Last night, one of the most important, influential voices in American politics finally released an endorsement for president. No, I'm not talking about the New York Times' endorsement of Sen. Obama released late last night. Nor am I talking about Pres. Bush's former Press Secretary Scott McClellan endorsing Obama on D.L. Hughley's show on CNN. But that does raise an interesting question: D.L. HUGHLEY HAS A SHOW ON CNN??? How does that sentence not end with "on the WB?" But no, I'm talking about President George Walker Bush, who finally came out to fully embrace the candidacy of Sen. John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.
In complimenting Gov. Palin's amazing folksy appeal, Pres. Bush explained that "for a while I tried to be folksy, but after a bit it just came off douchey."
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who's El Tinklenberg?
Who cares? He's trying to supplant GOP moll Michelle Bachmann, incumbent Congresswoman for the 6th District of Minnesota, arbiter of anti-Americanism, rumored to hate puppies and rainbows. That's all I need to know.Here's Mr. Tinklenberg's new campaign ad using footage from Bachmann's calamitous performance on Hardball:
And here's where you can donate to El Tinklenberg's revived campaign (now polling 47% to Bachmann's 44%): http://www.tinklenberg08.com/.
El Tinklenberg is "rebuilding optimism in America." But mostly he's asking Minnesotans to let the door hit Bachmann on her way out!
Michelle Bachmann. Hates puppies. Hates rainbows. Not ready to lead. My name is Warm Apple Pie and I approve this message on behalf of El Tinklenberg.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
More Elitist Emotion
I just got back from a dinner for the Human Rights First organization. Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers' Committee on Human Rights) was founded by a group of lawyers 30 years ago, and since its inception has fought against genocide, torture, intimidation, suppression of speech, fascism and other threats to democracy and human rights throughout the word. It is truly a worthy organization, and one that gets results. As I looked through the event program, I came across the list of past honorees, and was struck by something for which I had no explanation until logging on to the Potatoe tonight. This is an American organization, yet most of the honorees (including both honorees tonight) were not Americans. Why? I did not know.
And then I read John McCain's comments and got my answer - Americans no longer celebrate criticism of our own government. Americans who criticize America are now traitors. They are anti-American. They are "elitists" seeking unneccessary change.
I'm fed up. People who speak out against torture, who criticize the war in Iraq, and who propose shifting the tax burden away from the middle class are not what's wrong with America. We are not traitors because we want restrained use of the military. We are not anti-American because we seek immigration reform. We are not elitists because we want every American to have healthcare. People who see a great but flawed country that has been led astray by fundamentalists fighting the culture wars of the '60s and military wars of the '80s are not the problem.
John McCain is the problem. John McCain is the traitor. John McCain is anti-American. John McCain is an elitist.
John McCain, who speaks out against torture with one hand, and signs it into law with the other - putting American soldiers in danger - is the traitor. John McCain, who celebrates ignorance and demonizes education - turning on members of his own party who dare to criticize his campaign, is anti-American. John McCain and every right-wing ideologue that seeks to define and limit what constitutes "real" America and "real" Americans are the elitists.
The thousands of New Yorkers with whom I walked across the Manhattan Bridge, our shoes covered with the dust of the twin towers, are not traitors. The New Yorkers that shed tears after finding an American flag amongst the rubble at Ground Zero are not anti-American. The thousands of New Yorkers that stood in lines to give blood that was never needed, are not elitist. The New Yorkers that risk their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the problem.
John McCain is the problem. John McCain is the traitor. John McCain is anti-American. John McCain is an elitist.
And then I read John McCain's comments and got my answer - Americans no longer celebrate criticism of our own government. Americans who criticize America are now traitors. They are anti-American. They are "elitists" seeking unneccessary change.
I'm fed up. People who speak out against torture, who criticize the war in Iraq, and who propose shifting the tax burden away from the middle class are not what's wrong with America. We are not traitors because we want restrained use of the military. We are not anti-American because we seek immigration reform. We are not elitists because we want every American to have healthcare. People who see a great but flawed country that has been led astray by fundamentalists fighting the culture wars of the '60s and military wars of the '80s are not the problem.
John McCain is the problem. John McCain is the traitor. John McCain is anti-American. John McCain is an elitist.
John McCain, who speaks out against torture with one hand, and signs it into law with the other - putting American soldiers in danger - is the traitor. John McCain, who celebrates ignorance and demonizes education - turning on members of his own party who dare to criticize his campaign, is anti-American. John McCain and every right-wing ideologue that seeks to define and limit what constitutes "real" America and "real" Americans are the elitists.
The thousands of New Yorkers with whom I walked across the Manhattan Bridge, our shoes covered with the dust of the twin towers, are not traitors. The New Yorkers that shed tears after finding an American flag amongst the rubble at Ground Zero are not anti-American. The thousands of New Yorkers that stood in lines to give blood that was never needed, are not elitist. The New Yorkers that risk their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the problem.
John McCain is the problem. John McCain is the traitor. John McCain is anti-American. John McCain is an elitist.
Follow-up to Bateman's "elitist" posting
I couldn't have said everything you just said any better. But NPR's Sarah Vowell actually managed to make your excellent point more quickly than I could have. In discussing the Republicans' elitism tactic, Sarah told The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, "[t]hey wrap themselves in our attack and then they leave and talk about what snobs we are."
She followed it up with this amazing gem:
"If the East Coast Is American enough For Al-Qaeda, It should be American enough for them."
She followed it up with this amazing gem:
"If the East Coast Is American enough For Al-Qaeda, It should be American enough for them."
