Monday, October 20, 2008
Unreal
Sunday, September 14, 2008
’08 & The Classroom Motif
’08 & The Classroom Motif
As columnist Bob Herbert noted yesterday, Sarah Palin resembles that unprepared student who clearly doesn’t know much about anything. When Charlie Gibson asked Mrs. Palin about the Bush doctrine, it all became abundantly clear: Mrs. Palin indeed looked like…a moose caught in headlights. Put simply, in educator’s jargon, Mrs. Palin came off as a student BADLY misplaced in a class where she simply does not belong and where she will most likely fail. This could all change, of course, if she cheats; if her symbolic parents—her Rovian surrogates—at the RNC make her jump a grade level, or two, or, hell, ten, on policy; and/or if she shows she can glide by with a low pass in the D range because her “parents” did most of her homework to counterbalance a pathetically low performance on the job.
But what’s most interesting in all of this is the classroom motif that has manifested in the 08’ meta narrative, especially with Mrs. Palin’s meteoric emergence. We hear reports about Mrs. Palin in terms of whether she passed or failed. We hear stories of how Mrs. Palin is “cramming” on foreign policy matters because she knows so little. Yet disturbingly enough, much of the American public digs her “studious” appearance because of her dress and the eyeglasses even though she is perhaps one of the most unqualified republican female politicians Mr. McCain could’ve selected: Imagine had he considered Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Jodi Rell, or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison? Clearly, these women would be appropriately placed in the narrative of national classroom politics, and, better yet, each of them would be a suitable VP choice for Mr. McCain’s presidential ticket. Perhaps the mainstream media should consider why Mr. McCain LEFT THESE WOMEN BEHIND for a woman whose skills and experience indicate she should stay on the elementary school playground.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Massage
When I wake up in the morning—or lately, when I first ooze from one state of new-baby zombie-ness to another, I usually get my daily dose of MSM (mainstream media) therapy. What can I say: it’s addicting.
After being awake for about a half hour—I usually crawl out of my coffin at 5:30 am, at 6 am I check out Morning Smoe to get my morning dose. Yeah, it’s a sick, twisted co-dependency that I’ve yet to shake. 12-step, you say? Nah. But what I’ve noticed during my Morning Smoe fix is that I get the first few lines—pun intended—of the MSM daily script and I’m sure to hear these talking points reverberate throughout the day.
Take this morning, for example. On the Smoe, Mika had on Silly Willy, Pat Buchanan and Mike “probate court” Barnicle. One of the main topics: the latest match-up polls from Newsweek and other news agencies of McShame vs. Obama. When it came time to discuss the Newsweek poll, a poll showing Obama at 51% and McLame at 36%, one of Mika’s boys made some comment to the effect that Newsweek must’ve conducted its poll at Starbucks on the upper west side of Manhattan. I wonder which goon came up with that one. Sure, it might be true noting that these Newsweek polling numbers are a bit off when compared to the other polls. But really, does THAT matter?
Let’s get back to the script. As can be expected, I heard the same line uttered by Mike Barnicle this evening during his guest-hosting gig on PhlegmBall when he discussed the Newsweek poll. Sticking to the script, Barnicle reiterated that Newsweek must’ve conducted the poll at a Starbucks on the upper west side of Manhattan. Coincidence? Yeah—and I’m a Republican.
The bottom line is: mainstream media talking points exist and thus they constitute a script on a daily basis—just dabble in some MSM addiction yourself, and you shall see. The talking heads generally follow this script to rev up the echo chamber din, to shape perceptions, and to reinforce the notion that for many the media is the…massage.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Bowling for Balance
If you haven’t already, you must check out “Bowling 1, Health Care 0,” the op-ed piece by Elizabeth Edwards in today’s The New York Times.
In this essay, Mrs. Edwards beautifully examines “the candidates [she] saw; the campaign [we] see.” In other words, folks, the mainstream media frames, selects, emphasizes, de-emphasizes the “news” fit to print about the ’08 election to suit their agendas—they are controlling everything.
