02.28.08
Posted in Politics at 8:13 pm by Sulla
It may have helped that I went to a (relatively) conservative college, but my three big influences in those days were Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and William F. Buckley, whose National Review was my first introduction to politics as pleasure reading and whose Blackford Oakes novels became one of my early grown-up connections to my father.
A quarter century later, National Review remains an integral part of my ideological life, thanks to their website and digital magazine editions (save a tree; go PDF). But even after WFB retired (heh), he continued to work, to write, and to inspire. So it was a surprise to hear of his passing yesterday at age 82, at his desk. I imagine he’d have wanted it that way.
NRO’s The Corner has been relaying personal tributes from NR writers, and links to print, video, and audio tributes to the man, from all along the ideological spectrum. Buckley touched a lot of lives, and not just conservatives. His long-running FIRING LINE taught a lot of forensics geeks to debate, whichever side of the issues they wanted to take. His columns probably sold more thesauruses and dictionaries than the average freshman English class. (I learned what a “subjunctive” was from a joke he told about how literate Boston cabbies were.)
Buckley was, from the beginning, a joy to read. His love for the English language was infectious. His commitment to conservative ideals was as well. It’s heartening to know, as a distant spectator and consumer of his work, to read from those who knew him personally or who had an opportunity for a chance encounter, that he was no less great or good close up.
I’m sure when St. Peter hands him his wings, he’ll offer to return the left one, with a wink and a smile.
Rest in peace, sir. You’ve earned it.
If you have memories of Buckley, or just want to sound off on the man, his life or his writing, National Review has set up a page here. You can email to rememberingwfb@nationalreview.com.
Permalink
02.27.08
Posted in Politics at 11:36 am by Sulla
My distaste for Sen. McCain’s knee-jerk jerkiness towards people of his own party and deference to Democrats doesn’t blind me to the underlying point, with which I agree – calling Sen. Obama “Hussein” is lame, and potentially counterproductive.
Sen. Obama’s big selling point this year is that he’s likable, which is no small advantage. Fred was “distant,” Romney was “plastic,” Ron Paul was “nuts”, Rudy was “in Florida, somewhere, waiting for the primaries to catch up with him”. Huckabee’s alleged likability has kept him in the race, but his sleazier and intolerant side has kept him – barring one of those “miracles” he keeps saying he majored in – from sealing the deal. So as much as I detest McCain, he may well have been the Mr. Congeniality of the GOP field…which is a scary freakin’ thought.
Actually, what killed Huckabee’s chances is probably what killed Hillary’s – a “poor me” culture of whiny, entitled divisiveness that is extremely unpresidential. It’s not fun to listen to, however entertainingly Huckabee tried to craft it – and he has a real talent for comic timing and wit. Thing is, once you look close enough, the likability facade slips. Hillary, on the other hand, lacks the personality to gloss over her gripes-and-snipes core.
Obama may not actually be the shiny happy people he appears to be. His wife Michelle certainly has a chip on her shoulder, though she’s pretty good at obscuring it…most of the time. Barack tends to be even-tempered, unflappable, somewhat elusive but SO FAR has gotten away with it….because people are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because he makes them feel good about themselves. Has Hillary EVER done that? I’d argue not; the magic of Clintonism is their knack for promising “hope” to poor shleps who would be lost forever without the Clintons. This year, with sixteen years of hindsight, “four more Clinton years” didn’t have quite the same appeal.
But I digress.
The point is: Sen. Obama is the more likable of the Democrats, and McCain (through unbelievable luck) is the most likable Republican. Hillary has tried “kick the puppy” with Obama, and came off looking smaller and meaner for it. I thought the same when McCain was attacking Romney, but if (as seems the case) McCain was the more popular of the two, then picking on the less popular kid didn’t hurt him much. McCain would NOT have this advantage against Sen. Obama.
So when it comes to a general election strategy, there is danger in playing to type. The Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of being intolerant hater meanie types – racist, misogynist, hate the poor, kick kittens for sport – and they have a talent for spotting slights where none exist. So, the argument goes, why make their job easier? Calling Sen. Obama “Hussein” plays into the GOP-is-islamophobic stereotype. Karl Rove suggests sticking to “Senator Obama” (and “Senator Clinton” instead of “Hillary” or “pantsuited she-beast”) – respect the office.
There are plenty of approaches to running against Sen. Obama the nominee. Even Chris Matthews has started to ask, “what, exactly, has this guy DONE in his legislative career?” Get down to specifics, and there’s no THERE there.
But if it’s a battle of who you’d rather hang out with, or see on your TV every night on the news, then there’s no way McCain beats Obama. Heck, I like Obama more than McCain; Obama hasn’t gone out of his way to spit on me and mine the way Mac has. But that doesn’t mean I think Obama would be the better president. So stick to what’s important in this year’s contest, and frame the debate on the issues.
I remember when David Duke ran for governor of Louisiana and actually managed to make it to the runoff; his Democrat opponent was literally a criminal. The GOP didn’t want a KKK uber-racist running on their ticket; all sides combined to campaign thus: “vote for the crook; it’s important.” I’m not surprised that Hillary’s use of “vote for the jerk” didn’t work, because there’s not much difference, substantively, between her positions and Obama’s. But the nominally Republican McCain is at least a defend-America-first hawk and will nominate somewhat less liberal judges, and claims to be a fiscal conservative on spending (which even Dubya has not been). There would be a tremendous difference between a McCain presidency and an Obama one.
Just because Sen. Obama looks better naked, doesn’t mean we want an emperor who has no clothes. Vote for the angry, ugly jerk who is far less likely to let America get caught with her pants down by the enemies of freedom.
It’s important.
Permalink
02.26.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 9:23 pm by Sulla
I’ve noticed that some folks take to referring to Sen. Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama,” most notably Ann Coulter. Yeah, that’s his name, but aside from pointing up the otherness of Obama’s half-Kenyan heritage – what, “Barack” and “Obama” aren’t sufficient to point that up? – what’s the point? Is it an attempt to connect him to … King Hussein of Jordan, our close ally in the Middle East (and a former guest star on Star Trek: Voyager)? Or…the OTHER one?
In any case, I don’t care. A rose by any other name, and we sell cars and beds on President’s day by mocking such illustrious but obscure names as Millard, Zachary, and Abraham (hmmm, that last one sounds kinda…Semitic, don’t it? Could be an Islamist.) There are plenty of easy approaches to the person and platforms of Sen. Obama; Saddam-izing his name is a bit lame.
However, when Sen. McCain was preceded by warm-up act (radio guy) Bill Cunningham at a rally in Ohio, Cunningham – who is wont to run with the “Barack Hussein Obama” shtick – ran with it, warmed up the crowd, and then went back to the studio for his radio show. McCain leaped on the opportunity to stomp on Cunningham and on anyone else who would not treat his Senate colleagues as the “honorable Americans” he considers them to be.
This is almost certain to be the first presidential contest in which a Senator is guaranteed to win, because no non-Senators are left. (yeah, Gov. Huckabee is still hanging around, but mainly for late night TV laughs. Even working for scale, he’s making a good living that way.) I’m well aware that Senators are part of the USA’s most exclusive federal club, and their rules are detailed and explicit about decorum.
However. Sen. McCain is notorious for treating his Senate Republican colleagues like something he stepped in, and allying himself with folks like Ted Kennedy whom most on the Right cannot stand. He rarely uses words like “respect” and “honor” when talking about his GOP rivals, so his going after a right-wing radio host to defend the honor of two hyper-liberal Democrats is hardly the shocking event that Bill Clinton’s criticism of Sistah Soljah’s racial-anger comments in the 1992 race. In fact, judging from Rush Limbaugh’s collected decade-plus of criticisms of Sen. McCain, it’s rather par for the course.
Bill Clinton more or less owned his left wing in 1992, and he reached out to the center and right by such events as Sistah Soljah, and executing mentally-impaired death row inmate Ricky Rector (cuz we on the right, we loves us a good killin’). McCain, though, is really a man of the middle who has NOT sewn up his party’s base, and events like this – even though I technically agree with him – simply reinforce my opinion of the man as no friend of his own party, who seems unconcerned about trying to win my vote. Yes, he’ll most likely get it, but if he wants to win he really needs the enthusiasm of people like me. Mere dislike of the Dem candidate isn’t sufficient in this climate; Dems have been out of the White House for eight years, and they are as determined to retake it as we were in 2000. Support for Gore was relatively tepid on the Left that year, and though he squeaked by in the popular vote and came within a hair’s breadth of winning Florida and the electoral college vote, the total of votes cast in 2000 was anemic compared to 2004, when Kerry got almost 10 million more votes than Gore did…and Bush got an additional 13 million.
When it’s likely to be close, every vote counts. Bush won in 2000 because the GOP wanted it more, and after eight years of Clinton was determined to fight in Florida to prevent Gore from stealing the election. If Florida was a statistical tie on election day, the next 30 days became a clear and convincing win for George W. Bush, who won both the recounts and the battle for the hearts and minds of the non-deranged electorate (which by December had become the majority he didn’t quite get in November). After four years of “selected, not elected” and “Resident [sic] of the US”, Bush’s re-election campaign was decisive – in spite of Kerry’s record turnout for a Democrat, Bush is currently the only candidate in US history to have topped 60 million votes, and he did it with room to spare. Kerry had negatives through the roof – flip flopper, antiwar euroweenie, effete snob who blamed his secret service protection when he crashed his bike and who threw footballs like a girl. in the first wartime election since Vietnam, Kerry was everything the Right, and many slighted Vietnam veterans who remembered Kerry all too well, was determined to defeat.
This year, who has that fire in the belly? The Democrats, sopping drunk on eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. They see in Obama a new Kennedy, and even the Reagan mantle has been whispered about. Obama doesn’t have Reagan’s substance, but I grant he fits the JFK mold more closely than you’d expect. JFK, aside from being a WWII veteran, hadn’t had that much Senate experience before he ran in 1960, and his early years were filled with more hope and optimism and fancy words than they were with things like competence and experience. On the other side, we have the (fading) Hillary Clinton, who begs us to remember the happy, Millennial decade of the nineties when all was well with the world becase he other “beloved Democratic dear leader” Bill Clinton was in charge…and so was she. (how else to explain her “35 years” of experience when she’s only held an office she was elected to for seven?)
And on the Right…we have Sen. John “Screw you, Dittoheads, leave my good friends Hillary and Barack alone” McCain.
Like I said – if Mac wants to win, he needs enthusiastic followers. Right now the only enthusiasm I have is for kicking him (virtually) in the nuts for being such a jerk to his own side, the side he NEEDS if he wants to win this thing.
Word to the wise, Senator: start treating Republicans with “respect” and “honor.” Then maybe you’ll get more than my vote.
Permalink
02.24.08
Posted in Entertainment, Politics at 10:44 am by Sulla
I’m no fan of Huckabee, but I used to be – and one reason was his sense of humor. It has a dark side, which is part of what turned me against him. But in TV appearances with Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Conan O’Brien, Huck’s willingness to self-deprecate makes him frequently entertaining, if not endearing.
Case in point: his appearance on last night’s Weekend Update portion of Saturday Night Live.
Huck’s riffs on (1) his “mathematical impossibility” denial and (2) saying “I know when it’s time to exit gracefully” from the race, followed by awkwardly not exiting gracefully from the stage, was an obvious bit, and kinda funny in an art-reflects-reality sorta way.
Funny how AP didn’t get it.
Even though Mike Huckabee is still battling for the Republican presidential nomination despite long odds, he said Saturday he won’t “overstay his welcome.” Then he did precisely that, lingering on the “Weekend Update” set of “Saturday Night Live” despite repeated cues to leave the stage….However, he said: “Mike Huckabee does not overstay his welcome. When it’s time for me to go, I’ll know. And I’ll exit out with class and grace.”
Then he remained seated at the “Update” desk even though Meyers made it clear it was time for him to leave.
Part of me wonders how AP could possibly have missed the joke.
The larger truth, of course, is that Huck DOESN’T know when to leave. He may be playing it for laughs…but he’s not going away. My guess, based on my time on stage, is that he’s trying to go out on a high note. Nobody wants to slink off stage; if you start and end strong, the crowd can forgive a weaker middle act.
But Flip Wilson once did a great bit about “staying on too long” (click for audio) Eventually, however good the audience reaction, the time comes to hand the mic over to someone else, especially if you’re not the headliner.
Huck is now joking about staying on too long. And yet he stays.
His parking log reception isn’t gonna be pretty.
[Update] The Nation gets it (which has to be newsworthy).
Permalink
02.22.08
Posted in Entertainment at 3:21 pm by Sulla
My angel-of-death ways continue. Fresh from destroying the presidential hopes of Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney by giving them money and vocal support, leading to their withdrawal from the race less within 72 hours of the check clearing, I determined to pick a winner in the High Definition Format Wars by investing money in the loser.
I bought a computer with an HD-DVD drive in it last week. That wasn’t WHY I bought it; I don’t have any HD-DVDs, and it won’t record them. If the drive didn’t record to regular DVD-R/RW media I would have yanked it out to sell on eBay. But apparently my purchase came to the notice of the Powers that Be, and they made their choice:
Blu-Ray it is. HD-DVD is dead.
What does this mean? Well, for me, not much; the only HDTV I have is 19″ in diameter, a holiday prize for extreme cleverness (my work partner’s, not mine – my extreme cleverness won us a couple of Nikon digital cameras, which my wife promptly claimed for Spain. As though her collection of Canons needs the Nikonic interloper….But I digress.) The HD drive does have one nice feature: it upscales my existing discs to 720p, making them a bit prettier and wide-screenier. The thing is too small for the living room, which is serviced by an old-enough-to-vote and too-heavy-to-steal tube TV, but does pretty well in the crowded office. And you can’t beat free…until you start thinking of ways to fill all those connections in the back.
Enter the new PC, an HP media-center monstrosity with four cores and seven hundred gigabytes. wireless darn-near-everything. HDMI out. And an HD-DVD drive.
Sony’s Trojan Horse worked. I bought, and Toshiba’s baby died.
Here’s the thing, though: Sony’s been trying to win a format war for ages. Betamax, minidisc, UML, ATRAC. They usually lose. They’ve spent untold piles of cash putting BluRay into their PlayStation 3, so they could claim massive market penetration. They bought off studios more effectively than Toshiba did.
So…they win.
Or do they?
I have watched a good bit of high definition content this week, while coughing up various internal organs. ALL of it was downloaded.
Who needs a disc format when you’ve got a big fat broadband pipe? I came, I browsed, I clicked, I watched. XBox Live Marketplace offers HD content for download. AppleTV 2 now offers HD downloads. Hulu offers streaming HD.
What, then, has Sony won? I remember owning a Sony laserdisc player, way back when, and buying movies in that format – granted, some advantages over VHS, but when DVDs came along I wasted no time switching. Sony’s format victory in the 12″ disc space just meant a winner in a category that deserved to die.
I’ve got DVDs spilling out of every drawer in the house. 95% of them I haven’t watched more than twice. Given the choice between buying another DVD and setting aside a chunk of hard drive, I know which one I’d pick.
So…enjoy the spoils for now, Sony. I can’t say I expect it to last. I’ve learned from years of watching Microsoft (who backed HD-DVD, but REALLY backed a downloadable HD delivery mechanism):
if you can’t beat ‘em, bypass ‘em completely.
Permalink
Posted in Politics at 10:54 am by Sulla
My flublogging has its moments, but there are times when I’m more than happy to yield to competently-edited professionals. I cheerfully refer you to Mark Hemingway’s piece in today’s National Review Online, “Swiftboating the Swiftboaters.” From the subtitle “Doing an effective political campaign historical justice” to the end, Mark’s economy of speech makes it a worthwhile read, and includes numerous points I missed in my last post.
Hemingway also discusses a new book, To Set the Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs, and the New Media Defeated John Kerry by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler. If you want to know what the fuss is about, the article is a great launching point, and the book promises even more convincing evidence that “Swift Boat” is a term whose honor is worth fighting for:
The book’s detail is so extensive that even news junkies and SBV boosters will learn from it….We’re likely to hear more derogatory uses of “swift boating” and the “Freak Show.” But the media’s resentful rebranding of the Swift Boat Veterans’ campaign doesn’t stand up to the cold hard facts. To Set the Record Straight lives up to its title.
Read the whole thing.
Permalink
02.21.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 6:25 pm by Sulla
Michelle Malkin makes a good point, though I quibble a bit with her definition. She says that “Swift-boating” should be defined as “to tell the truth about a Democrat,” but that only goes part way.
The Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth came together in 2004 with one goal: to uncover the truth of John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry’s true record. These were people who had served with him in Vietnam, and who were happy to see him leave Vietnam and wash their hands of him…until he decided to run for Commander in Chief. They could handle him being a backbench loudmouth Junior Senator from Massachusetts. But to have “Winter Soldier John” presiding over the lives of our men and women in uniform, whom he’d already betrayed repeatedly? They couldn’t live with it, so they gathered for One More Mission.
One of their early ads called into question whether Kerry deserved some of his medals. I’d read John O’Neill’s book about Kerry, and know that – at minimum – Kerry has been less than 100% forthcoming on his military service record, and has not signed the forms that would free up his records to public scrutiny. Pres. Bush went to great pains to honor Kerry’s military service, preferring to hammer Kerry on his decades of mediocre Senate service and endless foot-in-mouth moments. Kerry, it should be noted, had won many elections, and came close to winning in 2004, by propping up his own I-was-a-war-hero status and denigrating his opponents’. (Cheney didn’t serve; Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was scrutinized, ridiculed, and even disputed in 2000 AND 2004 by Dan Rather’s crack team of Mary Mapes and … um … the guy who gave Kerry his hat.)
Kerry’s war record was truly irrelevant, but Kerry himself made it an overriding issue, the one that could and should sweep him to victory – because commanding a swift boat is just like commanding the entire US military, economy, diplomatic corps, etc. Only problem is, those who actually served with him came to a very different conclusion. They remembered a preening JFK wannabe who turned every scratch into a purple heart, videotaped his own heroics for later inclusion in his presidential library, and who they couldn’t wait to be rid of. Some criticized him for parleying three piddling excuses for purple hearts into a shortened tour; others have suggested that the “three Hearts and you’re flushed” concept was used to compel Kerry to exit the theater of war early. “Here’s some medals, ferret-face. Go home and get on with that political career you’re so keen on.”
This attack on Kerry’s war record didn’t go over well with everyone. John McCain, who was tortured for years as a POW in Vietnam, assailed as “dishonorable” the ad putting Kerry’s heroism into question. Bush refused to even stoop to “hey, folks have a right to ask…,” which given Kerry’s attack on Bush’s record was almost heroically restrained.
However…the commercials that dealt with Kerry’s record AFTER he returned from Vietnam, not even McCain argued with. The ones that quoted Kerry’s “winter soldier” testimony at length. The ones showing a fatigue-wearing ferret-faced Kerry within spitting distance of Jane Fonda at anti-war rallys. The ones quoting POWs whose torture was intensified because of Kerry’s aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy comments. Kerry’s effort to be an anti-war hero as well as a war hero showed his fundamental unfitness for the presidency – he thought he represented the BEST of both worlds, and would get the military as well as the antiwar vote. Instead, he showed a tin ear and a narcissistic streak that nobody could entirely trust.
The end result in 2004 was close. A hundred thousand votes in Ohio would have changed the outcome. Arguably, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth cost Kerry the election – and won a battle for the honor of all who served in Vietnam against the man who maligned them worldwide.
Kerry has been trying to fight back – not with facts, but by turning the term Swift Boat (which he once commanded) into an epithet – “to smear with lies.” The media has certainly been helping, and more than a few politicians have picked up the phrase – in the process, once again smearing American servicemen doing their duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Even my dad, no friend of Kerry, uses the term that way, though I correct him every time.
No, to “Swift Boat” doesn’t mean to smear unfairly. It shouldn’t, anyway. The Swifties exposed the hypocrisy, lies, slanders, and self-promotion of John Kerry against the American soldier, which has continued unabated for 35 years. That’s what “swift-boating” accomplished – they told the truth, and their unflinching, under-oath testimonies sunk a gold-digging pretender to a position he was unfit to fill.
So, perhaps “to swift boat” should mean: saved the day by telling (ahem) an inconvenient truth. and “to be swift-boated” is really “I woulda gotten away with it to, if not for you rotten kids, and your stupid dog too! (Rooby Roo!)”
My definition might not catch on. But there is a fight over the meaning of the word. The Swifties did us a service. We should honor their sacrifice in 2004 by rescuing their name from yet another John Kerry smear job.
[Update]: Michelle’s objection gets results (emphasis mine):
Greg Mueller responds to my post yesterday about the misuse of the term “Swift-Boating:”
Hi Michelle — I just saw the post you had on me about SBVT and I deserved the ding. Bad use of term on my part — I was trying to make the point that they still had it out for Republicans given how sour they still are over their view that the Swift Boat Vets prevented the Presidency from them and John Kerry. I was trying to say that they were doing their version — i.e. “trying” to do what they consider to be “Swift Boating.” After I said it, I realized it was not communicating that way and dropped it in subsequent interviews.
Obviously, the difference is stark — SBVT were heroes once again coming forward to tell the truth and blow the whistle on Kerry. The New York Times used anonymous sources to have yet another “Jason Blair moment,” no evidence, no truth, just, as Rush would say, a drive by hit job.
We were so proud and honored to have played a role in the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, working side by side so many true American heroes. John O’Neill, Bill Franke and I have grown to be terrific friends as I have with the other true heroes that were involved in the effort.
Very poor communication on my part. I made the comment to my friend Jonathan Martin at The Politico early in the AM and realized it was not reading as I meant it. He did not misquote me. He is a very good reporter and always quotes me accurately. In subsequent interviews throughout the day the following statement was distributed and used in a number of stories.
Stay diligent. The battle over meanings is not yet lost.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Rants at 2:51 pm by Sulla
There are discussions – at times, arguments – over what to do with John McCain as presumptive nominee of the GOP. He hasn’t been a great friend to conservatives, and his personal sense of honor seems far more easily crossed by Republicans than by Democrats.
Some argue that McCain is preferable to either Billary Clinton or the (presumed) Democratic Party nominee, Barack Obama. Others, such as Ann Coulter, suggest that McCain has been so hostile to his own party in recent years that at least we’d have a president we can oppose full-throatedly if the victor is a Democrat; a McCain would give the Democrats the agenda they want, and the Republicans all the blame the Democrats deserve. It’s hard enough when the media aims for that end. When a McCain would be as likely to blame and scapegoat his own party, and use his Absolute Moral Authority to paint even his most loyal adversaries as dishonorable….well, let’s say history, even very recent history, does give Coulter a point. McCain blows smoke up Democrat dresses while sliming his own side.
On the other hand…
If a Democrat wins, McCain won’t be happy. He might even become a Republican again to avenge his loss of “honor” at the despicable hands of an Obama or – can’t quite count out the Razorback Rasputins yet – Hillary. And if he wins in spite of their worst efforts to defeat him, perhaps President Mac will still remember the slights uses against him in the general election, and return to the fold.
Or at least pretend to.
Either way, something’s likely to happen this election cycle to piss off McCain, and since Romney has thrown in behind McCain (more vocally than Thompson, though less cordially than Rudy) and Huckabee is irrelevant (and becoming less likeable by the day), that will most likely come from a Democrat. One whom McCain has previously hailed for “honesty and integrity.”
We’ll see how long he sings THAT tune.
Mac will get my vote in November. He won’t be the first Republican I voted for with a nose plug in place, and likely won’t be the last. I did what I could for my primary candidates…now it’s time to close ranks, get our guy elected, and then remind him of (1) his promises, and (2) that sense of honor he keeps going on about, and (3) how hard he’ll have to work at (1) for (2) to have any meaning again.
Permalink
02.18.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 12:46 pm by Sulla
I’ve faced the near-inevitable conclusion that John McCain will be the GOP nominee. But his tendency to ridicule people I respect and praise people whom I and many on the Right loathe makes it almost a dare to see how many nosepulugs we can apply before we can pull the lever for Yuckmouth McCrankypants.
Case in point: praising Hillary Clinton this way:
I would say that they would be good in the respect they’re people of good character, honesty, integrity, when you look at that.
It’s the exact inverse of the 11th Commandment – McCain speaks ill ONLY of his fellow Republicans, while finding praise even for the GOP’s boogeymen in chief. Seriously, Mac? Hillary has good character, honesty and integrity, but Mitt does not?
Screw you, sir.
Forget Maverick’s lifetime ACU rating in the 80s; in the 21st century, he’s been closer to 50 than 90.
I can’t help but think that if McCain is Maverick, the GOP is Goose. And we all know how THAT turned out.
Permalink
02.13.08
Posted in Politics at 1:00 am by Sulla
Today’s Atlantic contests gave Obama substantial further momentum in the race to the Democratic nomination, and led McCain to his first solid wins in the “two-man race” since Super Tuesday. There’s still grumbling in the GOP, but a grim determination is starting to settle in: if we must settle for McCain, we cannot just sit back and allow Hillary – or, as seems more likely now, Obama – to win by default. There’s simply too much at stake.
Hillary has been downplaying the rash of big wins by her opponent, putting her hopes on the March 4 contests in Texas and Ohio. But she doesn’t have that long to turn things around; her inevitability is already shot, and now even her possibility of winning is dwindling. The sharks are circling, and Hillary’s campaign is fast resembling a chum bucket.
I do like a silver lining.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »