Political Culture: The Lipstick … and the Pig

Discuss.

1. The Looking For Truthtellers blog pointed me to a recent Michael Barone column where he opines, “For more than a week we've seen the No. 1 person on the Democratic ticket argue that he's better prepared than the No. 2 person on the Republican ticket. That's not a winning argument even if you win it. ” LOL.

2. I would like to believe that Sarah Palin really wants to reform Washington. I'm not sure I do quite yet. We don't need mere reform. It's gone beyond that. Every nook and cranny of government, in every branch, needs a proctoscope exam. There's a lot of effluvia clogging the system. Oh, I forgot. Sarah will be serving at McCain's pleasure. He'll call the shots. Still, it would be good to have a non-beltway voice in the Oval Office. By the time she gets her shot at the Presidency will she have been in D.C. too long, i.e. will she have gone native?

3. Can she be President? There are many people praying for it. The truth is, our country needs a miracle. I don't think Sarah Palin is that miracle, but she looks better to me than many other alternatives. She appears to have an Iron Lady sort of constitution. I know that horrifies the left. I can't help but support anything that horrifies the left.

The first point above is a good one–I recently heard someone say that the Democrats “defeated Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle, but they couldn't beat Richard Nixon and George Bush.” But beyond all the GOP bullshit about Democrats “dismissing Sarah Palin as good-looking,” the real point here is that any evidence showing how unqualified Palin is actually SHOULD reflect badly on McCain for his stupidity and dishonor in choosing someone so unqualified for the VP slot.

The only questions are, can the Dems make sure to turn every criticism of Palin in McCain's direction, and are Americans smart enough to make the connection? So far, the answer to both questions is no. The Dems can fix the first problem…the second is a bigger challence.

McCain is smart in one respect. He picked someone who is essentially criticism-proof. Any negative mojo thrown at Palin gets tossed off with the assertion that the questioner was sexist. So what Obama needs to do is get arch enemies Mrs. O and Mrs. Clinton to call a truce so they can chew out Sarah, then let him handle McCain on solid footing.

They'll drive the “sexism” thing into the ground the same way they've done with the “POW” thing – they're getting started already. One of the McCain surrogates just today called Tina Fey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/carly-fiorina-criticizes_n_126533.html rel=”nofollow”>sexist.

She's got a lot of nerve dreaming that she wants to be President. What next, women getting equal pay? The gall of this woman……

That's fine, Jenny–every girl should dream–but if you want to be president someday, shouldn't you do some of the things that might…you know…QUALIFY you to run for president? Like keep up with current events, even?

I don't really care about Palin's alleged ambition.

I would like to see Steve Schmidt's career ended (BURIED) in as quick and brutal a manner as possible. Woe be anyone who gets in the way.

A lot of the righties I talk to express a similar optimism, or desperate need to believe McCain is just gaming the electorate in order to win the election, at which point he'll revert to his old “maverick” form. Interesting how this is the same crowd whooping it up about Obama's hope-based campaign.

Jenny, your “sexism” complaints are an absolute joke–even more so than your ludicrous claims about Palin's experience. The entire world is laughing at you Republicans and your “suddenly we're feminists if it will win Hillary voters” schtick. Where was your feminism when Democrats were trying to get the ERA into the Constitution, or at any other of the many moments in history when Republicans blocked equal pay and other women's rights?

As of this week, with financial institutions in the tank and McCain spinning furiously to cover up his own stated belief that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” (duh, I meant that the people are the fundamentals…don't Democrats support the people? duh…), this election has gotten way too serious for Sarah Palin (or McCain's tattered credibility) to be taken seriously. But as long as we're trading facts about Palin's “experience” (quotation marks necessary), here's one for you: On July 21, when Obama traveled from Iraq to Jordan to Israel (and had substantive meetings with each nation's head of state), he set foot in more nations outside North America than Palin has in her entire life. And by the way, he did it again three days later (Germany to Paris to London).

I don't loathe Republicans, I loathe Republican politics and ideas because they've been destroying my country for more than a decade and they promise more of nothing but the same. And god, I hope I come across as immature–for fuck's sake, I write a political column for people who ignore it and read about has-been musicians instead, and in case you hadn't noticed above, I put up a picture of Anna Nicole Smith and said it was Sarah Palin!

Do you have any idea how many people these days swear they're not Republicans?

Your “economic” aren't really worth commenting on, but here goes: Alaska's economy, according to this page (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/135…), is about the same as that of Belarus. Whew! THAT's a relief! At least our potential future vice president could “lead” an economy the size of a former Soviet republic!!!!! (And she'd probably “lead” it into the ground, if the current state of Republican economy-”leading” is any indication.) Any FIRST-WORLD nations you'd like to put Palin in charge of? (BTW, the capital of Belarus is Minsk, which I believe is where John McCain said he would place his most trusted economic advisor, Phil Gramm, after Gramm called us a “nation of whiners” in a “mental recession.” How did that turn out?)

And this article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008…) details how Palin and the McCain campaign have exaggerated the details of her single (ever!) overseas trip. She claimed to have gone to Germany, Kuwait, the “Iraqi battle zone,” and Ireland. Well, the first two stops actually happened–but she never got past the Kuwait-Iraq border into Iraqi territory, much less into a “battle zone,” and it also was revealed that the Ireland stop was just for refueling the plane.

I don't think Palin's foreign-travel itinerary is a major campaign issue any more than anyone else does–just as there is no actual fact in the world that would make Palin qualified for the vice presidency right now. But if she and the McCain campaign think her travel is important enough to blatantly lie about–the same way they've lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, her lust for earmarks, and who knows what else–then it's worth calling them on it.

Oh, and here's the thing, Jenny–I don't really give a rat's ass about the fact that Obama has “no executive experience.” He's a U.S. Senator, and a very smart man with very good ideas about where to take the country. By the way, he's been the chief executive of a presidential campaign for pretty much exactly the same amount of time that Palin's been governor of Alaska, and I'd say Obama's done a pretty goddamn good job of it. McCain's got “no executive experience,” either, so your argument only takes you so far unless Palin winds up running the country–in which case, heaven help us.

“Robotically pander to the same tired poop.” That is a cute–though utterly meaningless–phrase. Congratulations. I'm going to try to work that into the logo for my column.

Whatever. I choose not to share your opinion about Congress automatically corrupting everyone in it to the point where nothing they say or do can be trusted. I simply choose not to be that cynical. We have a system of governance, and while every branch of it certainly needs profound improvement (“the president isn't the problem”? REALLY????), I'd rather fight to hold those who operate in it to a higher standard than cynically turn my back and reject it out of hand. “A pox on both your houses (of Congress)” won't get anything done.

I also choose not to subscribe to the theory that every single earmark is bad or worthless or evidence of corruption. An “earmark” is merely a budgetary item that originates with an individual legislator, not with the executive branch. But even those earmarks that are actually for well-intentioned, worthwhile projects are suspect because of the PROCESS by which they are included in bills, often out of public view and with little to no opportunity for debate.

A new process must be created by which such projects are exposed to daylight and debated openly, if necessary; when an earmark IS bad or worthless or corrupt, it should be eliminated from the budget, either via a legislative mechanism that needs to be implemented or via a line-item veto, which I support on a limited basis.

Wikipedia notes: “The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780, worth $18.3 billion … Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks, representing $13.2 billion, as 'Pork Projects,' significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years.” So, while a watchdog group says most of the MONEY spent on earmarks is “pork,” less than a quarter of the NUMBER of all such projects are not worthwhile. Find a way to eliminate a relatively small fraction of earmarks, and you'll save most of the total money currently allocated to them–and you'll also save a large number of worthwhile projects.

Comparing numbers or dollar amounts of earmarks requested or inserted by Palin, Obama or Biden is a red herring (though Palin's again simply lying about it in order to burnish her credentials as a McCain-alike). McCain's obsession with them only LOOKS like the stalwart position of a “maverick” “reformer.” It's really just another way of implementing the arch-conservative principle that government shouldn't actually DO anything much, or raise or spend much. It's an ideological stance, not a reformist one.

I agree that the process by which such funding gets passed into law needs to be changed dramatically, and that new mechanisms must be implemented to weed out worthless or corrupt projects. But I don't agree that there should be no mechanism by which individual legislators can insert worthwhile projects into funding bills. By the way, the Constitution agrees with me (Article 1, Section 9)–and an attempt by McCain or anyone else to eliminate earmarks entirely, by vetoing every one that comes across his desk, might not stand up to a court challenge.

As for Palin's economic prowess, I'm waiting for you to delineate exactly how she “leads an economy” in Alaska in a way that's so frickin' difficult that you'd “like to see me try.” What, precisely, is a governor's role in “leading an economy,” beyond submitting budget requests that are developed for her/him by the various government agencies, and then working with the legislature to get them passed? That sounds like politics & governing, not exactly Keynesian economic theory (or Carly Fiorina-level management, if one of McCain's own stuck-up surrogates is to be believed).

I mean, I suppose I only went to one university, not six–and I only went to one other university to get a master's degree–but honestly, when your pitch for Palin's brilliance gets to the point where you're issuing schoolyard challenges like “I'd like to see you try,” you might want to re-examine.

Good luck with whomever you vote for…or don't vote for. Ross Perot's still alive, isn't he? Maybe if you round up everybody who agrees with you to write his name in on your ballots…

Well, come back in 49 days. I'm guessing you'll be disappointed either way.

Whatever. I choose not to share your opinion about Congress automatically corrupting everyone in it to the point where nothing they say or do can be trusted. I simply choose not to be that cynical. We have a system of governance, and while every branch of it certainly needs profound improvement (“the president isn't the problem”? REALLY????), I'd rather fight to hold those who operate in it to a higher standard than cynically turn my back and reject it out of hand. “A pox on both your houses (of Congress)” won't get anything done.

I also choose not to subscribe to the theory that every single earmark is bad or worthless or evidence of corruption. An “earmark” is merely a budgetary item that originates with an individual legislator, not with the executive branch. But even those earmarks that are actually for well-intentioned, worthwhile projects are suspect because of the PROCESS by which they are included in bills, often out of public view and with little to no opportunity for debate.

A new process must be created by which such projects are exposed to daylight and debated openly, if necessary; when an earmark IS bad or worthless or corrupt, it should be eliminated from the budget, either via a legislative mechanism that needs to be implemented or via a line-item veto, which I support on a limited basis.

Wikipedia notes: “The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780, worth $18.3 billion … Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks, representing $13.2 billion, as 'Pork Projects,' significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years.” So, while a watchdog group says most of the MONEY spent on earmarks is “pork,” less than a quarter of the NUMBER of all such projects are not worthwhile. Find a way to eliminate a relatively small fraction of earmarks, and you'll save most of the total money currently allocated to them–and you'll also save a large number of worthwhile projects.

Comparing numbers or dollar amounts of earmarks requested or inserted by Palin, Obama or Biden is a red herring (though Palin's again simply lying about it in order to burnish her credentials as a McCain-alike). McCain's obsession with them only LOOKS like the stalwart position of a “maverick” “reformer.” It's really just another way of implementing the arch-conservative principle that government shouldn't actually DO anything much, or raise or spend much. It's an ideological stance, not a reformist one.

I agree that the process by which such funding gets passed into law needs to be changed dramatically, and that new mechanisms must be implemented to weed out worthless or corrupt projects. But I don't agree that there should be no mechanism by which individual legislators can insert worthwhile projects into funding bills. By the way, the Constitution agrees with me (Article 1, Section 9)–and an attempt by McCain or anyone else to eliminate earmarks entirely, by vetoing every one that comes across his desk, might not stand up to a court challenge.

As for Palin's economic prowess, I'm waiting for you to delineate exactly how she “leads an economy” in Alaska in a way that's so frickin' difficult that you'd “like to see me try.” What, precisely, is a governor's role in “leading an economy,” beyond submitting budget requests that are developed for her/him by the various government agencies, and then working with the legislature to get them passed? That sounds like politics & governing, not exactly Keynesian economic theory (or Carly Fiorina-level management, if one of McCain's own stuck-up surrogates is to be believed).

I mean, I suppose I only went to one university, not six–and I only went to one other university to get a master's degree–but honestly, when your pitch for Palin's brilliance gets to the point where you're issuing schoolyard challenges like “I'd like to see you try,” you might want to re-examine.

Good luck with whomever you vote for…or don't vote for. Ross Perot's still alive, isn't he? Maybe if you round up everybody who agrees with you to write his name in on your ballots…

Well, come back in 49 days. I'm guessing you'll be disappointed either way.