This is MSM therapy and it’s scary. But what’s even scarier is how in the MSM meta-narrative soap operas, we have the same cast of actors/cheerleaders/analysts/and of course, the likes of Jabba, the Fart—Rush Limbaugh, media-created “authorities” who are more about imposing their views rather than simply conveying the news. It’s an ugly, incestuous crew and they pretty much say the same things. Why, oh why, does Smucker Carlson get booted from a news network, get fired from a job, get a show canceled, only to land on his feet yet again as some sort of analyst? Let’s face it: bow-tie loser boy sucks. And we don’t need Jon Stewart to tell us this again.
Check out “Bowling 1, Health Care O” to cure yourselves from the mega doses of MSM therapy; after all, the first step of recovery involves an admission of powerlessness—and this is precisely the case when it comes to what the MSM feeds us.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Deal or No Deal
“Mission Accomplished” George W. Bush will appear on an episode of NBC’s game show Deal or No Deal tomorrow night. Apparently, he’s honoring a veteran from Iraq, W.’s “no deal” of a fiasco. Hey, at least the costs of the war—deliberately kept out of the media spotlight—are alas receiving mass prime time coverage if only in a cameo moment. Too bad, though, that W. didn’t honor all of our Iraq Veterans—fallen and alive—more often, more seriously, rather than be so obvious to select the best Nielsen ratings publicity op available.
Boy blunder and his party stay true to form, though, making deals, re-shaping reality, and bilking the American public to suit their needs. And truth be told, they are pretty good at what they do: with Gas prices soaring, home mortgages foreclosing, spending power diminishing, the market yo-yoing, jobs terminating, Iraq burning, local municipal budgets shrinking, in a year when it would seem that the planets are aligned for the Democrats to take the White House, the Republicans are well positioned for Bush Term 3, with sold-his-soul McCain, a deal most Americans can’t afford.
But let’s face it: Part of this deal involves the internecine warfare in the Democratic Party. On one side there’s Clinton—amorphous lady hate who NOW casts her self as shot drinking, Crown Royale-ing, gun-slinging Scranton girl. On the other side there’s Obama—an elitist, non-patriot, 60s radical, non-wearing flag pin snob. The least said about these false characterizations, the better.
Divided and framed by the MSM, they and the party still stand…for now. But the question remains: can either one of them stand against McCain in the general, now that McCain has pricked his finger in blood rites with Grover Norquist, almost every agent of intolerance on the right whom McCain once disdained, the MSM goons—just take a look at Frank Rich’s column today, and a shadowy, quickly organizing attack-group resembling a Swiftboat junta for ‘08? A year to six months ago, the answer to this question would be yes. But as the Republicans do what they do best, as Clinton and Obama duke it out, as the MSM echo chamber continues emphasizing the unimportant while de-emphasizing the all-too-important, as the talking heads, led by Tweety Matthews et al, continue their “bromance” with McCain, chances are that what would be a “no deal” Bush Term 3 unfortunately might be the consolation “deal” we will have to accept.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Exits & No Exits

Instead of the Iraq War, which just hit its 5 year mark, or Bush being the main character in the media exit novella, Hillary has been cast in that role and what a prima donna she’s become. The sad part about this opera is that it seems like it’s going to end like all operas end, in tragedy. I can almost hear the sounds of Puccini’s Madame Butterfly.
There’s no question at this point: Hillary should go, not just for the party’s sake but also for her political future. The math is not on her side; the momentum is not on her side; the media is certainly not on her side—the least said about the latest lecture from the Dolores Umbridge of the right wing, Smeggy Noonan, the better; and the primary electorate is not on her side.
More importantly, in a strange way, Hillary’s campaign has NOT been on her side: Fumble after fumble, mistake after mistake, misstatement after “misspoke,” even with the few but well-publicized fumbles in the Obama campaign that perhaps could’ve worked to their advantage, the Clinton campaign has been disastrous with media-emergency management. They sadly resemble “heckuva job” Brownie—sorry. It’s been a dismaying collage of a whole lot of money, a whole lot of bravado for a whole lot of incompetence.
