Monthly Archives: September 2010

About God, sex, women, Darwin, fundamental rights and other really deep stuff I just don’t understand

Sometimes I spend enough time typing a comment that if feels like it should be a separate post. So it is with my reply to Bud, on the whole “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” controversy. I had hesitated to put the subject on my Virtual Front yesterday (and sorry there’s not one today; I’ve just gotten tied up late in the day) because I just don’t like these interminable Kulturkampf issues, mainly because few of the pat answers that other people find satisfactory work for me. But it was the biggest story of the day, and that’s that.

So we went around and around on the subject, and finally Bud did something that people occasionally get fed up with me and do — asked me to explain whether I was serious or just being argumentative:

Brad, do you want to retain DADT or are you just being a bit contrarian? There are really 3 issues here:

1. Readiness. The evidence from militaires around the world suggest readiness is unaffected by allowing openly gay men and women into the military. Plus, we are losing highly qualified individuals on account of the current policy. Seems like the readiness issue favors repeal. The old soldiers who resist do so because of tradition. Sometimes traditions need changing.

2. Rights as a citizen. Even though Brad won’t acknowledge this I find it critically important that we allow all citizens to participate in the defense of our country. It’s appalling to me that this aspect can be so cavalierly dismissed.

3. Politics. This concerns Obama. Politically I believe he would enhance his standing with the American people by getting rid of the policy via Executive order. Sure it would be best to do so with the consent of congress but given that a majority in congress just voted for repeal I don’t see how it would be bad politically to support majority rule.

So I answered him as follows…

Bud, I’m inclined to keep DADT, but it’s not a hugely important thing to me. And yeah, I’m being contrarian, because the way we speak about a lot of issues, in flat ways that lead to the polarization of our politics, bugs me.

I push back against libertarians who see a new “right” everywhere they turn because I think it’s an excessive, extreme way of framing an argument. In this country, once you say something is a “right,” you are trying to shut down discussion of other considerations. And the other considerations should be discussed.

For instance, y’all know that I’m for single-payer. But not because I consider health care to be a “right.” I think it’s a rational way to order society. I think it would eliminate a problem — a lot of problems, actually — and that it is a positive good to see that people get good health care if you can figure out how to provide it. I also think it would liberate our economy if people could work at their passions instead of clinging to bad-fit jobs (or merely safe, comfortable jobs) for the benefits.

It simply makes sense to eliminate all the for-profit intermediaries that stand between us and our doctors. It’s not about “rights;” it’s about what makes sense if we want our country to be a good place to live.

Ditto with DADT. If, as Kathryn says, “the brass wants to get rid of DADT,” cool. If they really want to, and it’s not just what one or two generals say when when they’re testifying before Congress with the Secretary of Defense sitting next to them — a situation in which, to use a Tom Wolfe phrase from The Right Stuff, a wise career officer keeps a salute stapled to his forehead.

I don’t know. But it’s not a simple, slam-dunk issue. Nothing about sexuality and how society deals with it is.

For instance, some of my friends here like to believe that embracing the latest right invented by an interest group is a sign of unalloyed progress, a reflection of inevitable movement in a single direction by a species that is consistently evolving toward being better and better all the time.

Uh-uh. It’s not that simple.

Frankly after 56 years of being straight (like a Woody Allen character once confided, I don’t think I HAD a latency period), heterosexuality is still a big mystery to me. I’m astounded by the mechanisms that cause us to have such urges.

Back when I was a kid, quite frankly, I didn’t really believe homosexuality existed. It just seemed so unlikely, so unimaginable. Some guys wanna do WHAT? No way. I thought it was a made-up thing that existed only as an insult for young people already confused and insecure about sexuality to fling at each other. Like “your mother wears Army boots” — you’re not literally making an observation about the other person’s mother’s footwear. Or “Go f___ yourself” — you don’t expect it to actually happen.

But as I grew older and had gay friends, and they communicated in various ways that THEY weren’t kidding; this was for real, I thought about it and realized that HETEROsexuality, as a fundamental force in our characters, seems equally unlikely. I mean, why would I be so attracted to women and their bodies even when I was too young to know anything about what that was all about? How could I want to do something I had never heard of, or thought of?

Actually, I know the answer to WHY — it’s essential to reproduction, whether you think in terms of God’s commandment to go forth and multiply or an evolutionary imperative or both. Organisms with this urge had offspring; those without it did not.

What mystifies me is HOW that works, and all the complexities involved.

Show me a naked woman, and you boggle my mind (and not just for physiological reasons). I behold eternity, and the immediacy of the moment, promised pleasures, guilt, excitement, freedom, responsibility, the irresistible continuum of Life, God and man and Satan and Darwin, Eve, Wisdom and ultimate foolishness, something that is very adult and yet all about little babies. And on and on. It is the very ESSENCE of complexity, and simplicity at the same time.

That is more than enough to puzzle me for the rest of my life; I’m certainly not going to presume to tell you what homosexuality is, because I don’t get that at ALL.

And don’t tell me that society’s ways of dealing with sexuality are simple, that they’re all this way or all that way.

I know better.

It’s not about whether it’s legal; it’s about whether such a person should be governor

6 Replies

My sense is that John Barton was right when he said in The State this morning that John Rainey’s charge that Nikki Haley has violated ethics law by taking 40 grand from Wilbur Smith is without legal merit.

Barton knows about such things, and if he says that payment didn’t cross the line, he’s almost certainly right.

Which of course is beside the point.

That story, which fretted mightily over whether the law was violated or not by that deal, is yet another example of something I’ve bemoaned in the MSM for many years. “Objective” news folks, who fear exercizing judgments, obsess over whether something is legal or not to such a degree that the conversation becomes about THAT, and if in the end it’s determined it’s NOT against the law, then everyone goes “all right, then” and moves on. As though being legal made it OK.

But legal or not, it’s not OK. The issue is that the way Nikki Haley handled this shows her lack of fitness for high office.

And the ultimate issue isn’t her, but us. It’s about the decision we make.

And we have to decide whether we want someone to be our governor who, in this instance:

Took more than $40,000 from a business that can’t tell what she did for them, just that they wanted to retain her because she’s “very connected.”
Avoided disclosing that.
Insists that she should be elected because she champions transparency.

So I doubt that Rainey’s letter will lead to legal action against her. I doubt that she’ll have the pay a penalty the way she keeps having to do because of not paying taxes on time.

But it does serve the useful purpose of making sure voters don’t forget something they should remember.

Our goal? To raise more than $480 for Walk for Life

12 Replies

Why $480? Well, because that’s how much my wife’s team has raised. And we can’t let her win, because she’s a girl.

And yeah, I realize some of my teammates are also girls, but I suppose they have their motivations, and I have mine.

OK, seriously, I have other, better motivations. Such as the fact that my dear wife is herself a cancer survivor — nine years after having stage 4 cancer, which had spread to her liver by the time we knew about it. A precious, walking miracle.

… which, when you think about it, gives her an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE in raising money for her team. How am I going to compete with that narrative? I mean, I may be an ad whiz, but marketing genius only gets you so far. So we’re just gonna have to work harder, aren’t we?

We’re well on our way, as it happens. If you go to the Web page where you can also sign up to contribute, you’ll see we’ve raised $305. So we need $175 or more. We can do this!

You can no longer “join” the team in terms of having your name show up on the page (I don’t know why they shut that off so early), but you can still contribute (the total on the page reflects new contributions), and still show up to walk with us at 8:30 a.m. at Finlay Park on Saturday, Oct. 2.

So come on! So far, Doug Ross, Kathryn Fenner, David Knobeloch, Mark Stewart and Pat Dixon have all signed up. David and Pat can’t walk that day, but we’re very happy to have their contributions.

So come on! But I already said that…

Negative Nancy? She’s negative? SHE’S negative?

20 Replies

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Just got yet another release (it’s a daily ritual) from Joe Wilson that is all about Nancy Pelosi rather than the 2nd Congressional District race.

And this one calls her “Negative Nancy” in the head:

Help Send “Negative Nancy” A Message

What would you do if the policies you cherish and forced on the country caused mass unemployment and economic despair?Chances are, you would admit defeat, apologize profusely to the public, and then proceed to jump in a hole so deep that you would land in China (where your liberal agenda may actually be popular, so everybody wins).

However, Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends lack the humility to retreat quietly into the night. Instead, “Negative Nancy” constantly barrages voters with tired rhetoric and liberal talking points. She would rather attack conservatives who voice your opinion than admit defeat.

Since we know that this is the way liberals operate, it should come as no surprise that Nancy Pelosi is coming to Charleston this weekend to make a speech. She is absolutely committed to punishing true conservatives like Congressman Joe Wilson, who have the integrity to stand up to her job killing liberal agenda.

“Negative Nancy” is planning on coming to our state from her lofty perch to energize her liberal allies. She thinks that with enough money and tired rhetoric she can defeat conservative ideals.

Help Joe Wilson stop the barrage of negativity coming from Pelosi and her liberal friends. Please click here now to support Joe and help him reach his goal of $25,000 this week!

