10. Sarah Palin has named her kids Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig.
9. She has taken on corrupt Alaskan bureaucrats. She has angered Senator Ted Stevens and strongly supported her Lieutenant Governor’s bid to unseat 18-term congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary.
8. In light of McCain’s health problems: Sarah Palin runs marathons.
7. She is a moose hunter. Not a Bull-Moose hunter, but actual Moose. (Mooses? Meese? Moosen?)
6. Palin’s husband works as a commerical fisherman and is in a labor union…can’t much more blue-collar than that.
5. Palin’s husband is a champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.
4. Her eldest son, Track, will be going to Iraq with the US Army next month, not unlike the other VP candidate
3. In 1984, Palin was named Miss Wasilla and runner-up as Miss Alaska.
2. Her youngest son, Trig, was born in April with Down’s Syndrome. Palin has made a point to talk about her son and her decision to not have an abortion despite knowing about Trig’s condition during pregnancy.
And….the best thing about Sarah Palin is:
Her parents were called this morning by their son-in-law to listen to the radio for a special announcement. They almost missed hearing about their daughter’s VP nomination because they were *drumroll* CARIBOU HUNTING.
Lest there be no doubt: the GOP has returned to the party of small government, increased transparency, and support the working-class!
I recently lamented the fact that Rachel Maddow got her own show. I was pretty upset that the channel which once bisected CNN and Fox News moved to the left of CNN in the past year through Olbermann’s transformation into leftist wacko and bringing on his sidekick, Maddow. Worse, supposedly non-partisanThe channel has gotten great ratings from Olbermann and Olympics coverage, so it’s not a bad business move. I won’t suggest that the media has a “higher calling” because I have sufficient faith in the viewers and the free market to promote effective, popular media.
MSNBC’s lone conservative, Joe Scarborough, was talking earlier about John McCain’s recent accomplishments in polling. Objectively speaking, Scarborough makes two valid points: a few months ago, the McCain campaign was dead in the water facing a double-digit deficit nationally AND the Obama campaign thought it was impossible to lose this race. Keith Olbermann has an open mic and blasts Scarborough:
The next morning, Scarborough was clearly angry. He had David Shuster, who is liberal, on his show. When Shuster hits Scarborough for not being critical enough of McCain, Scarborough loses it:
I don’t think the tirade was necessary or appropriate, but I can understand it. Scarborough has criticized Republicans and is wildly mocked among “conservative” circles. Also, Scarborough must be upset that Tim Russert passed away (Russert was known as a peacemaker and stabilizing force among network anchors), Andrea Mitchell has become an Obama surrogate without telling anyone, Olbermann has turned himself into a hitman, and Rachel Maddow now gets David Abrams’ timeslot in primetime. For Shuster to claim to be Indpendent was the final straw. Scarborough never wanted to be the token right-winger on the network. He wants to be a small-government former congressman who calls them as he sees them. The network he signed onto no longer exists.
I don’t think this is the end of MSNBC. I don’t think this will hurt ratings. Actually, it should improve ratings as people wait to see what train wreck will happen next. As sad as it is to see Joe completely lose it, hopefully this dispute will get people talking about MSNBC’s shift to the left. More likely, MSNBC’s leftists will further the unfair characterization of Scarborough as a bitter Republican who is watching mainstream America shift to the left.
Alaska, one of the reddest of red states, is now going to turn blue in 2 key races this November. Why? Because Alaskan Republicans are so close-minded and loyalist that they nominated two sitting ducks.
In the Senate race, Republican Ted Stevens is facing jail time over corruption charges. This after he has been widely ridiculed for being too old and too out of touch. Suggesting that the internet is a “series of tubes” certainly didn’t help. Naturally, Stevens won his primary last night with over 63% of the vote. Most Alaskan Republicans think that a potential criminal is the best representative of their party.
Stevens is trailing Democratic opponent, MarkBegich, by 13 points. Race over. Give the seat to the Dems right now, electoral projectors.
In the house race (note: Alaska only has one House seat due to its low population), reformer Sean Parnell trails old party hack, Don Young by a 1,000 votes with only 9 precincts remaining. This may need a recount, but this race should not have been close. Parnell is the Lieutenant Governor under the EXTREMELY popular Sarah Palin. He has fought to clean up Alaskan government and has served on multiple committees in the Alaska Legislature. Don Young is an 18-term congressman (yes, 18 terms. He has been in congress almost as long as William Ayers has been a terrorist!). He has engaged in a few shady, but not illegal, dealings. He is a typical do-nothing bureaucrat. While Parnell received endorsments from the National Review, Club for Growth, and Governor Palin, Don Young’s sole endorsement was from Mike Huckabee’s PAC. When two legitimate, conservative organizations and a highly popular governor support taking an incumbent out in a primary, that should have been a signal to Alaskan Republicans. Instead, they were sheep-like in their biannual support of Young.
If Alaskan Republicans are a microcosm, the GOP is in serious trouble. The party has lost the spirit and enthusiasm of 1994. Party loyalists and hacks are being prepared for the slaughter at the hands of power-hungry Democrats, moderates, and disaffected conservatives.
We need to look at candidates and then make decisions. Candidates define parties, not the other way around! If this means voting for a small-government, libertarian Democrat, so be it. This is not about getting 537 (435 in house, 100 in senate, and 2 in White House) people with an “R” affixed to their name on C-SPAN broadcasts. This is about getting 537 people who support freedom, liberty, and the American way. Democrats have never understood that concept. I’m starting to fear we don’t anymore.
Edit: This post has been edited for better accuracy. However, I will not mention the name of the insignificant Democratic House candidate. He is of no consequence since a competent Republican could easy trounce any Democrat and any competent Democrat will trounce Don Young.
I’m currently sitting between two of my liberal buddies and figured I should document my thoughts.
(note: one of them comes up with, “I consider myself progressive, thank you very much”. The other comes up with, “I’m a socialist, if anything”.)
Nancy Pelosi: I only caught the tail end of it, but I heard a lot about Barack Obama being right and John McCain being wrong. It was kinda funny, actually. The crowd was very quiet…I’ll cut the Dems some slack and say that they are too busy eating their organic, tri-color food in organic packaging. (Reminder: I’m not kidding. The DNC has strict rules on food being 70% local and/or organic and at least 3 colors must be represented…but Obama is BI-racial, not TRI-racial. Perhaps he isn’t as progressive as we were told)
highlight: Pelosi says that Obama has brought bi-partisanship back to Washington. WHEN? The ethics bill and …um….well….
Oh, yea. I forgot. History doesn’t matter in Obamaland!
Tribute to Jimmy Carter. Democrats haven’t realized they should pretend he never existed? Democrat is elected in a very weak economy, facing a global scourge by an enemy of the US, and facing an energy shortage and then absolutely makes it worse? THIS is the image? Go for it, guys!
Jesse Jackson Jr.: His attempts to channel his father and Barack Obama fall a bit short. He tried hard. And if we know anything about liberal ideology, if you try, that’s good enough. We can always add a government subsidy to hook him up. Somehow his father’s goal of physically emasculating Obama goes unmentioned.
Highlight: Jesse Jackson Jr. talks about great moments in American history; Lexington & Concord, Appomattox (apparently not the courthouse), Selma, and Denver. Really? Revolutionary War. Civil War. Civil Rights movement. Obama’s nomination.
it’s official, they’ve gone off the deep end.
Caroline Kennedy comes out to introduce Ted Kennedy. She is a train wreck of a speaker. She seems awkward and uncomfortable. She also makes the obligatory comparison of Obama to JFK.
Random list of “Democratic” accomplishments that she is attributing to Ted Kennedy.
“If your taxes are about $5,000 too much because of unnecessary government, Teddy is your senator, too!”
Highlight: There are about 16 camera cut-aways to Maria Shriver, a member of the Kennedy Clan. No Schwarzenegger, thankfully. Is this a reminder that there are other living Kennedys? Or is it to suggest that Arnie doesn’t support Obama.
The tribute to Ted Kennedy is odd. It’s more documentary than tribute. There is an odd infatuation with the ocean…I guess too much of a hardened conservative to get this. Ted fought for better equipment for troops. DIDN’T OBAMA OPPOSE FUTURE SPENDING IN IRAQ? Wow. The Democrats are now officially supporting stances on key issues that their own Presidential nominee proudly opposes?
Let the cannibalism continue!
Ted is alright. The speech is pretty good and is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme. It’s rosy. It’s optimistic.
lull in the action as commentators talk about Ted Kennedy’s legacy and the attempts to humanize Barack Obama. Does it bother anyone else that Obama needs to be humanized? Shouldn’t all presidential candidates be human, anyway? Unless, of course, he is *drumroll* MANCHURIAN!
Highlight: “The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years towards regulating values”. Wait, wait, wait. The Democratic Party is the one that DOESN’T regulate values? Was that before or after Democrats waged a war on trans fats, SUVs, and the minimum wage while supporting hate crime legislation and Affirmative-Action. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?
enter: some random former Republican congressman from Iowa. This guy is a vanilla speaker and clearly there to prop up the notion of Barack’s bipartisanship. Is this the best they have? They think this guy, who was never famous and will never be famous, is the answer? Damn, even the Republicans didn’t pretend to be bipartisan in 2004 and they had this guy:
Claire McCaskill: Senator from Missouri
She starts off way too cheery. It’s a little creepy. Is this how Obama wants Clinton? A Stepford Senator?
She tells her story and her husband’s story and calls Barack’s and Michelle’s American stories. She skips out on when Michelle became a racist in college and Barack was supported by William Ayers and married by Jeremiah Wright.
On second thought, her creepy smile isn’t so bad. She is doing a nice job providing a “pragmatic” and “friendly” view of Obama. I could see middle-aged mothers seeing themselves in McCaskill and playfully agreeing. This might be the best speech of the night. The only hitch for Democrats is that McCaskill will only make the contrast between her and Michelle that much more obvious.
Here we go: Michelle Obama!
Here is her bio pic. It’s about her love for South Side. This attempt to humanize her is really laying it on thick. Michelle loves her kids (I’d hope). She has reached out to others (unless they are proud Americans. Then they’re ignorant). She makes people feel better (unless they are greedy capitalists. Then they should become teachers)
She is introduced by her brother, who happens to be the basketball coach of Oregon State (Go beavers?). There is a series of odd basketball analogies. I’m a sports fan, and even I think this is bs. He tries to deliver this line on Michelle and Barack helping the American people and it comes across flat. He doesn’t even believe his own crap!
Here’s Michelle! She is wearing a kelly green dress-like thing. There is some sort of broach (brooch? breach? I’m not sure what its called) at the neckline.
How many times she has said “change: 1
9:39 CST - she plays the humanizing card with jokes and sentimentality about her family
9:43 CST - give dignity to strangers (the same bitter American strangers or the friendly, self-righteous Princeton undergrads who hate black people?)
9:44 CST - America should be a place where you can make it if you try (unless you support an expansion of unemployment programs and government entitlement programs, then you don’t have to try)
9:45 CST - “We settle for the world as it is, not as it should be” (life lessons from Ray Nagin!)
9:46 CST - Obama channels woman’s suffrage and MLK…in case we couldn’t tell she was a black woman (my “progressive” friend smirks as he reminds me that Switzerland did not have woman’s suffrage until 1979).
9:47 CST - Michelle Obama supports Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The Clinton reference gets a huge ovation (the contrast between Michelle and Hillary is too clear to be overcome, sorry speech writers)
9:49 CST - “I love this country” - THIS BRINGS A STANDING OVATION FROM THE CROWD. In case you haven’t figured it out yet: the Democrats are definitely in trouble when there is surprise and excitement to hear that a potential first lady loves her country.
9:51 CST - “Give each child a world-class education”…by throwing money at the problem? by supporting the federal government’s incursion into education? The same federal incursion that Democrats condemn in their staunch opposition to NCLB? Hypocrisy: it’s in the air.
9:54 CST - She’s almost crying talking about how Barack wanted to give his daughter a father’s love. (soooo we ARE allowed to talk about how Barack had an absentee Kenyan father who had scores of children through multiple women. Including one child who currently starves to death Kenya, only meeting his famous half-brother twice in 30 years?)
9:55 CST - “A girl from teh South Side can..” do whatever she wants. (Was that the WHITE values of success and high-paying jobs in law firms? I can’t keep her racist tendencies straight)
9:57 CST - Barack shows up via live feed from Kansas City. He shows some comedic chops with the reference to his courting of Michelle and his “persistence’.
My thoughts: I think Michelle gave a good speech and played up the Trophy Wife that Americans expect from a First Lady. She gave a nice look at Barack Obama as a person, but Barack still has serious (and legitimate) obstacles to be seen as anything other than elitist socialist. David Brooks had great analysis saying that Michelle missed the opportunity to make Barack a person, not just a savior.
I hope to be live blogging each night of the DNC and provide a post each morning on a DNC-related topic. So log on here each night this week for all sorts of shenanigans.
The rhetoric will get more ridiculous, but I’ll be sure to stay Pragmatically Political
We are counting down to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado here at blogivists. The coronation of Barack Obama as the savior of humanity is nearly complete. I’m not a huge fan of the Democrats, but I don’t wrecklessly bash them, either. However, I will put some fun facts up.
1. Kwame Kilpatrick will be attending the convention. In case you were curious, Mr. Kilpatrick is the disgraced mayor of Detroit. Aside from facing previous scandals, he most recently was thrown in jail for violating his probation after assaulting a policeman. The cop’s offense? He was serving a subpoena to one of Kilpatrick’s “friends”.
I know you think Kwame’s mother must be very proud of her baby boy, right? Well, the voters in the Detroit area thought so highly of her as to re-nominate her as the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s 13th congressional district.
If you were concerned about Democrats doing the Larry Craig tap dance, just do the Kilpatrick shove, find an attractive mater and tell him/her that John Edwards says “help is on the way”.
2. The Democrats have no idea what to do with Hillary Clinton. The woman whose husband has been the face of the party for almost two decades and nearly won the nomination is stuck in purgatory. The party needs to satisfy Clintonites and win them over. However, this convention must be about Barack Obama. They have settled on letting her speak on Tuesday night. Traditionally, Monday goes to someone cool, Tuesday goes to a rising star, Wednesday to the VP, and Thursday to the candidate. The Dems made the wise move of giving Hillary her time in the sun on Tuesday night. One small hitch: SHE WILL NOT BE KEYNOTING! Hillary is being upstaged by *drum roll* Mark Warner. Way to go, DNC. You found a way to make a compromise that ticks off both sides.
3. While Hillary will be speaking Tuesday night, Monday night’s keynote will be Michelle Obama. I may be opposed to Michelle more than most, but this is an unfathomably bad idea. Her favorable-unfavorable is 30-35! When more people think negatively than positively about you, it’s unfortunate. When you are married to a presidential candidate and speaking in front of tens of millions, it’s a trainwreck.
Some of the things I hope Michelle brings up during her DNC speech:
A.
B. Her senior thesis at Princeton ranges from scary to racist. Some of the highlights (and these are quotes)
i. “…I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation” - since when is being successful a “White” goal?
ii. “Predominately White universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students comprising the bulk of their enrollments,” - aside from capitalizing “white”, why is offering unparalleled opportunities a “White” thing and why is it bad? Princeton doesn’t force anyone to take racist jobs as capitalist pigs.
iii. “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before” - this coming from the wife of the first post-racial candidate? Are you ‘effing kidding me? NO. ‘EFFING. WAY.
Michelle Obama is so scary that Democrats have created the… Michelle Obama Truth Squad. Funny, I don’t remember Laura Bush ever getting a Truth Squad.
4. The actual convention itself redefines what it means to be liberal. Here are some facts:
A. The convention will have 800 people in a trash brigade to make sure all garbage is disposed of properly (no word on whether or not Obama’s speeches count as “recyclable trash”)
B. The host committee lamented its inability to find 15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. And the packs have to be made in the USA. By unionized labor. And out of organic cotton.
C. All food served is highly regulated. Fried food will not be allowed. Each meal must include at least three of these colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white. 70% of ingredients must be grown organically and/or locally.
D. Those sinning, conservative, greedy capitalists at Coors finally have come to reason - and will donate biofuel made from beer waste. This one ticks me off the most, because every college student knows: there’s no such thing as “beer waste”. Wasting beer is downright un-American!
Beer waste? Republicans don’t believe in beer waste. They believe in beer-amids!
E. The DNC is actually proud of their insanity and showcases its arrogance here.
So there it is. The Democratic National Convention is simply unbelievable. It is over-the-top liberal and oppressive in its inner-workings.
The only way it will win voters is if this country is farther to the left than I can possibly imagine. Please let it NOT be pragmatically political.
No ‘Effing Way is back. Considering it took last week off, it’s hungry. But it isn’t any hungrier than 33 year-old Tremayne Durham was!
Mr. Durham is a New Yorker who traveled to Oregon to settle a matter. Durham purchased an ice cream truck for $18,000, and then decided he didn’t want to be an ice cream man. So the BadHumor Man was denied his request to return the truck for a refund. He then killed a former employee of the truck company.
In exchange for a guilty plea, yielding a life sentence with a chance for parole after 30 years, Durham wanted a break from jail food. So he got KFC fried chicken, Popeye’s fried chicken, mashed potatoes, cole slaw, carrot cake, and ice cream last month. He now receives his second (and final) feast, with an Italian theme: calzones, lasagna, pizza, and ice cream.
As with every N.E.G., here are some thoughts:
1. How crappy is your lawyer that this is the best you can do? You bypass a trial, ensuring at minimum 30 years in the slammer, to get two dinners? Hell, the dinners aren’t even all that nice. Fast food fried chicken and sides are not exactly the classiest options. Hell, I’d sooner have a chipotle burrito with chips and guacamole. Whatever happened to the good ol’ days of Prime Rib or Surf and Turf?
2. Plea bargaining:good politics and bad policy. The obvious benefits are a guarenteed conviction and it saves the time and money of a trial (and the inevitable appeal). The clear cost is that it doesn’t provide a “fair” trial or allow prosecutors to seek maximum punishments. I won’t pretend to offer any groundbreaking analysis, but I will pose this question: can you put a price tag on justice?
We refuse to negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances, but gladly cave to any alleged criminal who is willing to take a lesser sentence. Can a country which claims to have the moral highground on everything legitimately not pursue justice?
I say yes. I put my faith in District Attorneys to determine if a plea bargain is appropriate. Also, I’m relatively at peace with putting convicts in the Witness Protection Program if they testify against other criminals. It’s more important that kingpins are behind bars than it is that their mid-level henchmen get their just desserts.
That’s just me being Pragmatically Political.
Have a good weekend and be sure to check out Telemundo, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, and possibly C-SPAN for all your Olympic coverage!
So I’m pretty sure I’m blaspheming in the House of Free Markets, but I admit to being liberal, and even statist, on one issue: healthcare. I’m not Michael Moore-ing the issue and going to assault people with sob stories, manipulations, and ignorance of the facts on the ground. Instead, I think there are moral, and potentially economic, reasons to at least mandate healthcare.
I think the most pressing issue over medical assistance is morality. As an agnostic, I maintain that the only thing that we can know in this life is ourselves. There may or may not be a higher power, but it is not for me to legislate based on the possibility of an afterlife or upholding some deity’s desire. Honestly, even if there is a “heavenly being”, how could I possibly know what It wants me to do? So all I can go with is my life. Without some sort of objective moral standard to guide my actions, I do what I can to live a good life. With that said, I think the most important thing to uphold is the value of human life. I’m too damn smart to even approach the abortion side of the life issue, but I will address prolonging the lives of human beings who are out of the womb.
If the government’s obligation is to protect and preserve your life and liberty, how can it NOT offer you health care? The United States in 2008 has the largest economy in human history. It has a population that is better educated, safer, and has a higher standard of living than any other society. Ignoring the future and looking solely at hard data, this is the most impressive collection of human beings throughout the history of the species. For a society so advanced to simply let people die is oddly horrific.
My plan:
My general premise is that health care should be like auto insurance: you have to have it. It is also loosely based on Massachusetts’ health care plan under Mitt Romney. As in the current market, there are myriad types of health insurance programs which range in cost and quality of care. Everyone in the country receives a baseline government subsidy to buy a bare minimum health program. There would be minimal co-pays and additional costs to prevent people from going to the doctor for a hangnail, which would clog up lines.
For those with the means, they can use the subsidy and their own personal wealth to buy better quality health insurance. For the wealthy and insured, just think of this way: your taxes increase by $250 and you get a $200 credit to buy health insurance. You then buy your $1,000 health insurance that includes gold plated needles and state-of-the-art equipment.
At this point, the uninsured do not receive health care. Those who choose not to register for a health insurance plan (for reasons that would be totally beyond me, since you are getting free health care), they receive nothing. The emergency rooms would be less busy because of preventive medicine and would have no moral obligation to treat those without insurance.
If you want to see it from a different angle: my program is also analogous to food stamps. It allows the needy to make the purchase of essential items for basic survival. In order to best spread the program, I have elected to also give benefits to those who can afford to make payments. Though, I’m not unopposed to only allowing those make under $40,000 (or some other arbitrary number) to get government subsidies.
The counterarguments (and accompanying counter-counterarguments):
1. People are going to die anyway, the government need not concern itself with prolonging the inevitable
People will die. However, if we accept that the government has no obligation to prolong life, that it should not have a military or offer any services which improve lifespan and/or quality of life. If we accept as a general rule that prolonging the inevitable is unnecessary, we should commit mass suicide right now to get it over with.
2. This is going to cripple and discourage doctors and pharmaceutical workers
Not entirely. Doctors can still make oodles of money in the public and private sector. Considering how much money preventive care saves, I’m down the government paying a little extra to doctors…hell, let’s have merit pay for doctors who take the time to find illnesses and save long-term medical costs. Also, I don’t want the government covering plastic surgery or other optional procedures. If a doctor wants to make millions giving botox injections, let’s go for it.
Pharmaceutical companies would be largely unaffected by mandating health care. There need not be a wholesale reform of patent laws, so drugs can still cost $20/pill to promote further Research & Development. Moreover, putting more Americans on healthcare will make drug use more affordable, increasing the supply of customers to drug companies.
3. This is an affront on my personal liberties! I should buy as much healthcare as I want!
That’s fine. If we make health care like auto insurance, then you can buy as high or low quality health care as you want. Buy a policy that offers top of the line services which covers all doctors and provides the most up-to-date procedures. I am not arguing that all Americans should have equal health care, just that all Americans should have some form of it.
4. It is grossly inefficient!
Not really. Considering the incredibly high costs of Emergency Room visits by the uninsured, preventive medicine is much cheaper. Offering a tax credit/stipend to the poor to buy low-level health care is more cost-efficient than Hillary or Obama’s plans to put all Americans on government-run programs. My plan still has privatized medicine.
5. It’s the free-market! Any Econ course worth its salt teaches you that the free-market is the most efficient producer of goods and services
Yes, but any Econ course also acknowledges externalities. In the case of the externality of the economic (in terms of work productivity) benefit of health care for poor folk, I’m willing to let the government use my (and your) tax dollars.
Moreover, preventive medicine is an investment that the poor can’t make.
Given the nature of this particular blog environment, I suspect my views are unpopular. I hope to spark intelligent discourse. If you disagree, please drop a comment.
After spending a week in sunny New Jersey, I feel more subdued than usual. Despite my inability to get angry, I can muster just enough fervor to be a bit frustrated by Barack Obama’s manipulation of the racial issue. His comment that he “doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills” is about as explicit as implicitly racial comments can get. If he wants to run as a black man running for president, that is his prerogative…I also think it’s political suicide. However, he can’t run as a black man to liberals and a politician to moderates.
To be fair, I think both candidates have bungled the race issue. McCain should not be attacking Obama on race. McCain’s campaign made the ridiculous claim that Obama wants race to be an issue. As a political statement, that’s absurd. No black candidate wants his race to be a voting issue in a country with quite a few people who will not vote for an African-American. By firing on a candidate who happens to be a minority, the image is too perfect for Democrats. The old curmudgeon white guy is making race an issue with a younger African-American. How 1960s can this scenario get? When McCain looks racist by making unnecessary accusations about the race card, Obama wins. If Obama is playing the race card, McCain can best protect his image by ignoring it and letting the media (and American public) decide.
As I heard one Democratic strategist remind me, Barack Obama is actually bi-racial. If he’s half-white, he can’t possibly play the race card! Yet, Obama is half-white only when it is politically suitable. Obama has a very dark complexion, married an African-American woman, joined an African-American church, and then made referred to himself as black with the “dollar bills” comment. Obama uses his half-white heritage to further enhance his own African-American identity. Obama calls his white grandmother a “typical white woman”. I won’t begin to predict the political fallout if McCain called Obama a “typical black person”. Hell, I don’t think Hillary could have gotten away with a much less offensive characterization if she called Obama “a typical man”. Obama has positioned himself as the ultimate martyr: a black man who has endured not just the horrors of being Black in America, but also the ability to understand white racism.
However, Obama does want race to be an issue. The fact is that even those living under a rock know that Obama is black. If McCain doesn’t make it an issue, then the racists will hit the polls and keep a black man out of the White House. Moreover, if race is kept under the rug, then people can freely bash Obama without the fear of being called racist. Once becomes an issue, any criticism of Obama could be seen as a manifestation of latent racism. In short, racism can manifest itself only in the most subtle, covert, and indirect of ways.
Princeton professor Tali Mendelberg probes this phenomenon in The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Mendelberg uses a study to test the effect of race on public opinion. Participants were split into two groups, each being asked their thoughts on a new welfare program. One group was told about a welfare program without any racial references. The other was told that the program would largely serve African-Americans. Those who were confronted with race as an issue supported the measure more than those allowed to be passively racist.
One of the best political examples is George H. W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad. During the 1988 campaign, Bush ran an ad criticizing Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’ furlough program, which gave weekend passes to prisoners on good behavior. One such man, WIllie Horton used his weekend pass and ended up killing someone. A picture of Horton, an African-American, was shown prominently. The ad did not call Horton “black”, but gave viewers more than enough social ammo.
As someone who legally cannot consume alcohol, this post is a bit of my league (or age-bracket). Regardless, I found this morning’s Red Eye cover story to unusually shocking. Apparently, some are cracking down on mixed drinks that contain more than the “standard 1.5 oz” of liquor. Critics, also known as bar owners and prohibitionists, say that bartenders too frequently don’t use jiggers to measure out alcohol. Instead, they “free pour” and use their own experience and intuition. This trend decentralizes the drink-making process, letting bartenders pour customers more than the allotted amount. The concerns of over-pouring are two-fold: money and well-being. Bar owners are terrified that bartenders who top you off are rapidly depleting inventory. Social welfare experts are more concerned that those who receive strong drinks are getting too drunk.
To this, I have three responses/thoughts:
1. Bar owners are frightened that they can’t keep track of inventory? Bartenders work for tips, not for the measly wages they get from the bar. So it is in their best interest to keep customers happy. That’s why frequent, high-tipping customers often get a little extra or will sneak a drink on the house. So are they surprised by this? No, it’s part of the business. When you stop charging $10 for some soda and cheap gin, I (or my legal counterpart) will sympathize. Clubs and bars put huge markup on alcohol, so don’t expect public support that you are running out of Skol faster than you thought.
2. Prohibitionists are not-so-cleverly masking their actual argument. By pretending to be concerned about drinkers’ welfare, they hide their bold opposition to the notion of drinking. People don’t go into a night saying, “I must have 8 drinks tonight or my life will be incomplete”. They say, “I want to get a little intoxicated and enjoy myself”. If I (read: legal counterpart) am 3 drinks in and feel drunk, then I will stop. If I am 9 drinks in and hardly feel the effects, I might go in for another. All things (such as sleep, food, and tolerance) held equal, upping alcohol content will decrease total consumption. That’s why beer is served in 12 oz. bottles and liquor is served in 1.5 oz shots. Surely people of all sobrieties can recognize the difference.To simplify the social reasons for drinking down to alcohol per glass completely misses the point. Reactionaries have turned the ideological and rhetorical equivalent of Malibu into Everclear.
3. Do we have nothing better to do with our time than study this nonsense? People get all dressed up, wait on line for hours, and go to bars/clubs for the experience, NOT because they like dropping $15 to buy the cute girl in the black dress a cosmopolitan. I’m all for pragmatism, but the whole point of a bar is to not appear pragmatic. Bar goers enjoy not worrying about things like how exact the jigger’s measurements are. A crackdown on free-pouring dehumanizes the process and destroys what it means to go to a bar. Bars would generate more attendance (and profits) if they let this crap go.
Honestly, the social police is seriously killing my buzz.
Readers, I have a secret. A deep, dark secret. One that is so telling, it could ruin my legitimacy as a politico. I, Pragmatically Political, am a huge sports fan. I will watch and analyze virtually any competitive activity. I specialize in baseball, basketball, football, and college. I’d be lying if I didn’t say Northwestern’s Big 10 membership was a monster draw for me. Yesterday was to be the sports fans’ dream. And so begins today’s tale.
I had the best laid plans. After work, I was to buy the PS2 version of NCAA ‘09 and watch the all-Star game while testing out the new game. Instead, what ensued was a 7 hour marathon of stress, disappointment, and frustration.
I’m reasonably sure that I’m the only video gamer who still plays on a PlayStation2. I’m too cheap, lazy, and indecisive to decide if I want a PS3 or an XBOX360 (suggestions welcome!). The prices keep falling, the bugs are being removed, and I have to assume that eventually (read: by Christmas 2013) one system will reign supreme. Until then, I’m playing a game with limited graphics and fewer features without online capability and on a 17 inch used TV that I bought off a guy for $20. The game itself is good, but not great. The gameplay is still smooth, but EA Sports added very few new features/options to the PS2 version. I think I’m finally becoming tired with the series that has defined my childhood/adolescence/young adulthood.
I started my Dynasty mode as my beloved Northwestern Wildcats and haven’t won my first 3 matchups, losing to the likes of football lightweights Syracuse, Duke, and Southern Illinois. In short, EA made this year’s version ridiculously difficult. Any pass that isn’t directed to a receiver who is WIDE open is an interception. I threw 8 interceptions on my first 11 pass attempts against Syracuse. Since I prefer to play on Heisman (the hardest difficulty setting), I will pretend that last night never happened and start a new dynasty tonight on All-American (the 2nd hardest setting). In short, I feel emasculated, embarrassed, and humbled. Machine: 1, Man: 0.
When I wasn’t embarrassing myself and my revered Northwestern Wildcats, I figured I could enjoy the All-Star game. Being on Central time, the game started an hour earlier than I’m used to, so I hoped to catch up on some sleep. Somehow the sports deities thought it would be funny to have the game last until nearly 2 AM EST. Each team blew huge opportunities to take the lead/win it outright. Timely defense, base-running blunders, and clutch pitching were the order of the night (and early morning). The clear dud was Florida 2nd baseman Dan Uggla. This all-star grounded into an inning-ending double play with runners at 1st and 3rd in the top of the 10th inning. He then made two consecutive errors to put runners at 1st and 3rd for the AL in the bottom of the inning…he was saved by solid defense and timely pitching from Aaron Cook. In the top of the 12th, Uggla struck out with the bases loaded and one out. A simple sacrifice fly would have given the NL the lead, but Uggla failed again.
When all was said and done, this was Dan Uggla’s night: 0 for 4 with 3 strikeouts and 6 men left on base. He also had THREE errors. Congratulations Dan Uggla, you have now become the focus of a witch hunt for fans of every NL team which thinks it has a chance to get to the World Series. Dan Uggla, meet Steve Bartman.
So that was my night. I sucked at playing an inferior game on an inferior system. Then I cost myself 2-3 hours of sleep staying up all night to watch the NL suck it up.
In case you were curious, the only player on an all-Star roster to not play was Tim Lincecum of my beloved San Francisco Giants. This stud pitcher was not available because he was hospitalized with flu-like symptoms. In a game which showcases the best of the best, I didn’t get a chance to see my favorite baseball player. Awesome. As bad as my day was, I can’t imagine it being much worse than having the undignified title as the only player to not appear in what might be the best all-star game of all-time.
Powered by FireStats