Followup to WAP's "McCain/elitist" post
(Pat Bateman pre-article warning - it's long. Don't complain. If you have a short attention span, skip it.)
I was going to simply leave a comment on WAP's post about John McCain calling New Yorkers "elitists" but I'm so angry at these statements by McCain that I think it deserves its own post (okay, rant...and a long one at that, I'm sorry WAP). This is something that has always irked me and will continue to always get my dander up, but usually politicians are cagey in their short-shrift to educated, liberal city-folk. But John McCain at least had the gumption to admit it directly, and so let me respond directly.
I don't care, like WAP points out, if this is provincial pandering. Probably is - chances are John McCain does not think everyone he's served with in Washington for two decades is an un-American elitist. But to say it, no matter for what possible political benefit, makes me want to waterboard him.
Ah, John, you don't like those unpatriotic American elitists in New York in their Ivory Towers much, huh? Those un-American citizens from those elitist cities, who burn the flag every day upon rising and lay down to sleep on Socialist sheets... they aren't what America is all about, right John? Guess what John... on behalf of New York, you are hereby restricted from ever discussing September 11th, 2001 again. Ever.
On that day, John, this elitist watched in horror as his hometown burned, and wondered if there were more attacks on the way. This elitist had his office building evacuated when they found anthrax across the street and wondered if he was going to be killed in a biological attack. This elitist knows the names of men - nay, truly they were still boys who never had the chance to fully become men - with whom he shared beer (domestic beer, John, don't worry - no elitist imports) and baseball who lost their lives that day. You, John, are never - ever - allowed to invoke that day for your political benefit again. No, more than that - your entire party is hereby banned. Collective punishment. I'm tired of it, and I think I speak for most of my fellow elitists when I say "this far, no further, John. You have now crossed the rubicon. You have gone too far, sir."
Perhaps this is simply my snooty elitism shining through in rational thought, but I just continue to find it so interesting that those Socialists who worked in the World Trade Center (I can only imagine from your description of New Yorkers that the real business of most who worked there was the overthrow of Capitalism itself) were the ones who died when America was attacked by terrorists and us elitist New Yorkers continue to be the Americans on US soil under constant threat of attack. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any security alerts or evacuations in Wasilla since... wait, ever. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Were the terrorists just stupid, John? Did they intend to attack Peoria and just say "screw it - that's too far. You have to connect, like, six times to get there from Saudi Arabia. What US city has a lot of connecting flights from abroad? New York? Uch, I mean, can't we do better than that? America doesn't care about New York. Uch, and Washington DC? Praised be Allah, even worse! But for convenience sake, let's just stick with those and see how it plays out."
Silly terrorists - all they did was kill a bunch of elitists. Perhaps if they'd gone to school more, they'd have understood the difference between "real" America and those unpatriotic elitists in New York and DC that the rest of the country despises. But, of course, the paradox arises that if they'd gone to school more, they'd probably have been elitists too (it's spread, like mono, mostly during freshman year of college through close contact. Mostly through germs on well-used copies of The Communist Manifesto), and thus too busy sodomizing each other ironically with baseballs and Mom's apple pie to martyr themselves.
It's one of those things that is so laughable that if you discussed it in the context of another country, it would be so nonsensical that you would not believe it. Imagine if the residents of some tiny, provincial outlying desert town in Israel claimed that residents of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were elitist and "anti-Israel" and unpatriotic, despite their choice to live somewhere under constant threat of attack from enemies. You would wonder what had gotten into their hummus. "What could be MORE patriotic than refusing to leave your home town, city or country despite the threat to your family or your very life? Refusing to submit or change in the face of danger - those are the true patriots," you would think to yourself. Reminds you of that ragtag but spirited band that drove the Brits out of Dodge, right? (Just not the Founding Fathers though - those guys were totally elitist douchebags. All doctors and lawyers and scientists and writers. I'm surprised the non-elitist "Joe homegrown rye whiskey" Colonists didn't burn them at the stake, frankly. I mean, John Adams went to Harvard. He's was practically Muhammad Atta.)
"How's the view from the cheap seats?" you'd think to yourself. "Must be really easy to criticize those who have to wonder if their bus is going to explode from hundreds of miles away from the bombs and blood." You would call these people cowards, lobbing explosive words from their position safely behind the front lines - their own front lines at whom they toss their poisonous verbal missiles.
Refusing to change your way of life under threat of bodily harm - these are the true patriots of any country. They love their country so much that they will not be cowed. They will not move their homes, their families or themselves. They will not submit to violence and terror. They will resist by continuing to live in the face of aggression, perhaps afraid but ultimately unmoved in spirit and courage. They will risk their lives every day by the simple act of living somewhere under fire. But their way of life is too important to be compromised. Their daily lives are a testament to the definition of patriotism. If that is elitist, I am guilty as charged - and would never want to be anything but.
Yet when we face that same situation here in America, it is somehow acceptable to paint the only American citizens who have ever been in real, actual danger as un-patriotic, un-American elitist snobs who thumb their noses at this country and then wipe it with the Stars and Stripes. I was never mad at you, John. Disappointed? Sure. Saddened? Yup. Never mad though.
But not now.
Now I'm angry, John. Not to put too fine a point on it, without using those snobby elitist SAT words that us city folks throw around, let me be plain: go fuck yourself.
I was going to simply leave a comment on WAP's post about John McCain calling New Yorkers "elitists" but I'm so angry at these statements by McCain that I think it deserves its own post (okay, rant...and a long one at that, I'm sorry WAP). This is something that has always irked me and will continue to always get my dander up, but usually politicians are cagey in their short-shrift to educated, liberal city-folk. But John McCain at least had the gumption to admit it directly, and so let me respond directly.