Sincerely,

Dustin Olson

Campaign Manager

Joe Wilson for Congress

Wow, again. Release after release calling her every bad name you can think of, and you call HER “negative.” Wowee.

I think you might want to go back to calling her “liberal” over and over and over and over and over. At least that’s true, for whatever relevance it has.

Witches as a neglected demographic

15 Replies

Just to give you a smile, I thought I’d share an excerpt from a WSJ op-ed piece this morning (“Toil and Trouble in Delaware“), in which Aaron Kheifets, “a comedy writer whose work has appeared on The Onion News Network and Comedy Central,” explained why Christine O’Donnell should embrace, rather than run from, her witchy past.

After all, he asserts, Wicca is “a high-visibility, fast-growth demographic.” An excerpt from his advice:

She must demonstrate that she is willing to fight for their interests. She could start by proposing farm subsidies for sage and lilac to stabilize prices and reduce dependence on foreign sage and lilac.

Many witches have also been clamoring for public schools to begin teaching Wiccan alternatives to evolutionary theory, such as the possibility that the world was created from the dream of an omnipresent life-force that likes flute music.

Ms. O’Donnell could score further points by advocating for mandatory time off for special events in the life of your World of Warcraft character or by demanding an official apology for the Salem Witch Trials, which would include reparations. Above all, she must focus on community outreach such as busing Wiccan voters to polling stations in case their parents won’t let them borrow the car.

The level of interest generated by merely the mention of witchcraft is a testament to the power of the political juggernaut of Wicca. With witches willing to put Birkenstocks to pavement, going door-to-door for her, Ms. O’Donnell could even set her sights on the White House.

Of course, I particularly enjoyed it because of my own strong sense of the absurdity of Identity Politics. But even without that, you’re likely to find the piece to be a hoot.

Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, September 21, 2010

31 Replies

I’m running late, but here’s your briefing for this evening:

Move to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Stalls in Senate (NYT) — Another slow news day. This story sounded more definite in other versions, but the NYT just said “stalls.” They’re probably right. By the way, I read an interesting column on the subject in the WSJ this morning. Evidently, GOP senators didn’t read the piece. Or else they just couldn’t handle Reid’s unrelated shenanigans…
Iranian President Defends Record (NYT) — I like the part in the story where it says Ahmadinejad rejected “the idea that Tehran deserves anything less than a gold star for its nuclear inspection record…” That Mahmoud is a card.
Twitter scrambles to block worms (BBC) — This kinda freaked me out this morning. Fortunately, I was too busy to Tweet anyway, except on Ubertwitter, which was safe. I think.
S.C. unemployment rose to 11% in August (CRBR) — Yet another thing voters should THINK about…
Lawrence Summers to leave economic council, return to Harvard (WashPost) — Wow. He must REALLY have not liked working for Obama to go back there after they practically rode him off-campus on a rail.
Gamecock great Kenny McKinley found dead (The State) — I was sadly not familiar with the young man, and this is sort of old now (having been in the paper this morning) but judging by the reaction I’ve seen all day, this tragedy is definitely still worth the front.

New Sheheen ad, appropriately called “THINK”

5 Replies

Picking up on the theme that I was sorta hitting on back on the anniversary of D-Day (“Don’t vote with your emotions, people. THINK!“), the Sheheen campaign has released an ad entitled “THINK,” urging voters to do just that with regard to Nikki Haley.

My overall impression is that the ad is too soft, too diffident, too uncertain. It concludes with average-voter types saying “Makes me think… Nikki Haley isn’t who she says she is.”

Well, duh. Of course she isn’t.

I realize Vincent’s campaign is trying not to be shrill. I realize it’s trying to take voters who may NOT have been, well, thinking, or even paying attention, by the hand and walking them oh so gently toward an inescapable conclusion.

Back when I urged voters to THINK (as opposed to going all touchy-feely over the chance to elect the first woman as governor) before doing what they were bound and determined to do in the GOP primary, we didn’t know what we know now about her dismal record as a taxpayer and as an accountant. Now that we do know these things, I’m more in the mood to grab and roughly shake back and forth (figuratively, of course) any voter who would even consider still voting for her. But that’s me. Vincent’s taking the kinder, gentler approach, which is more his style. In fact, it’s the South Carolina way. Shows the boy was brought up right in Camden. (I’m a South Carolinian, too, but I suppose growing up in Florida, Virginia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Ecuador and gasp! New Jersey, not to mention those years I worked in the newspaper biz in Tennessee and Kansas, coarsened me. I’m more direct.)

