A SNOWBALL HAS SURVIVED IN HELL

The snowball's chance in hell is apparently not zero.

I never imagined I would ever approvingly cite a conservative publication whose reactionary viewpoints frequently make me sick to my core.

But I am now quoting and linking to the National Review as the source of these words below, which I wholeheartedly second:

[T]he assertion by Republican leaders in the House that as many as a dozen of their members who were leaning toward voting for the legislation ended up voting against it because of Pelosi’s speech is extraordinary.

Let’s see if we have this straight: whichever side of the issue you were on, yesterday’s vote was considered one of the most important ones members of Congress will ever face. Many respected voices argued that an economic catastrophe might follow in the wake of its defeat. Opponents of the legislation considered it a terrible violation of free-market principles. The stakes could not be higher.

After the legislation was defeated and only one-third of House Republicans backed the plan, John Boehner and Roy Blunt took to the microphones and indicated that Pelosi’s speech had been so alienating and offensive that a significant number of House Republicans changed their mind and voted against the bill.

Can they be serious? Do they realize how foolish and irresponsible they sound? On one of the most important votes they will ever cast, insisting “the speech made me do it” is lame and adolescent. The vote, after all, was on the legislation, not the speech. And to say that a dozen members of your caucus voted not out of principle but out of pique is a terrible indictment of them. I hope we learn the names of these delicate figures whose feelings were so bruised and abused.

I have been defending House Republicans for a week against friends who thought they were acting in an irresponsible fashion. I argued they were people with admirable free-market principles who were simply trying to improve legislation and have their voices heard, something to which they were certainly entitled. And I thought they made the bill better than it was. But yesterday’s vote, and the excuses that followed the vote, have made me reassess my judgment. Watching Boehner, Blunt, and Cantor blame the outcome on the Pelosi speech was an embarrassment.

We are in one of the most dispiriting moments I have ever witnessed in Washington, when political authority seems to be collapsing all around us. House Republicans have contributed to this, and it’s a shame.

I think there are legitimate reasons for voting against the bailout. But Nancy Pelosi's short speech is not one of them.

It's amazing to think that one woman's words can inspire a dozen Congressional representatives to force a loss of a trillion dollars in assets.

That's one powerful woman!

--Junichi

TODAY'S EVENTS AS SUMMED UP IN SONG

--O.W.

THE WACKY PAC

This is why I love college football.

(Go Bears! The Rose Bowl is back in our grasp!)[1]




[1] Yeah, I know, probably not going to happen but a True Blue can always dream.

--O.W.

WHO IS SERIOUSLY VOUCHING FOR PALIN?

Watch CBS Videos Online

I know I said I was going to fallback on the Palin coverage since the race isn't about her but seriously, this is just depressing when you think this could be someone expected to lead our country.

No wonder McCain's staff won't let the press talk to her.

--O.W.

WHAT IS AMERICA MORE CURIOUS ABOUT: CLAY AIKEN OR THE $700 BILLION BAILOUT?

I ran a Google trends search for five terms: bailout, cheerleaders, pasta, Clay Aiken, and Star Wars.

I limited the results to searches conducted this month in the United States.

As you can see from the graph above, interest in "bailout" rose quite a bit in the last 48 hours.

However, the potential collapse of our capital markets is apparently not nearly as interesting as Clay Aiken or Star Wars.

--Junichi

BAILOUTS AND BAILING OUT

Somebody just read the latest polls

The last 48 hours have been some of the most fascinating of any news cycle. Let's review.

McCain has allegedly "suspended" his campaign to work on the bailout, even though the fundamentals of our economy is strong and even though Republicans and Democrats already have reached a compromise.

McCain also wants to postpone Friday's debate in order to devote time in the Senate chamber toward staging a photo opportunity building a bipartisan consensus. This is surprising, since he has been absent for more votes in the Senate than any other current senator.

His potential pullout from the debate is all the more suspicious when considering that he wants to reschedule it for the date of the Vice Presidential debate, which would be indefinitely bumped.

Meanwhile, Palin, who apparently didn't get the message that McCain suspended the campaign, went trolling for votes at Ground Zero today and was actually allowed by the non-sexists at the McCain campaign to take four questions from the press. Four! Wow!

One can understand why the GOP is nervous about her talking to any reporter outside of Fox News, given last night's train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric:

One conclusion you can reach from the interview: Katie Couric is not a witch. Because Palin was recently protected from witchcraft at her hometown church.

Her interview, however, wasn't half as bad as McCain's non-interview with David Letterman, who might have single-handedly tilted public opinion about McCain's campaign suspension and debate bailout:

McCain may not be happy with Letterman, but he's probably even less thrilled with his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who -- Newsweek just uncovered -- is still an officer with the lobbying firm that represents Freddie Mac. I see no conflicts there in the same way that I do not see my widening posterior when I look in the mirror.

As for Obama? He's finally up in the polls, which is a miracle given how many Democrats have negative views about black people.

As if that race survey was not depressing enough, somebody at George Fox University wanted to really hammer home the point that this election really might come down to whether America is ready for a black president. That's why he or she decided to hang a life-size depiction of Obama in effigy from a tree.

Just in case you were starting to get optimistic that the bailout and Clay Aiken's refreshing honesty might cure our economic woes, the Congressional Budget Office director just said the proposed bailout might worsen the current financial crisis.

Good times!

--Junichi

HAPPY NATIONAL PUNCTUATION DAY

Today, September 24, is National Punctuation Day.


If you were already aware of this day, chances are good that the errors on these signs drive you batty.

As someone once pointed out to me, punctuation can fundamentally alter the meaning of a sentence.

For example, compare:

A woman, without her man, is nothing.

with

A woman: without her, man is nothing.

I tell my students that many readers will assume a positive correlation between punctuation and intelligence.

To wit:



Perhaps the best evidence to support the link between punctuation skills and intelligence is the following pen that was recently sold on John McCain's website:

The McCain campaign finally corrected the spelling.

--Junichi

SOON TO BE IN YOUR INBOX

would you loan this man $800B?

"Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbail✧✧✧@treas✧✧✧.g✧✧ so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson"

(Seen here).

--O.W.

ONWARD TO OCTOBER

Jyeah.

--O.W.

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?

Yep, you guessed it.

I'm happy to announce that my wife Dima and I are expecting our first child. She's 18 weeks pregnant. We're excited and nervous about it all.

Side note: When we got married in 2006, we knew we wanted to wait for a couple of years before trying to have kids. When people asked us about having children, we jokingly said that we didn't want to bring in a child while George W. Bush was still in office. But we are happy that our baby is due on February 27, 2009, a comfortable five weeks after Obama's inauguration. (Knock on wood.)

I'm not planning on starting a daddyblog, so you can now look forward to future posts here (sorry!) about the politics of naming children, vaccine debates, male lactation, Lamaze class horror stories, placenta recipes, and, if we have a boy, a third round of discussions on circumcision.

Feel free to leave your predictions regarding the child's gender, birth date, weight, and name in the comments. If anybody gets all four exactly correct, we'll send you our child's first used diaper.

P.S. If there are any half-Japanese, half-Lebanese (Jebanese?) people out there, please send me a photo. I'd like a preview of what our child might look like.

--Junichi

WHY CHARLIE RANGEL GETS A FREE PASS FROM ME

Bull Connor brushes the dirt off Rangel's shoulder

Congressman Charlie Rangel is in hot water for saying "You got to be kind to the disabled" after being asked why Democrats seem to fear Governor Palin.

He later said he meant to say "disadvantaged" and not "disabled."

Republicans claim to be outraged.

Admittedly, it was a poor choice of words.

But if you ask me, Charlie Rangel deserves a free pass. In fact, he can fumble all the words he wants.

Why? Because he is the author of the best quote in the history of modern sound bites.

Back in 2005, when Rep. Rangel was asked about what he thought of President Bush, he replied:

"If there's one thing that George Bush has done that we should never forget, it's that for us and for our children, he has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all."

Best. Quote. Ever.


(Hattip to Games of Berkeley)

--Junichi

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #136

Tit-for-Tat

After a long hiatus, the Poplicks Question of the Week is back.

This Week's Question:

An Illinois lawyer was suspended by the state bar for allowing one of his female clients -- who happens to be a stripper -- to perform nude dances in exchange for credits on her legal bill.

(Although there were allegations of inappropriate touching, the disciplinary charges seem to stem solely from the bartering of his services for her services.)

Let's say the lawyer was not cheating on his taxes (i.e., he was reporting the full value of his services as income). And let's also assume that nude dancing is perfectly legal and that both parties consented to the exchange.

What's wrong with a lawyer giving discounts to his stripper client in exchange for lap dances?

--Junichi

YOU KNOW IT'S A STRANGE ELECTION WHEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE HOPING FOR A LOW TURNOUT IN THE BLACK COMMUNITIES

Not Loving the Next Loving v. Virginia?

Question: Why might some progressive forces in California be secretly hoping for a low black and brown voter turnout in this upcoming November election?

Answer: Because they believe that the African American and Latino communities are more likely to vote to outlaw gay marriages and, therefore, could tilt the balance in favor of Proposition 8, which would overturn the California Supreme Court's recent ruling recognizing gay marriages.

So says this New York Times article, which assumes the truth of the underlying assumption that African American and Latino voters are more homophobic.

But I question whether that assumption is still correct today.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was true twenty years ago.

I also have no doubt that homophobia remains a rampant problem in those communities.

But it's also a problem in Asian American circles. And Native American circles. And Arab American circles. And white circles. And Democratic circles. And triangles. And quadrilaterals.

Back in 2000, the exit polls for California's Proposition 22 (which banned gay marriage) didn't reveal significant discrepancies between racial groups. Admittedly, Latinos were slightly more inclined to vote for Prop 22 than blacks, who were slightly more inclined to vote for it than Asians and whites. But the differences were minute and the majority of all groups supported the initiative.

Moreover, exit polls from similar state initiatives in 2004 and 2006 didn't reveal any racial disparities in gay marriage-related voting patterns, except in Georgia.

(This LAT op-ed even points out that "blacks in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Oklahoma were at least one percentage point less likely than whites to vote for them, according to CNN exit polls.)

So where is the proof that black and Latino voters in California are more likely to support anti-gay initiatives like Proposition 8? Has anybody seen a survey or poll that confirms that?

Are the MSM and electoral pundits merely assuming that, say, Busta Rhymes' (in)tolerance for gays and lesbians reflects the outlook of the entire black community?

I'd obviously like to believe that people of color now recognize the common link between the anti-miscegenation laws of yesterday with the anti-gay marriage laws of today.

--Junichi

RAMADAN KAREEM

The Boston Globe posted a gorgeous collection of photographs of people around the world observing the holy month of Ramadan.

The one above is a Reuters photo from Indonesia. The one below is an AP photo from Pakistan.

To those who are fasting for a month from dawn until sunset, you have my respect.

--Junichi

KING MOST: THE OBAMIX

"The intent of this mix was to try and capture what WE'VE all been feeling these past months: hope, struggle, and the importance of facing a challenge. It also serves as a reminder, and perhaps an introduction to what OUR candidate is all about. With that being said enjoy, register, & get involved.

History, Change, & Victory In November" -King Most

The Obamix

Intro/Smoked Sugar: I'm A Winner
Roy Davis Jr.: People Get Ready
Jackson 5: We're Almost There (DJ Spinna Remix)
Erykah Badu: Solider (Sasaac Remix)
Masta Ace: Beautifull
Black Spade: We Need A Revolution
Skull Snaps: It's A New Day
Marvin Gaye & The Mizzel Brothers: We Are We Going?
James Brown: Mind Power
Antibals: Si Se Puede
Grandmaster Flash: The Message (Next Message Blend Version)
Dj Day: A Place To Go
Double Exposure: Everyman For Himself
Donald Byrd: Change Makes Ya Wanna Hustle
Stevie Wonder: Blackman (Kay Sputnik Re-Edit)
L.T.D.: Love To The World
Cymande: Bra
Pitbull: American War
The Dynamics: Move On Up

--O.W.

WHAT TO READ: GLOBAL CALAMITY EDITION

No caption necessary

• John Aravosis has the transcript of the interview in which McCain suggests that Spain is in Latin America

• Rosa Brooks on the U.S. becoming a Third World country

• Adam Liptak on the U.S. Supreme Court's waning influence over the rest of the world

• Robert Scheer on McCain's role in Wall Street's meltdown
  

• Tim Wise on McCain and Palin's Privileges

--Junichi

SIDE PROJECTS

Self-aggrandizing warning!

First of all, yours truly (Oliver that is) will be part of the upcoming (and ominously titled) "Death of the Critic" roundtable at USC's Annenberg Center next Wednesday, 9/24. Expect much hand-wringing and bemoaning of the state of popular music to ensue!

No, seriously, my friend Ann Powers lined up a really smart panel for this, including Ernest Hardy and Lorraine Ali. It's an honor to be in their company.

Second, I realize I never bothered to mention that I had a new mix-CD available called Deep Covers 2: Mas Profundo. I know many Poplicks readers keep tabs on my Soul Sides site as well but for those who don't, and want to hear a sampling of my musical interests, please check the mix-CD out. There's a special giveaway right now for people buying one before the weekend.

--O.W.

SURVIVING KIM JONG-ILLNESS

Only the leader gets to wear the Members Only jacket

I don't know about you, but I am worried about the fact that North Korea is testing missiles even though Kim Jong-Il purportedly suffered a stroke and may even be on his deathbed.

It's going to be quite surreal if, in a few months, John McCain will control the United States, Kim Jong-Il will be in control of North Korea, but neither will be in control of his bladder.

--Junichi

PIG-GATE WAS SO LAST WEEK

what, not "drink a beer with" enough?
Funny how NOT photo-shopping someone is now an accusation of bias.

The party of Willie Horton ads are playing themselves over this but hey, better more false outrage at the *yawn* liberal media than talking about the economy, what with its strong fundamentals and all. (I'm still waiting to hear how the party of anti-regulation proposes to fix a problem caused by...lack of regulation. Paging Phil Gramm, i.e. McCain's former chief economic advisor.)

--O.W.

FLIP-FLOPPING ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A tortured POW tortures POWs

I oppose the use of torture. I have no idea why any politician would be hesitant to say the same.

Supporting the troops should include respecting and complying with the Geneva Convention, especially to maximize the chances that our soldiers -- if captured by enemy forces -- are treated in a manner that is neither degrading nor cruel.

Similarly, maintaining a strong national defense should include minimizing unnecessary efforts that isolate, offend, or provoke others in the international community -- efforts like, say, waterboarding captives who have yet to even be accused of any crime.

I supported John McCain on this issue until John McCain stopped supporting John McCain on this issue. I lost all respect for him when he changed his mind in 2005 on this vital issue and caved into the sadistic, inhuman forces of the Republican party.

To wit, a valuable timeline courtesy of David Swanson:

1788 - United States ratifies Constitution, ordaining that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

1791 - United States ratifies the Bill of Rights, banning cruel and unusual punishment.

1948 - United States ratifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1949 - United States ratifies Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, banning violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

1968 - John McCain is tortured.

1992 - United States ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1994 - United States ratifies the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), requiring that the United States work to prevent all forms of torture.

2002 - On February 7, President George W. Bush signs a directive purporting to authorize torture.

2005 - John McCain champions the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passes the Congress and is signed into law by Bush, adding one more redundant ban on torture to existing U.S. law, despite Vice President Cheney having lobbied hard against it. But McCain allows a major loophole for the CIA and then keeps quiet when Bush throws out the whole thing with a "signing statement." Bush and Cheney's administration continues to torture.

2006 - Time Magazine recognizes McCain's efforts to supposedly ban torture in naming him one of America's 10 Best Senators. Time makes no mention of the fact that torture had always been illegal, the fact that Bush had thrown out the new law with a "signing statement," or the fact that the United States was continuing to torture people on a large scale.

2006 - McCain votes in favor of the Military Commissions Act which supposedly leaves torture decisions up to the president.

2008 - In February, McCain votes against a bill that would supposedly ban torture, and then applauds Bush for vetoing the bill.

2008 - McCain runs for president, and almost nobody mentions his positions on torture, not even his fiercest critics. ... And yet McCain and his campaign rarely open their mouths without taking us back to 1968 when McCain was tortured. McCain critics even make lists and videos of his "flip-flops" and never mention the most frightening reversal of position imaginable.

One of the many reasons I support Senator Obama is because he has consistently opposed the use of torture.

I do wish, however, that his camp would use this as a talking point in its efforts to demonstrate why Senator McCain is not fit to be commander in chief.

Isn't it time that the compassionate, law-abiding wing of the political spectrum start calling out McCain on his moral failure and flip-flopitude?

--Junichi

PROJECT OSAMA BY 11/4

"All Things Considered, September 12, 2008 · NPR has learned that the Bush administration is pushing for increased military action along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The plan is part of an effort to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders before Election Day on Nov. 4."

Uh...why didn't they do this Nov 4, 2007? Or Nov 4, 2006? Or Nov 4, 2005? Or...

I'd never root for Osama but Bush isn't winning bonus points for such a transparent, partisan play.

--O.W.

TAKING IT TO THE STREETS

Let's do this:

"The story of the organizer and volunteer effort is one that needs to be told. It was much underreported in 2004 just how potently the Bush ground campaign organized. Say what you want about his governance – and we all have – but his competitive fire was lit for the election race. Republicans turned their voters out. Who’s got more heart this time? Missouri boys say: Show-Me.

This year, all available evidence suggests the Obama campaign is doing something unprecedented with its organizing efforts. Is it this: 29’2.5”?"

"Finally, an appeal to all Americans, regardless of voting age or partisan bent: do something tangible. It is now or never. Fifty-four days. Do something that will make the face you see in the mirror on November 5 proud. Push yourself. Suck it up. Work for it. Make a sacrifice you would not otherwise make. Leave the confusion and nonsense behind and perform your one and only noble function of the time – move."

This is what it comes down to. Not the bad tabloid story that is Sarah Palin. Not sucking at the teat of polling data. Not even Matt Damon (but we still luh you).

As the 538 dudes recognize, Bush didn't win in 2004 because Americans are stupid. He won because the GOP turned out their base and did it impressively. Mathematically, it should be the Democrats turn but only if they turn out their base.

And that's especially important to readers out in Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and Indiana. Work a phone bank. Walk a precinct. Do whatever you can do to get people to exercise their right as a citizen to have a say in their government.

--O.W.

WHO KNEW THE INTERIOR DEPT KNEW HOW TO PARTY?

woo hoo! let's talk about forestry management, yeah!
"Wide-Ranging Ethics Scandal Emerges at Interior Dept."

Some gems from this investigation:

“A culture of ethical failure”

"a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."

"officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game."

"several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”"

"The culture of the organization “appeared to be devoid of both the ethical standards and internal controls sufficient to protect the integrity of this vital revenue-producing program."

Message to the Dems: Jump. On. This. You. Fools.

--O.W.

CHRIS MATTHEWS DEMOTES HIMSELF

Maybe it's not fair to accuse Americans of being stupid but are media pundits fair game?

You cannot imagine the pained look on my face in relation to this clip.


The upside is that if Matthews logic actually holds weight, this could give the Dems a counter slogan: "Vote Obama/Biden - we don't look like a creepy old man dating a woman young enough to be his daughter."

And, oh yeah, in case you missed it, Matthews implied that "traditional Americans" don't like looking at Black couples.

--O.W.

FORGET THE NATIONAL ELECTION, MINNESOTA = OFF THE CHAIN

--O.W.

BREATHE AND STOP

It's really fascinating how quickly political storylines can change in the blink of a day (or less!) Most of the Obama-backers I know are now in full panic mode - no doubt preconditioned by watching the Democratic implosions of 2000 and 2004 and their pessimism that this is all going to play out the same way again.

Collectively, I think the nation needs a deep breath. Retune. Refocus.

With this year's election though, my friend Hua suggested there's two things going on, emotionally - many people are so caught up with their candidates that they can't bear the idea of Obama losing. Then there's the side that simply can't bear the idea of having the GOP in power another four years, especially after the disaster they've created the last eight. Personally, I can feel both sides. I've always had an easier time rooting for underdogs - no doubt conditioned by years of frustration following Cal football and the (pre-94) Red Sox in the post-season. So when Obama was up up up in the polls, but then started to lose ground, my anxiety level began to skyrocket; no doubt, last week's flurry of posts was reflective of some of that. Yet, strangely, now that he's down in the race, I feel far less frenzied about it...possibly because I'm steeling myself for the worse, but I also think - in this current media climate - it helps to be the underdog. See the narrative around Hillary after Ohio, leading through New Hampshire, see Huckabee early in the GOP race, and now see McCain/Palin. Everyone loves the come from behind story and now it's Obama's turn (again) with the GOP ticket dominating the daily news cycle.

Some have argued that the RNC was McCain's highwater mark in this campaign and I think that may be completely true, barring some epic sonning of Obama in the debates. Once that honeymoon, post-conventional glow fades, what is he left with?

Here's the main things that continually jump out to me regarding McCain.

1) His economic plan more or less follows George Bush's. I cannot see how any middle class voter can find this appealing. Especially in this climate, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac having to be rescued and unemployment peaking over 6%, McCain should be very , very vulnerable amongst working class and middle class voters.

2) Much of the punditry is arguing that this election isn't over issues though, but over personality and character. Assuming that's true, then McCain definitely comes up incredibly short. He's one of the biggest flip-floppers I can remember in recent political history. The bills HE BACKED are now policies that he says he'd vote against. To borrow from Amy: what kind of fu**ery is this? How is he allowed to not simply retreat but actually turn on his own policies/legislation? That's not character, that's political cowardice - it's pandering, it's abandoning your integrity for the sake of shoring up a base that you, in the past, have basically stated you don't like. It's certainly not being maverick, it's being disingenuous.

Any election race surely creates compromises that candidates have to make, the McCain of 2008 is a hollow shell of the McCain of even a few years ago, let alone the McCain of 2000 that everyone seemed so taken by (myself included). .

And for the life of me, I don't understand why the Dems aren't making a bigger issue of this and hammering it home. Kerry's "Candidate McCain vs. Senator McCain" was a perfect distillation of this contradiction that could easily be translated into print and TV ads. Friends of mine think it's because McCain's character is bulletproof and a non-starter - his history as a POW means he's unassailable on this front and maybe that is the case. But to me, part of what we want from a leader is the idea that they don't pander. Compromise? Sure. Play well with others? Sure. But go back on their own legislation? Go from anti-torture to well-torture-is-ok-depending-on-the-circumstances? Go from semi-intelligent-immigration policy to mostly-hysterical-immigration-paranoia?

The fact that he has such strong support amongst the right only tells me that this whole "character" argument is really bunk. People are backing him because he's the GOP candidate - period. It has nothing to do with character because they could have put anyone up in there, and they'd still get at least 80% of the base. The other explanation is the more popular one: American voters (at least on the right side of the aisle) really are shallow and stupid. Who'd want to vote for a candidate that can't be trusted to keep their word or hold onto their ideals? Who will McCain be tomorrow?

--O.W.

TOTAL RECALL 2: THE WRATH OF CCPOA

Part One?

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association wants to create a sequel and recall Governor Schwarzenegger.

Given the unconscionable salary cuts and the Governator's sinking approval ratings in Kully-for-nee-uh, now is probably the union's best chance to organize a coup d’état.

I do not support this recall effort, however.

Oh, I'm no fan of Schwarzenegger. I vehemently disagree with many of his positions -- e.g., he supports the Three Strikes law, endorses public school prayer, wants to slash workers' comp. Plus, his more moderate positions on environmental issues, gay rights, and reproductive freedom seem rooted in political expediency, as opposed to personal principle.

But I maintain that recalls and impeachment proceedings should be reserved for those truly reprehensible leaders whose actions are criminal, unconstitutional, or in major breach of the public trust. Leaders like George W. Bush, for example.

Also, CCPOA -- the group leading the recall effort -- is the union instrumental in expanding our state's exploding prison industrial complex and pushing bills that increase prison sentences for victimless crimes. I have no desire to lend that group support.

But perhaps my greatest reason to oppose any recall effort is that I do not have the stamina to withstand another major referendum that will inevitably include gubernatorial candidates Gary Coleman and Mary Carey.

I don't know if I can stomach another round of inane political questions so soon after this election cycle.

Is Gary Coleman black enough? Why isn't Mary Carey wearing a flag pin on her pasties? Does he have the right temperament, given that he has punched a woman? Is the media sexist if it discusses her sinking cleavage line? Whatchu talkin' bout, Arnold? Does being the star of Udder Insanity qualify as executive experience?

God forbid this duo become the next Barack vs. Hillary.

--Junichi

McCAIN IS NEVER GOING TO TELL A LIE

If you haven't seen the video clip of John McCain insanely suggesting that Bristol Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama to be president because she "has executive experience in the form of overseeing the production of a human being," click here.

--Junichi

60 DAYS

This comment was from the previous post but I thought it tied in nicely with some points I was going to make in a new thread anyway:

"The last 12 or so posts on this blog are a good example of why the Democrats are in trouble.

Any momentum Obama had earlier in the summer has been killed, partly due to the dead cat bounce after the naming of Biden and the DNC convention but also because of Palin's entry into the race.

The dems are expending vast amounts of time, money, and energy attacking Palin and not sticking to the positive "Obama for Change" message that was working for them earlier this year.

