It's not going to hurt her with the middle class in the slightest, but it's funny:
Via Allahpundit
Is it too much to ask that things like this be as low as the Left goes? Yeah, yeah, rhetorical question.
Also, not vile.
It's not going to hurt her with the middle class in the slightest, but it's funny:
Via Allahpundit
Is it too much to ask that things like this be as low as the Left goes? Yeah, yeah, rhetorical question.
From Will Wilkinson:
Palin exudes sexual confidence and maternal authority, which in a relatively conservative culture like ours is the most recognizable and viscerally comprehensible form of female power. It makes a lot of men uncomfortable, but that’s because it’s the kind of female power they are most often subject to, and most often fail to successfully resist. I spent much of my life taking orders from women a lot like Sarah Palin — women like my mother and my Iowa public school teachers. Indeed, it makes a lot more emotional sense for me to feel led by by a woman like that than by some hotshot Air Force pilot. When a guy with a buzzcut says "jump," I say "screw you." When a woman like Sarah Palin says "jump," I am inclined to deferentially inquire into the requirements of this jump.
Via Megan McArdle, who has more thoughts on rural voters, rural voting patterns, and the Democratic elites who know less about getting either than they think.
No, it's not shocking because it repeats the vileness that we've grown all too accustomed to; it doesn't. It's shocking because the author's actually trying to fight back against it.
Brave of her. Foolish, of course - there are firm limits to dissent on the Left, and pushing back against attacks on a 17 year old girl who has been deemed to be a regrettable sacrifice to the Cause is well past them - but brave.
No, really.
As Ace notes, Saletan bent over backward to keep Chelsea Clinton off of the list; but Ace also notes that he probably had to, in order to get the basic argument published. So be it.
Saletan, walking through recent single daughters-of-candidates-and-Presidents/VPs, their surprising lack of pregnancies, and the reason why it's surprising, finishes up with the rather harsh conclusion:
If any of these daughters conceived, but no pregnancy or birth was reported, what happened? One possibility is miscarriage. But the Guttmacher analysis suggests a different answer: Most unintended pregnancies in the higher income and education brackets end in abortion.
Remember that before you judge or poke fun at Sarah Palin. She's not the candidate whose daughter messed up. She's the candidate who didn't get rid of the mess.
Bolding mine: we seem to be having an influx of people not willing to take the point.
Meeting the candidates.
We spoke briefly with candidate Jeff Beatty, who is opposing John Kerry for Senator of Massachusetts. He, unlike Senator Kerry, is a non-career politician; business owner, former Delta Force, FBI Hostage Rescue, CIA counter-terrorism. Pic here.
His central issues in this campaign are families (exemplified by high gas prices, which he would combat by a truly comprehensive energy development program, including drilling); jobs (exacberated by illegal immigration), and countries (Mr. Beatty criticized Senator Kerry's hypocritical stance on voting for the Iraqi liberation when he did not support it; Mr. Beatty was also admirably forthright in stating that he would not have supported the war himself). He feels that he has a good chance of winning: as he pointed out, Kerry has suprisingly low favorability numbers; also, MA voters have elected GOP governors in the last four of five elections, which argues for a bipartisanship not always superficially obvious.
I will be honest: I disagree with Mr. Beatty on a good number of the issues. But he, unlike Senator Kerry, does not attempt to obscure his opinions. You may contribute to his campaign here, and to the NRSC generally here.
Rasmussen's apparently will be tomorrow.
48 - 42 (+6 Obama) on the Gallup Poll; Rasmussen's currently tied at 47/47, but the explanatory text suggests that tomorrow's numbers are going to be more Obama-friendly (they float the concept of a possible 'modest lead,' which means... I have no idea). While this technically represents Monday through Wednesday, today's numbers probably are not taking into account the Wednesday lineup of speakers, which means that the full impact of Bill Clinton's speech will not be reflected in the polls until tomorrow, and the full impact of Barack Obama's until probably Saturday. The first is further better news for the Democrats; the second will be good or bad, in direct relation to Obama's speech.
All in all, based on today's Gallup number, I think that seeing
a +10 bounce for Obama by Saturday in either it or Rasmussen is a
good minimum criterion for being able to say that Obama had a
successful convention.
McCain's people were suggesting +15/+16, of course, but that
was just them having fun.
Oh, I'll go there.
Unlike AoSHQ, the so-and-sos.
Gotta say, though: I saw it coming from a mile away.
No, really.
S. Weasel has a flow chart, and everything. I won't give it away, except to note that you should read the whole thing. Once you get the mechanism fully internalized, everything becomes obvious.
Via AoSHQ.
Moe Lane
PS: Let's make this a diary, so that people can comment.
(..."I'm in Waikiki and you're not" post.)
Although I am.
Anyway, I've been watching with some interest all the frenzied VP speculation that has been going on for the last few days, on both sides. As we are now performing at levels of minutiae-analysis that would impress an old-school Kremlinologist, I'd thought that I'd make the following recommendations:
1). Get - hold on! Wait until you read the whole thing before you follow these instructions - anyway, get off your computer.
2). Hit the bar.
3). Order a complicated drink; or a strong, simple one; or beer/wine and some sort of tasty finger food.
4). Consume.
5). Ask yourself: Do I care as much about who McCain/Obama picks for VP as I did prior to 4).?
5a). If the answer is "Yes," go back to 3). and repeat.
5b). If the answer is "No," you may go back to 3). and repeat.
Really. It helps amazingly well, no matter who you are voting for.
Yes, a shocker.
A Jonathan Miles recently wrote a flavor piece ("You Can’t See It to Believe It ") about what appears to be a new trend in Sydney, Australia: virtual drink experiences.
ALL I did, as usual, was order a drink. Which only partly explains why I found myself here, seated in a cordoned-off side room at Zeta, a plush, dusky, high-ceiling downtown night spot — holding a booze-filled pineapple and wearing a blindfold along with headphones hooked to a specially programmed iPod.
All the while, someone was spraying my face with what smelled like Hawaiian Tropic suntan oil.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the world’s most elaborate cocktail garnish. The Tiki, the drink I ordered, is one of four sensory cocktails to make their debut this month at Zeta.
I don't care what you might have heard, but we had nothing to do with the attempt to overthrow the State government of Hawaii with a monarchy. H/T AoSHQ, although it made the front page of the Sunday papers here.:
HONOLULU - A group of Native Hawaiians claiming to be the state's legitimate rulers occupied the grounds of a historic palace for two hours before being arrested by state officers in the second recent takeover of its kind.
A staff member of the Iolani Palace said she was assaulted and slightly injured during the takeover Friday night, then snubbed by city police who claimed they didn't have jurisdiction. Gov. Linda Lingle said Saturday that there would be an investigation into the police response to the takeover.
A group of men, wearing red shirts with "security" stenciled in yellow on the back, took over the grounds by chaining the gates of the palace next to the State Capitol and posted signs saying: "Property of the Kingdom of Hawaiian Trust."
The fact that I am actually in Hawaii at this time:
...is merely a coincidence.
...thing that you will ever read on the Internet, but you will have to admit: it can sit at the table. Allahpundit called it Quote of the Day, which makes me wonder what on earth he expects to top it before the end of the week:
The message couldn't be plainer: See that itty-bitty, little tire gauge? If you vote for Obama, that's how big your penis is. If you vote for McCain, on the other hand, your penis is as big as this rig, thrusting its gigantic shaft in and out of the ground!
No, that wasn't a joke.
Just to be on the safe side, and everything.
It's probably just statistical noise, but I can't help but notice that Obama's Rasmussen and Gallup tracking numbers both went up a couple of points once he started his vacation.
Makes you wonder whether this Pew Resarch Center poll was on to something.
Moe Lane
PS: Well, the bump certainly isn't over his position on the Georgian situation, now is it? Unless you think that the American people prefer the fellow that they judge less likely to handle it, which is a bit counter-intuitive.
None?
I'm not saying that I was completely straight-facing that, you understand; there's some kooks out there, after all, and it seems like they're all voting for Obama Lightworker this go-round. But this was from an ad agency. Surely they were being at least a little cynical about the whole thing.
Apparently not. Like Hot Air, color me gobsmacked:
"Barack Obama is a very exciting catalyst. At first we were bothered by the negative and vulgar comments made. When someone attacks something you hold dear, it hurts, but as we continued to read all the comments, we realized just how silly and frankly unimaginative most of them were. Many didn't even take the time to read the article. People came out against the peace emblem in the sixties, making accusations that it was an anti-Christian symbol, an inverted crucifix, a satanic symbol, and a Communist sign. But like our 'O,' the goodness inherent in the peace symbol persevered, and today it is the international symbol for peace. The hand sign for peace was first a British form of giving someone the bird, then it became a war cry for victory. Today it is a symbol of peace & love. Once again goodness persevered. We too will persevere. Bring your hands together over your head to make a large 'O' and join us in our fight to take America back. Vote for Barack Obama."
And they wonder why we never seem to bother getting past the "then they laugh at you" part of that Ghandi quote.
If you and yours aren't on here somewhere, you simply aren't trying hard enough.
It's not really for examining (via Screw Loose Change, via Hot Air Headlines): it's best observed as a seamless whole, with little bits popping up here and there. I assume that the British-centric nature of it reflects the original authors, while the pervasive anti-Semitism is... well, let's just say that these guys probably aren't for the GWOT either, and leave it at that.
To rip off Allahpundit, here's an exit question: where do we put the latest 24-hour, why-isn't-this-working?!? nonsense from the Left over McCain's alleged "plagiarism"? I think that there's space next to the Ebola virus.
Moe Lane
PS: By the way: if this sort of thing appeals to you - at least, it would appeal to you if people would just stop harshing your enjoyment about it by yammering about the Jews all the time - may I suggest this game? Quite fun, easy to learn, and will rip off the scab of delusion that keeps you from appreciating the awful grandeur of the way the world really works with minimal fuss.
...comes to us courtesy of Hot Air. Interesting to see how they couldn't find one at all, at all:
Just for the record: no, this is not a good sign for the Obama campaign. And also for the record: the reason why there's no reaching across the aisle at this point might have something to do with the fact that for the last eight years the Democratic Party has been enthusiastically running on the argument that the GOP consists of demons in human form.
We will now pause for the quote-unquote "decent Left" to pop in and whine at us about how things are more nuanced than that. Hey, it beats trying to correct their own side's behavior.
Moe Lane
PJ Cella offers the subtitle: "Will Reagan, like Dumbledore, save us again, from the grave?"
Given today's top story, and everything.
:raising hand:
Originally supposed to be a comment...
...to BrianFaughnan's quite good post, but I decided it was worth it's own blog:
Obama has two problems, here. The first is that he needs to "respond to every criticism leveled at him by a Republican operative," simply because his party's mythology is full of stories about The Democrat Who Wouldn't Fight Back (instead of, say, The Democrat Who Fought Back Like an Idiot). He doesn't dare buck them on that. Interestingly, there is a Democratic politician who was and is pretty good at deflecting Republican criticism; a few lessons from him might help Obama turn his campaign around completely.
At the moment, not a trend. Merely a data point.
"One swallow doesn't make a summer."
"Don't count your chickens before they're hatched."
"There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip."
"It ain't over 'til it's over."
All of these things are true. Cliches, to be sure, but they're cliches for a reason. The concepts that they embody have been tested - and, by and large, they have been deemed to be correct. So caution must remain our byword. And yet... Rasmussen today reports that the daily snapshot of the race is 47/46.
I'll give you three reasons why, in fact.
You must not listen to him, in fact...
DAVIS: Kill the undemocratic caucuses
Lanny DavisIt's time for Democrats to kill the undemocratic and elitist caucus system for selecting national convention delegates for the presidential nomination. Instead, all delegates should be selected in primaries.
...when he goes on in this vein, while also calling for the end of proportional representation in primaries, limiting primaries to actual Democrats, eliminating super-delegates entirely, and instituting regional primary days. You must not listen to any of that, and I'll tell you why.
First off, as Don Surber (H/T) notes, he's a Clinton supporter. Clearly he's just as untrustworthy as all the other people who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary.
Second, he wrote that for the Washington Times. Obviously that means that you need to dismiss that right away.
Third, he's
righttelling you things that contradict the established Democratic Party consensus. Certainly that cannot be borne.
I'm glad that we had a chance to nip that potential disaster in the bud, yes?
Moe Lane
Mind you, he wants to relocate the detainees to the US Supreme Court Building.
And his legislation...
No, really. HR 6615, which NRO's Gregory McNeil suggests may have been "in jest" (H/T AosHQ)
...would have Justice Kennedy have of all the responsibility that he (and more importantly, Rep. Gohmert) could possibly want on this issue. And more.
Yes, this is not going to go anywhere, more's the pity. And Gohmert's about as likely to lose this seat in November as I am to join the Rolling Stones, so putting up his donate page isn't much of a reward. Still. I laughed at this, and I figured that you would, too.
Moe Lane
Seems to be a lot of that going around, these days.
So concludes Allahpundit, based on what we've been hearing from a rather pouting Left recently:
Mind you, if I had burned through half a billion dollars on a divisive primary, and only gotten back the results that the Democrats have gotten, I'd probably be pouting too. Besides everything esle, I doubt that anybody actually thought to save their receipts.
Moe Lane
Hint: if he or she's a Democrat, the answer's probably "Yes."
{Updated: Both Jeff and myself (and I confirmed with a phone call) have been notified that Rep Blunt had been attending a lunch hosted by Paul Weyrich; that he had had no more than 15 or 30 minutes' notice; that this is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened; and that he would have voted against adjournment if he had been able to get there. I accept this explanation, and have removed him from the list. - Moe Lane}
Well, if he or she is:
Abercrombie, Ackerman, Allen, Andrews, Baca, Baird, Baldwin, Barrow, Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Bishop (GA), Bishop (NY), Blumenauer,
Blunt, Boren, Boucher, Boyd (FL), Boyda (KS), Brady (PA), Brown (Corrine), Brown-Waite (Ginny), Butterfield, Capps, Capuano, Cardoza, Carnahan, Carson, Castor, Cazayoux, Chandler, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Courtney, Cramer, Crowley, Cubin, Cuellar, Cummings, Davis (AL), Davis (CA), Davis (IL), Davis (Lincoln), DeFazio, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Doyle, Edwards (MD), Edwards (TX), Ellison, Emanuel, Engel, Eshoo, Etheridge, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Foster, Frank (MA), Giffords, Gonzalez, Gordon, Green (Al). Green (Gene), Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Higgins, Hill, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holden, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Hoyer, Hulshof, Inslee, Israel, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jefferson, Johnson (GA), Johnson (E. B.), Jones (OH), Kagen, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kennedy, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kind, Klein (FL), Kucinich, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), Lee, Levin, Lewis (GA), Lipinski, Lofgren (Zoe), Lowey, Lynch, Mahoney (FL), Maloney (NY), Markey, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, McGovern, McIntyre, McNerney, McNulty, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Melancon, Michaud, Miller (NC), Miller (George), Mollohan, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Murphy (CT), Murtha, Nadler, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey, Olver, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Perlmutter, Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Price (NC), Rahall, Rangel, Reyes, Richardson, Rodriguez, Ross, Rothman, Roybal-Allard, Ruppersberger, Rush, Ryan (OH), Salazar, Sánchez (Linda T.), Sanchez (Loretta), Sarbanes, Schakowsky,Schiff, Schwartz, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Shuler, Sires, Skelton, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Snyder, Solis, Space, Speier, Spratt, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, Tanner, Tauscher, Taylor, Thompson (CA), Thompson (MS), Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Udall (CO), Van Hollen, Velázquez, Visclosky, Walz (MN), Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watson, Watt, Waxman, Weiner, Welch (VT), Wexler, Wilson (OH), Woolsey, Wu, Yarmuth
...then he or she doesn't give a tinker's dam about whether you end up paying six bucks a gallon for gas. And remember: this movement to adjourn passed by one vote: which means that they all share in the responsibility Any one of them could have voted yea to not adjourn, but they didn't.
Consider that the next time you ask yourself, How much does one vote matter, anyway?
How on earth did we all miss that the first time?
Oh, right: we were so busy rolling our eyes at the generically Democratic accusations of racism that we completely overlooked the specifically Democratic exhibition of killing hubris. Well, that'll teach us:
Obama says Republicans trying to scare voters
{snip}
"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
Bolding mine, because when you're trying to point something out to Obama supporters, subtlety is not always your friend. Although I shouldn't talk: we all needed an Instapundit reader to write in and point out this particular case of anticipate-the-parson.
Moe Lane
This won't take long.
Do you think that the Senate Ethics Committee should censure Senator Coburn for delivering babies for free at a private hospital?
Assuming that they don't drop everything and respond right away, Representative Boyda can be reached at: (785) 234-8111 (202) 225-6601 Fax: (202) 225-7986 Or via email here
...and Representative Moore can be reached at: (913) 621-0832 (202) 225-2865 FAX: (202) 225-2807 Or via email here
Note that neither of them will accept emails from people outside their district, probably because they're both tap-dancing like heck when it comes to the war. So they'd probably be happy to have a subject change, right?
Moe Lane
PS: Oh, trust me: as soon as we know who the GOP candidates are for those two districts, I'll be asking them, too. I expect I'll get a quicker answer, though.
It's
just that now it's becoming mainstream, thanks to the sudden
realization that, hey, it's grawlix like this that's putting our
gas prices up past $4 a gallon. Real shame that the Democrats in
Congress haven't worked this out for themselves yet, huh? As for
not making fun of the ones who are "bossy, self-righteous, and
hypocritical"... well, issue them armbands or a medal or something,
so that we can excuse them from the group mockery. Maybe a special
hat.
There's only five or so in the country that would qualify, anyway.
And if you think that I'm being hyperbolic below, check out Salon's URL.
He wants an auto-da-fe of the Blue Dog Democrats, and I for one would be happy to help. Hunt them through the halls of Congress, Glenn. Hunt them with torches and whips. Use dogs on them - or maybe cheetahs; it looks cooler, and they did that in medieval times. That's the sort of vibe that you're going with, right? The guttering torch, and the red-hot poker, and the thumbscrews, and the mixed smells of iron, incense, and blood: the screams from the bowels of the Capitol as your minions probe for insufficiently progressive thought; and then, the terrible purity of the pyre where your broken foes are cast into the LIVING FLAMES OF YOUR RIGHTEOUS ANGER under the pitiless gray skies...
(shaking head)
Yeah. That'll show us.
Moe Lane
PS: You're going to go after Ed Kilgore first, right? What? Oh; lucky guess.
Well, go remind people, then. Be sure to also ask if they miss that $2.20/gallon that we were enjoying at the end of 2006, back when the GOP was still running Congress. And when you're done with that, ask 'em what they think that the price of gas is likely to be after two more years of Democrats running Congress.
Moe Lane
PS:
Pay to play, ladies and gentlemen. Pay to play.
Did it make you laugh?
Is this the sort of thing that brightens your day?
And, like Constant Reader NightTwister, do you think that "Entertainment this good should cost money"?
Well, guess what: it does - because one major reason that Doctor No can do this sort of thing is because he can win cloture votes. And the reason why he can win cloture votes is because he has enough GOP Senators ready to back his play. If the Democrats get 60 Senators, they can thumb their nose freely at Senator Coburn - and they really, really want to be able to do that.
Don't let them.
Moe Lane
No, really, it's an outrageous violation of Senator Obama's religious privacy.
Somebody actually went and dug out Obama's written prayer note that he inserted (as per the custom) in the Wailing Wall... then had it published in a local Israeli newspaper. As per a AP report of a while back, notes placed there are not to be read by human eyes! They are prayers holding the name of God, and as per longstanding Jewish religious custom are not to be disposed of lightly. They are certainly not to be made into news.
I may have my differences with the junior Senator from Illinois, but he is owed an immediate and sincere apology for this violation of his privacy from both the man who stole his prayer and the newspaper that published it.
Moe Lane