So good for him, I guess. Whatever gets the job done. IF this gets the job done.

FYI, here’s the release that goes with the video:

Brad,

If the last eight years have taught us anything, it is that we cannot afford to elect anyone else to high office that lacks two basic qualifications: integrity and competence.

Representative Haley claims she should be elected governor because she’s a champion of transparency and because she’s an accountant. But, she is not credible on either.

Not once in the last five years has Representative Haley paid her personal income taxes on time. Twice it took her over a year to even file her tax returns. Representative Haley boasts about keeping the books at her family business, but twice it failed to pay corporate income taxes and also kept its employees’ money, rather than forwarding it as employees’ withholding tax. Now we learn that in 2008, she was also penalized for failing to pay her property taxes.

She has been forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines and penalties because she has consistently violated the law. These are not insignificant amounts and these are not isolated oversights. This is a troubling pattern of behavior. Representative Haley has consistently refused to meet her obligations and appears unable to exercise the basic standards of her profession.

I would expect someone with an accounting degree to be competent enough to pay her taxes. I would expect someone running for governor to have the courage to accept responsibility for her mistakes. But like her mentor Mark Sanford, Representative Haley believes the rules should not apply to her. Mark Sanford advocated saving state government money but liked to take personal trips with tax dollars. Representative Haley argues for government accountability but makes excuses when her own actions are called into question.

Representative Haley couldn’t get a job at the Department of Revenue with her resume. Yet, she expects South Carolina to trust her to run state government.

I believe when the public elects someone to office, they are giving a sacred trust. He or she should be worthy of that trust. Representative Haley’s record shows that her actions do not match her rhetoric. I am tired of hypocrisy by our state’s leaders and today, my campaign will begin running a new commercial pointing out the real Nikki Haley. After the last eight years of deceit and scandal, we must elect a governor we can trust. Here’s my message to all South Carolinians: You can trust me.

Very truly,

Vincent Sheheen

I’ll let Robert speak for me today…

2 Replies

Maybe I’ll get a chance to post something later, but so far it’s been on meeting after another (although in between, Lora from ADCO and I did manage to get lunch at Mojitos, which was awesome as always).

So for now, I’ll just give you an Ariail cartoon to enjoy and discuss…

Virtual Front Page, Monday, September 20, 2010

24 Replies

Things are still kinda slow; here’s what’s out there:

Graham: U.S. must consider military force against Iran (thestate.com) — Well, of course it has to be on the table, if you ever want Iran to get serious. And they have to believe it’s on the table. But watch people freak out when you say it.
Stocks Climb to Four-Month High (WSJ) — So is it over? Probably not (sigh)…
Recession Ended in June 2009, Group Says (NPR) — Well, OK, then — that’s a relief. But then, how come everything has continued to suck?
Disappointed Supporters Question Obama (NYT) — Which is bound to make him rethink the desirability of the whole interactivity thing.
Tea Party star Christine O’Donnell in witchcraft row (BBC) — She turned me into a newt! Fortunately, I got better.
Republicans Making a New “Contract With America” (The Hill) — Yikes. Sounds like America’s gonna get whacked. Again.

The real Don Draper (Draper Daniels, who called himself “Dan”)

4 Replies

Draper "Dan" Daniels and Myra Janco in 1965.

As the fourth season of “Mad Men” unfolds, fans wonder:

Will Don Draper get it together, or continue to unravel?
Will Peggy or Joan just get fed up to the point that she slaps every man on the show upside the head in a vain attempt to inject some sense into them?
Will Betty and her new husband just be written out of the show? Please?
Now that it’s 1964, will the show work with a post-Beatles sound track, or will the whole martinis-and-skinny ties mystique evaporate? (Hearing “Satisfaction” in the background the other night really made ol’ Don seem more anachronistic than usual, which I suppose was the point. Although I suppose the “can’t be a man cause he doesn’t smoke/the same cigarettes as me” part was apropos.)
Is Don Draper actually modeled on real-life Mad Man Brad Warthen?

On that last one, to end your suspense, the answer is no: The uncanny physical resemblance is merely coincidental.

In fact, we have learned who the real-life model was: Draper Daniels, who called himself Dan (… were in the next room at the hoedown… Sorry; I can’t resist a good song cue). His widow wrote a fascinating piece about him, and about their relationship, in Chicago magazine. You should read the whole thing, headlined “I Married a Mad Man” — as my wife said, it’s an “awesome” story — but here’s an excerpt:

In the 1960s, Draper Daniels was something of a legendary character in American advertising. As the creative head of Leo Burnett in Chicago in the 1950s, he had fathered the Marlboro Man campaign, among others, and become known as one of the top idea men in the business. He was also a bit of a maverick.

Matthew Weiner, the producer of the television show Mad Men (and previously producer and writer for The Sopranos), acknowledged that he based his protagonist Don Draper in part on Draper Daniels, whom he called “one of the great copy guys.” Weiner’s show, which takes place at the fictional Sterling Cooper ad agency on Madison Avenue, draws from the golden age of American advertising. Some of its depictions are quite accurate—yes, there was a lot of drinking and smoking back then, and a lot of chauvinism; some aren’t so accurate. I know this, because I worked with Draper Daniels in the ad biz for many years. We did several mergers together, the longest of which lasted from 1967 until his death in 1983. That merger is my favorite Draper Daniels story.

Reading that article, I wondered: If Don is Dan, who on the show is Myra?

As I read, I got a sense that it could be… Peggy. A woman who was a professional colleague of the main characters, a woman who had risen to an unprecedented role for her gender at the agency? Sounds kinda like Peggy to me — aside from the age difference. After all, Peggy and Don got awfully cozy that night of the Clay-Liston fight…

We’ll see…

Peggy and Don on the night of the Clay-Liston fight (Feb. 24, 1964).

Election shocker: The vote is actually tomorrow!

14 Replies

… if you live in Anton Gunn’s district, where Democrats are picking a nominee to go up against Sheri Few in light of Anton’s sudden decision to take a job with the federal gummint.

I got this today from Boyd Summers and the Richland County Democrats:

Let’s get ready!!!

A major decision will be made tomorrow regarding Rep. Anton Gunn’s seat in Northeast Richland and Kershaw Counties.

As many of you know, Gunn received a Presidential Appointment a few weeks ago to become the Director of Health and Human Services for the southeastern United States. Gunn was a rising force in South Carolina politics and had a proven ability to work on both sides of the aisle to get things done for his district.

The district includes the Sandhills region, the Summit, Lake Carolina, and many neighborhoods throughout Elgin and Lugoff. If you are not sure if you are in the district, check here!

The polls will be open tomorrow from 7am to 7pm.

There will be three candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Check out this article featuring the candidates and their positions:

Mia Butler

Beverly Frierson

Todd Wood

We encourage you to vote in this primary so that we choose a great candidate to run against Tea-Partyist Sheri Few in November.

Also, it is imperative that we get active! We must make calls, knock on doors, and host events for Vincent Sheheen, Matthew Richardson, Ashley Cooper, Rob Miller, Paige George, our House District 79 nominee, and our County Council candidates. We are open for business and will work around your schedule so sign up to VOLUNTEER to bring progress to South Carolina. If you have any questions please call Joey Oppermann at (864) 934-7910 or Stanley Davis at (646) 322-5565.

For information on what’s happening around Richland County stay tuned to www.RichlandCountyDems.com!

I’m glad I don’t live in that Richland-Kershaw district, because I know zip about those candidates. If you DO live there, perhaps the above links will help.

Uh-oh — Sheheen has conceded Texas!

12 Replies

Over the weekend, I missed this ominous development (it went out on Saturday):

SHEHEEN CONCEDES TEXAS

Camden, SC–Today, Vincent Sheheen directed his campaign to withdraw all staff and resources from the state of Texas, effectively conceding the state to opponent Nikki Haley. Haley continued her nationwide tour of ignoring South Carolina today by campaigning in Austin, Texas, where she is a featured speaker at a national Republican convention.

Sheheen for Governor Communications Director Kristin Cobb said, “Campaigning in Texas shows Nikki Haley’s primary concern is promoting herself and not solving South Carolina’s problems. Her mentor Mark Sanford’s flirtation with the national spotlight proved disastrous and South Carolina needs a change.”

“While Vincent Sheheen campaigns in the Pee Dee and the Midlands today, Nikki Haley is again ignoring South Carolina by campaigning in Texas as she runs for governor of the United States.”

For more information, visit:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/16/redstate-gathering-2010-3/

On the one hand, I worry about Vincent conceding these major battlegrounds. What’s next? Ohio? Pretty soon, only SC would still be in play, and then where would we be?

On the other, I have to applaud him for his masterful application of the “Hit ’em where they ain’t” strategy. And in Nikki Haley’s case, the place that she ain’t is here. Even when she’s here physically, her mind, her focus, and every word she says is all about other places. Her aim is not on being governor of SC. In her mind, she’s won that, left office and moved on…

Debates are more necessary than ever

42 Replies

In the print version, the headline on this story in The State was, “Have debates become unnecessary?” (Why it’s different in the online version I don’t know; it happens sometimes.)

The story is about the fact that, as things stand, there will only be two debates between Nikki Haley and Vincent Sheheen before the Nov. 2 vote.

I take keyboard in hand to answer the question:

No, they have not become “unnecessary.” In fact, in this election, it is more necessary than ever to have as many debates as possible. Having only two is unconscionable, tantamount to flipping a huge bird at the electorate.

One of two relatively little-known candidates will become our governor for four years. After having twice made the awful mistake of electing Mark Sanford — who as a congressman was much more widely known than either Haley or Sheheen before he ran — it is critically important that voters get as many unscripted opportunities as possible to hear them questioned, and compare them side by side.

This would not be for my benefit. I’m not the typical voter. I’ve known them both for years, well enough that there is not the slightest question in my mind: Vincent Sheheen would be a far better governor than Nikki Haley.

I believe firmly that if voters had the opportunity to observe and/or interact with them as much as I have, the majority of them would reach the same conclusion. Multiple, in-depth, face-to-face sessions with each voter is impractical. The best we can do would be to have multiple debates — 10 (the number that Sanford and Jim Hodges had) would not be too many. Far from it — 10 would merely be a good start. While Nikki, who is a very charming and presentable person on first acquaintance, will likely come through a couple of debates all right, each additional debate makes it more likely that voters will know her, and her opponent, a little better. And that would be a very good thing.

Nikki knows this. Hence the two debates.

Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom, and it’s correct as far as it goes. But the fact that she leads in the polls as her motivation for resisting more debates distracts us from a deeper, more strategic motive. You may have noticed that the more information that dribbles out about Nikki Haley, the more she is shown to be something other than what she lets on to be. That’s a far better reason for avoiding debates than her poll numbers.

But as I say, let’s not have more debates for me — or for Vincent, or for Nikki. Let’s have them because the people deserve more information about these young people than they currently have. And the more information they have, the more likely they are to make a decision that they will not regret later.

Virtual Front Page, Friday, September 17, 2010

3 Replies

And another week draws to a close, with the following headlines on our screen:

Couple Charged in Nuclear-Weapons Secrets Case (WSJ) — No, their name isn’t Rosenberg, and it’s not about Russia. It’s Venezuela this time.
Religion ‘marginalised’ says Pope (BBC) — This of course is a local story for the BBC. Meanwhile, NPR reports, “Six Arrested In London Over Possible Threat To Pope.”
Drill reaches trapped men in Chile mine (BBC) — But it will still take weeks before it can be widened enough to get them out.
Dueling rallies at the Mall (WashPost) — Looks like Jon Stewart is planning to steal a march on the UnParty, inviting all reasonable, moderate people in the country to march on Washington. Last person I’d expect it from, but he makes it sound good. Gotta tell you, I’m tempted.
Afghan Voters Head To Polls Amid Threats, Fraud (NPR) — The voting is on Saturday.
Legislature vs. the governor – again (The State) — Yeah, I know this was in the paper this morning, but I didn’t read it until this afternoon, so it feels fresh. To me. “All the transparent people want to be invisible,” complains House Ways and Means chairman Dan Cooper, R-Anderson. Which sounds like it’s not just about the present governor, but about someone that serious Republicans don’t really want to become governor.

GOP (and Dems, don’t forget) hurtling toward madness

10 Replies

Back on a previous post, Bud writes:

… (S)omehow Brad manages time and time again to confuse the idiot GOP with political parties in general. It really is pretty disgusting to have the Dems, who are at least attempting to address the nation’s problems in a meaninful way, with the imbecils who continue to distort, lie and weasel their way to power.

And what do they use this power for? For the good of the American people? Hell no. The bastards are merely trying to rule in order to feather their own nests. The GOP is about wealth creation for the super rich. And it’s worked. The poor and middle class have gotten nowhere for 30 years while the elitists in the GOP fool and fear their way into making the gullible believe there is a boogeyman behind every rock. And, inexplicably, they fool some poor school bus driver into thinking it’s in his best interests to give a billionare’s son his parent’s fortune TAX FREE! Unbeleivable.

But until the press gets it and starts calling the GOP out for the liars and scoundrels that they are we will continue to read about GOP idiocy in the name of political party partisanship. It’s NOT political party partisanship, it’s GOP fear mongering.

Bud, um… I’m pretty sure, without actually setting out the mathematical proof, that the set “political parties in general” DOES include the Republican Party. I’m not confused on this point. In fact, pretty much anyone who compiled a credible list of “Political Parties in the U.S.” would almost certainly list the GOP among the first two. I’m very confident in this assessment.

That’s why it’s such a problem that the GOP seems to have lost its frickin’ mind since Nov. 2008. Sensible Republicans are sort of walking around in shock as the screaming meemies take over.

Any other election, and Sarah Palin would have been relegated to the ranks of “unpersons” on the day after the last election, her name never, ever to been mentioned by any Republican who ever wanted another Republican to speak to him again. Instead, she is THE most mentioned Republican nationally, and it is widely accepted — among Republicans, and others — that her endorsement can make or break candidates running in races that have nothing to do with her. Yes, I’m speaking of the woman who as governor of Alaska repeatedly embarrassed the GOP ticket by how little she had learned from the experiences in her life about world affairs, and who since then has only added to her resume by… well, resigning as governor of Alaska. This is now the party’s queenmaker.

Any other election, and every Republican who ran against Nikki Haley for governor would have meekly lined up behind her on the day after the primary in a show of solidarity, all acting as though she was the one they really wanted to unite behind in the fall all along. This election, the GOP gubernatorial field is nowhere to be seen, with the exception of Henry “Good Soldier” McMaster, who’s doing his best to back her in spite of the vacant, confused look on his face. (He just doesn’t know what hit him, and is sufficiently dazed that he thinks this election is like other elections, and is acting accordingly.)

You may notice that the two examples I just cited describe OPPOSITE phenomena: One describes how the GOP is gravitating TOWARD its loonier, least credible fringes, while the other indicates how they’re moving AWAY from candidates they don’t trust, candidates who are trying to ride the Tea Party’s unfocused resentments right past the GOP into office.

Well, that’s just how crazy things are in the GOP these days. They’re about to win big nationally in November, and yet they don’t know whether they’re coming or going. That is to say, the sensible Republicans, the traditional core of the party, doesn’t know what’s happening. The Jim DeMints of the party know exactly where they’re trying to take the nation, and they keep confidently explaining it to us, but unfortunately what they say makes little sense.

Now you, Bud, may take solace in thinking that there’s a place for sensible people to run to amid the madness — the Democratic Party. I know no such solace, because I know better.

As Bart pointed out this week:

POINT: According to a recent Newsweek poll, “Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations?”……52% of Republicans polled think that statement is either “certainly true” or “probably true.”

COUNTERPOINT: According to a Rasmussen poll taken in May 2007, …”Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.”

In other words, BOTH parties are rapidly rushing toward their crazier extremes. People who identify themselves as “Democrats” or “Republicans” have surrendered their abilities to think to their respective sides to such an extent that they no longer stop to ask, “Does this make sense?” If someone who identifies himself as one of THEIRS says it, there must be something to it. And if someone on the other side denies it, well then it MUST be true.

And the members of BOTH factions are being pulled, with increasing acceleration, toward those loony poles as though they were in the grips of the gravitational fields of black holes at opposite ends of the universe. (Yes, I know the universe doesn’t have “ends,” but THEY obviously think it does. Besides, it’s a metaphor. Sheesh.)

The only hope for the country lies, of course, with the UnParty. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Waiting for Nancy, and trembling in anticipation

24 Replies

The last couple of days, I’ve been getting a flurry of releases from SC Republicans that I haven’t stopped to read, because they all seem to be about Nancy Pelosi, which doesn’t interest me since my area of concern is South Carolina.

But the headline on this one was just SO over the top, so indicative of a party (the GOP) just quivering in anticipation at the advent of an individual. You’d think this was the second coming of Ronald Reagan, or some other partisan messiah.

Here’s a sample:

NEWS RELEASE

Victory launches daily reminder of why

Palmetto Values don’t fit with Pelosi Values

(Columbia, SC – September 17, 2010) When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s jet touches down in Charleston a week from Saturday, you probably won’t see any South Carolina Democrat candidates welcoming her. When America’s most wildly unpopular official comes calling, it’s good to have something else on your agenda that day, because a political embrace from Nancy Pelosi is like getting kissed by Typhoid Mary.

Pelosi puppet-in-waiting Rob Miller and fellow liberal Democrat John Spratt, who juggles the books for Pelosi as chairman of the House Budget Committee, would prefer it if Pelosi’s visit went unnoticed.

But they don’t need to worry about that. Starting today and continuing every day next week, SC Victory 2010 will countdown until Pelosi arrives with a daily reminder of why her views are at odds with the majority of folks here in South Carolina…

… and so forth and so on… But I’ll give you a hint: At no time are we told WHY the woman is coming here, or in what way it bears upon our lives. Maybe she’s coming to see Jim Leventis, the godfather of her daughter, or for some other personal reason. I don’t know, and I don’t care.

Hey, ya got me convinced: This Pelosi woman is not popular in SC.

Good thing she’s not running for anything here, huh?

Now, do you have anything to talk about that’s worthy of my attention? You know, something having to do with South Carolina… If you have something critical to say about these Democratic candidates in SC, something about THEM, please share it. Or — if you can manage it — something persuasively positive about your OWN candidates. But don’t bore me talking about somebody from frickin’ San Francisco. I don’t vote in San Francisco. I don’t intend EVER to vote in San Francisco. Believe it; I wouldn’t kid you about this.

Political parties are just so unbelievably insufferable. They just get worse and worse and worse. Just when you think they couldn’t possibly insult our intelligence any more, they go a little lower…

Virtual Front Page, Thursday, September 16, 2010

7 Replies

We’re back today, and here’s what we have (that was the editorial “we,” of course — or perhaps we should say the royal we, since we no longer represent a board when we say it):

1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty (WashPost) — The poverty rate hits the highest level in the half-century the gummint has kept such statistics. Yeah, tell me about it.
Senate Passes Bill to Aid Small Businesses (NYT) — Tax breaks and loans, over GOP objections.
U.S. cybersecurity plans lagging, critics say (WashPost) — “More than a year after President Obama made a White House speech proclaiming that the protection of computer networks was a national priority, the federal government is still grappling with key questions about how to secure its computer systems as well as private networks deemed critical to U.S. security.”
Sarkozy attacks Roma row critics (BBC) — “Eef we weesh to bash ze zhipsees, we weel bash ze zhipsees,” said the diminutive French leader. Or something like that. I don’t talk Paris talk.
McConnell defends photograph (The State) — Yeah, I know it was in the paper already, but this just isn’t getting old. A timeless South Carolina tale…
X Prize Marks Fuel-Efficiency Spot For Future Cars (NPR) — Some cool cars. I don’t mean cool like Steve McQueen’s Mustang in “Bullitt,” or like Doc Brown’s DeLorean in “Back to the Future,” but cool nonetheless.

OK, that’s ONE I’ve seen. Any others out there?

14 Replies

Today I saw my first actual “Republicans for Sheheen” bumper sticker on an actual vehicle.

And this was on an SUV, so it was definitely a real Republican, right? (Just kidding, GOPpers — can’t you take a joke?)

I’ve heard, privately, from a lot of folks whom you might otherwise expect to vote Republican who are backing Sheheen — both because they like Vincent, and because Nikki worries them a great deal.

And anyone who pays close attention will note that Henry McMaster sort of stands out these days, because there aren’t many other leading Republicans going out of their way to be seen with Nikki. (What we have is lots of people who don’t really know Nikki backing her in polls, while state business and political leaders who’ve actually dealt with her and know a thing or two about the issues generally aren’t too thrilled with her.)

But aside from the Chamber of Commerce endorsement, you don’t see a lot of visible, public demonstrations of intent to vote for Sheheen from traditionally Republican quarters.

At least, I haven’t.

Alas, I didn’t get to talk to this person, to get an elaboration on why he or she is taking this stand. This was in the drive-through queue at McDonald’s today. A couple of times I almost jumped out of my truck to run up and hand the driver my card and urging him or her to call me, but each time I put my hand on the door handle the line moved forward again.

So then I decided I’d follow the vehicle when it left Mickey D’s, and if it stopped anywhere nearby, try to cop an interview there.

But then, it happened again. I ordered a double quarter-pounder, without cheese (you know, because of my allergies). When I paid for it, I checked with the lady taking the money: “Without cheese, right?” “No cheese,” she said. Then when my food was handed to me in the bag at the next window, I said, “No cheese, right?” She said that was right. So I pulled up a few feet, and opened it up to check, and sure enough, each patty had welded to it one of those things that looks like a square of orange, molten plastic.

So I got out, walked back, squeezing between the car behind me and the window, knocked on the window and said, “THIS is with cheese.”

And then I was asked to pull over to the side and wait for what I had ordered, and had been assured twice I would get.

This happens to me roughly a third of the times that I go to McDonald’s. But McDonald’s isn’t special; I have similar problems at sit-down restaurants. That’s why I always check. It beats finding out five miles away (which has happened). What really gets me, of course, is when this happens after I’ve been assured, repeatedly, that it won’t.

Anyway, that’s why I didn’t get an interview with the Republican for Sheheen.

Do you have one of these stickers on YOUR bumper, or know someone who does? If so, send me your contact info at [email protected]. I’d like to chat with you.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits