tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63973722024-03-08T10:32:11.870-08:00Gone to CroatanFarewell, my friends, I'm bound for Canaan<br>
I'm trav'ling through the wilderness;<br>
Your company has been delightful<br>
You, who doth leave my mind distressed.<br>
I go away, behind to leave you<br>
Perhaps never to meet again<br>
But if we never have the pleasure<br>
I hope we'll meet on Canaan's land.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.comBlogger359125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-74869911211177788072008-06-20T12:08:00.001-07:002008-06-20T12:10:16.723-07:00PUMA?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/kat/CindyMcCain_full.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/kat/CindyMcCain_full.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Given this --<br /><br /><br /><br />-- they really should have called <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/McCain_mingles_with_Clinton_supporters.html#comments">this group</a> COUGAR -- Clinton Orbiters United to Gratuitously Attach to Republicans.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-11032067958827785352008-03-20T09:44:00.000-07:002008-03-20T10:44:56.964-07:00A McCain-Clinton ticket?Diabolical, shudder-inducing thought of the day: If John McCain <span style="font-style:italic;">really</span> wants to be president, once Hillary is finally eliminated from the Dem race, he should offer Clinton his VP slot.<br /><br />From a general-election standpoint, this would virtually guarantee McCain a win. Sure, it would further depress GOP base turnout -- but it would entirely negate Obama's bipartisan/independent/bring-the-country-together-schtick appeal, would peel off most "Reagan Democrats" from Obama, and would induce a fatal swoon in the media to coronate McCain as the Ultimate Straight-Shootin'est Mavericky Independent of All Time. And the race thing? Fatal. Combine all that with the general populations familiarity and comfort with McCain and Clinton (in increasingly troubled times, low-info voters go with the familiar over the risky), the general election <s>wouldn't be a Reagan-Mondale blowout, but it'd</s> would be a rock-solid 56%-44% (now that I look the numbers up, Reagan:Mondale::58.8%:40.4%; that's ballpark) with a Reagan-Mondale Electoral College blowout.<br /><br />Furthermore, beyond the bipartisan appeal, Clinton and McCain complement one another in ways that any other GOP candidate wouldn't with McCain. Clinton and McCain also respect and like each other as colleagues and individuals. And there's about a centimeter separating them on foreign policy.<br /><br />Clinton's been laying enough tile in McCain's kitchen (and echoing McCain's criticisms of Obama, and vice versa) that she could entirely credibly accept McCain's offer. And yes, I've phrased that in such a way as to imply that maybe there's been some sort of intent behind her nice-making with McCain; it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there had been exploratory discussions between the two camps.<br /><br />And while a certain segment of the GOP base would see such a move as a betrayal, I think McCain could successfully pivot this off of the aborted Kerry-McCain-ticket talks in '04 as McCain turning the tables and "topping"/co-opting the Dems.<br /><br />As for governance ... yes, a McCain-Clinton administration would be an unmitigated disaster -- the absolute worst aspects of Bush-Cheney, but taken to even more ridiculous extremes.<br /><br />Clinton would surely think that she could Cheney her way into power (which is the biggest reason I think she'd actually accept the offer); while McCain surely thinks he could control her. It would be Bush's militarism, secrecy, and dim-witted ignorance plus Bill Clinton's triangulation/DLC centrism, paternalism, unmanaged staff infighting, and lack of focus married to overly broad ambitions.<br /><br />But I really don't see a realistic scenario where a McCain-Clinton ticket would lose to Obama-anyone.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-41357730382393398662008-03-12T10:33:00.000-07:002008-03-12T10:36:55.568-07:00Is she a monster, or a mummy?Huh. Well, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html">this</a>:<br><br /><blockquote>On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.</blockquote><br><br />... would certainly explain <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/">this</a>.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-23183976482801738392008-03-05T05:38:00.000-08:002008-03-27T13:41:32.412-07:00God to Candidate Huckabee:In His Almighty Wisdom, the Lord Our God and Savior has <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/huckabee/index.html">declared Mike Huckabee Unworthy</a> of being the President of the United States at this Time. No one knows better than former candidate Huckabee that his failing in the presidential race was indeed "inevitable" in the eyes of Divine Providence. "Providence," as Mark Twain wrote, "don't fire no blank cartridges."<br /><br />(A side note: I hope that the spelling of the word "heckuva" in the linked news story was cribbed from a Huckabee campaign missive, rather than being a CNN reporter's choice. If not, I feel it should be general policy to depict the candidates' speech in dialect writing.)WestonBoyshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913942603395159119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-14798567418188297732008-02-28T11:09:00.001-08:002008-02-28T11:14:31.369-08:00Wow. Fuck YOU, Matt Gonzalez.Erstwhile crunchy-left darling Matt Gonzalez <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/nader-picks-a-r.html">will run as Nader's VP candidate</a>. Confirmed <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/28/BAO5VAQFG.DTL&tsp=1">by the SF Chron</a>.<br /><br />Matt just flushed his SF political career down the toilet.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-50263459980610810502008-02-14T15:49:00.000-08:002008-02-14T15:51:28.080-08:00This signals the "real" historical end of the Bush Presidency<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting">Fourth mass school shooting in a week</a>?<br /><br />If the ("real" historical) paranoiacs are taking up arms, we must be under a Democratic reign.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-52388627686995230782008-02-13T12:35:00.000-08:002008-02-13T12:37:16.138-08:00A terrorist named "Imad"?<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/02/13/international/i070855S28.DTL&tsp=1">This</a> is certainly a candidate for <a href="http://www.zeigen.com/blog/?p=626">the late Herb Caen's 'namephreak'</a> roster.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-51749409374351748162008-02-10T21:50:00.001-08:002008-02-10T22:09:54.912-08:00Oh. My. God.So, I'm merrily whiling away the day between risings of <a href="http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/recipe.jsp?recipe_id=R188">bread</a>, checking for updates at <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com">TPM</a> of Obama's weekend-long explosion and McCain's weekend-long implosion -- especially as regards the WA State GOP shenanigans in declaring the WA GOP caucus for McCain ... with a 1.8% lead and only 87% of precincts counted.<br /><br />Ennyhoo, reading <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177863.php">TPM's item about that last detail</a>, and WA GOP Chair/Cornfed Idiot Luke Esser's role in the decision, Josh Marshall helpfully directs us to <a href="http://www.wsrp.org/About/Default.aspx?SectionID=114">the WA GOP's homepage</a>.<br /><br />Yes, right there at the top is the estimable Mr. Esser. Uh-huh. Well, let's see what other fine folk heel the wards for the Grand Old Party in the Evergreen State ... scrolling down ... scrolling down -- um.<br /><br />Dear reader, please visit that page, and scroll down to take a gander at Jeff Kent. <br /><br />Why does that picture make me think of <a href="http://imdb.com/character/ch0002801/">this</a>?<br /><br />I know, I know, I've let my license to operate a perv detector lapse in the Continental US. I shouldn't even think such thoughts.<br /><br />But ... he <i>was</i> a member of the Young Republicans.<br /><br />And he, um, is the, um, owner of, um ... um ... <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Interlube+International%2C+Inc.">Interlube International, Inc.</a>?monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-51788016013937492032008-02-10T12:29:00.000-08:002008-02-10T12:43:03.860-08:00Not to get all FOX News about Hillary, but ...As the argument went against Kerry in '04 -- and against the Dem candidates last year, in boycotting the FOX-sponsored debate -- "If they can't handle FOX News, how are they going to defend us against Al Qaeda?"<br /><br />Likewise, if Hillary -- especially with her massive institutional advantage, huge initial funding advantage, and all of politicking to a friendly field of primary voters -- can't stomp Obama like a bug, how in the heck is she going to defend herself against the GOP-media attack machine in the fall?<br /><br />One of the primary (if often, in the MSM, anyway, sub rosa) arguments in favor of Hillary as the Dem candidate is that she's the Machiavellian streetfighter, the candidate most willing to get her hands dirty (and/or delegate others to get their hands dirty on her behalf) in fighting fire with fire against the Rove machine.<br /><br />And, to be sure, she, Bill, and their whole team have been more than willing to fight dirty in the primary cycle.<br /><br />But it's not working.<br /><br />Which means, potentially, two not-incompatible things: 1. That sort of shit doesn't work anymore (doubtful, but possible). 2. Team Clinton just isn't very good at doing it <i>effectively</i>.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-40169590950981525252008-02-04T12:11:00.000-08:002008-02-04T12:12:31.780-08:00If Hillary Clinton isn't "inevitable" ...... does that mean that she's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Perón">Evitable</a>?monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-27280233960184678092008-01-31T19:19:00.000-08:002008-01-31T19:22:04.538-08:00Race Invaders<a href="http://croatan.blogspot.com/2008/01/gone-to-canaan.html">This analysis</a> is exACTly the kind of thing we have come to expect from Danes like The Confidence Man. <br /><br />As a born-and-bred jit, let me say that I'm sensitive to the Canadian invasion of the South. They're playing hockey in Raleigh, North Carolina, for Fred Douglass's sake! <br /><br />And one final note for all you Uruguayans out there: If you can't stack a jury with foreigners in Texas, you can't do it anywhere.WestonBoyshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14913942603395159119noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-323285012299355782008-01-31T10:14:00.000-08:002008-01-31T10:29:04.780-08:00Gone to CanaanApparently, <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=261254">"Canadian" is the new "nigger"</a> in au courant American South/Appalachian Scotch-Irish heritage circles.<br /><br />While the "real" Canadian experts interviewed by the <i>National Post</i> seem genuinely confoozalated by this novel (?) usage, anyone with an iota of knowledge of American history should be able to suss it out. What Peculiar Institution played a significant role in the economic and social history of the South? And what direction did certain folks have to go to escape the PI? And if you go far enough north from the South, where do you end up (especially if certain states in the American North weren't exactly hospitable to sub rosa immigration)?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ea.pvt.k12.pa.us/htm/Units/lsDevon/DFormSS/UGRRcodes.htm">Where</a>, in fact, did many folks specifically seek to go?<br /><br />Remember, these are the same crackers for whom "New Yorker" has a clear racial/cultural/religious connotation.<br /><br />(Via <a href="andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/">Andrew Sullivan</a>.)monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-66834081391151406272008-01-28T11:13:00.000-08:002008-01-28T11:21:16.538-08:00"this election will be decided not by one family"Yeeeeeeeesh. Now <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_campaigns_talking_points_on_bills_jackson_comment_and_kennedys_obama_endorsement.php">this</a> is gall on a Rovean scale.<br /><br /><a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com">TPMElectionCentral</a> has the Clinton campaign's talking points in response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.<br /><br />One of those talking points: <br /><br /><i>Regardless of which Kennedy supports which candidate, we are aware that ultimately this election will be decided not by one family but by the voters themselves.</i><br /><br />Kee-riminy. I presume the irony -- and the gall -- in the Clintons' camp making this particular statement (and, yes, I have placed that apostrophe precisely where it belongs) is self-evident.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-21527655463288068552008-01-25T17:05:00.000-08:002008-01-25T17:42:24.965-08:00Clinton's FL & MI gambit: an opportunity for ObamaI have to say, Hillary Clinton's <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=breaking_clinton_supports_seat#103999">sleazy attempt to revalidate the Florida and Michigan Democratic Primary Delegates</a> is a brilliant bit of electioneering:<br />- In what looks to remain a close race up until the convention, every delegate counts<br />- By taking this action, she once again puts Obama's team on the whining defensive (in terms of public/media perception)<br />- It also reinforces the optic that Obama isn't willing to fight (Josh Marshall's "bitchslap theory of politics," whereby Dems appear weak when they are attacked by the GOP and they respond not by directly fighting back, but by complaining about the unfairness of the attack)<br />- While Clinton is taking somewhat of a primary risk, and somewhat less of a general election risk, that she "turns off" people from her candidacy and the Dem ticket and voting in general, those risks, I think, are fairly small in that this is but one datum in a long primary campaign, and is (a) likely to be long forgotten, especially by November, and (b) not really likely to ultimately depress Dem turnout or drive many Dems from voting for her<br />- Even if this action does depress turnout or voting in the primaries, such turnout is likely to redound to Clinton's favor, as this amounts to a Rovean exploitation of the splitting of the (primary) electorate into a base (working-class white Dems) and an opposition; the opposition (college-educated and black Dems) is (a) unlikely to vote for Hillary anyway, and (b) likelier to be more "engaged" and informed, and therefore likelier to read enough about this action to in fact be turned off by the "dirty pool" aspect of it<br />- Finally, by defending the principle of re-enfranchisement of FL and MI Dem primary voters, she puts Obama in the position not only of "defending disenfranchisement," but of defending nitpicky/parsing/inside-baseball/ward-heeler/DNC <i>old politics</i> rules<br /><br />The solution, and opportunity, here for Obama is obvious: he should magnanimously <i>agree</i> with Clinton, assert that, yes, every Democrat's vote should count -- and that he would welcome the seating and counting of the FL and MI delegates at the convention. <br /><br />Ultimately, it <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_coming_long_campaign#103988">seems, from some preliminary analysis</a>, that FL and MI might not provide enough of a bump to put Hillary over the top, anyway -- especially if Edwards continues to hang in the race as a spoiler/kingmaker.<br /><br />But aside from the delegate mechanics of conceding on principle, Obama would clearly and massively "win" the optics battle. It would reinforce his overall "new politics" messaging, it would solidify his support among those "turned off" by Hillary's move in the first place (including not only registered Dems, but also independents likely to vote in open Dem primaries and independents and registered Republiocans likely to vote in the general), and it would nullify his current problematic weak/whining positioning.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-59862416478711394662008-01-23T19:45:00.000-08:002008-01-23T19:46:38.812-08:00Shut the fuck up, BillContrary to the emerging consensus, I think that Bill Clinton, as a candidate's spouse and as a former POTUS and as a de facto Democratic Party figurehead, is entirely within his rights to speak out in defense of his wife's campaign, and to attack her opponents.<br /><br />Politics, as the saying goes, ain't beanbag; and the Dems need to be ready and willing to engage in a lot of ugly, bareknuckled fighting to roll back the Rove-Bush-Cheney advances.<br /><br />However ...<br /><br />Where the hell has this red-faced, angry, combative Bill Clinton been for the last eight years?<br /><br />Did Bill get angry and demand that wrongs be righted after the Florida miscount? After Bush v. Gore? After Bush, Cheney, and Rice blew off his concerns about terrorism for 8 months? After Bush's unpreparedness for, inadequate and incomplete response to, and unconscionable exploitation of 9/11? After the unfair media and GOP attacks on Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? After Katrina? Plame? The US Attorneys? The "lost" emails? The countless other mistakes and malfeasances of the Bush administration?<br /><br />Sorry, Bill -- by remaining silent in the face of so many grave catastrophes, you forfeited your right to attack Obama. You forfeited your right to be taken seriously as someone concerned about defending the principles of the Democratic Party -- or of the Constitution, for that matter. You, more than anyone on the entire planet (with perhaps the exception of Colin Powell, who's beholden to neither the Democratic Party nor Hillary Clinton) acquiesced in the American disaster that is the Bush administration by your silence. By your lack of outrage. You could have spoken when it mattered. But you didn't.<br /><br />And now, by speaking out against Obama, you implicitly argue that he is a greater threat to the Republic and the Democratic Party than anything or anyone over the last 8 years.<br /><br />So shut the fuck up, Bill.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-8070170251821414562007-12-20T16:37:00.001-08:002007-12-20T16:50:13.360-08:00Col. Addington, in the EOVP, with the lead pipe ...David Kurtz at TPM <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061634.php">deduces</a>, from <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/congress_reviews_cia_videotape.php">this AP article</a> quasi-exonerating Abu Gonzales in the CIA torture tape destruction, that "Cheney's Cheney's Cheney" Addington is likely the onliest culpable subject left in the decision tree.<br /><br />Now, <i>of course</i> any real intel/foreign-policy decision in the Bush Admin is ultimately going to leave a slime trail leading back to Cheney's office.<br /><br />That said, it still seems clear to the Confidence Man that <a href="http://croatan.blogspot.com/2007/12/cia-torture-tapes-and-libby-prosecution.html">our earlier speculation regarding the proximate motivation for destroying the torture tapes</a> was, as we say, right on the squirrel: to wit, that Cheney/Addington/Libby determined that the tapes should be destroyed <i>only when it seemed as if Pat Fitzgerald might</i> (advertently or not) <i>have been close to discovering the tapes during his prosecution of Libby</i>.<br /><br />(We might speculate further that the tapes themselves could likely include visual evidence of Cheney, Addington, and/or Bush actually being present for some of the interrogations. But that would be irresponsible.)monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1917493794440757272007-12-11T10:15:00.000-08:002007-12-11T10:24:54.720-08:00The CIA torture tapes and the Libby prosecutionReading today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html?ei=5090&en=4c1db0e0e9e0df0e&ex=1355029200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1197396439-p7e2As6nW10awsZp5bi6Lg">NYT account of CIA counsel's apparent advance approval</a> of the destruction of the CIA torture tapes, I was struck by the timing of the decision.<br /><br />The tapes were apparently destroyed in November 2005.<br /><br />Now, as the Confidence Man wades through this vale of tears, looking backward becomes more and more problematic. But it seems as if I recall some sort of legal-political firestorm around that time, and that it centered on tacit Executive-level approval of the dissemination of classified CIA information. Hmmm ... what was going on then ... then ... then ... then ... < cue wavy flashback effect ><br /><br />Uh, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764919">this</a> was going on then.<br /><br />That's right: Scooter was indicted in October 2005; the CIA (and, likely, folks in the Exective Branch) decided it should obnstruct justice and destroy evidence immediately thereafter.<br /><br />It's. All. About. Protecting. Cheney.<br /><br />(And, to a lesser degree, Chimpy McFlightsuit.)monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-28121494816833868902007-12-10T09:45:00.000-08:002007-12-10T10:42:27.012-08:00Did Rudy Giuliani just out himself to Tim Russert?Via <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/grilling-rudy.html">Andrew Sullivan</a>, the clip of 9iul1an1 on MTP yesterday:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksSEU5AcIaQ&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ksSEU5AcIaQ&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br /><br />Now, everyone seems to be focusing on 9iul1an1's nervous, giggling meltdown and his inability to parry Russert's flaccid thrusts. And that's all to the good.<br /><br />But I want to focus on something strange.<br /><br />At the 3:45 mark, Russert starts in on a recitation of Huckabee's anti-Teh Gay bona fides, and tries to box 9iul1an1 into alienating Teh Base by defending his Sodomitic Heritage as a Rootless Cosmopolitan.<br /><br />9iul1an1 responds by being fair to the Huckster and refusing to take the bait. He then makes an odd parsing of Catholic dogma regarding ass-fucking and segues clumsily into the "hate the sin, not the sinner" shibboleth -- and he does specifically invoke "sin": "It's the acts -- it's the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the orientation that they have."<br /><br />Then, as Russert tries to move on, 9iul1an1 can't leave well enough alone, and cuts Russert off: "Which includes me, by the way." <br /><br />To be sure, he then stammers, continues, and tries to contextualize his odd (and oddly insistent -- Russert clearly didn't get what he was aiming for, and was trying to move on) segue: "Unfortunately, I've had my own sins that I've had to confess and deal with and try to overcome. And so, I'm very very empathatic with people. We're all imperfect human beings, struggling to try to be better."<br /><br />9iul1an1 trying to "do" humility is itself a transparent charade (and also, in this context, a weird decision itself, as he's clearly trying to squeeze in between the aw-Hucks man-o'-Gawditude and the clumsy-Mitted deployment of vague theologisms). Perhaps his handlers were insistent in the Green Room that 9iul1an1 had to thread the needle this way.<br /><br />But the manner of 9iul1an1's compulsion to cut Russert off, and to go for the confessional gesture <i>immediately after condemning ass-fucking as a sin</i>, strikes me as a Freudian "tell."<br /><br />What's more, any Fundie watching that exchange would (even if he knew about 9iul1an1's serial adultery) take it the same way (without the Freud, of course). Here's the sequence: 9iul1an1 deploys the "hate the sin, not the sinner" trope; then he specifically condemns ass-fucking (and its constellation of perversions) as a sin; then, when Father Confessor Tim is clearly done with him and implicitly granting absolution, 9iul1an1 insists that he himself is of <i>that same category of sinner</i>.<br /><br />This sequence is identical to the prominent Protestant pervert's public confession -- Haggard, Foley, et al. Any religious cultural literate watching 9iul1an1 there will know that he's not confessing to adultery -- he's confessing to sodomy.<br /><br />Now, that sodomy doesn't necessarily have to be same-gender. But, since 9iul1an1 is being so insistent about it, shouldn't he be asked?monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-16928493773316603062007-10-12T12:08:00.000-07:002007-10-12T12:24:20.669-07:00AP sacrifices stylebook on the altar of expediency (and/or reactionary politics)<a href="http://www.apstylebook.com/ask_editor.php">According to the AP's own Stylebook</a> (scroll 2/3 of the way down to "I sometimes read in the newspaper"), shouldn't the object of the headline in <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/10/national/a153241D52.DTL&tsp=1">this story</a> be "gunyouth"?monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-42196326255475178522007-10-12T09:55:00.000-07:002007-10-12T10:35:43.495-07:00Al Gore should now run for ...Al Gore should now run for ...<br /><br />... <i>vice</i> president.<br /><br />Think about it.<br /><br />With his secular canonization this morning capping off his 7-year public reinvention, Gore is virtually untouchable in the public arena right now.<br /><br />Yes, he <i>could</i> leverage that into a run at the top spot.<br /><br />However, being this late to the Party presents a host of difficulties, not least of which would be a disastrous lag in fundraising and committed donors, bundlers, and ”backers.” There’s also the issue that virtually all of the prominent experienced Dem campaign operatives are committed to Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. <br /><br />Who, exactly, would primarily fund a Gore campaign? Yes, he’d instantly command a surge of small-donor contributions – but that surge wouldn’t be sustainable, unless he has a Deane/DNC-esque database that he’s kept under wraps (a possibility which, of course, isn’t out of the question). He might get some sympathy/consolation cash from the big donors, but they’d all be loath to alienate their primary dance partners.<br /><br />And who, exactly, would <i>run</i> a Gore campaign? While there’s certainly the snark factor that, given the relative incompetence and feebleness of the contemporary Dem consultancy, having them all committed to working for one’s opponents could be seen as a boon more than as a hindrance, there’s the more immediate practical effect of not having any ground operations in place, let alone national organization for media and messaging. (The tighter clustering of primaries this cycle could potentially mitigate this factor, or could make it all the more crucial. It certainly reduces the chance of picking up the team of an also-ran who quits early in the sequence—in past years, post-Iowa or –New Hampshire.)<br /><br />Add to the practical challenges the fact that Gore has repeatedly insisted that he’s sick and tired of the dumbing-down and ameliorism necessary to head a national ticket, as well as the practical and ideological concessions and deal-making incumbent on the top of the ticket, and it’s hard to see how running for president in this cycle has any practical or personal appeal to Gore.<br /><br />But if he were to conduct a sub rosa campaign for the second slot …<br /><br />Look: <i>none</i> of the current Dem candidates have any value whatsoever as a second banana. All of their value is tied up in their personalities and framing, which would be for all practical purposes eliminated in the second slot. Not to mention the fact that none of the Dems would provide any crossover or appreciable Red-state appeal as the #2. And there really aren’t any other prominent or likely Dems with established national presence who would.<br /><br />Gore, on the other hand, would be <i>massively</i> valuable as a Dem VP candidate. As the down-ticket option, he’d be freed up to deliver red meat to the Dem base (I guess the more apposite metaphor would be “tofu”), to pitch his messaging as noble and highfalutin’ (or, for that matter, as dirty and street-fightin’) as he wants, and to address his own signature concerns (environment, science/technology, sensible defense) without watering them down. And he’d bring instant cache, credibility, and celebrity that no one else can.<br /><br />What’s more, in a post-Cheney/Addington administrative political environment (and with burgeoning Dem majorities in Congress), Gore could have an entirely unfettered hand as a sitting VP to definitively act on those signature concerns in ways he never could have in the ’90s. Just as on the campaign trail, in office as vice president he’d be able to narrow his focus – and act and speak as a more direct partisan – in ways that he couldn’t as president.<br /><br />The way I see it, Gore for the second slot – under <i>any</i> of the first- or second-tier Dem candidates – would be a win-win-win-win situation: for Gore himself, for the Party, for the nation, and for the world.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1159821189679554732006-10-02T13:31:00.000-07:002006-10-02T13:33:09.710-07:00Expanding the inquiry<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010121.php">Josh Marshall wants to know how GOP Reps are expressing loyalty</a> (or the lack thereof) to Denny Hastert with regard to Hastert's dissembling on Chickenhawk-gate.<br /><br />You know which <i>particular</i> GOP Rep the Confidence Man would like to see a statement from? David Dreier.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1159813437586267632006-10-02T11:06:00.000-07:002006-10-02T11:26:03.340-07:00Chickenhawk-gateThree quick thoughts on the continually exploding Mark Foley scandal:<br /><br />1. Democrats *must* capitalize on this. One suggestion: start using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hawk">this eponymous epithet</a> to slur both Foley *and* the GOP leadership as cowardly perverts. One thing the Dems should *not* do is listen to Andrew Sullivan or any other prominent gay pundits/activists; if the Dems tread cautiously and don't run to the GOP's right on this issue because of identity politics and political correctness, the party doesn't deserve to return to power. Foley's sin, obviously, was *not* being gay, but abusing his position of authority and trust -- which is precisely the larger sin of the GOP in the Bush Era. And at the root of this sin is cowardice -- cowardice to live up to the standards of one's own rhetoric, cowardice to honor the principals of American liberty, cowardice to be honest, cowardice to ask for genuine sacrifice in the interests of liberty. The contemporary GOP has more convictions than courage.<br /><br />2. Current big-picture speculation on the fallout from Chickenhawk-gate is focusing on the GOP House leadership, especially Denny Hastert. But let's rack-pull back to the two-shot: who *really* controls the GOP Congress? Karl Rove. Hastert and Frist don't pee with their pj's on fire without Unka Karl poking their prostates. It's utterly implausible that Karl Rove was *not* aware of the entirety of the Foley situation. Recall that Rep Rodney Alexander's first alarum call was sent to the NRCC -- which is responsible not for managing the House majority, but for <i>electorally ensuring the continuity of</i> the current majority. No one told Rove? Bullshit.<br /><br />3. So, Karl, how's that "30-year majority" plan turning out? The Confidence Man has long suspected that Karl's Grand Plan was an all-in bluff. The crazy-quilt GOP constituency was bound to blow up at some point in the near-to-medium-term; if it wasn't Chickenhawk-gate (which will finally drive a significant chunk of the evangelicals out of the tent), it would have been something else.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1146246378892646262006-04-28T10:45:00.000-07:002006-04-28T10:46:18.910-07:00"Mojo. The president used to have it in spades."Hunh. Well <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/27/sitroom.03.html">that's an interesting claim</a>. <br /><br />I didn't think Bush had ever polled especially well with African Americans.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1144365103810804712006-04-06T16:09:00.000-07:002006-04-06T16:11:43.826-07:00Just following ordersIs it any coincidence that <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm">this</a> is revealed on the same day that <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/04/06/national/a112322D24.DTL">this</a> is discovered?monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6397372.post-1140639272242737452006-02-22T12:03:00.000-08:002006-02-22T12:14:32.293-08:00Throw ... GEORGE Under the Bus?The Confidence Man has been watching the UAE-port-management scandal fairly closely.<br /><br />And most inexplicable dimension to the scandal has been the apparent utterly potically tone-deaf response by the administration.<br /><br />Now, W. digging in his heels and insisting that as God's Handmaiden, his choices are not to be first-guessed, let alone second guessed -- that's nothing out of the ordinary.<br /><br />Likewise, to make hollow veto threats -- SOP for W.<br /><br />But to totally not get the symbolism of the issue, and the mechanics of the political perceptions on the ground -- that's a shocker for the Rove machine.<br /><br />The strategic answer at which the Confidence Man arrives is this: Rove has decided that it's time to throw W. under the bus.<br /><br />With his approval numbers pretty much permanently stuck below 40% now (the only thing that would bump them up at this point, frankly, would be another Reichstag Fire, and that's a huge-risk/high-reward proposition) and his having radioactive coattails for the '06 midterms, W. himself is presenting as the greatest obstacle to Rove's putative 30-year/permanent-GOP-majority plan.<br /><br />We've always known that Kreepy Unka Dick, as incompetent as he is, has nonetheless been the operatively indispensable element of the administration. Last week's shooting controversy has pretty much demonstrated that Dick runs the show and ain't going anywhere -- and recall that Dick has always been a much more solid chit with the American Taliban crowd than W. himself.<br /><br />No, it looks to the Confidence Man that Rove has decided to get rid of W. -- not in the sense of actually kicking him out of the WH (although we have to say that it is looking more and more likely that Rove's been the one encouraging the Moonbat WashTimes/Insight impeachment-and-dissension-in-the-WH talk), but in the sense of unhitching the GOP's wagon from him. Rove will have the entire GOP running away from W. by May.monkeyballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289937490712122111noreply@blogger.com0