Matt Taibbi: “Requiem for a Maverick”
Another great one from Taibbi:
Palin is exactly the kind of all-or-nothing fundamentalist to whom the career of John McCain had long existed as a kind of sneering counterargument. Up until this year, McCain had firmly rejected the emotional imperatives implicit in Bush-Rove-Gingrich conservatism, in which the relentless demonizing of liberals and liberalism was even more important than policy. While other Republicans were crusading against gay marriage in 2004, McCain bashed a proposed anti-gay-marriage amendment, calling it “antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.” While the president and other Republicans wrapped their arms around the Falwells of the world, McCain blasted those preachers as “agents of intolerance.” He talked of seeing the hand of God when he hiked in the Grand Canyon, but insisted loudly that he believed in evolution. He even, for Christ’s sake, supported a ban on commercial whaling. If there’s anything that a decent Republican knows without being told, it’s that whales are a liberal constituency.
But McCain didn’t care. Back then, his political survival didn’t depend on keeping voters artificially geeked up on fear and hatred for Mexicans or biology teachers or other such subversives. He was, after all, a war hero, and Sharon Stone’s cousin.
In short, McCain entered this election season being the worst thing that anyone can be, in the eyes of the Rove-school Republicans: Different. Independent. His own man. He exited the campaign on his knees, all his dignity gone, having handed the White House to the hated liberals after spending the last months of the race with numb-nuts Sarah Palin on his arm and Karl Rove’s cock in his mouth. Even if you wanted to vote for him, you didn’t know who you were voting for. The old McCain? The new McCain? Neither? Both?
Exactly. Of all of the Republican candidates, the only one I feared was McCain. The “maverick” of 2000 (or even 2004) would have been pretty difficult to beat, regardless of who the Dem pick was. But for all of Palin’s loud pronouncements that she was a “maverick,” too, no one ever really bought it (it was a bridge to nowhere) and in the end she became McCain’s Kryptonite, hung around his neck and sapping what little strength he had left out of him. While I thought she looked pretty good on paper prior to her selection, I knew from the moment I saw her smug froth-inducing speech at the Republican convention that it was all uphill for him going forward, regardless of the quick bump her arrival gave the ticket. He was officially boxed-in by the wingnut mouth-breathers, the same cretins who used to howl for his RINO head, and, in the end, they finally (and unknowingly) exacted their revenge.
The luster is gone. The maverick is dead. And now McCain will always be remembered, first and foremost, as a loser. In 2008, the Republican base can lay claim to that one small victory.
[via Balloon Juice]
Monday, December 01, 2008
Mr. Holder takes a stand
Holy Jeebus, the media have such a jones for Obama vs. Clinton drama-crack! I don’t think I’ve seen them do so little to overcome an addiction since they failed to quit OJ for nearly 15 years. As per usual, they ignore real stories in an effort to analyze Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton’s facial expressions with all the subtlety and perceptiveness of a PUMA divining the coming revolution from the color of a pantsuit.
For instance, I’ve seen precious little hoopla around this bit from Attorney General-designate Eric Holder during today’s national security presser:
Holder: It is incumbent upon those of us who lead the department to ensure not only that our nation is safe, but that ours laws and traditions are respected. There’s not a tension between those two. We can and we must ensure that the American people remain secure and that the great constitutional guarantees that define us as a nation are truly valued. For example, working with both Republicans and Democrats to structure policies that are protective and consistent with who we are as a nation.
In other words, the executive power grabs, countenancing of torture in the name of security, Constitution-shredding and the inexcusable politicizing of the Department of Justice that were the shameful hallmark of George W. Bush’s DOJ operation will end on January 20.
I don’t expect the chorus of naysayers who are already prophesying doom to recognize the significance of Holder’s statement. And the mainstream media are too fixated on creating a Clinton hoohah to notice—even though what Holder said implied heaps of disdain upon the current administration, which is maybe kinda newsworthy. But it made me happy.
PS: If anyone is interested in the outcome of the Six Random Things thingie from last week, my answers (and list of prospective victims) are here.
UPDATE [via Kevin K.]: Video below the fold…
Getting Raped By Your Crazy Uncle And Being Forced To Have The Baby Even If It Kills You, For Jesus!
(Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Bobby Jindal)
Hello, Rumproast! It is such an honor to join this blog. I’m sure you’re wondering what that shocking blog post title is all about, so let’s get to it!
Legendary exorcist Bobby Jindal, also known as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, is apparently the 2012 Republicans’ version of Barack Obama, because I guess he could be mistaken for black from a distance?
Steve Schmidt, who just successfully managed John McCain’s bid to pathetically lose the presidency and any last shred of his dignity says:
“The question is not whether he’ll be president, but when he’ll be president, because he will be elected someday.”
Take that to the bank! But don’t expect to withdraw any money, because there isn’t any left in America!
Anyway, getting back to the shocking title of this blog post, about getting raped by your crazy uncle and being forced to have the baby even if it might kill you (for Jesus!), it turns out that Bobby Jindal really, really hates abortion. I mean really, really, really, really hates it. And if he ever became president, you could never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, have one:
...social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions; his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research; his and his wife Supriya’s decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state; and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of “scientific design” and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.
There’s a whole host of crazy in that paragraph about which one could write an entire book, but I’ll just deal with the abortion part.
This man will never be president if he is against abortion without exceptions. Just think about it. No exceptions. Not rape. Not incest. Not life of the mother being at risk.
Attention women of America. Consider this: You have been raped. By your crazy ass uncle Bobby (no relation). If you have the baby it will likely kill you. Is there any way you could have an abortion, to literally save your life? Not if Bobby Jindal is president, because apparently he believes that you getting raped by your uncle and suffering a painful death while giving birth to your rapechild is all somehow part of God’s glorious plan for you.
Don’t you feel better knowing that Jesus loves you?
Seriously, even Sarah Palin had the decency and wisdom (I can’t believe I just typed that) to make an exception for abortion when it came to the life of the mother being in jeopardy. And Sarah Palin? Everybody hates Sarah Palin!
There, now Bobby Jindal will never be president. My work is done.
(Cross posted at The November Blog)
Categories: Politics •
Give Real World the Red Hook
Those poor bastards in Red Hook, Brooklyn (a neighborhood near the Rumproast HQ) thought they had it bad when Ikea laid a giant unassembled turd on their turf, but, sweet jeebus, it just doesn’t get any worse that this. My heartfelt condolences. If I lived there I’d be organizing a crew to saw Pier 40 off at its base and push it into the bay.
What Tom Hilton Said
Instead of blockquoting nearly the entire last two paragraphs of his post, which I’m in full agreement with, I’ll just direct you right to it.
This concludes today’s edition of What Tom Hilton Said.
RELATED: Since this shoehorns nicely with some of the points made in Hilton’s post, here’s the latest editorial from one of the leading pernicious hypercritical gnatrooters:
This is the mythic “independence” we’re supposed to crave — a czar who doesn’t owe anyone. It is the foreseeable result of a Dear Leader-ism prevalent in foreign autocracies, but never paramount in America until now — and it will have its benefits and drawbacks.
Wielding his campaign’s massive e-mail list, the new president could mobilize supporters to press Congress for a new New Deal. Or, he could mobilize that army to blunt pressure on his government for a new New Deal. The point is that Obama alone gets to choose — that for all the talk of “bottom-up” politics, his movement’s structure grants him a top-down power that no previous president had.
For better or worse, that leaves us relying more than ever on our Dear Leader’s impulses. Sure, we should be thankful when Dear Leader’s whims serve the people — but also unsurprised when they don’t.
Never mind David Sirota’s totally ludicrous statement that because of Obama’s “massive e-mail list” he now wields “a top-down power that no previous president had” (someone may want to tell Sanford Wallace he now qualifies for King of the Universe), but is it necessary these days to compare Obama to Kim Jong-il—while dismissing Obama supporters as star-struck, naive and compliant—to prove that you’re a 100% Grade A progressive? Or does it really only imply that you’re kind of a mouthy, condescending dick?
MORE: From Mithras.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
And the Beat Goes On!
Q. How long can he keep this up?
A. How long will these
pathetic losers, umm, suckers, umm, commenters/followers let him?
Yuppie parents have been provided with a new tool to guide offspring earlier onto success path - DNA testing to predict which sports will best suit your kids’ talents! And, yes, I’m citing an article in the NYT but the story originated out of Boulder, CO. Why am I not surprised. Parental quote from the article:
“I could see how some people might think the test would pigeonhole your child into doing fewer sports or being exposed to fewer things, but I still think it’s good to match them with the right activity. I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration.”
Because it is, of course, all about the parents.
Tweety in 2010? Apparently a Senate run is on his mind (as much as he can be said to have an actual “mind”. The kind that thinks. And listens.) So far I have not signed up to volunteer in the campaign.
More after the fold.
Religion and the emerging Democratic majority
It will be interesting to see how the now marginalized religious right nutballs behave during the next four years, but perhaps more importantly, to see how an Obama administration accommodates them. I have to admit the way I view these poor souls has changed in the last couple of years and I want to write about that when I have more time. For now, though, here is another early post regarding Obama’s position on the pledge and what I saw at the time as an alternative outlet for Democratic energy:
Monday, July 10, 2006
What To Do?
I didn’t get the memo from Carville, so I don’t know if he warned Democrats to tip-toe around religious issues and instead suggested that more votes could be had by assisting the religious right in their attempts to take over the government. But I wanted to revisit the statement made a few days ago by Barack Obama where he paid lip service to religious conservatives by stating Democrats should embrace the evangelical end of the spirituality spectrum. He crossed a line, in my opinion, when he said this:
“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God.’”
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Less compassion, more exclusion
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford thinks one of the big problems for the GOP is that it was trying to be too inclusive:
First, let’s go back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. A political party is much like a brand, and brands thrive or wither based on how consistently they deliver on what they promise. Along those same lines, it’s important for brands to stick to their knitting. If John Deere’s tractor sales are declining, they don’t say, “Tell you what, let’s make cars and airplanes, too.” Instead, they focus on producing better tractors.
I make that point because there’s a real temptation in Republican circles right now to try and be all things to all people. We tried that already — it was called “compassionate conservatism,” and it got us nowhere.
Less big tent, more pup tent. Less compassion, more indifference. I like it. Sounds like a recipe for success. Watching these disempowered dimwits thrash around in the coming months and years and (hopefully) decades looking for “the answer” as their base dwindles away will be a great source of entertainment for me. [via TPM]
Truth Goes to Power
Back at the end of ought-six, in the days when I was known to bash Obama for crossing the line with his religious rhetoric, an important event turned my head. It was then that I first learned that Samantha Power was part of Obama’s advisory team. If the choice had to made between justice and humanity in the world, and a little religion sprinkled into our political speech, I’ll go with the justice and humanity. Of course, it was Samantha Power who later got bounced from Obama’s campaign for this honest off the record utterance:
Clinton “is a monster” and “she is stooping to anything. . . . The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”
Well, today, proving that there is no hatchet that can’t be buried, Samantha Power has returned to a position of influence on the O-team, and potentially on the C-team:
Samantha Power, the Harvard professor who was forced to resign from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign last spring after calling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton “a monster,” is now advising the president-elect on transition matters relating to the State Department—which Clinton is slated to head.
Poetic justice even.
NOTE 1: The earlier post (first link above) explains where my loyalty to Samantha Power comes from, but also, notice who comments more than once to do some Obama bashing.
NOTE 2: ts spots a contingent who is not happy with this news.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Did Anyone Watch the Dog Show after the MacyDay Parade?
And does anybody besides me think it’s a little weird that the the female judges at all these big dog shows dress like they got confused and thought they were going to opening night at the Opera House? I mean, nobody else is covered with sequins and bugle beads. The owners and handlers are all in nice business attire and half the audience is probably wearing jeans. So is this just some kind of dog show tradition? I realize this is not a pressing national issue but my family got tired of hearing me kvetch about it so I thought I’d run it past you guys. Anyone know the story on this?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Thanksgiving Day Open Thread
If you wanna talk turkey today (gack!), you can do that here. I’ll leave this post stuck to the top o’ the blog for the rest of the day. I hope you all have a wonderful time today and thanks a bunch for making this such a great place to hang out. I’m honored to have so many smart, entertaining and damn funny folks indulging in the Rumproast. If my arms were long enough, I’d hug all of you right now. Best, K.
More self-indulgent dog-blogging
It was cold this morning, as in the high twenties, maybe thirty degrees. Now, don’t you wish you had this kind of energy?
NOTE: He’s about four months and a week old now. This clip posted earlier was taken about six weeks or so ago.
As best I can tell, the following is the approximate order in which homo-sapiens came to the land now called America (or parts of Canada.) Some stayed and made themselves at home, some didn’t:
2. The population that came over the land bridge, the ancestry of the people we now call Native Americans.
3. The Vikings, about 1,000 years ago (they apparently didn’t stay.)
Next were a couple more European attempts: