook the average voter, but that could be me dreaming again. My dream candidate is a brainy wonk with not party affiliation whatsover, but that candidate would be eviscerated by all sides long before we got the booths. So I'm for Obama, who is said to be brainy and wonky.

More About Racism

It occurs to me that perhaps the reason why I'm suspicious about Republican's claims of color-blindness is simply that I don't have enough information. So I'm going to ask an open-ended question and ask for responses.

There is a well-known disparity between the percentage of African-Americans in general society, versus the percentage of them in prison. They also tend to be sentenced more severely and serve longer sentences than caucasions for similar crimes. Given these numbers (which are not in dispute as far as I've heard), liberals and African American advocacy groups generally blame racism for the problem.

So what is the alternate explanation? Or explanations.

This Is The Hand, The Hand That Takes

(Title from Laurie Anderson's O SUPERMAN: Now that's a campaign song!)

Here's a couple of items about the Republican Convention stagecraft. First: Sarah Palin's use of the song BARRACUDA by Heart? Not so popular with the Heart people.

Thursday afternoon, Heart e-mailed out a statement ... "The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," it read. "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored."

Why does Heart hate the America, which fought and died for... wait, they're Canadian. Message: Republicans don't respect foreign dignitaries, and run roughshod over the wishes of women.

Second: During McCain's speech a picture appeared behind him. Apparently it was supposed to be of the Walter Reed Veteran's hospital, but the picture was actually of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, CA.



In addtion to being the wrong image, it is said to have been distracting during close ups, which offered a shot of McCain surrounded by an unbroken field of green. Photoshop geeks had the time of their lives.

Donna Tobin, Principal, says this on the school's blog:

Permission to use the front of our school for the Republican National Convention was not given by our school nor is the use of our school’s picture an endorsement of any political party or view.”

Message: Republicans will ruin any endeavor that involves our nation's veterans, and run roughshod over the wishes of our nation's schools.

Oh, and don't be fooled by the picture; North Hollywood sucks. Believe me, I used to work there.

The X Factor

So last week in SLATE, Jacob Weisberg published an opinion that if Obama loses, racism must be the cause. His thinking is that the generic "Democrat" is running so high in the polls yet Obama is neck and neck with McCain. Actually he's still up about 4 points, but I haven't seen the polls since McCain's very high-rated speech last night. So even though America wants a Democrat, they fear the dark man.

I'm not sure I can buy into that argument. John Kerry, though not always recognizably human, was not black either and he had a pretty good theoretical shot. The Republicans are really good at taking qualified people and turning them into demons with or without racism. Not that they haven't used that arrow too but its certainly not the only one in the quiver. 

Both candidates could run the country, both are honorable men. Obama happens to be a little more clear-eyed about the war in Iraq, and a little less hooked up to the people who have been running us into the ground for the past eight years, so I'm for him. But "a little more" and "a little less" doesn't help lure the swing voters. 

It will be interesting to see who wields the club of racism more in the next couple months. It might not come up at all... depends on who gets the most desperate the quickest!

Republicans Aren't Nazis!

At least I have one thing in common with Shakespeare: Sometimes it's easier to understand what I'm saying if you hear it rather than read it.



(The other thing I have in common with Shakespeare is all my material is actually written by someone else. I'm really an idiot drunkard who is the public face of my media empire.)

Damn, I should learn to read... I wonder what I just said?

It's Only Funny If They All Do It

Hat tip to EVERY SINGLE LIBERAL BLOG ON THE PLANET: The Hill talks to Lynn Westmoreland (R, GA) about the Obama family.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said. Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

Oh how I wish I could say I TOLD YOU SO! But hey, just because one Republican in Georgia uses a term that describes Nigras who don't know their place, it doesn't mean that's what they're all thinking. All we know for sure is, if a white man runs for the highest office in the land, he's a leader and if a black man does it, he's arrogant. See? It's the Obama camp that keeps dragging racism into this!

Update: From Wonkette commenter ANGRYBLAKGUY:

…here is a translation of all the Republican code words:

Elitist = Uppity
Community Organizer = The person who gets all the “Color’ds” worked up
Exotic = N%gger
Hockey Mom = White woman(e.g. Carol Brady/June Cleaver)
Country First = the other guy is a traitor
They dont know enough about him = He might be a Mooslim
Sexist = Stop asking questions already
Liberal = the bottom 95% of the income bracket

No Speech! No Speech!

I didn't watch Sara Palin's speech last night. In fact, I haven't watched more than five minutes of the whole Republican convention, and I certainly am not going to waste time on McCain's speech tonight. Yes, I must hate all Republicans.

Then again, I watched even less of the Democratic Convention last week, so I must hate them too. Or perhaps it's this: I don't like to watch politicians making speeches.

This aversion developed in the mid-nineties when I watched one of Clinton's State of the Union addresses. I couldn't get through it without thinking, "you're not addressing the question! You're glossing over the subject!" And I liked Clinton. Once Bush took office, of course it was even worse: all the evasion and trickery, accompanied by a lack of ability to actually speak in public.

A character in Lawrence of Arabia tells Omar Sharif: "You answered without saying anything. That's politics." That's also convention speeches, only without the question first.

So given that you won't get any actual information from these spectacles, you're left with judging politicians by their charisma. Or in other words, you can try to determine whether the rubes will vote for this person because they don't know any better. I'm tired of playing that game. The rubes will vote for who they like. I'm trying to determine who I will vote for. I'd suggest you do the same.

My Greatest Fear Realized

Hey... have I become a concern troll?

Be Careful What You Wish For

Warner Todd Huston is enraged at the liberal media bias again. This time, he notes that Jesse Ventura and D.L. Hughley were on Larry King last night, and they called Republicans "nazis," and there's not a word about it in the liberal media!

My response as follows: When the Press ignores this stuff it means that the accusation "Republicans are Nazis" doesn't get repeated over and over again. If you think your side would benefit from hearing "Republicans are Nazis" repeatedly maybe you could write to CNN and demand that they repeat the clip where Ventura and Hughley insist that Republicans are Nazis. Personally I don't think Republicans are Nazis myself, and I'm sure you don't believe Republicans are Nazis either. If these two think Republicans are Nazis, maybe it's better to not repeat the slur. The slur that Republicans are Nazis.

Later on Huston also cheers McCain for snubbing the press, which I think is a great strategy in the last month before an election. That'll show 'em!

Too Delirious to Keep On Message

Today's spam email from Townhall.com, the morning after the triumphant speech by President-elect Palin:

From:  TownHallmessage@townhallmail.com

Subject:  The shocking truth about blood sugar

Date:  September 4, 2008 7:09:58 AM PDT

It goes on to try to sell me a blood sugar monitoring system. Or book. Or something. You have to click on a link to find out, and my blood sugar is just fine.

But why does Townhall hate Sarah Palin?

Palin By Comparison

Just a few minutes ago I read a post on Where Are My Keys that started "here's the reason why the left is terrified of Sarah Palin...". I gotta tell you, I was a lot more terrified on Saturday than I am now.

As much as I'd like the national discussion to not be about Palin's personal life, that's just not the way the game is played nowadays. So predictably the press is focusing on stuff that has nothing do with her ability to fulfill the role of Vice President, which by the way is cheifly agreeing with the President and showing up at funerals for other country's Vice Presidents. In fact, we've just recently learned that the office isn't even part of the executive branch!

She seems likable enough.

So who's terrifed? John McCain cancelled an interview with Larry King because:

Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard.

As Joe Klein points out, there was actually a pretty good answer (she deployed them to fight fires) but the McCain camp are furious that someone would dare ask the question! In fact, with the exception of the bloggers and worse, the people who comment on the blogs, the treatment of Sarah Palin has been pretty weak sauce. Nobody is demonizing Sarah Palin, just asking tough questions. I've yet to see someone suggest Sarah Palin is the anti-christ. She lived closer to Russia than most of us, but I haven't seen anyone insist she must be a communist.

Over at Where Are My Keys there have been eleven posts since Aug 31st defending Sarah Palin. It's growing exponentially as the days go on. I'd say the problem isn't Sarah Palin OR the press. The problem is the Republicans always are ready to bring a machine gun to a knife fight. It's worked for them in the past, but America is tired of listening to machine gun fire. I listen to the commentary now and it sounds like backfiring and ricochets to me.

His Terrible Swift Sword

Last night's Republican National Convention, they say, was classy. It's an extrordinary thing to set aside an entire quarter of your infomercial and devote it to non-partisan efforts. I'm not going to watch this one much either, but the talk in the streets is the RNC got it right. And since Gustav has apparently shed much of its strength and fury, it is safe to return to a more conventional Convention.

I'm just wondering though, for consistancy's sake, about the role of God in all this.

The evangelical community was quite fond of pointing out that Katrina was God's way of punishing New Orleans for its sinful ways. So presumably the storm this time around is God's way of saying, "You're cleaning up there, New Orleans. Good on ya." However, Gustav forced Republicans into giving up all that free TV time - isn't that God's way of saying that they're on notice?

And though some were saying that the party dodged a bullet in that they were able to credibly cancel the President's and Vice President's appearance on Monday. But Bush will speak, via satellite, tonight. So his appearance is separated from Palin's speech and McCain's (he's also running) speech by one less day. Surely, if God uses storms as a way of administering justice and engineering the big picture, this demonstrates that he wants the Republicans to lose, right?

As a matter of fact, there was a movement several weeks ago. A pastor implored people to pray for rain during Obama's stadium speech. And the Democrats were spared rain while Republicans were flooded out of an entire convention night. I don't claim to speak for Mr. Big there, but there's no mistaking which team he's rooting for right now.

Addendum: Here's the class keepin' on goin' - President Bush this morning.

President Bush said Tuesday that while it’s too early to assess Hurricane Gustav’s damage to U.S. oil infrastructure off the Gulf Coast, the storm should prompt Congress to OK more domestic oil production.

“One thing is for certain, when Congress comes back, they’ve got to understand that we need more domestic energy, not less,” Bush said in the Roosevelt Room. “One place to find it is offshore America lands that have been taken off the books, so to speak, by congressional law and now they need to give us a chance to find more oil and gas here at home.”

It takes a guy who doesn't do nuance to use a massive gulf storm to argue that offshore drilling is a great idea.

Corrections and Addenda

Thanks to Madeline's Dad for aid in proving my point!

Attention Chick Voters: Sara Palin

A little more material about Sara Palin. 

My favorite YouTube comment so far:

"This is seriously insulting to American Women and not helping your case."

Chicks! Am I right?

Partisanship Aside

This short piece by Mike Murphy at Swampland is a good jumping off point.

The Sarah Palin balance sheet. Pros; most impressive young conservative Governor is the country. The base will love her, grass-roots side of convention floor will be happy. She has charisma and can give a great speech. Middle class Mom with family. Obama now not only contender who can make a 3 point shot. She has been an impressive Governor, with reform instincts. She can certainly deliver the vital swing state of... Alaska. Former full Colonel in Pat Buchanan brigades.

Cons: McCain's mighty and oft-swung Obama swatting hammer of experience has been instantly changed from steel to rubber. VP examination stakes are a little higher for McCain, will she pass the ready on Day One test with less than two years in a (small) statehouse? Former full Colonel in the Pat Buchanan brigades.

Bottom line: A base choice. Which hints at a base-centered election strategy. Got it Boy, good thing it is 1994. What? It's not? Hmmm.

My own feeling remains this: she's a better choice than I saw coming, but she's a moot point. James Dobson aside, will the far-right overcome their revulsion of McCain (whose name has unfortunate biblical resonances) enough to vote for the ticket? Or more importantly, are they hoping that someone with even less experience than Obama will get the office through misadventure?

Ultimately it's still a choice for Republicans between the man they hate and the man they despise.

Congratulations Sarah Palin

If there are any lefties who read this (it seems to be almost entirely derisive righties) you may find this link helpful. It's ThinkProgress.org postings about the Republican candidate that Republicans don't hate, with headlines such as:

Palin: A Champion for Big Oil

Palin Has Never Been to Iraq (they amend it to note that she's been there once, but that's still once less than Obama)

Palin's War On Polar Bears

Doocy: Palin knows about foreign policy because Alaska is ‘right next door to Russia’

I hear she is popular in Alaska right now because she pushed for higher oil taxes and since the price went up, Alaska is running a budget surplus. So she's in favor of both higher taxes on business and bloating government coffers.

And she is both charming AND inexperienced, unlike the hated Democratic candidate.

Bill Kristol Makes Correct Prediction!

On June 30th he said McCain would pick Sara Palin!

Okay, he actually predicted this: When McCain picks Palin as VP, gas prices will plummet.



So, since I'm out of the business of predicting stuff, I'm going to sit back this weekend and watch the gas prices plummet. What a shame he didn't pick her in July, when the prices were at their peak. WHY DOES JOHN MCCAIN HATE AMERICA?

John McWho?

The following is from an email I received this morning from Townhall.com. It was titled EMPEROR OBAMA HAS SPOKEN.

In a manner fit for an Emperor, Obama descended upon the more than 80,000 gathered in Denver to receive his message last night.

I couldn't help but notice the similarities between the spectacle and the man himself. While the Roman columns looked the part, Invesco field was no more a Roman Coliseum then Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States.

Even with Joe Biden by his side, Roman pillars surrounding him and Bill and Hillary behind him, the Barack Obama last night at Mile High was the same inexperienced, liberal radical we have always known him to be. No amount of rock concert lighting, Broadway stagecraft, lofty rhetoric -- or even fireworks -- will change that. The media networks in attendance may trust him to lead them to the Promised Land, but we certainly do not.

Americans need to stand up now and show our opposition to the radical left agenda that a President Obama would impose on us. Now is the time for us to stand up to the New York Times and their liberal media cronies and show our opposition to Obama. Join the NObama revolution.

Can you spot the fascinating omission? Hint: our ballots don't actually have a spot for a NO vote for President.

(PS - the talking points are nonsense, but for a change they're respectable nonsense. In other words, defensible arguments instead of crazy Muslim/terrorist/criminal accusations. So good on ya, Townhall.)

McCain Wants Out

How do I know? I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul. You might want more proof than that. So I'll give you some.

The Dayton Daily News is reporting that the big rally McCain is holding on Friday in a 10,000 seat stadium is still not sold out, and helpfully gives the phone numbers of a few places where you can get free tickets. They add:

There has been speculation that McCain would use the Dayton visit to announce his running mate but McCain said he's not reached a decision yet, so he's not sure if there will be an announcement here.

Seeing as the 75000 seat auditorium that Obama is accepting the nomination at tonight has been "sold out" for weeks (not literally - despite some blog reports, he didn't charge a thousand a ticket; most of the seats are free) perhaps McCain could knuckle down and choose that running mate today, just to get a few more people to come to the rally. Free publicity tip, Johnnie!

(How popular are those Obama tickets anyway? This popular.)

The clearest indication that McCain is close to doing a Thompson here is from this Time Magazine interview.

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?

Read it in my books.

I've read your books.

No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?

I defined it in five books. Read my books.

...In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it's over?

[Does not answer.]

Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]

[Long pause.] I'm very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party.

You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?

[Shakes his head.]

...A lot of people know about your service from your books, but most people don't know that you have two sons currently in the military. Can you describe what it means to have Jack and Jimmy in uniform?

We don't discuss our sons.

Is it my imagination, or is McCain refusing to even answer the softballs here? I suppose they might have caught him on a bad day, and it's not like he didn't answer ANY questions, but geez!

By the way, please please please let it be Leiberman. He's an independant! Everybody LOVES Joe Lieberman! Pleeeeeeeeeease!

The Pro-Monopoly Candidate

Hat tip Bedazzled.

A Response To That Video In The Last Post

Sure, Make It Easy For Me

The Democratic Convention has been on for three days now... and I haven't watched a SINGLE MINUTE OF IT!

That's a lie. I actually saw most of Ted Kennedy's speech but I didn't hear it. I was reading the CC titles while on a treadmill at the gym. It looked effective enough. But I'm getting all my info about the infomercial from blogs and news. It's quicker, more efficient and even more entertaining.

So far the convention has been kind of a disappointment - to Republicans. Sure Fox News was able to whip this up:

They'll say it proves that liberals are all angry and hate America, but if you listen closely they're not chanting "Fuck America!" Earlier this week ace cub reporter Griff Jenkins met with this chant while asking the protestors to explain themselves, and was reduced to shouting "Why do you hate free speech!" Apparently the Fox definition of the term is "talking to Fox News." It doesn't occur to them that not talking to Fox is a freedom all its own.

Then there are the PUMAs. Republicans were so looking forward to the Party Unity My Ass people disrupting the flow of the convention by refusing to accept Obama as the nominee and demanding Hillary instead. Unfortunately, Hillary put the Kibosh on that last night with her speech, and Bill Clinton didn't do the PUMAs any favors tonight. And it's becoming increasingly obvious that while there may have been some disenfranchised Democrat members, the organization is run by Republicans.

So tomorrow Obama will accept the nomination that was entered a few hours ago, and he'll make a speech that Republicans will insist proves that he hates America, and the Democratic National Convention will be over.

And then, the real fun begins.

The Republican National Convention starts Labor day. You want proof that Karl Rove isn't running things nowadays? They're starting on a holiday that was sponsored by UNIONS. Further proof? It's a few hours after the end of the Muscular Dystrophy telethon, another informercial, associated with a disease that causes gradual and irreversible weakness.

I'm not done. Opening night speakers include the President and Vice President. This isn't so bad, I mean, they had to put them somewhere and why not the furthest point from the night that McCain is speaking? But it also happens to be the anniversary of the President's biggest Achilles' heel, the LANDFALL OF HURRICANE KATRINA. They scheduled the Convention to run at exactly the time of year that we remember the worst footage of the disaster from.

Perhaps it's a strategy, distract people on the anniversary with an event. Oh yeah, they're holding the whole party in New Orleans. * If these parallels don't get play from the press every single night of the convention, I think we can finally write off the myth of a liberal media.

And weirdly, they could have held it a week later and had McCain accept the nomination on 9/11.

What the hell has happened to these people?

* I misread something. The whole party is in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Who can turn the world on with a smile? John McCain!

Addendum: From Wonkette:

Talking about the possibility of Hurricane Gustav making landfall during the Republican convention, Karl Rove tells Fox News, “The Republicans can’t seem to get a break when it comes to August and when it comes to the weather.” Right in the middle of the president’s vacation, frequently! Stupid asshole weather, poor Republicans.

Attention CruxLux Bot - 9a818edd0b022457aab5b1afb097bada04e96d54

All others please ignore.

Not Unlike Journalism

Over at Boxoffice Weekly, my podcast, I'm running with a story about the controversy about Richard Cheese and his appearance at the Coverville 500 concert, which I attended. I've been able to get find quotes by Cheese, the guy who ran the concert, and the guy whose cellphone Cheese snatched up while he was in the act of recording Cheese. I cannot make that last part any clearer and believe me, I just tried five times.

I almost feel, for a change, like a real reporter. Usually I simply regurgitate wire stories about celebrities... but then again, in showbiz news that's what the real reporters do too. Perhaps the only difference between me and a showbiz reporter in the Mainstream Media (TM) is I'm making no money at all, while the other guy is making less and less every year. We'll eventually meet for coffee, to interview each other. And afterwards we'll sneak out without paying.

Leave The Kid Alone

Okay, this has gone far enough. John McCain will pull out his POW experiences at the drop of a hat. Criticize him for not knowing how many houses he has?

I spent five-and-a-half years in a prison cell,” McCain said. “I didn’t have a house. I didn’t have a kitchen table. I didn’t have a table. I didn’t have a chair. And I didn’t spend those five-and-a-half years because, not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.”

Accuse him of knowing Obama's answers at the Saddleback conference, you get this from Nicole Wallace, his campaign aide:

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

You know something, there's something to this. Maybe we need to lay off McCain with these criticisms. After all, he spent over five years in a brutal POW camp.

He was tortured.

He was mentally traumatized.

He is just a human being, after all, and surely he bears the scars of this awful experience.

We need to lay off this man, to stop pressuring him, to stop doing the kinds of things that might hurt someone who is already so fragile.

We need, in short, to absolutely not make him the leader of the free world.

Conventional Wisdom

Though the opinion is as predictable as the conventions it decries, I still call your attention to this column in today's Los Angeles Times by Gregory Rodriguez, entitled Big Mac Politics.

Don't do it. Don't tune in to this year's political conventions.

For two decades, Americans have been wising up and increasingly tuning out those quadrennial made-for-television pageants that pass for participatory democracy. In 1976, roughly 22 million people watched Jimmy Carter receive his party's nomination. By contrast, four years ago, only 16 million viewers enjoyed the high jinks at the GOP convention. Over the years, declining interest has persuaded broadcast networks to scale back their coverage, and I think a lot of us suspect we didn't miss much.

But this year, thanks to heightened interest in the presidential campaign, both broadcast and cable news networks are bumping up their coverage. And starting today, it's going to be extra hard to resist the allure of all that elaborately conceived stagecraft.

My revulsion for the conventions doesn't stem simply from disdain for partisan politics. Nor am I suggesting that Americans ignore the substance of politics. But to my mind, conventions are emblematic of everything that's wrong with American culture. For all our belief in freedom, which by definition breeds unpredictability, and our pride in our cultural dynamism, U.S. culture is becoming ever more self-conscious and scripted.

I couldn't agree more, and I'm only grateful that I watch as little TV as I do lately so I don't have to be annoyed that it's going to be pre-empted by these informercials. Feel free to read the rest of it.

Oh, THAT Explains It

I have commented here in the past about the conflicting smears against Obama. I also recently commented about it at this blog and frequent reader "Ameridan" responded as follows.

Obama is a rich elitist who was too poor to buy a mansion in his earlier days until he became involved with a future convicted felon and a rascist preacher. Both of whom greased the skids for his slid into Chicago's cesspool of dirty politics.

It's safe to say that no one here has ever accused Obama of being a Christian... BUT, because he was a Muslim in his early years, he will always be considered a Muslim, no matter how absurd that sounds to you or me. Those are Muslim rules, not ours.

He is a substanceless celebrity. Satan would be the anti-christ and I don't recall anyone ever calling him that here.

Ameridan I'm tempted to just let this stand, because I'm dead certain that throwing facts back at you will not even slow you down. However:

Too poor to afford the house: Obama and his wife were worth $3 million at the time, he paid market value and the rates were normal for people of his credit standing - look 'em up. Or check this out. Factcheck.org also points out how little Rezko benefitted from the laws passed while Obama was running that department. Factcheck sums it up this way, in fact: "Can support for a low-income housing project be a "favor" to the developer if the developer didn't ask for it? You decide."

No one ever accused him of being a Christian: I'm kind of inferring on this one. Obama was accused of buying everything he heard at the christian church he attended for 20 years, therefore you guys didn't believe he really followed the Rev. Wright or you don't believe he's Muslim. And since every single media outlet that checked it out has determined that the school he attended as a child was not a madrassa, the whole "once a Muslim" thing doesn't apply. It's true he grew up in Indonesia. 

Though if he is a Muslim and he managed to attend christian services for twenty years and keep his real faith a secret while in the public eye, I'd say that man has what it takes to be President. And can I take this opportunity once again to remind you that Muslim doesn't equal Terrorist? Much in the same way that Republican doesn't equal racist.

It's true that I haven't seen anyone dare to equate Obama to the Antichrist on WHERE ARE MY KEYS. Tell you where I have seen it though: here and here and here (obliquely and couched in humor) and here and here. 

Incidentally, researching that last one yielded a pretty interesting quote from INDIA DAILY: To tell you very honestly, since John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, America has not seen presidential candidates as clean as Obama or McCain. After Clintons and Bushs, they are more like Christ himself.  I like this, and I think it's largely true. If we could could stop making up stuff about each other's candidates and focus on the issues, I think the country would be a lot better for it.

Biden? Ugh.

This is why I don't usually make predictions.

Not only was I wrong about the person, I was wrong about the day. For some reason the announcement was made in the dead of night (3am EDT), thus insuring that anyone who signed up for those crazy text messages and forgot to set their phones to vibrate would be annoyed by the news. AND the editors WERE out of the office by then.

And there's Biden. Generic handsome old white guy. I was pleased to see him eliminated so early in the primaries on aesthetic grounds. He doesn't LOOK like change. And it feels like he's been running for president for what, 30 years now? Still, the guy has good foreign policy credentials, and plenty of experience. And he has criticized Obama in the past, which I find heartening. It'll be nice to have a President who doesn't surround himself with people who agree with him. You know, for a change. And Biden has gotten in enough trouble for things he has said that he's almost McCain, so he's got that straight-talk thing going for him.

It just seems that he's a safer, blander choice than Hillary, but maybe that's the point. People who are scared of an African American AND a woman president won't stay away. It's all about electability after all. And this administration, like most (though not the current one) will not be run out of the Vice President's office. So I guess we could have done worse.

Attention RNC: Your Next America-Hating Terrorist

Susan Eisenhower. Descendant of Dwight D. Eisenhower, up until now relatively unknown. Soon she will will be linked to the white powder letter sent to McCain, her real estate holdings scrutinized, excoriated by Sean Hannity as angry and insane. Why?

I have decided I can no longer be a registered Republican... My decision came at the end of last week when it was demonstrated to the nation that McCain and this Bush White House have learned little in the last five years. They mishandled what became a crisis in the Caucusus, and this has undermined U.S. national security. At the same time, the McCain camp appears to be comfortable with running an unworthy Karl Rove–style political campaign. Will the McCain operation, and its sponsors, do anything to win?

She's registered independent, and is endorsing known Muslim terrorist/elitist/antichrist/seducer of our women Barack Obama. In a completely unrelated coincidence, a series of shady but unsubstatiated allegations will be leveled against her shortly.

A few minutes later: This is the best I could find so far, and it's pretty weak sauce. I'm not even going to quote, but there is a link if you enjoy crazy rantings.

The Glacial Race to the VP Announcement

Here's an interesting bit of political theatre:

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he has decided who his vice presidential running mate will be. He refused to reveal his choice.

What does this add to the national political discourse? Nothing, of course. However, it does encourage more people to sign up for the text message service that Obama will announce the decision on. I thought I read somewhere that the announcement is coming Saturday afternoon, which to me means Friday afternoon, while the press political editors are still at their desks. 

Might as well speculate while I'm at it... who? WHO? Given the statistical dead heat in the polls with McCain, and given this:

Yet perhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else.

...plus this:

Obama, Reid Help Clinton Raise $2 Million and Shrink Her Debt 

... it seems inevitable that we got Clintons in the White House again! Not only will this solidify the Democratic base, increasing that poll lead to 70%, but they'll also pick up probably another 10% of Republicans... the FAR RIGHT ten percent!

Now you may ask, who is McCain picking? But after tomorrow afternoon, you might as well stop after "Who is McCain?"

One Of Us, One Of Us, Gibble Gabble One of Us

John McCain explains his remark that he would define "rich" as "making 5 million or more."

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

Just like the rest of us. I too, when hanging with my 5-million-plus-making-friends, define their wealth by their ability to properly educate their children. If they can build and staff an appropriate school, I adjudge them wealthy. If they merely send their kids to a pre-existing prep school, I consider them poor.

Like John McCain, I have "at least four" houses (Newseek estimates seven) and one of my biggest problems, if I had kids, would be choosing the house to put them in when they're going to school. I'm thinking of buying a couple of kids, so this is on my mind. The only thing that's stopping me is this: how do you child-proof a Lear jet? Do you allow them in the cockpit or just confine them to a section near the tail, perhaps with their own rest room?

I'll say this though - I want a guy in the White House who shares the concerns of a common guy like me. I - oh damn, I just spilled Absinthe on my $500 shoes - demand that some elitist like Obama be prevented from running the country and just giving it to the hoi-polloi who are worth less than 5 million. Why should THAT minority have a say?

I'm No Economist

However, if common sense has anything to do with oil prices then there is something wrong with this argument, courtesy Madeline's Dad:

If you say you are going to drill, and then don't, prices go back up. The lower prices we are seeing now are reflective of what the Market hears and sees. If we don't do what we said we are going to do, things revert back to how they were.

He and I have been going back and forth about this for a while. He believes that the price of oil is chiefly controlled by futures speculators, and therefore the prices were high until Bush rescinded the executive order against offshore drilling, at which point they started falling precipitously.

I believe the price of oil rose until people started using less gas and more public transportation.

Less demand, lower prices.

Here's what's troubling about MD's argument. No speculator thinks that increased supply is going to kick in immediately. An offshore drilling rig takes at least ten years to produce, and they haven't even started building them. Yet we're supposed to believe that speculators, who are looking at prices six months from now, are willing to sell their interest at a loss today.  It's true some speculators may see the value in selling off, but MOST of them? Seems suspicious to me. 

Also, I recall the price of oil started dropping not on the day that Bush signed the order, but the day after when he made a speech about signing the order. Speculators weren't paying attention to the actual lawmaking but once he made the speech, THEN they knew he was serious?

And why would there be movement now, when congress isn't in session, and the prospect of drilling is anything but settled? Popular sentiment, MD would say, but if I had a piece of that market, I wouldn't trade yet.

Then again, I don't really know that much about economics. So convince me. 

A Word About the Suit

This is how I looked at the New Media Expo today. My strategy was twofold:

a. Distinguish myself from the typical podcaster in the t-shirt with the orange Cheetos stains: and

b. The women go crazy for a sharp-dressed man, if you follow me.

In fact I barely rated a notice. ESPECIALLY from the women. Just now, as I was wandering around Bally's waiting for the show, a guy asked if I worked here because he was looking for the bathroom.

Let's call this a failed social experiment.

Jonathan Coulton!

Just stumbled upon geek musical genius Coulton. The thing about internet fame is even though its limited, it has the same effect on you. I'm blown away.

Why the New Media Expo is in August

Slow news days.

Then Again...

Google sponsoring a slot machine wouldn't make sense... But PAYPAL would be a natural. Plus conceivably they could set it up that your winnings could be emailed to you.

Once they overcame the massive security problems of course.

I Don't Know What To Make of This

Its a slot machine at Bill's on the strip. Can GOOGLE! Be far behind?

They DO Think He's The AntiChrist!

And they've got the headline to prove it.

Badly typed on my iPod

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jonathan Garthwaite <THeditor@TownHallmail.com>
Date: August 15, 2008 8:13:41 AM PDT
To: " Daniel Krause" <danielkr@darkmeat.name>
Subject: Headed for Obamageddon?
Reply-To: Jonathan Garthwaite <THeditor@townhallmail.com>

Like I Said, Zune

I mean come ON.

Brian Ibbot

DARK MEAT is modeled after COVERVILLE, the best podcast ever. Here is Mr Ibbott, the guy behind that show, selling me tickets to the Coverville concert tomorrow night.

LEO LAPORTE

What is he talking about? Who knows.

I've only been on the New Media Expo floor for a half hour and I'm already exhausted. Dominant themes: video, leverage. Weirdest sub-theme: Zunes. Nice timing there Ballmer!

I love Goo

..a little goes a long way though.

Spent the evening in the gracious company of Karen F and her offspring Madeline. Madeline is just a little over 1 year old. I'm awkward around babies because they don't get my references, but neither do most adults. I'm just grateful the kid would play peekaboo with me.

A note about the previous three days - I was lucky enough to be hosted by Skot and Eileen. In addition to a bed and snappy conversation, they gave me coffee and cereal each morning and that is the reason I'm alive today.

Next: Vegas!

Welcome to Mountain View

..a city which apparently died 6 years ago. And yet the people here soldier on. O indominable human spirit!

Be Sure To Wear Some Flowers

Perhaps I didn't mention that I would be in San Francisco this week. Here I am outside a Starbucks in Embarcadero.

The Missing Link

Since last week I've been scratching my head over a blog post by my good friend and adversary Warner Todd Huston. Warner has been insisting that Barack Obama is a hypocrite because he hasn't denounced the ugly tactics in the 9th District Congressional race between Steve Cohen and Nikki Tinker. The point Huston made is that Obama has claimed they're playing the race card against him, yet doesn't speak up when Tinker runs an explicitly anti-semetic campaign against Cohen.

I was perplexed by this, because as I pointed out, Jewish is not a race but a religion. Therefore McCain is as obligated to condemn this ugliness as is Obama, and as far as I'm concerned neither candidate is obligated. There's too many districts out there.

But Huston insisted the difference is Obama was obligated because he's a Democrat. I countered that if it was an ugly enough campagin for Obama to condemn, it was ugly enough for us all to. Huston moved on.

But I just learned the magical secret to this whole thing - Tinker is an African American! A particularly nutty one too. As reported by the AP today (which Huston insists isn't covering the race because of that liberal bias) Tinker lost 19% to 79%, and the latest ad, which claimed that Cohen was somehow linked to the KKK, both cemented Cohen's win and drew the condemnation of Barack Obama. Darn Jews! I knew they were infiltrating the KKK!

The 9th District, by the way, is predominantly African American.

Anyway, back to Warner. Somehow the Tinker-is-black element of his argument escaped my notice. He obliquely mentions it ("a member of (Obama's) own race" is how he puts it, but that means Tinker is half-white? Hawaiian?) but then goes on to argue that it's racism to attack Jews, when I believe what he really means is "those black people should keep each other in line." Given Obama's bloodline, again, by extension he's obligated to speak out about racism from all sides. Of course, that's only if you believe bloodline matters. I'm part Polish, but I don't feel responsible for Lech Walensa. I'm part Native American, but I'm not asking for an apology for the Trail of Tears. And I sure as hell aren't apologizing for Little Big Horn.

I've seen a picture of Warner (if there really is such a person) and he looks a little French to me. So I'm willing to give him a pass; the French, they say, are a funny race.

How Would A Bush Town Hall Meeting Have Handled This?

Photographer insists on Pledge of Allegiance before Obama rally

Hat tip to Wonkette for this - crazy dude gets into Obama Town Hall meeting, demands Obama lead the pledge of allegiance. Obama agrees and does so. Crazy dude is then NOT whisked away to airport for extraordinary rendition and then locked away without charges for the next ten years.

See, this is one more reason why I like Barry O - he tolerates dissent, considers it, and changes course if the dissent makes sense. Flexibility is useful when you're running the free world. Compromise is the whole point of Democracy. And he does all this here without losing control of the room, which any standup will tell you is death. Huzza, O!

It's NOT a Pattern! It's Not A Pattern At All!

JEFFERSON CITY -- Missouri state Rep. Scott Muschany, R-Frontenac, was indicted today in connection with a reported sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl on May 17, the day after this year’s Legislative session ended... In 2006, Muschany was a co-sponsor of legislation that toughened sex offender laws. 

Look, at least this one was a girl. 

Straight-Talk Outta Hell

John McCain got a lot of milage (haw haw) last week out of ridiculing the idea that routine auto maintenance might somehow help Americans save money on gasoline. He passed out tire gauges at a speech as a kind of punchline. Clearly the last thing Americans should do to cut their dependence on foreign oil is USE LESS OIL.

This week, however, McCain said this: “Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that... (but) I don’t think that that (inflating tires) is a way to become energy independent." Which is fine, because Obama didn't say that either. He laid out a bunch of items on an energy plan. To pick out one and say it won't do the job is pretty lazy arguing.

But in April, McCain said this: "...And I'm sorry to tell you that the price of oil -- as far as I can tell -- is not gonna go down anytime soon until we eliminate our dependency on it.
We can do that as a nation -- we can turn out the lights five minutes earlier, we don't have to drive the extra block." So between April and now, he decided that we need to PROLONG our "dependency" on oil to bring down the price. Plus, like Jimmy Carter, he apparently feels the best way to solve the crisis (I don't think it's a crisis myself) is to wear sweaters, walk to the store, burn candles, stuff like that. I'm assuming that's still his position because he hasn't contradicted it this afternoon.

I'm guessing that most people want the country to go in a different direction than it is now, and I'm also guessing that the man who will steer it that way didn't vote along with the current President 95% 88.3% of the time.

(Latest figure courtesy of Ana Marie Cox at Swampland)

Republicans Are Uri Geller

(click chart to enlarge)

The price of a gallon of Gasoline has fallen in the past three weeks about 15 cents nationally. What's causing this? My theory is the same one oil companies use to explain why it rises in the summer - supply and demand. More people want to drive, therefore they raise the prices. Or a refinery is down for maintenance, therefore the price goes up. However, this last month the price of gas got high enough that people started driving less, looking into public transportation, riding bikes (well, I've been riding one anyway) and carpooling. As a result demand for the product went down and the oil companies dropped prices again.

I know, that's crazy talk. the real truth is Republicans willed the price to go down by talking about it.

“I think the market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) at a joint press conference with other GOP lawmakers. “I think the market realizes this kind of pressure from Congress may, in fact, lead to a change in policy.”

The market has reacted to thinner stuff than this, but come on! Congress isn't even in session and there's little indication that there will be any action on this before the fall. And the futures speculators usually think six months ahead, not 20 years. Why start underbidding yourself now? And what role is S&D supposed to be playing in this scenario, Shadegg?

And if you guys are sure that just bringing the subject up is enough to affect the price, why the hell didn't you start talking in January of 2007, when gas was at a 14 month low? What are you, in the pockets of Exxon? Ha ha, just kidding. I mean, obviously you are. What I'm kidding about is having to ask the question in the first place.