I don't care, like WAP points out, if this is provincial pandering. Probably is - chances are John McCain does not think everyone he's served with in Washington for two decades is an un-American elitist. But to say it, no matter for what possible political benefit, makes me want to waterboard him.
Ah, John, you don't like those unpatriotic American elitists in New York in their Ivory Towers much, huh? Those un-American citizens from those elitist cities, who burn the flag every day upon rising and lay down to sleep on Socialist sheets... they aren't what America is all about, right John? Guess what John... on behalf of New York, you are hereby restricted from ever discussing September 11th, 2001 again. Ever.
On that day, John, this elitist watched in horror as his hometown burned, and wondered if there were more attacks on the way. This elitist had his office building evacuated when they found anthrax across the street and wondered if he was going to be killed in a biological attack. This elitist knows the names of men - nay, truly they were still boys who never had the chance to fully become men - with whom he shared beer (domestic beer, John, don't worry - no elitist imports) and baseball who lost their lives that day. You, John, are never - ever - allowed to invoke that day for your political benefit again. No, more than that - your entire party is hereby banned. Collective punishment. I'm tired of it, and I think I speak for most of my fellow elitists when I say "this far, no further, John. You have now crossed the rubicon. You have gone too far, sir."
Perhaps this is simply my snooty elitism shining through in rational thought, but I just continue to find it so interesting that those Socialists who worked in the World Trade Center (I can only imagine from your description of New Yorkers that the real business of most who worked there was the overthrow of Capitalism itself) were the ones who died when America was attacked by terrorists and us elitist New Yorkers continue to be the Americans on US soil under constant threat of attack. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any security alerts or evacuations in Wasilla since... wait, ever. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Were the terrorists just stupid, John? Did they intend to attack Peoria and just say "screw it - that's too far. You have to connect, like, six times to get there from Saudi Arabia. What US city has a lot of connecting flights from abroad? New York? Uch, I mean, can't we do better than that? America doesn't care about New York. Uch, and Washington DC? Praised be Allah, even worse! But for convenience sake, let's just stick with those and see how it plays out."
Silly terrorists - all they did was kill a bunch of elitists. Perhaps if they'd gone to school more, they'd have understood the difference between "real" America and those unpatriotic elitists in New York and DC that the rest of the country despises. But, of course, the paradox arises that if they'd gone to school more, they'd probably have been elitists too (it's spread, like mono, mostly during freshman year of college through close contact. Mostly through germs on well-used copies of The Communist Manifesto), and thus too busy sodomizing each other ironically with baseballs and Mom's apple pie to martyr themselves.
It's one of those things that is so laughable that if you discussed it in the context of another country, it would be so nonsensical that you would not believe it. Imagine if the residents of some tiny, provincial outlying desert town in Israel claimed that residents of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were elitist and "anti-Israel" and unpatriotic, despite their choice to live somewhere under constant threat of attack from enemies. You would wonder what had gotten into their hummus. "What could be MORE patriotic than refusing to leave your home town, city or country despite the threat to your family or your very life? Refusing to submit or change in the face of danger - those are the true patriots," you would think to yourself. Reminds you of that ragtag but spirited band that drove the Brits out of Dodge, right? (Just not the Founding Fathers though - those guys were totally elitist douchebags. All doctors and lawyers and scientists and writers. I'm surprised the non-elitist "Joe homegrown rye whiskey" Colonists didn't burn them at the stake, frankly. I mean, John Adams went to Harvard. He's was practically Muhammad Atta.)
"How's the view from the cheap seats?" you'd think to yourself. "Must be really easy to criticize those who have to wonder if their bus is going to explode from hundreds of miles away from the bombs and blood." You would call these people cowards, lobbing explosive words from their position safely behind the front lines - their own front lines at whom they toss their poisonous verbal missiles.
Refusing to change your way of life under threat of bodily harm - these are the true patriots of any country. They love their country so much that they will not be cowed. They will not move their homes, their families or themselves. They will not submit to violence and terror. They will resist by continuing to live in the face of aggression, perhaps afraid but ultimately unmoved in spirit and courage. They will risk their lives every day by the simple act of living somewhere under fire. But their way of life is too important to be compromised. Their daily lives are a testament to the definition of patriotism. If that is elitist, I am guilty as charged - and would never want to be anything but.
Yet when we face that same situation here in America, it is somehow acceptable to paint the only American citizens who have ever been in real, actual danger as un-patriotic, un-American elitist snobs who thumb their noses at this country and then wipe it with the Stars and Stripes. I was never mad at you, John. Disappointed? Sure. Saddened? Yup. Never mad though.
But not now.
Now I'm angry, John. Not to put too fine a point on it, without using those snobby elitist SAT words that us city folks throw around, let me be plain: go fuck yourself.
Opie, Andy, Richie and the Fonz
What do Opie Taylor, Sheriff Andy Taylor, Richie Cunningham and Arthur "Fonzie" Fonzarelli have in common? No one under 35 has any idea who any of them are! Zing!!!No, I kid. Actually, no one under 35 does know who they are, but that isn't the right answer. You can stop guessing now, because I'm going to tell you: they are all voting for Barack Obama because they love America.
Director of totally awesome movies like Backdraft and Apollo 13, and former child star of The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days, Ron Howard, has teamed up with his former co-stars, Andy "Matlock" Griffith and Henry "The Fonz" Winkler to bring you this PSA.
Director of totally awesome movies like Backdraft and Apollo 13, and former child star of The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days, Ron Howard, has teamed up with his former co-stars, Andy "Matlock" Griffith and Henry "The Fonz" Winkler to bring you this PSA.
See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die
Washington D.C. And New York City: Last Bastions Of Elitism
I'd rather vote George W. Bush for a third term than John McCain.An excerpt from another segment of Brian Williams's conversation with the GOP ticket - you know, John McCain aned Sarah Palin: the 8-house-owning, 150k-on-clothes-spending, just like you and me, couple of mavericks, couple of average Joes, really feeling the economic crisis, hankered down and suffering, real Americans from real American states and electoral districts - broadcast tonight on NBC:
WILLIAMS: Who is a member of the elite?
PALIN: Oh, I guess just people who think that they're better than anyone else. And-- John McCain and I are so committed to serving every American. Hard-working, middle-class Americans who are so desiring of this economy getting put back on the right track. And winning these wars. And America's starting to reach her potential. And that is opportunity and hope provided everyone equally. So anyone who thinks that they are-- I guess-- better than anyone else, that's-- that's my definition of elitism. WILLIAMS: So it's not education? It's not income-based? It's--
PALIN: Anyone who thinks that they're better than someone else.
WILLIAMS: --a state of mind? It's not geography?
PALIN: 'Course not.
WILLIAMS: Senator?
MCCAIN: I-- I know where a lot of 'em live. (LAUGH)
WILLIAMS: Where's that?
MCCAIN: Well, in our nation's capital and New York City. I've seen it. I've lived there. I know the town. I know-- I know what a lot of these elitists are. The ones that she never went to a cocktail party with in Georgetown. I'll be very frank with you. Who think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves.
Over 3000 of these "elites" died in New York City and Washington D.C. on 9-11, you crusty curmudgeon. And how many cocktail parties and snooty soirees have you attended in your 26 years as a senator?
I cannot believe how much pandering provincialism spews out of this ticket on a daily basis.
Doctor. Doctor. Glad I'm Not Palin.
In her one-on-one interview segment with Brian Williams last evening, Governor Palin responded to the growing chorus of calls seeking release of her medical records:"The medical records, so be it. If that will allow some curiosity seekers perhaps to have one more thing that they either check the box off that they can find something to criticize or to rest them assured over. I'm healthy, happy, I've had five kids, that's going to be in the medical records. Never seriously ill or hurt, you'll see that in the medical records if they're released."
So that settles it . . . or does it. Not so fast says the McCain campaign. As reported by an up-in-arms Andrew Sullivan, a parsing bit of wordsmithery comes from the GOP ticket sans medical documentation:
“When medical information related to Governor Palin’s health is ready to be released we will make that information available.”
Hmmm. Medical "information," not necessarily medical records. "Related to" the good Governor's health? I may or may not be a lawyer as far as you know, but Warm Apple Pie, Esq. asserts you can drive a forty-foot rig through the cavernous hole cleared out by "related to." And only when the information is "ready to be released?" By definition, doesn't the word "records" encompass accounts and diagnoses previously prepared by doctors? I don't think we're asking Governor Palin to submit to a physical before the election. The personal annals of her medical history will more than suffice.
I reject almost all conspiracy theories out-of-hand - including the sinfully delicious yarn about Sarah Palin concocting her purported pregnancy and birth of Trig to protect his true biological mother, Bristol Palin.
Notwithstanding, I do squint a bit at the hesitancy to provide full, unredacted medical records. She's the youngest of the four candidates. You would think the papers attest simply that she's the most vigorous as well.
Still, I submit this is garden-variety, election year dookie thrown around by fringe jesters seeking to defame and imbrue the opposition's candidate. However, Obama did supply his birth certificate to combat outrageous claims that he was born outside of the United States. It would seem Palin could immediately delouse herself of these sub-media lice by a timely release of her medical records. How about some of that government transparency you extol?
"Vote McCain, Not Barack Hussein"
Conservative radio's new group-think perceives the feral left as much more virulent and hateful than the right despite the media elite's skewed vision of the campaign trail. The coterie of GOP pundits warns of a powder keg situation created by the left's never-ending quest to squash dissent and install their world view on the American people. They warn of violence in the wake of a McCain-Palin victory.
Really.
How many video clips can I post:
Yeah, you guys are the victims here. Cry me a river.
Really.
How many video clips can I post:
Yeah, you guys are the victims here. Cry me a river.
I Learned A New Word Today: "Outlier"
An "outlier" denotes an empirical result on the margins that most statisticians discard as unreliable or anomalous.
With a cascade of polls showing Barack Obama separating from John McCain, scratching if not realizing a double-digit lead, I was intrigued by the AP-GFK poll released this week showing a virtual dead heat: Obama - 44%, McCain - 43%.
Pollster John Zogby (fingering Obama's lead at 10 points) decries the new poll as a sloppy "outlier," deficient in accounting for a massive surge in college-age voters flocking to the polls this election season.
But for you cocksure Democrats out there, already putting the champagne on ice for your Obama victory celebration, Zogby concedes things remain fluid and forewarns: "anything can happen."
With a cascade of polls showing Barack Obama separating from John McCain, scratching if not realizing a double-digit lead, I was intrigued by the AP-GFK poll released this week showing a virtual dead heat: Obama - 44%, McCain - 43%.
Pollster John Zogby (fingering Obama's lead at 10 points) decries the new poll as a sloppy "outlier," deficient in accounting for a massive surge in college-age voters flocking to the polls this election season.
But for you cocksure Democrats out there, already putting the champagne on ice for your Obama victory celebration, Zogby concedes things remain fluid and forewarns: "anything can happen."
Campbell Brown attempts to set women in politics back to Stone Age
In case you do not know who she is, Campbell Brown is a commentator on CNN and CNN.com. Today, she published an opinion piece, which can be found here in which she defends the expenditure of 150k in the last two months on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, by dropping this nugget of wisdom on us:
Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men. And look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it. A lot of e-mail. Seriously.
When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job.
If Wolf or Anderson Cooper shows up on the air without makeup, you think you would even notice? I show up without makeup? Trust me, you'll notice.
This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue. And it is for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for clothes, hair and makeup. It is part of the job.
Now, Campbell tries to blunt this stupidity at the very end by saying that she has raised many questions about Sarah Palin, but that the questions were of the "right" kind:
I, myself, have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let's keep the focus on what really matters here.
Ah, Campbell. So stupid. You simply don't understand, do you? You cannot have it both ways and every which way. I'm not just talking to you, Campbell. I'm talking to you, women of America. You see, you cannot enforce a double standard and fight it at the same time. Either women should be treated differently or they should not be treated differently. End of discussion. Frankly, we men don't care. Just let us know which way you'd like it - but the trick is you've got to be consistent. Either women are different creatures and should be looked at, evaluated and judged differently than men, or they should not. At home, at work and in politics.
However, don't get into a twist Campbell. You see, Campbell, the funny thing is that you're wrong EITHER way on this one. So rest easy. Your decision is irrelevant - you're still incorrect.
If women should be treated equally to men, an expenditure of $150,000 on clothes in times of economic crisis by a candidate of either sex should be seen as pure madness. It's excess to a degree that is almost unfathomable. And from a candidate running on the GOP ticket of reduced spending and financial conservatism, it's laughable.
But the funny thing is that if women should be treated differently than men, she's still wrong - and so are you, Campbell. If being attractive is part of Sarah Palin's "job" description, she and the GOP are still in lunatic territory with spending 150 large on clothes for her. She's running on a campaign of reform, reigning in spending and small town values. Looking good does not mean lavish spending. Lots of women have to look pretty on a shoestring budget. They're called "the rest of America." They succeed in varying degree, but I assure you that many do look fabulous on less than $150k per eight weeks. Thus even if you judge her differently than a man, she and the GOP are still wrong and out of touch in having spent so lavishly on her. Even if her looks matter, they don't matter THAT much. Or do they...
Unless...
Unless it is acknowledged, brazenly and openly, that her only job responsibility is looking good, and thus no expense should be spared because she brings nothing else to the table. As Lieutenant Weinberg aptly states, he has no responsibilities here whatsoever. Perhaps Palin has none with the exception of being hot.
At this fringe position, any expenditure is justified because all she brings to the table is her looks, and, as such, lavish spending is not only justified but necessary. However, at this fringe point, shouldn't McCain just choose Halle Berry and dispense with the pretense that his running mate is anything other than attractive? (come to think of it - Halle Berry might actually be a better choice for McCain at this point than Palin) And when we've reached that station, where Palin's looks aren't just part of the package but, in fact, the whole enchilada, shouldn't we just acknowledge that women are to be seen and not heard and banish them from politics altogether? I mean, what are they bringing to the table? Hey sweetheart, be a doll and fix me a martini while the big boys talk.
Thus, to bring it full circle, Campbell, you're an idiot. Your looks matter because you bring nothing else to the table (as we clearly see). You read off a teleprompter. The fate of the free world will never, ever be in your hands. You, Campbell, need your looks (and yeah, you're attractive) because that is where your bread is buttered. Your looks are the skillz that pays the billz.
Sarah Palin's looks, whether they matter or not, are not supposed to matter. Her savvy, smarts and experience are what is supposed to matter. That's what mattered with Geraldine Ferraro. With Golda Meier. With Margaret Thatcher. That's what mattered with dozens of other women in government over history, both in this country and around the world. To suggest otherwise as you do, Campbell, is to suggest that looks somehow played a part in the ascension of these remarkable women. And, as a man, let me tell you: they didn't.
But now apparently these things called "qualifications" that used to be important aren't anymore. Now we've regressed so far, thanks to you and others like you, Campbell, that Sarah Palin's looks are crucial. So crucial, in fact, that we should ignore her and/or her party's lavish spending on her looks and what that says about her and/or her party's position on useless and extravagant spending while they contract themselves by talking out of the other side of their mouths about reduced spending and small government. We should ignore any of these implications, Campbell, because looks are just more important for women, and thus no expense should be spared nor contradiction discussed.
Shame on you Campbell. You just set your gender back fifty years.
Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men. And look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it. A lot of e-mail. Seriously.
When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job.
If Wolf or Anderson Cooper shows up on the air without makeup, you think you would even notice? I show up without makeup? Trust me, you'll notice.
This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue. And it is for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for clothes, hair and makeup. It is part of the job.
Now, Campbell tries to blunt this stupidity at the very end by saying that she has raised many questions about Sarah Palin, but that the questions were of the "right" kind:
I, myself, have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let's keep the focus on what really matters here.
Ah, Campbell. So stupid. You simply don't understand, do you? You cannot have it both ways and every which way. I'm not just talking to you, Campbell. I'm talking to you, women of America. You see, you cannot enforce a double standard and fight it at the same time. Either women should be treated differently or they should not be treated differently. End of discussion. Frankly, we men don't care. Just let us know which way you'd like it - but the trick is you've got to be consistent. Either women are different creatures and should be looked at, evaluated and judged differently than men, or they should not. At home, at work and in politics.
However, don't get into a twist Campbell. You see, Campbell, the funny thing is that you're wrong EITHER way on this one. So rest easy. Your decision is irrelevant - you're still incorrect.
If women should be treated equally to men, an expenditure of $150,000 on clothes in times of economic crisis by a candidate of either sex should be seen as pure madness. It's excess to a degree that is almost unfathomable. And from a candidate running on the GOP ticket of reduced spending and financial conservatism, it's laughable.
But the funny thing is that if women should be treated differently than men, she's still wrong - and so are you, Campbell. If being attractive is part of Sarah Palin's "job" description, she and the GOP are still in lunatic territory with spending 150 large on clothes for her. She's running on a campaign of reform, reigning in spending and small town values. Looking good does not mean lavish spending. Lots of women have to look pretty on a shoestring budget. They're called "the rest of America." They succeed in varying degree, but I assure you that many do look fabulous on less than $150k per eight weeks. Thus even if you judge her differently than a man, she and the GOP are still wrong and out of touch in having spent so lavishly on her. Even if her looks matter, they don't matter THAT much. Or do they...
Unless...
Unless it is acknowledged, brazenly and openly, that her only job responsibility is looking good, and thus no expense should be spared because she brings nothing else to the table. As Lieutenant Weinberg aptly states, he has no responsibilities here whatsoever. Perhaps Palin has none with the exception of being hot.
At this fringe position, any expenditure is justified because all she brings to the table is her looks, and, as such, lavish spending is not only justified but necessary. However, at this fringe point, shouldn't McCain just choose Halle Berry and dispense with the pretense that his running mate is anything other than attractive? (come to think of it - Halle Berry might actually be a better choice for McCain at this point than Palin) And when we've reached that station, where Palin's looks aren't just part of the package but, in fact, the whole enchilada, shouldn't we just acknowledge that women are to be seen and not heard and banish them from politics altogether? I mean, what are they bringing to the table? Hey sweetheart, be a doll and fix me a martini while the big boys talk.
Thus, to bring it full circle, Campbell, you're an idiot. Your looks matter because you bring nothing else to the table (as we clearly see). You read off a teleprompter. The fate of the free world will never, ever be in your hands. You, Campbell, need your looks (and yeah, you're attractive) because that is where your bread is buttered. Your looks are the skillz that pays the billz.
Sarah Palin's looks, whether they matter or not, are not supposed to matter. Her savvy, smarts and experience are what is supposed to matter. That's what mattered with Geraldine Ferraro. With Golda Meier. With Margaret Thatcher. That's what mattered with dozens of other women in government over history, both in this country and around the world. To suggest otherwise as you do, Campbell, is to suggest that looks somehow played a part in the ascension of these remarkable women. And, as a man, let me tell you: they didn't.
But now apparently these things called "qualifications" that used to be important aren't anymore. Now we've regressed so far, thanks to you and others like you, Campbell, that Sarah Palin's looks are crucial. So crucial, in fact, that we should ignore her and/or her party's lavish spending on her looks and what that says about her and/or her party's position on useless and extravagant spending while they contract themselves by talking out of the other side of their mouths about reduced spending and small government. We should ignore any of these implications, Campbell, because looks are just more important for women, and thus no expense should be spared nor contradiction discussed.
Shame on you Campbell. You just set your gender back fifty years.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Potatoe's Missing Links For October 22, 2008
Rick Reilly and Barack Obama pick a NFL fantasy for week six games.
Barack Obama now boasts a 93.5% chance of victory.
John McCain left on the Straight Talk Express, overnight, alone, scared (hehehehe).
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review shocked that blacks are voting for Barack Obama.
Drudge, almost out of spin, tries reverse psychology: it's such a done deal, why vote?
The only poll that matters comes out on November 5.
Barack Obama now boasts a 93.5% chance of victory.
John McCain left on the Straight Talk Express, overnight, alone, scared (hehehehe).
Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review shocked that blacks are voting for Barack Obama.
Drudge, almost out of spin, tries reverse psychology: it's such a done deal, why vote?
The only poll that matters comes out on November 5.
Jack Of All Trades: Jeff Larson
Not only is he Sarah Palin's personal shopper, but Jeff Larson finds time in his busy schedule for long walks on the beach, knitting and recording robocalls attacking Barack Obama.Jeff Larson is fab! Tim Gunn says "make it work," Jeff. My name is John McCain and I approve this fierceness!!!!!!! These robocalls are hot messes!!!!
I hope you're right, Sarah...
Sarah, I truly believe you're right on target here. I just think you might be mistaken about which side God votes this year...
In an interview posted online Wednesday, Sarah Palin told Dr. James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” that she is confident God will do “the right thing for America” on Nov. 4. Dobson asked the vice presidential hopeful if she is concerned about John McCain’s sagging poll numbers, but Palin stressed that she was “not discouraged at all.”
“To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder,” she told the influential Christian leader, whose radio show reaches tens of millions of listeners daily. “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”
Ah, Sarah - still with the GOP "Divine Mandate" theory. Because I have to imagine you don't mean that the Dems are going to win and THAT is God's Word. You're governor of Alaska, but you're still mayor of Crazytown. You betcha.
She also thanked her supporters — including Dobson, who said he and his wife were asking “for God’s intervention” on election day — for their prayers of support. “It is that intercession that is so needed,” she said. “And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it.”
Our prayer warriors. Who are these soldiers you speak of? Are those our service men and women overseas, praying someone will give them body armor before IED shrapnel blows them to pieces? Or do you speak of Henry Paulson, he of the "God, please let the market turn around!" infantry? Or do you mean the MPs at the motor pool of personal shoppers at Saks, praying they'll be the one to get that commission when you drop fifty large there? Everywhere I look are soldiers! Warriors of Worship! Marines of Morality! SEALs of Supplication! Airborne of Adoration! Seamen of... ha. Semen. Ah, man, that's a funny word.
SEMPER FI, DO OR DIE, SA-RAH! Onward, brave warriors of prayer! Carry us to the Promised Land! And by that I mean back to Anchorage in defeat.
In an interview posted online Wednesday, Sarah Palin told Dr. James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” that she is confident God will do “the right thing for America” on Nov. 4. Dobson asked the vice presidential hopeful if she is concerned about John McCain’s sagging poll numbers, but Palin stressed that she was “not discouraged at all.”
“To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder,” she told the influential Christian leader, whose radio show reaches tens of millions of listeners daily. “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”
Ah, Sarah - still with the GOP "Divine Mandate" theory. Because I have to imagine you don't mean that the Dems are going to win and THAT is God's Word. You're governor of Alaska, but you're still mayor of Crazytown. You betcha.
She also thanked her supporters — including Dobson, who said he and his wife were asking “for God’s intervention” on election day — for their prayers of support. “It is that intercession that is so needed,” she said. “And so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power of prayer, and that strength that is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation. And I so appreciate it.”
Our prayer warriors. Who are these soldiers you speak of? Are those our service men and women overseas, praying someone will give them body armor before IED shrapnel blows them to pieces? Or do you speak of Henry Paulson, he of the "God, please let the market turn around!" infantry? Or do you mean the MPs at the motor pool of personal shoppers at Saks, praying they'll be the one to get that commission when you drop fifty large there? Everywhere I look are soldiers! Warriors of Worship! Marines of Morality! SEALs of Supplication! Airborne of Adoration! Seamen of... ha. Semen. Ah, man, that's a funny word.
SEMPER FI, DO OR DIE, SA-RAH! Onward, brave warriors of prayer! Carry us to the Promised Land! And by that I mean back to Anchorage in defeat.
Why We Pick On Palin
Because it's always "opposite day" for Governor Palin on the campaign trail. And it's shameless.
We will stop abuses of power, yet I abused power according to the Branchflower report regarding "Troopergate" - the very first finding.
We will stop government corruption, yet I've been part of the corruption as Governor of Alaska, doctoring expense reports to justify travel and accommodations for my children using taxpayer money.
We will stop cronyism and reform government, yet my government's cabinet is littered with cronies and high school chum, and I permitted my husband to wield the power of the governor's office.
I'm part of the middle class, an average Hockey Mom, just like you (wink wink), yet the expenditures on my couture over the past two months rival the value of some embattled mortgages.
I'll tell you that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists and believes America is imperfect, yet Todd and I were affiliated with secessionists who not only think the country is imperfect, but want no part of it.
Why do we pick on Palin? Hypocrisy. The worst kind.
We will stop abuses of power, yet I abused power according to the Branchflower report regarding "Troopergate" - the very first finding.
We will stop government corruption, yet I've been part of the corruption as Governor of Alaska, doctoring expense reports to justify travel and accommodations for my children using taxpayer money.
We will stop cronyism and reform government, yet my government's cabinet is littered with cronies and high school chum, and I permitted my husband to wield the power of the governor's office.
I'm part of the middle class, an average Hockey Mom, just like you (wink wink), yet the expenditures on my couture over the past two months rival the value of some embattled mortgages.
I'll tell you that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists and believes America is imperfect, yet Todd and I were affiliated with secessionists who not only think the country is imperfect, but want no part of it.
Why do we pick on Palin? Hypocrisy. The worst kind.
Baghdad John
"I think she's the most qualified of anyone recently who has run for vice president to tell you the truth... I'm frankly entertained at the elitist attidue toward a person who is a proven leader.""She did fine in the interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. She did a great job in those interviews"
Alaska Independence Party and the Palins: A Simmering Controversy
Against the better wishes of my fellow contributors, Warm Apple Pie will continue to push this fact-driven story: The Palins' ties to the Alaska Independence Party ("AIP") and the unwillingness of the mainstream media to explore the history of the relationship. There is a ton of unfinished meat on the bone.
Some say this is "out there" already and yesterday's news cycle. But I believe it is ripe for media plucking considering McCain-Palin's incessant push to link Obama to William Ayers.
And others are starting to agree (Colmes to the rescue? Colmes? Say it ain't so, Joe!):
From last evening's Hannity and Colmes. Around minute three, Colmes raises the parallel between the Ayers-Obama attack and the Palins' unchallenged AIP involvement. He notes how Democrats have decided not to play in this pigpen (lipsticked pigpen that is). Former Deputy Governor of Maryland, Republican Michael Steele, after two minutes of usual, overwrought shredding of Obama on his dubious connections (with the help of the always-willing Hannity), suddenly becomes very terse when confronted with AIP allegations, dismissing them as merely "irrelevant."
A simmering controversy, not a stale one. And it is starting to creep out of the blogosphere to the print media.
Some say this is "out there" already and yesterday's news cycle. But I believe it is ripe for media plucking considering McCain-Palin's incessant push to link Obama to William Ayers.
And others are starting to agree (Colmes to the rescue? Colmes? Say it ain't so, Joe!):
From last evening's Hannity and Colmes. Around minute three, Colmes raises the parallel between the Ayers-Obama attack and the Palins' unchallenged AIP involvement. He notes how Democrats have decided not to play in this pigpen (lipsticked pigpen that is). Former Deputy Governor of Maryland, Republican Michael Steele, after two minutes of usual, overwrought shredding of Obama on his dubious connections (with the help of the always-willing Hannity), suddenly becomes very terse when confronted with AIP allegations, dismissing them as merely "irrelevant."
A simmering controversy, not a stale one. And it is starting to creep out of the blogosphere to the print media.
Palin to America: how does this 150k suit look on me, suckas!
You can't make this stuff up. Mostly because you don't have to:
Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.
Part of this was a $50k spree at Saks and a mind-bottling 70 large at Neiman Marcus. To put this in perspective, she spent $150,000 on clothes and makeup in TWO MONTHS. Remember the John Edwards $400 haircut flap?
Listen, the mainstream media is (or will be soon) all over this. This is not the story. The story needs no underscoring, jokes or hyperbole. It is what it is.
The STORY is this:
How, now, can you be a candidate for office and a Republican and not immediately repudiate your party platform and, specifically, its national candidates? If you toe the line, you are finished. You can no longer defend this campaign. If you are a Repub and have a prayer of being elected still, you should be out in front (ahead of the Dems) slinging mud at this story and at your candidates.
And yet I see none.
It's almost impressive, the sense of "we will all go down together"-ness you see from the GOP. If I were a GOP candidate within five points still of my opponent (are there even any? No, really, are there?), I would be on every talking head show I could book to talk about my disgust with this situation. I would out attack the Dems, frankly, because it is getting to the point that the only way a GOP candidate has a prayer is to be MORE vicious with their attacks on the GOP than the Democratic challenger. And yet, I see none of them doing this. Clearly they do not realize the time for self-preservation is now, and the only way for the GOP brand to survive is to have at least SOME people in office, no matter who they have to sling mud at to get there. Even if the mudslinging is at Sarah Palin's pretty new Saks pantsuits.
Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.
Part of this was a $50k spree at Saks and a mind-bottling 70 large at Neiman Marcus. To put this in perspective, she spent $150,000 on clothes and makeup in TWO MONTHS. Remember the John Edwards $400 haircut flap?
Listen, the mainstream media is (or will be soon) all over this. This is not the story. The story needs no underscoring, jokes or hyperbole. It is what it is.
The STORY is this:
How, now, can you be a candidate for office and a Republican and not immediately repudiate your party platform and, specifically, its national candidates? If you toe the line, you are finished. You can no longer defend this campaign. If you are a Repub and have a prayer of being elected still, you should be out in front (ahead of the Dems) slinging mud at this story and at your candidates.
And yet I see none.
It's almost impressive, the sense of "we will all go down together"-ness you see from the GOP. If I were a GOP candidate within five points still of my opponent (are there even any? No, really, are there?), I would be on every talking head show I could book to talk about my disgust with this situation. I would out attack the Dems, frankly, because it is getting to the point that the only way a GOP candidate has a prayer is to be MORE vicious with their attacks on the GOP than the Democratic challenger. And yet, I see none of them doing this. Clearly they do not realize the time for self-preservation is now, and the only way for the GOP brand to survive is to have at least SOME people in office, no matter who they have to sling mud at to get there. Even if the mudslinging is at Sarah Palin's pretty new Saks pantsuits.
The Anti-Feminist
Oh, Sweet Sarah, you minx. Do you really think that you will be able to convince Hillary's supporters to vote for you just because you are a woman? I'm no woman (although I do have beautiful breasteses), but if I was, I'd be pretty damn insulted right about now. Palin's new argument boils down to this: Throw out every policy issue, throw out my history of abusing power, throw out my lack of intellectual curiosity. Throw out every issue, personality trait, governing record and belief that I have. Throw out the fact that I have a history of opposing so-called "women's issues" and think women should pay for their own rape kits. I have a vajayjay. I giant, power-hungry vajayjay.
She openly called out for women to vote solely on the basis of gender. Can you imagine what Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the slime merchants would have done if Hillary made such an outward plea for gender-based voting? I smell a Hannity Dilemma.
But even McCain's own campaign head, Rick "I lied about lobbying for Fannie Mae and simply disappeared until the press forgot about it" Davis, doesn't think this will work. Why? Because women are jealous of Sarah Palin. As reported by Matt Yglesias, Rick Davis and Bill Bennett had the following exchange during a discussion of why liberal women don't support Palin:
She openly called out for women to vote solely on the basis of gender. Can you imagine what Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the slime merchants would have done if Hillary made such an outward plea for gender-based voting? I smell a Hannity Dilemma.
But even McCain's own campaign head, Rick "I lied about lobbying for Fannie Mae and simply disappeared until the press forgot about it" Davis, doesn't think this will work. Why? Because women are jealous of Sarah Palin. As reported by Matt Yglesias, Rick Davis and Bill Bennett had the following exchange during a discussion of why liberal women don't support Palin:
Hilarious. Now I could, like Yglesias does, point out the absurdity of ignoring the substantive reasons why some women oppose Palin. But I would rather focus on why Bennett and Davis would think this. They are smitten. Undeniably, transparently and disgustingly smitten. Smitten like a certain resident blogger I will not name (let's call him Jack K. - too obvious, I'll use J. Knowledge, instead). They refuse to even consider that someone could look at this moose-hunting moose-knuckled maverick and not see what they see - 125 pounds of vanilla pudding in a pants-suit. Which is all fine and dandy, but I can't imagine that the ladies they are trying to persuade are happy with this.BENNETT: I don’t know which drives them more crazy. Let me give you three things that I think drives them crazy, and you don’t have to comment. That’s she’s very attractive. That she’s very competent or that she’s very happy. You know, as a human being.
DAVIS: Yeah, all of the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