Meanwhile Mccain is sitting back with a $200 million warchest and preparing for the debates where he will shine as the most experienced, moderate, and presidential looking candidate. --Jay"

I don't know how NOT to use a cliche to start this off but from here on out, post conventions, it really looks to be a whole new race and I think part of what Jay is nodding at is a reflection of that. In just eight days, there's been a political climate more charged than any other time I can remember (and that includes following things like 9/11 and the start of either Gulf War 1 or 2).

That said, I think Jay makes several spurious leaps in logic, which I'll use to dovetail into some main points:

1) Dead cat bounce? (I've never heard the term before, though it's oddly compelling, I must admit). Obama did enjoy a bounce over the last week, a pretty decent one considering the Palin nomination and back-to-back DNC/RNCs. By Monday, we'll have a better sense of how much the GOP's counter-bounce (live cat?) will be. But if the argument here is that the RNC's stole all of Obama's momentum, there's no data to support that since, if it were true, Obama should have been trailing McCain over this week and that simply hasn't been the case.

I do agree however: Palin gave the GOP tremendous momentum at a time where they sorely needed it. Whether this lasts into the next two months is harder to say; the GOP's strategy was to keep Palin on the low, like Quayle in 1988 since they're not certain if more or less media attention on her will be of benefit or not. The polling data that does exist re: Palin suggests that she's big with the GOP base but isn't pulling heavy independent or Dem numbers. She needs to do both if her nomination is going to pay off as a gamble. Shoring up the GOP base, mathematically, isn't enough.

2) What "vast amounts of time, money and energy" have the Democrats expended going after Palin? I've seen vast amounts of media time, money and energy into pursuing Palin as a story (and that makes sense given that the vast majority of people knew zero about her before last Friday). The DNC, as a party, hasn't actually done much regarding her, probably partially out of caution, partially out of realizing: they don't need to when the media is doing all the work already.

The downside though is that their message isn't getting broadcast as much now because of the RNC and Palin. So it's not that the Dems have shifted course - if you really think that's true, show me where that's manifested - it's that their course is now muddled in the fog of Palin-mania.

3) "he will shine as the most experienced, moderate, and presidential looking candidate."

Let's see...Palin proves that even to the GOP, experience doesn't matter so they just gave up that argument.

Second, I'm not clear on how McCain can sell a "moderate" image given his very clear right-ward shift over the last two years, including away from his own policies. I don't know why the Dems aren't playing this up more since the flip-flop thing seemed to have helped undermine Kerry. Moreover, the appointing of such a hard right candidate like Palin doesn't help McCain look like he's reaching for the middle. I think the abortion debate may prove to be very powerful in this election and all the survey data out there suggests a strong pro-choice sentiment except in those states that are already expected to go red (and therefore, aren't going to count against Obama any more than they do already).[1]

As for Presidential-looking...that's truly in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it was the technical glitches on Thursday, maybe it's just that McCain is not a very good orator but to me, he seemed stiff and weary whereas Obama, in front of 70,000, looked very presidential. Obviously, perspectives on that will differ. However, as speakers go, even the GOP acknowledges Obama is more gifted on that front than McCain. What McCain has going for him is the war hero gravitas but as Kerry's failure shows, even that can have its limits.

There's one thing I agree with you though: if McCain wins in the fall, it will be as much a failure of the Democratic party as it will be a victory by the GOP. The Dems have it relatively easy this year - just turn out the same % of your base for Obama as they came out for Kerry and it's a wrap. There are more Democratic voters this year than in 2004, the war is still going on, the economy is tanking, blah blah blah. So the question is: why isn't this thing on lock? And I think one can point to any number of factors that have very little to do with direct GOP machinations. The first was the splitting of the Dem party by the primary fight and the lingering bad blood that - it seems - is finally dissipating with a reunification of the party (but Obama still doesn't have Kerry's % yet). The second is the hard-to-quantify-but-you-know-it's-there factor of racism and that there's going to be a % of voters who simply won't go for Obama on skin color alone, no matter what happens.

And this brings it back to the much-aligned community organizers. If they have any role to play in this election, it's to help secure the Democratic voter base through registration and getting people to go on election day. As noted, after Wed, their inventive level just went way up. It's always bad form to mock people in a position to harm you.

One last thing: Jay's right though - Palin-mania (however expected and kind of entertaining in a rooting-against-the-antagonist way) - isn't a useful strategy post-RNC. The media, no doubt, will continue to look into her history for a few more news cycles but the better Democratic strategy is to put this back on McCain and his perceived weaknesses (of which there are legion).

To wit, I give you:



[1] Culture war as election year tactics is a tricky thing though - it's not always clear if they even work (national security trumped gay marriage in 2004 and I think, this year, economic concerns will still come out as more relevant than abortion).

--O.W.

UNSPINNING PALIN'S FACTS AND FICTIONS

pro-salmon, anti-polar bear
Slate.com came up with a handy Palin FAQ.

Conclusions:

*Pro-ethics reform.
*Anti-choice. Really, really, really anti-choice.
*Pro-earmarks, both as mayor and governor.
*Anti-environment. Very.
*Pro-drilling. Very.
*Anti-Ted Stevens after being pro-Ted Stevens.
*Pro-book banning (allegedly).
*Anti-Bridge to Nowhere after being pro-Bridge to Nowhere.

Apparently plays a mean flute. No, that's not a double entendre.

--O.W.

TREATING AMERICANS LIKE THEY'RE STUPID PT. 2

From The Hill:

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name – Hussein – is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.""

We should note that King is known for saying completely asinine things but this has to be one of the better ones. GTFOOHWTBS.

Note: in the same article, Georgia congressperson Lynn Westmoreland is quoted as calling Obama "uppity." Why not just finish the sentence? Everyone - especially in Georgia - knows how that phrase ends anyway.

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN: DAILY SHOW DEBUNKING PT. 301312

By the way, let me tell you why, after months of avoiding much election content, I've gotten so geared up this past week or so:

It's one thing if people disagree over political ideology or policy. That's healthy for a society. And in an election, it makes sense to me that part of what you're appealing to within respective constituencies is that shared ideological or at least policy positions and perspectives. And I think it's more than fair to point out what you may see as their shortcomings in that department.

But what angers me is when politicians and pundits treat Americans like they are stupid and that is precisely what I've seen rolled out over the last year, with a fever pitch having been reached this past week with Palin's nomination, the RNC and all the media clusterf--- that has followed.

It's one thing to have overblown rhetoric dumped on you over and over (how many times did Obama say "American dream" in his speech?). It's another thing to insult the collective intelligence of America and that's what's inspiring such focused anger.

Just take two of the most egregious examples (besides the one that Jon Stewart exposes above):

1) Mitt Romeny, trying to call out people for being "East Coast elitists." Mitt: you are a billionaire and former governor of Massachusetts. You are the epitome of an East Coast elitist unless being unfathomably rich, powerful and a Baker Scholar from Harvard some how makes you "one of the working guys."

2) Alaskan proximity to Russia = foreign relations experience. I cannot believe how often this has been trotted out. I live under the flight path of the Santa Monica Airport. Does that give me knowledge of aviation? The fact that people are even pushing this when Palin got her first passport last year is even more insulting to people's intelligence.

This doesn't even address the laundry list of other lies and misrepresentations. I don't have a problem if they want to paint the differences between the candidates and their positions but so long as their spin cycle is going to assume that the rest of us are certifiable morons, I really think this is going to backfire on swing voters (let alone traditionally Democratic voters) who have just a little more sense than what the current GOP strategists are giving them credit for.

--O.W.

EXPERIENCE MATTERS

This is the current Wordle, or "word cloud," from the text currently on the main page of this blog. The more a word appears on the Poplicks index, the more the Wordle highlights it.



Shame on us for not using the words "Victory" and "Islamic Terrorism" more often.

UPDATE: What a difference a few days make. Here's the most recent Poplicks word cloud.

--Junichi

HOW TO UNSPIN: EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE + PALIN'S FLIP-FLIP ON OBAMA

This bears repeating. So I'll repeat it:

JOHN MCCAIN HAS ZERO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.

Seriously, he doesn't. Of course, no one in the GOP is mentioning this in their talking points. You know why?

Because "executive experience" as defined by their rhetoric refers exclusively to people who've been a mayor or governor (or president). So it doesn't matter how much leadership experience you have, or economic experience or foreign policy/relations experience, et. al. In a desperate grab to make Palin seem more qualified than she is, the GOP has created this ridiculous talking point about "executive experience" that's pure semantics and no substance. If executive experience is what matters why is McCain on this bill? He has no executive experience. (Just keep saying this to any McCain backer you meet. It's fun.)

And this is just marvelous.Here's Palin, two weeks ago, giving Obama some respect without any hint of sarcasm or disingenuity.

"Something’s kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama’s doing just fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because they’re saying, ‘This hasn’t happened for decades that in polls the D’ ”—the Democratic candidate—“ ‘is doing just fine.’ To me, that’s indicative, too. It’s the no-more-status-quo, it’s change.”

They need to run this speech as a pro-Obama ad, stat!

--O.W.

PALIN: SUCK IT, COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS!

Not as important as a small town mayor

America's Mayor and Wasilla's Mayor reached new lows when they used their primetime speeches last night to heartily mock community organizers.

In no uncertain terms, they told Dr. King, A. Philip Randolph, Dolores Huerta, Cesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and countless other social workers, labor activists, religious leaders (on all ends of the political spectrum), and champions for the underprivileged that their work was meaningless and worthless.

So much for helping voters forget that John McCain voted against a holiday honoring MLK.

As if grassroots organizing was not already the key to Obama's success, Sarah Palin just stoked the fires of the wrong base.

I hear another hurricane coming.

--Junichi

HOW TO UNSPIN: PALINGUAGE

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/your-pocket-guide-to-spea_b_123606.html

"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."

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy." If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning noon and night).

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."

Similarly, if you name you 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 is a "maverick."

If you say that for the "first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country" it makes you "unfit" to be First Lady. If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you "First Dude."

And, finally, if you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife's recurrence of cancer you're a "questionable spouse." If you're a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn... Well, we don't know what that is 'cause THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK."

Seriously, the moxie of Republicans to start calling other people "sexist" is incredible given their record on women's rights. Audre Lorde must be shaking a fist from heaven.

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN: OPEN MIC STYLE

What political "candor" actually sounds like:



The voices you hear are Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy, GOP strategists.

More on this story.

--O.W.

THE GOOD PROGRESSIVE'S GUIDE TO CRITICIZING (AND NOT CRITICIZING) SARAH PALIN

Be careful before you shoot

As much as I am enjoying the implosion and meltdown surrounding Senator McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin, some of the criticisms of her make me cringe.

The most problematic are those being lobbed against her simply because she is a woman. (E.g., "How is she going to take care of her baby and work?" "What kind of VP wears go-go boots?")

Some of the unfavorable reviews also seem entirely hypocritical and/or destined to haunt Democrats/Obama-supporters/progressives/feminists in the future. Suggesting that her few years in office make her ineligible for high office may sound legitimate. But those criticisms hurt Sen. Obama and would also disqualify promising future leaders like Virginia Gov. Time Kaine or Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer -- who were elected around the same time as Gov. Palin -- from being appointed to high federal positions. Why aim for your own feet?

The discomforting critiques of Gov. Palin are especially curious in light of all the other arguments against her that are consistent with liberal principles of compassion, tolerance, liberty, equality, justice, and fairness.

So here's a working guide I put together to sort out what I consider bad Palin talking points from the good talking points:

Inappropriate Criticisms of Governor Sarah Palin:

1. She is a woman.
2. She is a mother of five.
3. She is a mother of a newborn child.
4. She chose to have a baby with Down's Syndrome.
5. She chose to work soon after having her fifth child.
   
6. She has an unwed pregnant teenage daughter.
7. She is from Alaska.
8. She is from a very small town in Alaska.
9. She has only been in elected office for a few years.
10. She is relatively young.
11. She is a devout Christian.
12. She is sassy.
13. She looks like Tina Fey.
    

Appropriate Criticisms of Governor Sarah Palin:

1. She believes that a woman who has been impregnated and raped by her own father should be forced to have the child.
   


2. She believes that the state should incarcerate any doctor who aborts a fetus that is the byproduct of rape and incest.


3. She slashed funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers who need shelter.


4. She opposes hate-crime laws.


5. She sued the federal government to stop it from listing the polar bear as an endangered species.


6. She believes that climate change is not man-made.


7. She said that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and part of "God's plan."


8. She was in the pews of her church two weeks ago when a speaker described attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.


9. She wants creationism taught in schools.
   


10. She wanted to ban books from the public library.


11. As governor, she asked for $198 million -- $295 per person -- in earmark requests for pet projects, which is more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current fiscal year.


12. She supported the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan (before she opposed it).
    


13. She repeatedly attended the political convention of the Alaskan Independent Party, which supports secession from the United States and whose founder has expressed "hatred for the American government."


14. She is under investigation by the Alaska Legislature for firing the state public safety commissioner for refusing to dismiss a state trooper who was in an ugly divorce and custody dispute from Palin's sister.


15. To tout her foreign policy experience, she lied about visiting Ireland; in reality, she only stopped in Ireland for a refueling stop.
    


16. She opposes any school-based sexual education program that isn't abstinence-based.


17. She is an aerial wolf hunter.


18. She can't even run a car wash.
    

Feel free to suggest additions or amendments in the comments.

--Junichi

MCCAIN AND EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT

I was just writing about how all these pretty little narratives that candidates script for themselves sometimes hold up to withering attacks and sometimes fold like the house of cards they may be. The more info that comes out regarding McCain's judgment in nominating Palin, the more it becomes clear that there was evidently little time put into creating a cover story that could sustain even basic interrogation.

Today's revelation - and you have to love this - McCain criticized earmarks that Palin asked for when she was mayor. Once again: did no one vet this?

And while we're on the subject of vetting...in recent days, McCain has defended that process:

"McCain said Tuesday that "the vetting process was completely thorough." Advisers said Palin went through a rigorous process that included a three-hour interview and a survey with some 70 questions, including: Have you ever paid for sex? Have you been faithful in your marriage? Have you ever used or purchased drugs? Have you ever downloaded pornography?

70 questions? Like those? I'd make a joke about it looking like an e-harmony application...except e-harmony apps are much longer than 70 questions.

By the way, one of the more amusing bite backs I've heard from Dems this week is that if Palin has more executive experience than Obama...doesn't that also mean she has more executive experience than...McCain (who was never a mayor or governor)? Shouldn't they flip the ticket?

--O.W.

WELCOME TO THE PALINDROME*

she gets skewered by the tabloids, just like us!
(if by "us" you mean insta-celebrity politicians)
Not to get all Lakoff-ian about this but one of the things this current Palin fiasco/distraction/circus reveals is how important a grounded, public narrative has been for political leaders...and how manufactured those narratives tend to be.

What we're seeing in 2008 is nothing new, of course. One of the most incredible touch-up jobs in modern history was Bush in 2000 where the Yale-attending, Vietnam War-skipping, multimillionaire scion of a Maine-based political family was able to remake himself into a good ol' (cow)boy, turning what was once a liability (he doesn't sound so smart) into an asset (he's like one of us!). If it weren't for how horrendous his administration has been for Americans and others around the world, you'd almost have to admire just the sheer moxie of it all (and wish either Gore or Kerry had some sharper handlers on their side but I guess Karl Rove doesn't clone well. Thankfully).

With the current election, both presidential candidates have been subject to considerable narrativizing, to distill their public essence into a simple one-line pitch. Obama = the history-making, biracial next JFK. McCain = former P.O.W. turned straight-shooting maverick.

Let's be real about a few things - there's a lot to both narratives that's complete and utter bull. Any kind of political image is a mixture of careful manipulation, information suppression and whatever else is necessary to preserve the narrative no matter the mountain of evidence otherwise.

But the Palin Problem is precisely that there's been no time in ingrain a narrative for her. Sure, the one we were given on Friday was "hockey mom of five who likes to hunt and eat moose burgers" and you know,- there is something compelling about that narrative in terms of establishing character and right now, that's the main thing Palin has going for her. To that extent, Palin - despite her liabilities - still seems like a savvy choice. Palin is inimitably likable in a way that, say, Mitt Romney never was.[1]

However, as many have noted, none of this establishes qualifications and confusing the two is risky business - not just for the GOP but also for the Dems. I like Obama well enough that I'll vote for him in November but let's be honest - he doesn't have a dense track record and his policies are not exactly progressive left. However, the difference here is that Obama's narrative was begun in 2004, during his speech at that year's DNC and he's managed to parlay that introductory moment into an extraordinary political career that we're seeing rise to (maybe) its zenith this fall. Likewise, McCain has flip-flopped with the best but his narrative was scripted in 2000 and incredibly, he's been able to play that out for eight years since.

So back to Palin: the problem with her narrative isn't that it's not a good one on paper...it's that she's such a blank slate for everyone (Republicans included) that it was unreasonable (if not deluded) to think her story would stick once anyone bothered to start digging. In other words, it's one thing to offer a script but it takes a lot more than just repeating bullet points to make it believable for people.

The level of sheer desperation to make up that difference is evident in the ways in which people are somehow claiming that Palin's qualifications partially rest on how "she's the governor of the biggest state in the Union" (also one of the most isolated and least populated but hey, apparently square mileage = governance) and the ever-popular, "she has foreign relations experience because Alaska is next to Russia." That anyone can speak this with a straight face is a testament to how well-trained political operatives have become.

And the thing is: they're not useful. When you put out such obviously weak claims, they beg to be questioned and undermined as CNN did of Tucker Bounds (see "How to Unspin" below). And the MSM - who, if you recall, were more than happy to play up the Jeremiah Wright story against Obama - are basically taking a similar tack with Palin: scrutinizing and interrogating and trying to suss out what about her narrative rings true vs. what rings false.

The problem for McCain's campaign is that too much rings false. Much too much. McCain's vetting team obviously did not research enough or overestimated public support too much.

I've enjoyed Slate.com's analysis of these issues, especially Jack Shafer's column today on how the delay in announcing Palin's nomination has backfired:

"The press is merely doing on short notice what the McCain campaign's vetting team should have done between March—when he clinched the nomination—and now: properly vetting his vice-presidential candidate.

Like the Democrats, the Republicans created a news vacuum into which they hoped to insert a mock convention that would rubber-stamp the nominee's agenda and send happy vibes to the electorate. The Democrats got away with it in Denver, but luck has shone on the news beasts in St. Paul. Even if an asteroid were to blot out New Orleans today, a giant squid were to topple the Golden Gate Bridge tomorrow, and fire ants were to kill every human on Fire Island by the end of Thursday, the biggest story of the week would still be McCain's cockeyed selection of Palin."

So, five days post-nom, Palin still remains an enigma - an enigma with character perhaps, but by more or less hiding from the press, she's allowing her narrative to get written by others and given the spin cycle tizzy operating now, I highly doubt she'll be able to capture it back. You can bet, tens of thousands of journalists and bloggers are going to be hanging on her speech at the RNC and then meticulously deconstructing it moments after. Right now, they can't help themselves because 1) there's so many blanks that need to be filled given the holes in her narrative and 2) frankly, the media clearly seem to be enjoying themselves doing it.

One second-to-last thing and I promise, I won't use the term "narrative" again for at least, um, until morning...that US Weekly cover is astonishing. I knew once this pregnancy story busted out, the gossip sites and tabloids would be jumping all over this and while I don't know if anyone's ever calculated what impact they can have on a race (note: check with Gary Hart), you can't imagine the GOP can be happy about this kind of coverage in a magazine that mythical Middle America reads. Seriously: "Babies, Lies and Scandal"? In one fell swoop, US Weekly (for whom I have no real love) managed to accomplish what an army of Democratic operatives could never have hoped to.

Speaking of Slate, their recent column on "Questions for a Superhuman Mom" is dead on about what Palin's candidacy says about the challenges facing working moms and how Palin's seeming D.I.Y. attitude is actually a massive step back since it puts the onus of child care on the mother rather than a societal solution. And as the Washington Post reported today, Palin, as governor of the biggest (in square mileage) state in the Union, cut funding for a shelter that works with pregnant teens. Oops, there's another crack in the...(say it with me now...) narrative.

*In all fairness, I stole this title from the Sarah Palin typepad blog.

[1] Lest I seem too taken by Palin's charisma, let's just point out that her politics are completely to the extreme of mainstream America - on the right and left. The new information coming out about her trying to ban books (this needs better confirmation) and trying to fire people for disloyalty (did she used to work at the Justice Dept?) and of course, her extreme, anti-abortion stances, plus creationist views, plus disbelief of global warming as man-made, etc. etc. is beyond the pale. It's no wonder that she's polling real low with Hillary's former supporters, no matter what the more stringent PUMAs claim.

And this actually goes to my point - because Palin was such a cipher, the Left was very easily able to create a counter-narr...um, script for Palin that's become quite easy to pass along to others: "Palin's the crazy anti-choice, pro-creationism, anti-science, pro-abstinence governor with the pregnant teen daughter." It's been far, far easier to stick that on Palin than it has been to create a compelling counter-script for McCain except for "that crazy candidate who picked Palin to be his running mate." The most I've seen accomplished has been to label McCain as "out of touch" but that's not the most damning of scripts compared to Mr. POW (and anyone who saw the RNC tonight knows that they're playing that story up over and over). That's why Palin's nom is such an albatross for him right now - it's creating a really viable, new storyline: "what was McCain thinking?"

--O.W.

CHILDREN OF MEN? OR RNC?

you decide

(Hint: RNC).

--O.W.

HOW TO UNSPIN

This raises the question of why the media isn't this disbelieving all the time.

--O.W.

SLOW NEWS DAY

nothing to see here, move along
I'm not a political scientist nor study the history of presidential elections but I do follow the media and I really cannot think of another presidential race in my adult lifetime as surreal as this one.

As many of you may have heard, in order to rebut the rumor that Palin's fifth pregnancy was a cover for the pregnancy of her then 16 year old daughter, Bristol, Palin announced today that Bristol is five months pregnant (and hence, wouldn't have been pregnant when her son was born four months ago).

Let this soak for a moment because, truly, this is political theater at its most bewildering (and entertaining). Some thoughts:

1) I thought the "fake pregnancy" rumors were some of the most baseless (and kind of tasteless) smear campaigns I've seen this side of the "secret Muslim school" nonsense (or McCain's fake, half-Black love child for those who remember that Rovian doozy from 2000). If it were true, I wouldn't argue against the newsworthiness of it - it's just so bizarre - but the "facts" compiled for the "internet sites" propagating it (and I won't even deign to link to them) were so short of anything resembling responsible journalism, they made the Dan Rather, fake National Guard memo scandal look like All the President's Men.

YET, it's precisely because those rumors were so ridiculous as to be beyond the pale that I question why Palin, in her announcement of Bristol's pregnancy, felt it necessary to use them as the reason why she's disclosing now. Even the site that originally published it was backing way off - no responsible MSM site bothered to reprint the story because, frankly, it was stinking of b.s. from jump.

I'm not claiming some deep conspiracy theory here but seriously, I don't know why they even bothered to lend credit to some nutty story to begin with.

2) Since we're going to put out unsubstantiated rumors into public discourse, here's my prediction: the baby's father is really John Edwards and this mystery guy Levi is just a front.

(This is a joke for those unsure).

3) As many have pointed out, there is something massively ironic, if not hypocritical, about a fervent anti-choice politician trying to ask for "privacy for my family" when your own policies directly violate family privacy sanctity.

Not to mention: it is rich that someone who believes in abstinence-only as public policy can't even seem to make the idea stick in her own family. More proof the cosmos has a sense of humor not to mention the absolutely paucity of the abstinence-only idea. The fact that this fraud of an idea has been put into place in various parts of the U.S. (and in our foreign policy) is one of many embarrassments of the last eight years.

Some think this may weaken Palin's popularity with social conservatives but I doubt it. Personal behavior can have its consequences - see Giuliani's non-campaign - but in this case, so long as Palin's public policies are in line with the "family values" lobby, this pregnancy issue won't rank high. Among moderates they were hoping to swing however, I can't see this making the McCain/Palin ticket more attractive.

McCain's hail mary pass just got tipped at the line of scrimmage by one of his players. (And that will be the only football analogy here today).

4) One of the discomforting tangents of this whole situation is how many people I've heard openly question Palin's fitness to be a mom. Let's make this clear: no one ever puts this to politicians who are fathers. It's one of those ridiculous, sexist double-standards that female politicians have to deal wit. Unless we're talking felony neglect or abuse, people who supposedly value civil liberties (including privacy) should really check themselves lest you want the government to the turn the tables and peer into how you raise your own family.

I care far less about what Palin is like as a mother vs. caring what her policies are around things like maternity leave and social safety nets for children. Let those be the sites of criticism as opposed to this incessant, intrusive behavior around people's private lives. Left-leaning folks seem to have forgotten the lessons of Clinton impeachment circus. Or maybe they learned those lessons all too well and are now applying the tactics of ad hominem attacks.

5) Speaking of legitimate areas of criticism: you have to love how one of Palin's big selling points is that "she was against the Bridge to Nowhere" but as it turns out now...nope, she was all for it until it became so politically toxic, she had to turn against it. I believe that's what you call a ...

McCain's people did vet Palin, right? Right? Or at least, did they vet the talking points of her nomination?

--O.W.