Memo to Colin Powell: Really??????????

Colin Powell said this on Monday: "Americans are looking for more government in their lives, not less."

Of course, he said a lot more, like bashing Rush and Sarah Palin and how the GOP is in shambles and how he knows how to fix it. But for me, the doozy above is what caught my eye.

Anyone who knows me knows that veterans get an almost infinite free pass. I have all the respect in the world for General Powell — but somehow I think this is more about repairing his legacy after the unfortunate "U.N. WMD slideshow incident" than it is actually helping the GOP.

And for the Rush haters, I really don't get it. Why does he get under your skin so much? He's a dude on the radio, he can't raise your taxes, or send your kids to war, or ban spicy mustard on burgers — he's just a dude on the radio.

Get over it already.

It's a good thing I was already a "24" fan

...and casting decisions don't keep me from watching it.

A few Janeane Garofalo words of wisdom from Ecorazzi:

E: What are three things you’d like to really see Obama change in this country?

JG: I’d like to see him be a proud liberal and say it. You know what I mean? There’s no shame in being a liberal – it’s something to be very proud of. He should say it – cause he is one – and he should be proud to be one. And since it is clear and has been clear since Reagan that the republicans, the “conservatives” will NEVER play ball…NEVER…fu%$ um.

Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian’s, Americans, the British. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.

The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.

I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.

E: This might be an appropriate time to segue into Sarah Palin. I would love to know what you think about Palin.

JG: Probably what most people think about Sarah Palin. She’s small-minded and mean-spirited. It has nothing to do with gender — I don’t give a shit about her gender — she is what the Republican Party has become: obstructionist, contrarians, small-minded, all of these things. She just happens to be attractive. There’s definitely something wrong with her. She’s lacking in so many areas. Of course she’s successful with a segment of the country because she represents that lesser segment of the country. It’s people’s lesser nature – their human frailty. You know whatever’s wrong with them is what she is about.

E: I think it’s safe to say she’s done some pretty nutty things.

JG: It’s not even nutty. It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex. I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently.

Noun
Hate
1. intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
2. extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing

Shocker: Debate moderator is in the tank for Obama

Seriously, is anyone really shocked by this story?

PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.

Of course she dismissed questions. I mean, Gwen Ifill is a PBS journalist, after all. She also smirked (and drew complaints) after Sarah Palin's speech at the convention, and was less than fair to Evil Dick Cheney four years ago in his debate with the missing man John Edwards.

Ms. Ifill's book is called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" and is slated to come out on January 20, 2009. Yes, that's inauguration day. If Barry wins, the book should sell pretty good. If McCain wins, the book will sell about five copies to her immediate family.

Look, no one should be surprised that a highly-respected member of the mainstream media is a Liberal, clearly biased, and in the tank for Barry. But what is surprising is how the debate commission didn't even consider this glaring conflict of interest when they chose her to moderate this debate. In the words of Matt Damon, "it's absurd."

Count it as another huge obstacle for Sarah Palin tonight, who hasn't done herself any favors lately with extremely poor interviewing. Good luck Sarah, you'll need it.

NY Times' scorched Earth policy on Palin

I've been way too busy the last few days and haven't had as much time to rant as much as I'd like to. Hopefully this week things will slow down and I can get back into a groove with this blog.

I did want to say a few words about that old liberal fishwrap The New York Times and their 'objective' coverage of Sarah Palin. If you haven't heard, the Times published no less than four hit pieces on Governor Palin this past Sunday. Between the supposedly 'hard' news stories and the Op Ed columns, their concern over what was once a sure win for Barry is obvious. And since the Times (unfortunately) drives much of what is reprinted in papers around the country and broadcast on the networks, the Palin-bashing has plenty of outlets to bleed from.

It is clear that the Times is in absolute panic mode - as is most of the Left - due to Palin's growing popularity.

And speaking of Op Ed columns, I couldn't leave you tonight without mentioning Bob Herbert's laughably paranoid diatribe from a couple of days ago which you can read here.

Mr. Herbert writes:

John McCain, who is shameless about promoting himself as America’s ultimate patriot, put the best interests of the nation aside in making his incredibly reckless choice of a running mate. But there is a profound double standard in this country. The likes of John McCain and George W. Bush can do the craziest, most irresponsible things imaginable, and it only seems to help them politically.

Bob, I am in the uncomfortable position of telling you that you and your Democratic party are the 'incredibly reckless' ones. Once again, your party has shown its complete and utter ineptitude at choosing presidential candidates. (See Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry). Obama is probably the least qualified and least experienced presidential candidate in history; and he's at the top of your ticket. He's also probably the most liberal high office candidate in history as well, despite the centrist rhetoric he's tried to adopt in the general election.

Now, can't you just go back to writing about how we're greedily abusing the planet's resources while exploiting the third world? Oh wait, that's Thomas Friedman's job. What do you normally write about again?

You don't have to take your subconscious buyer's remorse out on us. Tell it to a bottle of scotch.

Lipstick on a pig part 2

It's been a really long day and since I get paid elsewhere, posting on this blog is low on the priority list. So, I don't even have the energy to get into Matt Damon tonight. But don't worry, I'll get to him.

After absorbing this 'lipstick on a pig' story all day I'm convinced it's another one of these fake controversies that get blown out of proportion. It's pretty much a non-story. But isn't that what political campaigns are now? 24-hour 'gotcha' games fueled by nothing-better-to-do media?

Look, Obama wasn't insulting Palin - at least not directly - and the McCain camp should've just let it go. In fact, they would have looked a lot better (and won even more favor than they're already getting lately) if Sarah Palin had come out today and said, "Look folks, he wasn't talking about me...let it go."

Nevertheless, Obama screwed up by using a word from one of the best lines in Palin's convention speech. (And if you watch the video clip, it's almost as if he knew it was a poor choice as it was coming out...kind of funny.) That was the mistake: Not that it was a sexist insult, but that he should've known it would remind people of the pit bull line.

Now, I will admit to being slightly amused at seeing a Democrat become the victim of the same 'gotcha' tactics that the press has used on the Right for years. I mean, how many times have they twisted something Rush Limbaugh (like him or not) has said in an effort to mute his credibility? (Intellectually honest people only need answer that question.)

Advice to both campaigns: When you're stumping at these rallies, you're already playing to a friendly crowd. Why waste time bashing the other candidate? You're preaching to the choir aren't you? Why not spend that time talking about your ideas and what you want to do? I mean, both camps have said they want to move past these 'negative partisan politics'.

Right?

Lipstick on a pig

As I wake up this morning, the Barry 'lipstick on a pig' controversy seems to be taking on a life of its own. It's no surprise, so much of this is a circus and these things tend to explode and then fade in a matter of days. I have no idea if Barry was taking a shot at Palin personally or just referring to the 'dressing up' of bad policies. From what I understand, both he and McCain both have used this phrase or similar phrases in the past.

But, after Palin's speech, a seasoned politician wouldn't have touched that word (lipstick) with a 10-foot pole. Way to go, Barry.

Sarah Palin: Checking the facts

FactCheck.org has a lengthy piece up today debunking some of Sarah Palin's so called 'extreme' positions. You'll find after reading it that most of what's circulating out in the blogosphere and mass emails is just not true. It's also interesting that some of those false claims end up in legitimate news stories and broadcasts without being verified.

Here is their summary: [emphasis added]

We've been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain's running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn't cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Now, I've already heard Joe Biden call Sarah Palin 'extreme' on a couple of occasions. First, he needs to make sure what he's backing that up with. Second, if being a gun-toting, moose-hunting, God-fearing, America-loving hockey mom makes you 'extreme', then what the hell does that make Jeremiah Wright? Mainstream?

I haven't had a chance to work on a complete write-up about Palin and my thoughts on her being chosen by McCain, but hopefully I will soon. Stay tuned peeps!

Daily Kooks: Feeling the heat

A random comment from Daily Kook that serves as a sample of the overall nervousness on the hard Left: [original spelling and grammar included]

Palin's phenomenon is similar (though less in its reach) to Obama's 8-9 months ago. The plus: she is an empty suit indeed. The minus: we have little time to expose that.

McCain is a funny guy: he decided to turn this election on Palin. We shall not avoid the challenge.

If succeed in exposing Palin's epty suit & McCain's judgement (or lack thereof), the election will be over. But the this task is very tough. With little time left.

So, attack Palin and hope this then reflects on the American Hero John McCain's judgement. A tough task for Barry indeed.

Can I watch 'Halloween' in the same way again?

Jamie Jamie Jamie...I loved you in 'Halloween' and 'Trading Places', even more so in 'True Lies' (I think you know why.) How am I ever supposed to view these masterpieces in the same way again when you drop wisdom like this on us? [emphasis added]

I couldn't hold my own for one minute in a debate on any issue with someone like a Barack Obama or Joseph Biden and neither can Sarah Palin. When the call comes at 3AM I want a mind who was at the top of their class, who has gravitas and a real intellect. I want a leader who is a scholar who can hold the history of civilization in his head and will read and learn from the past as he charts the future.
— Jamie Lee Curtis, The Huffington Post, 9/3/08

Huh?

I know I shouldn't be surprised, I mean, it's Hollywood after all and you have to swear your undying hatred for evil Republicans when you join that club. But let me inform Ms. Curtis of something: The worry that you just described about "wanting a mind" who is at the "top of their class" and is ready to take that 3AM call? That concern? That worry? That horror? Well, that's exactly how many of us feel about your boy Barry.

But hey, it's a free country sister.

Quote of the Day

Came across this on Mark Steyn's site. As a sort of tribute to William F. Buckley Jr. who famously said: "I would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."

I would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Wasilla, AK phone book than by the editors of The Harvard Law Review.

For what it's worth.