Online Blogintegrity

Holy Crrrap, How'd I Miss This One?

 

 

Shorter* Bill Kristol: The G.O.P. Must Not Allow a Melanin Gap!

Hey! The McCain guys called back again today! Boy, they sure are freindly... and so willing to listen, lately.

Gosh, and they wanna talk to me, too. Soon they might even do it on record.

That'd be killer.

h.t. to the intrepid Instapundit.

* Shorter format developed, perfected and popularized by blah, blah, blah.

¡Albatross!

 

 

If you count yourself among those who are just itching to take a hammer to John McCain's clay-footed image of straight-talkin' maver-ickyness, but aren't quite sure where to begin, I can empathize. After all, when it comes to avenues of political attack, the McCain campaign offers what Fmr. Secretary of Defense Donald Rrrumsfeld would call "a target-rich environment".

There's his temper, his coziness with the lobbyists he so loves to publicly disdain, his crazy, war-mongering foreign policy, the list goes on. I understand that it can be hard to decide which one to choose first, but perhaps I can offer a suggestion:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Bush a liability for McCain A new poll says Bush — not Wright or Bill Clinton — is voters' main concern By Mark Murray Deputy political director NBC News WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could hurt his presidential hopes. So could his comment about “bitter” small-town America clinging to guns and religion. And Americans might question Sen. Hillary Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness. But according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the bigger problem appears to be John McCain's ties to President Bush. In the survey, 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration.

Let us pass over Murray's annoying insertion of GOP talking points into his lede, and focus for a moment on the figures. ¿Forty-three percent? That's a rather large group of pipples to have holding a negative view of McCain, especially considering that the general election hasn't even started. That number grows to sixty-one percent if you add in the respondents who think McCain's close ties to Bush are a moderate, but not their major, concern about McCain.

McCain's albatross problem gets thrown into sharper relief when Murray relates some numbers on Sens. Clinton and Obama.

By comparison: 36 percent have major concerns that Clinton seems to change her position on some issues (like driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which her husband signed but which she now opposes) 34 percent say they’re bothered by Obama’s “bitter” remarks 32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers 27 percent have serious concerns that Bill Clinton would have too much influence on U.S. policy decisions if his wife is elected

After all the crap that has been spewed at, towards, and about Hillary Clinton for the last seventeen years, that thirty-six percent is a bit underwhelming to be regarded as a possible angle to reduce Clinton's vote totals. It seems voters just don't see her as that much of a flip-flopper.

I suppose with the Clinton Rules of Journamalism in force that figure could get up as high as forty percent. But considering the constantly reinforced media narrative of Clinton as being an unlikeable and divisive figure, I'd have to think they'd report something more damaging to her if they had it. So, thirty-six percent? That's all you've got?

As for the claim about Obama's chances being hurt by the Wright flap and his comments about those who have lost hope in this country's political system, only 32% are even bothered by them. Come on pipples, we're talking Bush dead-enders here.

It gets even sillier when, in the first paragraph of his article, Murray contends that "...Americans might question Hillary Clinton's honesty.", because the poll sample (pdf) linked from the article shows only thirty-one percent feel that way. The same number of respondents who felt that John McCain "changes his positions on things". So, 31% think McCain's a flip-flopper, but Murray puts Clinton and Obama's negatives, with the same ranking, up front. Pffft, water-carrier.

Forty-three percent, however, is a pretty big bump to clear, and it's not like Bush is going away anytime soon. The closer we come to election day, the heavier that albatross will get.

Which reminds me:

 

 

Post this picture everywhere. Post it on jour blog, post it in comment sections of online newspapers and magazines, and post it in open threads all over the web. Ay, go print up copies of the picture, and put them up everywhere. Shops, malls, gas-stations, telephone poles, everywhere.

That sounds like a good start, no?

Homage To Catalonia

 

 

April 25th 2008, marks the Seventieth anniversary of the publishing of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, a biographical account of Orwell's serving in a "revolutionary" communist force, the POUM, in the Spain in the year 1936. The soldiers of the POUM, along with other communist, anarchist and miscellaneous forces, were tasked with helping to hold Franco's forces at bay until such a time as the International Brigades could train an army capable of permanently ending the Fascist war plans.

The book was seminal for Orwell. Here one can find subjects, such as those ranging from "rats big as cats" to the everpresent lies and propaganda which emanate from every source of authority during wartime, whose details and themes Orwell explored more fully in his later works of fiction with intelligence and verisimilitude. Any reader possessing a knowledge of Orwell limited solely to memories of high school English readings of 1984 and Animal Farm will find in "Homage" that Orwell's journalistic analysis is here filtered through a younger, more energetic voice (and that despite Orwell's obvious disillusionment and exhaustion following his time and injury in Spain). Any reader whose only knowledge of the Spanish civil war depends on Hemingwayesque myths of machismo and democracy beating back the hun is in for a surprise.

"Homage" is significant today not just as a piece of political history, but also for it's influence on modern journalism, extending even to "Gonzo" journalists like Hunter Thompson and Tom Wolfe."Homage" continues to resonate with new readers because of the striking familiarity between the place Orwell describes, and that where many American's see themselves today (Orwell at one point discusses the wide range of people, all of whom are allied to fight Franco, and all of differing political beliefs, smeared by English conservatives under the label of "fascism"), but also for the direct parallels we find in passages like this:

 

One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. [...] The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safeat home, or at worst in the newspaper offices of Valencia, hundreds of miles from the bullets and the mud [...] all the usual war-stuff, the tub-thumping, the heroics, the vilification of the enemy --all these were done, as usual, by people who were not fighting and who in many cases would have run a hundred miles sooner than fight.

 

Now, if that doesn't sound familiar to you, well, perhaps I woke up in the wrong blogósfera this morning.

The best part is that Homage to Catalonia is available online at George Orwell.Org.  It's only about 105 or so pages long, including appendices, just the right size read for a rainy weekend.

Let Them Eat McCake

 

The intrepid Instaputz lays out the hypocrisy on display by the McBush McBraintrust today (Check out TS's newest for a grrreat catch), although, it seems as if Azul Niño Gigante has gotten there first. Here's Mad John, doin' the straight-talkifying:

The senator won't present his own plans for recovery, at least not today. Asked earlier this week if he thought the Lower Ninth Ward should be rebuilt, McCain shrugged, considering the question for several seconds. "I really don't know," he finally said. "That's why I am going … We need to go back to have a conversation about what to do: rebuild it, tear it down, you know, whatever it is."

I know I'm reassured! Thanks, McGrampa!

¿Does anyone see any reason why we should not all post this picture whenever the Senator from 1954 starts flapping his big, angry gums about Katrina?  ¿No?

Así será fijado.

 

 

A Tiny Reminder

...and one which I hope is superfluous at this point.

Whatever happens in Pennsylvania tonight, our rrreal target is John "Four-More-Years-of-Bush" McCain.

 

 

[¿¡Meowtf!?-In the sentence above I was going to link to the latest NYT story on McCain's corruption,
but it's already off the front page. Luckily the inimitable and irreplaceable Digby provides a link,
along with her usual high-quality sagacity.]

Maldito Corporate Stooge Media.

Update by ¡EGN!: Ellroon gets it.

Update 2: The Rude Pundit: John McCain is a Total D!ck.

I also love that The Kenosha Kid's blog has the famous photo of Bush and Huggy Bear prominently featured. That's the way to do it, TKK.

McCNN

From Media Matters:

 

CNN chart purporting to compare candidates' "wealth" omitted Cindy McCain, who is reportedly worth $100 million     Summary: On The Situation Room, an on-screen chart showed Sen. John McCain's income to be significantly lower than that of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when combined with the income of their spouses. However, the chart did not include any income earned by McCain's wife, Cindy. As Dana Bash reported moments earlier of Cindy McCain, "Some estimates actually put her worth at about $100 million."

 

I don't think the past week has been about attacking Obama, or even millionaire pundits insulting the smarts of working pipples while selling frivolous slurs as weighty issues, --although that's their favorite kind of frosting-- at this point it's just about the media going to bat for McCain.

As well they should. I mean, Mccain is such a Cialis-ridden fossil of addle-pated warmongery that they'll need bucket-brigades to carry all the water necessary to keep his underfunded loser of a campaign afloat. Are we to have no contest at all?  Where's the money in that?

Gracías a Azul Niño Gigante

Just Pick One, Already.

 

Shorter Bobo*:  But wait, I haven't yet told you how I feel Obama has offended the pipples I exploit for a living.

When last we left David Brooks, he was complaining about those women who are always trying to smother his thinning-on-top head between their gigantic, heaving memories.

Despite the similar rightwing talking points, today's column is a riot for completely different reasons. Mostly because if one adds yesterday's ¡ZOMGatozerz! revelations from Bill "The Mole-Man" Kristol -- that the Senator from Illinois is a Marxist -- to accusations previously lodged against Mr. Obama, to what Bobo alleges today, than one can finally begin to see the "plural of anecdote" by which the GOP hope to malign the reputation of their prospective opponent in the  2008 Presidential race.

As a result of their efforts, it can now be said that it appears as if Senator Obama is:

 

1. A Muslim.

 

2. The Most Liberal (hence presumably most secular) Senator from that august body.

 

3. A Radical "Liberation Theology" Christian

 

4. A Cypher, Who Became Religious Solely for Reasons of Political Expediency.

 

5. An Elitist.

 

6. A Marxist.

 

7. A Politician in a Bubble, Restricted to Safe Pronouncements by Political Consultants.

 

8. A Jehovah's Witness.

    

Hokay, I made up number eight, but you can't tell me that if you saw Obama in that white shirt and tie, on a bike, that the thought wouldn't cross your mind as well, and, since it appears as if the Republiculos themselves can't even settle on one specific smear, I feel comfortable asserting my own wildly off base, yet no less media friendly suppositions.

Update by ¡EGN!: TBOGG finds John Fund, on the WSJ OpEd page adding "San Francisco Democrat" to the list, so I guess that now the Repuliculos will try to convince us of Obama's secret Gaiii-ness as well as his secret Muslimitude, and secret Marxicity, which is kinda funny as I had thought that their main fear was that Obama is going to take away all their white wimmins. Of course, the GOP has had difficulties keeping their slurs straight before this.

Update by ¡EGN!:  Bienvenidos to Sideshow readers, poke around a little, I'm sure that there's some Sangría left.

* Shorter format developed, perfected and popularized by blah, blah, blah...

Matlock Nation

Shorter David Brooks*: As more Americans go soft in the head, John McCain will resonate more strongly with America.

Like other blogueros, I was initially confused when I read David Brooks's column in this morning's New York Times. Brooks goes on at some length about how his antemundane peer group is losing their collective marbles, and relates a semi-personal anecdote about wanting to treat a woman rudely because he can't remember her name, then uses his central conceit (the Bad-memory Century) to engage in some gratuitous and disjointed hippie bashing, all in service of what would seem to be merely a few good-natured laughs at how old and forgetful many Americans, himself included, are becoming.

Bonus squicky moment:

In the era of an aging population, memory is the new sex. [...]On the one side are these colossal Proustian memory bullies who get 1,800 pages of recollection out of a mere cookie-bite. They traipse around broadcasting their conspicuous displays of recall as if quoting Auden were the Hummer of conversational one-upmanship.

Umm, ew.

But this paragraph, down near the bottom, is where he gives away the game.

The dawning of the Bad Memory Century will have vast consequences for the social fabric and the international balance of power. International relations experts will notice that great powers can be defined by their national forgetting styles. Americans forget their sins. Russians forget their weaknesses. The French forget that they’ve forgotten God. And, in the Middle East, they forget everything but their resentments.

 

I'm not certain what that bit about France means, I haven't look at trends of religiosity in Europe since 2004, but everything else in that paragraph is standard Republiculo boilerplate. Notice as well that it's the only section in the piece where he doesn't try to be funny.

¡So, more Americans going senile plus the international situation lining up exactly with Republican talking points equals more votes for McCain, baby! I'd call it disingenuous, but it's just so darn cute.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Brooks is being honest, and he and his cohort of villagers are, in fact, going daffy. Well, according to Brooks that's comedy gold, because they've been annoying the crap out of him for years with their long-winded yammering, and now he gets his back in schadenfreude.

Silly Bobo, if that's the case, instead of boycotting les madeleines, why not instead buy all your gasbag autobiographer acquaintances the latest and fastest PDAs, phones, and laptops availabe --you know, the ones you blame for stealing all your memories-- and set them up with lexis-nexis and tons of RSS feeds, or just give them all Twitter, that'll wipe just about any weak mind as clean as an operating room. Then you can just sit back and laugh and laugh.

* Shorter format developed, perfected and popularized by blah, blah, blah...

Schnur Cure a Sure Snore

Shorter Dan Schnur*:

Well, if the Democrats aren't going to run Hillary for President (like they promised), then maybe... um, er, uh... they should run Al Gore!  Everybody remembers Al Gore,  right? Why, sure! He'd be a jim-dandy candidate! Everybody likes Al, don't they? And he's antiwar, and he's pro-90's (without all the weird stuff). Yeah, Al Gore! He'd be the right guy to run against McCain, believe me.

Ok, so you''ll do it, huh? Whew, I'm glad that's settled, the Democrats'll run good old Al Gore! Yep.

 

Amigos, this is the tag that the NYT eventually got around to placing under Dan Schnur's byline:

Dan Schnur was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000.

 

I'm starting to think that Danny-boy is not looking forward to his guy going up against Senator Obama, and in fact would rather go up against anybody else. Next week, he'll float Ted Kennedy/Barney Frank.

However, Schnur's problem isn't just Obama. It's also that, in 2008, a Kennedy/Frank ticket could probably still pull 50.5% of the vote.

* Shorter format developed, perfected and popularized by some other completely different blogueros altogether.

McCain't Got a Clue About Iraq

From Salon's War Room:

McCain gets confused about al-Qaida again [...] But McCain is drawing interest this morning for what appears to be yet another in a series of mistakes about the basics in the Middle East. [clip] For those who can't watch clips online, McCain asks Petraeus, "Do you still view al-Qaida in Iraq as a major threat?" The general responded, "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." McCain said, "Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites all overall?" Petraeus answered, "No," and McCain quickly added, "Or Sunnis or anybody else." I've watched the exchange a few times, and I keep coming to the same conclusion: By rhetorically asking if al-Qaida is a Shiite sect, McCain was once again demonstrating that he's confused about the terrorist group's religious background.

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter why McCain's wrong on Iraq. It doesn't matter if it's because he's truely clueless, or if McCain is, in fact, trying to get away with some rhetorical conflation of Al Qaeda with Shia, and therefore with Iran. Or if it's both.

The point is, McCain's wrong on Iraq. He's been wrong before and he'll continue to do i until he's hit hard on it. So, hit him with it. Point out that he's wrong at every opportunity. Point out that this sort of loose language is what helped propel us into at least one bloody quagmire in central Asia.

Update: Oh, caray, he's doing it on purpose. you know it, I know it, your dog knows it. He's trying to conflate the Shia with Al Qaeda. This means he is not only wrong, but that he wants to provoke more war cheerleading. But mira, if it's more effective to call him a foolish old man than a conniving warmonger, so be it.

Maybe some mixture of the two could prove expedient. The Bush administration has already shown that criminality and incompetence are not mutually exclusive, so perhaps that old dictum of Napoleon's should be retired for the duration of the campaign.