After watching Jon Kyl and Chuck Schumer discuss the selection of the next Justice, I came away thinking that it's the media is stirring up controversy on the replacement of Justice John Paul Stevens. Kyl all but rules out a filibuster. From everything that I've read, no matter who Obama chooses, the court can only become more conservative because Stevens was very liberal. And given Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor, it doesn't strike me that Obama is going to pick someone based on their ideology.
This Week roundtable discusses the next Justice. George Will says there will be no fight over Obama's choice and Arianna Huffington says there will be. Arianna, seeing through her very liberal eyes, didn't even hear what Kyl said this morning. Arianna's pick: Elizabeth Warren. Good grief. I like Warren's oversight work with TARP, but she's clearly not judge material. Some people only see the world through political ideological eyes and Arianna is one of those.
This is a great video because two people from opposite sides of the political spectrum have a rational discussion. Thank you Bob Schieffer, Kathleen Parker and Michael Eric Dyson. I'm so tired of the dumbed down talk on this issue.
Unless, I'm missing something, Kathleen Parker is off base here. See the video below. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (would require equal time for conservative and liberal voices on the airwaves) was voted down in the Senate by a fairly large margin.
I can't imagine that Obama in any way would want to suppress conservative talk radio. That seems so petty and cynical because it assumes that Americans are mindless and would somehow be brainwashed by radio jocks.
Sure, the democrats have had fun with Rush over the past couple of weeks and have used him as a tool to make a point, but no one in greater America thinks of Limbaugh as a leader, only the people who listen to him and the apologizers.
There is, however, the Durbin amendment (Illinois Senator Dick Durbin) that the conservatives are now shivering about. Conservatives thrive on conspiracy. The Durbin amendment was voted up and conservatives call it the new Fairness Doctrine, but it doesn't say anything about taking any of their dear leaders off the airwaves. The statement of its purpose:
To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
That says to me that the FCC would be more interested making sure that Rupert Murdoch doesn't own all the media (although he owns a pretty good chunk now, including Fox and the WSJ). Obama's not about limiting free speech as far as I can tell. If he was, he ought to start with the skinheads.
Conservatives are a jittery bunch and I'm beginning to understand why they carry guns. They tend to think everyone is after them. I wonder if that's genetic or if it relates to being brought up in certain parts of the country. They're intent on seeing Obama as the ideological left as Bush was the ideological right. But it just ain't so.
In the same way that republicans, normal ones, asked where is John McCain when he chose Sarah Palin, they're now asking where is Jindal? Why do intelligent republicans let themselves get hijacked? Or are they just feeling freer to let their true colors show? I actually liked Bobby Jindal at one point. I know that puts me in the same category with Rush but for different reasons. But his speech the other night was a horror. Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who railed against Palin as vice president, says Jindal was dumbed down by his staff.
RCP: I know Bobby Jindal, and that guy wasn't Bobby Jindal.
The real Jindal is the intellectual equivalent of a nuclear power plant. The real Jindal has actually read the stimulus bill and can recite its contents. The real Jindal is the sort of politician who promises ethics and education reform, and actually delivers.
Stories of Jindal's ability to quickly assess a problem and fix it have become the stuff of legend in Louisiana, as when he was assigned the task of reforming the state's Medicaid program and presented a workable plan the following morning. He was in his 20s.
That kind of performance, followed by his bare-hands approach to Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts as a Louisiana congressman, helped him become the nation's youngest governor in 2007. What happened to that guy? Who snatched his body?
While Parker blames Jindal's staff for writing the speech, Jindal would've been stupid not to read it or make necessary changes. Parker said he was dumbed down on purpose, so I guess if we believe her analysis, republicans largely believe Americans are ignorant. Republicans haven't figured out that we now want our leaders to be smart.
Being the smartest person in the room can be a mixed blessing. Whether it is advantage or handicap for a brainy candidate depends on having the right people around him. At the moment, Jindal seems to be handicapped by handlers who either don't trust their candidate or have no faith in Americans' intelligence.
In coaching him to dim the lights a tad, they stole his spark. Dumbing down doesn't come naturally to wunderkinds like Jindal. In trying to sound human, he sounds fake. In attempting to convey everydayness, he comes across as an extraterrestrial.
WaPo: Fresh ire aimed at former Harvard University President Larry Summers prompts the question: Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on dumb things expressed in public?
(Please say yes.)
Forever accursed is the economist and Clinton-era treasury secretary for having raised -- more than three years ago -- the eensy-weensy possibility that innate differences between men and women might explain in part why more men than women reach the top echelons in math and science.
His comments, though not completely without scientific basis, unleashed a millennium worth of female scorn, making Hell a suddenly attractive destination for the discriminating traveler in search of cooler climes.
Research pointing to male-female differences that could partly explain different career outcomes is available to anyone in search of clues to the gender universe. But let's not go there. The social construct versus hard-wiring debate will continue unabated until the last woman utters: "No, honey, you stay in bed. I'll go see what that noise was."
For these purposes, let's stipulate that Summers said a dumb thing. He didn't, really. Provocative, yes, but it was a question about theory, not an assertion of belief. Impolitic? Without question. Still, we'll call it dumb.
Should said offense forevermore disqualify Summers from public service? Or even public appearances?
If there were a statute of limitations, people would be allowed to evolve without getting hung at a later date. Then politics would be clean and fun.
Larry Summers is being considered for treasury secretary but is not liked by the left for what he once said about the biological differences between men and women and how that might relate to math and science.
Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, defends Christopher Buckley, another conservative, after he got squeezed from his writing gig for endorsing Obama. It's good to see conservatives rejecting the radical right, which is all the McCain campaign seems to want to appeal to.
WaPo: Christopher Buckley's endorsement of Barack Obama -- followed by his abrupt departure from the back page of the magazine his father founded, National Review -- has caused a ripple of contempt from the conservative right.
Nay, make that a tsunami of hostility. An avalanche of venom. A cataclysm of ... well, you get the idea. People are mad. Good riddance, they say, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Let us proceed, gingerly.
I am not a passive bystander to these events. Buckley is a friend, as are other members of his family, especially Uncle Reid, with whom I have worked for several years. National Review is home to many friends, and its online editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez, kindly subscribes to my column. Like Buckley, I have enjoyed a decent fragging for suggesting that Sarah Palin excuse herself from the Republican ticket.
What gives here?
What does it mean that the right cannot politely entertain dissenting opinions within its ranks? What, if anything, does it portend that Buckley The Younger has bolted from the right, even resigning (with enthusiastic editorial approval) from the family flagship?
Some have opined, ridiculously, that Buckley -- son of the famous William F. Buckley (WFB) -- was merely seeking attention. Christo, as family and friends call him, has written more than a dozen acclaimed books, one of which, "Thank You for Smoking," became a movie. In 2004, he won the Thurber Prize for American Humor for "No Way to Treat a First Lady." For 18 years he edited a magazine, Forbes Life, and otherwise seems to be doing all right.
Other critics have surmised that Buckley's "betrayal" was a publicity stunt for his newest novel, "Supreme Courtship" (which I reviewed for National Review). When you're as funny and write as well as Buckley, you don't have to resort to stunts. You are the stunt.
Here was his endorsement. Buckley used his independent mind and concluded Obama would be the best president. Conservatives, with their group mind, had a fit. Heaven forbid anyone think on their own. Just think of a Palin rally and you'll get the idea. Other conservatives have felt the heat for maintaining some amount of integrity, such as Kathleen Parker and Michelle Laxalt.
NYT: Christopher Buckley, the author and son of the late conservative mainstay William F. Buckley, said in a telephone interview that he has resigned from the National Review, the political journal his father founded in 1955.
Mr. Buckley said he had “been effectively fatwahed by the conservative movement” after endorsing Barack Obama in a blog posting on TheDailyBeast.com; since then, he said he has been blanketed with hate mail at the blog and at the National Review, where he has written a column.
As a result, he wrote to Richard Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and its publisher, Jack Fowler, offering to resign, and “this offer was rather briskly accepted,” Mr. Buckley said.
Republican women say the same good ol boys that Palin rails against are using her. Michelle Laxalt says the republicans sent out a young, naive woman with incendiary, racist talking points. "She's being used unfairly as a tool." Not only that but they're treating her like a secretary, she said. Seems to me I've heard all this before. Oh yeah, I blogged it in August. It seems the men know this bit fact, that the vice presidency would become the office of public affairs, but the women out there with their Palin t-shirts and their girl power signs are being fooled and manipulated by the republican men.
Christopher Buckley, the son of William Buckley, a staunch conservative who died earlier this year, is voting for Obama. He says it's the first time he's voting for a democrat.
All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust. As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest. I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away. Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
Here's why republicans are likin' Palin and why she disgusts the rest of us.
WaPo: Democrats and other critics distracted by her winks may have missed the message, but Palin's target audience heard it loud and clear. She is like the high-pitched whistle only dogs can hear. While Democrats heard non-answers, superfluous segues and cartoon words -- shout-out, I'll betcha, doggone, extra credit -- Republicans heard God, patriotism, courage, victory.
It's called code, and Republicans are fluent.
It isn't just the "maverick" word, which we now may consign to the Cliche Crematorium. Sprinkled throughout Palin's remarks were phrases that set the free associative mind in motion.
"Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again" was Ronald Reagan all over again. "I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?" Every evangelical Christian heard her rallying cry -- Onward, Soldiers! "Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war." Did anybody hear flip-flop? A television audience won't remember facts -- and most won't race to FactCheck.org -- but they'll remember impressions. Palin successfully conveyed to those she was targeting that she is a Ronald Reagan-ish outsider who puts God and country first. And The Other is just like that elitist, flip-flopping John Kerry.
That's a plateful of imagery and a buffet of touchstones familiar to those who distrust "elitists" and who recognize in Palin a kindred regularness.
Time magazine examined voting habits and concluded that most people do not vote for issues, but rather for the candidates. Specifically, they vote for people who are most like themselves. Which is why McCain and Palin have amped up their rhetoric of difference.
Neither McCain nor Palin would dare mention Obama's middle name, Hussein, but they can play up Obama's past associations and let others connect the dots. Terrorist. Muslim. Dangerous. Other. Read the whole thing.
In other words-- no code -- Palin is slippery and slimy. What I haven't been able to figure out is how this counts as Christian behavior?
McCain's done for. We can't take that for granted (McCain is a nasty man) but that's the conclusion, given the analysis on the morning political shows.
On Meet the Press this morning, Chuck Todd showed that Obama could win in a landslide, according to the electoral map.
Guests were republican strategist Bob Shrum and democratic strategist Paul Begala. Shrum says McCain has lost his way and needs to connect with voters. Shrum said Palin was a bad choice. She was a base pick and this isn't the year for that, he said. McCain's a liar when he says he puts country first (I said that).
Tom Brokaw asked if the Ayers thing could hurt Obama and Begala says the guilt by association thing isn't going to work and then he brilliantly mentioned mcCain's service for the U.S. Council for World Freedom, some wack group in the 1980s that McCain was associated with. (Begala needs to speak on behalf of the Obama campaign more often. He's more effective than John Kerry, who always seems to be out there.)
During the roundtable, Gwen Ifill says the McCain camp is going to try something new every week to distract. She said she herself was one of those distractions leading up to the debate. McCain's camp said she couldn't be fair because she was writing a book that they said was pro-Obama. She's writing a book about the new generation of black politicians.
Chuck Todd says McCain is just using a series of tactics -- not strategy. That's because McCain doesn't know the difference between strategy and tactics (me again).
On the Chris Matthews show, Kathleen Parker said there really is no republican party. There is a lack of confidence. They're not for McCain. They're voting against Obama. (I guess this is why they're spewing so much hate). Parker is the conservative columnist who came out against Palin. She said she did so to preserve her journalistic integrity. Love it. All these weasels still defending McCain's stupidity will lose credibility, except for a small audience who wants to only hear good things about McCain.
Parker said Palin was like a windup doll during the debate. She spoke so fast because she had to answer questions before she forgot. She said that Palin will be kept in a bubble for the remaining days.
NPR's Michele Norris said of the debate: You saw in Joe Biden a wise old hand, who could handle a crisis and you also saw someone who was allergic to complexity.
Morning Joe dude, a conservative, said that once the bailout is behind us, people will stop talking about the economy. What? This is the out of touchness that McCain has as well. When you don't really care about people who are suffering because you don't really have an answer for them, you don't really care. It's a vicious circle.
Morning Joe said that the McCain strategy here on out is to focus on getting out the conservative vote, it's base. Palin won't be on any news shows and she won't be sitting down for interviews, he said. She'll be campaigning.
For the upcoming town hall debate, Norris said Obama will use his youth and athleticism to work the stage and may take off his jacket and roll up his sleeves like he does in the town hall.
Tom Brokaw, moderator of the debate, apparently is going to ask mostly substantive questions during the debate Tuesday night.
Norris said Obama still could lose the campaign. Will the people of Appalachia vote for the white guy or will they vote their interests? I happen to think the youth vote will more than compensate for the racist vote.
Here's a video they played on Meet the Press. McCain gets testy when asked about Palin's competence (about 1.26 mins in)