It’s interesting that a subtext to the media exit narrative has been Hillary’s contingency plans, if and when she decides to exit the race. Governor of New York? Senate Majority leader? On Friday evening’s Countdown and in the blogosphere, this story took hold. And what’s even more interesting, as Johnathan Alter mentioned on Countdown, there’s even been chatter about Obama’s contingency plan, should he become the nominee and lose to bomb, bomb McCainy, a media lover-boy whose many misstatements and frightening fumbles, along with the Iraq war, lurk in the media background as Hillary and Barack are on center stage.
Geeze. If only the media shifted its attention from whether or not Hillary would exit, who is urging her to exit—granted, she should go, what she will and could do when she exits, what Barack might do should he lose the general and exit the senate...to an exit from Iraq—given that now over 4,000 American lives have been sacrificed, maybe we could seriously think about what needs to be done once George W. Bush thankfully exits from a job he should have never had in the first place.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
American Dream Disorder
Like Gatsby fixating on the green light and the girl he once lost, like Hester Prynne fantasizing about an escape from puritan New England with her paramour pastor Dimmesdale, like phony Holden wishing to live a “mute” life with a “mute” wife out west, many of us Democrats, I fear, get caught in our dreams just like our more famous figures in American literature.
Yes, it appears Barack will win the nomination and Hillary will most likely lose. With an opposition to the war from the beginning, with what seems to be an unblemished public record, with an uncanny, superficial resemblance to JFK, further enhanced by Kennedy family endorsements, and most of all, with a message that resonates and a life partner who is as equally if not more convincing than the candidate himself, Senator Obama has built an insurmountable momentum among Democratic party voters. Aided and abetted by a mainstream media dying for a “new” narrative and an indirect means by which to drive the nails into Hillary’s coffin, Barack has justly carpe diem(ed) the moment.
But the mainstream media narratives are shifting. And electoral reality with many Americans, whether or not the pundit class recognizes it, conveys another story.
In the past couple of weeks, we’ve already previewed the summer & fall Republican attack narratives that the mainstream media will no doubt intensify: “The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition.” They’ve already gone after Michelle, and they will stop at nothing equating Barack’s name to some of our more renowned “radical” Islamist enemies. Have we conveniently forgotten about our swift-boating, presidential campaign past?
But lady of mass instigation, Maureen Dowd, in today’s column, suggests that attacks against Obama’s patriotism “may not have the same traction.” Silly Maureen, these attacks already have gained some traction. It seems that Dowd also likes to dream and fantasize. And while I would NEVER suggest that the ever-astute Frank Rich has a touch of the American Dream Disorder, I’m admittedly concerned. In today’s column, “McCain Channels His Inner Hillary,” Rich highlights what many Democrats are either overlooking or completely disregarding in their dream states: Senator Obama will not have an easy campaign against Senator McCain, who has adopted the Hillary “experience” offensive, despite what some early polling and match-ups forecast.
As Rich duly notes, Senator McCain is far more appealing to Democrats and liberals than what one might initially think. That Bomb, Bomb McCainy invokes the wrath of Flush Limfart and Mann Coulter only increases the appeal, especially among those Reagan Democrats who’ve been a part of the Clinton coalition—a coalition of the dwindling. Perhaps this is why in must-win Florida polls, as Rich emphasizes, McCain decisively beats Obama. But even Rich suggests that for McCain and his supporters, “The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition” will NOT have much force in the wake of the RNC’s overtly racist “macaca” days. I think not.
“The Patriot Question, The Barack Edition” has already taken foot; just take a look at Steve Croft’s segment on tonight’s 60 Minutes Sunday. Croft interviewed a group of Ohio blue collar men who said they didn’t like Obama because he wasn’t patriotic and he was a Muslim. Lies, I know. But what we are witnessing here is a tectonic narrative shift; the campaign against Obama is all over the web—whether you are looking for it or not; and quite frankly, Senator McCain is a perfect character foil to set this story into hyper-drive: Veteran, former prisoner of war, hawk, older statesman.
Like it or not, many people respect McCain’s “story” and his commitment to our country. Many people do see him as paradigm of…patriotism, the very thing the echo chamber clamors Barack is not. While I will certainly support Senator Obama’s candidacy—I do believe he is unequivocally the better choice, I do fear that many Democrats and pundits are only dreaming if they think that the RNC smearing and fearing won’t work because it already has.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A Super Mess
While superdelegates to some may seem strange, they are, in fact, elected officials and party “insiders” who can vote independently in a primary season when it appears that the voters can’t make up their minds.
As talk show host Randi Rhodes discussed on her show today, the superdelegates are becoming--in many ways--a super mess for the Democratic party that has the planets aligned--as of this moment--to reclaim the White House in November. The question is, as Rhodes has so beautifully said: For the Democrats, will this mess create the “snatching of a defeat” from what seems to be the “jaws of victory?” In other words, are we Democrats doomed yet again?
What exactly is “messy,” though, remains in the details.
Take the state of Massachusetts, for example, a primary state where Senator Clinton decisively won. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a superdelegate, recently endorsed and campaigned for Senator Obama. But Senator Kerry’s state on super Tuesday did NOT give a win to Senator Obama. Should he be called to his superdelegate excellency, Senator Kerry will go against the will of his voters and pledge for Senator Obama, which does seem admittedly problematic. Obviously, what applies to Senator Kerry also applies to Senator Kennedy, who will most likely exert his super delegate power for Obama, the candidate he has quite publicly endorsed.
In California, Congresswoman Lynn Woosley has endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. However, the congresswoman’s Marin and Somona counties DECISIVELY voted for Senator Obama. Like the good senators from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Woosley may also very well vote against the will of her constituents should she have to activate her superdelegate power.
Things are messy. But as we slouch toward the nomination, as we endure the twists and turns of the mainstream media narratives, as we Democrats hope that we can bridge the divides in our party, will we look upon this mess a year from now as something we simply cleaned or will our super mess allow for more messes that another Republican White House can’t help making?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Dowdworld Drama
Get your pencils ready.
Recall the time you took the SAT? And those heinous bubbles?
Well, get over your standardized test-taking anxieties: it’s time to play.
Breathe. Namaste.
Let the force flow…
Ready….GO:
The reasons for the love-fest drama at the democratic debate on Thursday night:
A. Mother Superior Pelosi had after-mass, Sunday detentions.
B. Rev. Reid ruler-knuckled the bad girl—her frat-husband Bill—and the seldom misbehavin’ Barack.
C. Free-wheelin’ Uncle Howie brought it to these insubordinate candidates
D. Hill and Barry wanted to flip-off Mean Girl, always-startin’ drama Dowd for her latest high school-cafeteria antics in her most recent columns.
E. All of the above.
Albeit D is a tempting choice because in Dowdworld, the more drama troll Dowd starts, the more she can write about, I’m selecting E: All of the Above.
WHY the love-fest drama happened is one thing; WHAT the love-fest produced is quite another: speculation over whether or not Hillary and Barack would consider running on the same ticket.
Here’s the real drama that Dowd in her solipsistic, latter mid-life crisis-induced Dowdworld overlooks: Hillary DEFINITELY needs Barack on her ticket; he, in contrast, probably won’t need her.
Yes, should Hillary get the nod, many have said that she might turn to Latino Richardson, she might turn to military man Clark, she might turn to the ever photogenic, sexy white guy Evan Bayh. But after a collage of recent ill-advised blunders, after the “routing” in South Carolina, after losing so much of the base to Barack in the primaries, after Kennedy, Oprah, et al, Hillary, should she squeak by—and should she really want to win in November, would commit a colossal crime for NOT picking Barack.
Of course, for this fairy tale ticket to happen Senator Obama would have to agree. Therein lies another potential colossal problem: in order to attempt to bring his “voters” to her and in order to attempt a win in November, Obama would have to bypass the recent history of Clintonian assault and really rise above for the sake of the team and the party.
Barack, though, doesn’t have the same “ticket” drama should he get the nomination. Truth be told, he could easily leave Billary in the dust and simply move on with another running mate who would strengthen his ticket in ways that Billary cannot. Thus, one can’t help wonder whether or not Billary goes gentle into that good night, pushing beyond a catastrophic loss and, well, repudiation, to campaign for the sake of the party and for the sake of a win despite NOT BEING on the ticket.
These are the real dramas unfolding in the political meta-narrative that continue to take shape day in and day out; these are the stories that beg consideration, analysis, and less high school soap opera treatment that Dowdworld Drama emphasizes.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Dividing & Diverting
On this week’s edition of the mainstream media narrative, we find one of their more tried and true numbers: dividing and diverting. Last week, we had everybody and their grandmother going to confession; this time around, we have everyone dividing…and the mainstream media diverting us from the real news that matters most.
It began late last week. Extra! Extra!—everyone get diverted by it: “Barack did this MLK event here, while Hill had to save face and do her MLK event there.” “Hillary’s losing the black vote.” “Barack’s alienating whites.” “It’s all about race and gender.” “It’s all about Bill (we like u, but would you PUHLEEZE shut up!)” “Dems. are divided here; they are divided there; they are divided everywhere.”
Tensions grew more heated in Monday’s debate. Hillary and Barack were trying to channel their inner “Hit Me with Your Best Shot:” Barack showed Hillary that he was a “real tough cookie” by mentioning her time with Walmart; Hill put another “notch in her lipstick case” by claiming that Barack once represented a slum lord. So as Hill and Barry went into death-match mode with John Edwards as the only real victor, the mainstream media had set its story no sooner than the debate ended: the Dems. are d-i-v-i-d-e-d. And what’s worse, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns blindly followed in sync with one scud attack after another. The latest word is that yet another truce has been reached.
MEANWHILE, on the other side of the moon—they clearly don’t know what to do or whom to choose. Adrift with Huck Finn, Slick Mick, Nosferatu Giuliani and Rising McCain, the Republicans are far more divided than the Dems. And yet had the media focused on what the republican candidates didn’t do to commemorate MLK’s memory and/or to court minority voters, maybe we could’ve had a fair and balanced discussion on race. Had the media put more emphasis on the 935 lies the Bush administration told about Iraq rather than the half-truths and untruths of Billary and Barack, maybe we could’ve focused more on the war. Had the media greatly publicized the 720 million dollar a day cost of the Iraq war, maybe we could focus less on Hillary’s and Barack’s positions and more on Bush’s bad decisions. Had the media not put the dividing democrat narrative in the foreground, maybe more people wouldn’t have been diverted from the troubling news about the Gaza strip that stays in the background. Should the Democratic Party and its candidates become more focused on taking the White House, they will hopefully shift the focus from these inflated divisions in the party to the many divisions George W. Bush and his party have caused for the last seven years.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Dolores Umbridge '08
The reappearance of the ever dreadful, ever affected Peggy Noonan joining NBC networks as an analyst does seem like a sign of the apocalypse. Hey: The New York Times went under the bus for Sith Kristol, so NBC had to roll over dead for Smeggy Noonan. Where ARE David Brooks and Kate O’Beirne when you need them?
With all her posturing and fake sweetness, Noonan strangely resembles a real-life version of Harry Potter archconservative wizard, Dolores Umbridge. Ms. “read my lips” Noonan was a guest analyst last night on MSNBC’s coverage of the Nevada caucus. She then magically appeared this morning on “Meet the Press.”
Noonan is so sickening and scripted that she seems like a resentful reject from a high school drama production. Last night and today, she went on in histrionic fashion to reminisce about the Reagan revolution, to claim that the Republican Party is in search of “its soul,” and to warn that albeit she worked for Reagan, Bush I and Bush junior, she so dislikes the idea of presidential dynasties in American politics???? Peggy: are you trying to convince me or are you trying to convince yourself? Let’s not forget, the woman who made the case against Hillary Clinton (because she didn't hate Hillary; she only had "contempt" for her) can’t stand the idea of a Clinton restoration.
Look, I understand that these media outlets must have a fair representation of both liberal and conservative commentators. And I’m rejoicing in the fact that thankfully liberal Rachel Maddow is becoming a regular for MSNBC and conservative Matthew Dowd is cameo-ing on ABC—two, normal, intelligent, level-headed commentators. But why The New York Times signed a pact with a neoconservative Sith and NBC went to the ministry of magic to get Dolores Umbridge is beyond me.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Fatigue
Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker wrote about Democrats and the overall 2008 saturation recently, and I think many Americans would agree: enough parsing, enough news, enough already. Yeah, we need to know about these candidates and their positions. Yes, we would like them to be more frank in their responses. Sure, we want to know whether or not they are representing the best interests of the people—yeah, whatever. But how many more debates, stump speeches, polls, thrusts and parries, and lies must we endure in this off election year? Sorry, Republicans, but Nosferatu Giuliani’s latest, ah, “exaggeration” about how much time he spent at the WTC clean-up handedly wins the Emmy for best performance of legend in one’s own mind. And The New York Times wins the award for best new drama for The Days & Conflicts of Martha’s Vineyard, starring the Clinton and Obama supporters.
What’s even more amazing is that we have over a year to go. Meanwhile, there is some “real” disturbing news on the electoral front that seldom registers on the front pages or in the American psyche, right, left or center. Take, for instance, this unsolved controversy over paper trail-less electronic voting and how “easy” it is to tamper with results. And what about how the Republicans in California would like to change how the electoral votes in the state are distributed? Yes, I’m being totally partisan—and a bit conspiratorial—but what about the corollary involving certain Secretaries of State, political parties, and voting outcomes? Sorry, I haven’t recovered from the 2000 cake-up of Kathleen Harris.
Indeed, we (and I mean everybody) are interested in 2008; we’ve all been terrorized enough by Bush and company. But instead of being over-saturated with nano-second news on which state will out-mojo the next for "the" primary date, porn-star named Mitt Romney’s family of boys, Hillary’s cleavage, and Johnny’s sexy hair, I think we could all focus on more pressing issues related to and not related to the election to avoid '08 fatigue.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
It's about 2008
As Captain LIEberman, formerly Oedipus Lieberman, formerly Joe Lieberman, Republicrat from CT, fantasizes about going nuclear in India, George Bush loses his brain. Who knows what will happen next, especially considering that Bush’s brain is also known as a turd?
But Rove’s departure should come as no surprise. It’s real simple: what do you with your party’s best campaign strategist when you have a president whose approval ratings—ooh…ah—hover in the high 20s to mid 30s and there’s no “clear” frontrunner emerging, despite rumors that troll-looking Fred Thompson can work some Hogwarts magic? Send in Rove, Karl Rove.
Sure, the media can fixate on and speculate about Rove’s departure. Pundits can and will buy into the lame excuse that blossom wants to spend time with his family—and I’m a staffer at The National Review. But the obvious reason for Rove’s timely exit stage to Texas is to get ready for 2008. That became abundantly evident in his interview for The Wall Street Journal and during his guest spot on the Rush Limbaugh show. And what better way to ceremoniously yet symbolically reveal his plans than to call Hillary a “fatally flawed candidate.” I have to admit: I do like it that Hillary is channeling her inner Pat Benatar and hitting back.
It’s about 2008, stupid! No doubt, like the hand at the end of Carrie, Karl Rove will be back.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
PARALLEL UNIVERSE
Parallel UniverseMy wife and I are big fans of Lost. Two of our colleagues, the bloggers—ballsy femme fatale and conservative & proud kindel, got us hooked last fall. And we are addicted. So are countless others—pun intended.
My “magnum” brother-in-law, a quasi-conservative whom I had to practically bang over the head with a drumstick last Thanksgiving—he was trying to defend narcissistic Oedipus Lieberman, shortly before Oedipus morphed into Captain Lieberman—tells us that there’s a “parallel universe” theory circulating the blogsophere, which would partly explain the events and phenomena of Lost; I’ve got nothin’ but “penny” love for you, JT. My “Lost” experts, though, insist that that’s not the case.
The jury might still be out on the parallel universe theory on Lost; however, the jury is in on the parallel universe in America: there are TWO AMERICAS. While some of us yearn to remain grounded in reality, OTHERS are being sucked via a wormhole into a fake-news universe, including most of the GOP Presidential contenders and the Republican Party.
Thursday night’s debate was a freak show and an utter disgrace to the dignity and statesmanship of what President Ronald Reagan represented—appreciate him or not. It’s too bad that these contenders desperately invoked his name countless times, a subliminal admission, a haunting refrain conveying that the Republican Party has LOST its way and much of America. Aside from the good Congressman Ron Paul, who was the only rational one of the bunch and the only Republican on-stage sincerely attempting to evoke the spirits of Reagan and conservative patriarch Senator Barry Goldwater, these contenders insulted—directly or indirectly—most Americans, including fellow Republicans.
From Nosferatu Giuliani’s flip-flopping on everything from abortion to national security, to porn-star named Mitt Romney’s Aldous Huxley segue into science-fiction and cloning, masking his own flip-flopping on issues and his latent contempt for Hillary Clinton’s hair colorist, from McCain’s pathetic, Viagra-induced charge that he would follow Osama-Bin-Gone to the “gates of hell,” to the non-log cabin homophobia and vehement contempt towards science (didn’t they look to see Nancy Reagan and Governor Terminator in the front row?), these candidates—with the exception of Paul—have boldly shown that the GOP has LOST its way.
This is not the party of my maternal grandmother—bless her soul. This is not the party of many conservatives and Republicans whom I know and respect, who believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, PRIVACY, morals and values, and dignity. This is not the party of Reagan and Goldwater, conservative torchbearers with some sort of conscience and vision.
In this parallel universe of no real news, no conscience, no dignity—that many of them blatantly insulted a living, out-of-office president—President Clinton—was pathetic, no acknowledgment of reality here, there, or any where—in Iraq, in the middle class, or in the 21st Century for that matter, no clear understanding of what it means to be a conservative, Republican, Democrat—yes, we have our pull-down menu of identity problems, liberal, moderate, it’s obvious that as a nation we are certainly LOST. The question is, though: how do we jettison ourselves out of this parallel universe without getting stuck in a…wormhole?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
SEX AS A WEAPON
Medea, Medusa, Cleopatra, Hedda Gabler, Margaret Thatcher, Camille Paglia—women from literature, history, and popular culture who know how to play hardball with men, who know how to attack, and, in some instances, who know how to win. In Thursday night’s first debate of Democratic presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton boldly showed that she can be one of these women.
Like her or hate her—I myself was none too pleased with the misleading “If I knew then what I know now” line of crap, Senator Clinton presented herself confidently, decisively, and with a sense of command. Sorry progressives and fellow bloggers on the left: our favorites, Obama and Edwards, didn’t do too well.
Obama stuttered and flopped his way through and Edwards truly seemed dazed and confused; that last response on morality was one momentary lapse too long; Edwards’ narrative of poor, Huckleberry me was re-used, 2004 rhetoric that should be gone.
Yes, Brian Williams channeled Maureen Dowd’s cattiness with the $400 haircut topic; the real “yes” moment went to Joe Biden for being laconic.
As Bill Richardson talked like Joe Biden better than Joe Biden, Kucinich and Gravel terrorized the rest with candor while being “frightened.”
Clinton and Dodd possessed the statesmanship, calm and reason to manage the storm. In this Ship of Fools of Chimpy, Cheney, Captain Lieberman, and “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCainy, we desperately need a sane Commander-in-Chief to right some wrongs.
As we move closer to 2008, the American mainstream media does what it likes best: fake news on the debate, Alec Baldwin, and the rest. Meanwhile, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and several men drool: “what do we do now if America does NOT think she’s a shrew?” “We’ll use her sex as weapon to pick apart her clothes, to point out she’s too shrill, and to remind us of Rick Lazio.”
Funny, outside the U.S. they called the debate for Hillary. Thankfully, they are not as hung up on sex and gender and think Americans are far too silly.


