littlemissattila.new.mu.nu

September 05, 2008

A Word From Presidential Candidate

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Ooo-oooh, Caribou Barbie makes a funny, hardee-har-har. Well yuk it up now, little miss former junior college baby machine, because your sarcastic attempt to belittle America's community of hardworking professional community organizers is about to backfire -- big time. Because, for your information, I am America's community organizer community.
By now most of you know I am a candidate for President of the United States. What you may not know is that for the past 4 months, I have also been a proud member of Campaign For a Better Humanity, a non-profit community outreach program I created with a joint grant from Johnson County Community Services and the Iowa State Work Release Program.
What do community organizers do? As you know, Americans today are struggling with problems. These problems include rising unemployment, energy cost, alienation, animosity, corporations, and increased death. Like no other time in our history, Americans are staring into an abyss of a hellhole of helplessness. And this is where community organizers like me come in and provide needed solutions. Specifically, America's community organizers:
• reach out and work with communities in various ways;
• liaison with, and for, community agencies for service within affected areas;
• fight to make a difference;
• raise awareness;
• deal with community issues;
• raise awareness in the community of how we are making differences about undealt-with issues;
• when necessary, refer inquiries to outreach coordinators;
• help coordination agency administrators identify and address outreach opportunities;
• model timetables and conceptualize benchmarks;
• issue guidelines for poster contests and interpretive dance festivals;
• gather voter registrations, win valuable prizes.
And that's just the beginning. Let me give you some specific examples of how community organizer organizations like CFBH are making a difference right here in Majestic Oakewoods, a subdivision off exit 242. As you know, in the year since I moved here my community has experienced a rash of crime, despair, and abandoned homes. To address these community problems, I reached out to local groups of disaffected dropout youths who were struggling with unemployment. During a rap-session kegger at my home, I spoke with them about ways they could get involved with the community and help protect the environment. Together we organized an innovative free community bicycle / metal recycling program. I am proud to say that it has been so successful that our private-sector partner, Kyle's Salvage, has encouraged us to create an expanded free community car program.
I am also proud to report that my outreach efforts have also helped get local disadvantaged youths involved in the community through politics. We met with local elected officials and showed them how successful programs piloted by ACORN in Chicago and Milwaukee could be adapted to keep local youths off the streets. The result is CFBH's wildly popular Beer and Smokes for Votes program.

So take that, Governor Bimbo—I mean, Mayor Bimbo.

(But do read the whole thing. As usual, I was tempted to quote it all, but I once got busted by Treacher for doing that . . . So, go. Now.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

Cute Todd Palin Video.

"If IÂ’d had a crystal ball a few years ago, I might have asked a few more questions when Sarah decided to join the PTA. It wouldnÂ’t have mattered, though; when my wife starts talking about reform, corruption and making government work for the people, itÂ’s just best to get out of the way."

Todd Palin
Speaking about his wife Sarah Palin
September 3, 2008

Via Gateway Pundit, via Yeah, Right, Whatever.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, Yes. McCain Gave a Speech Tonight.

It's hard to write about it; one fears coming across as a bit sappy.

I believe a few years ago, aggravated by the good Senator's stances on the Bill of Rights (in particular, the First and Second Amendments), I was ready to write in a ham-and-cheese panino if Johnny Mac were to secure the nomination this year.

Certainly, it was no secret that I was a Thompson girl, and that my second choice was Rudy Giuliani, if only to finally have a cross-dresser in the White House.

I spent a few weeks or months in the Coulter camp, convinced that Hillary Clinton was the closest thing either party had any chance of nominating that fit in with my particular brand of conservatism. (Which is rather muddy, but has something to do with government incentives to get Chrysler to manufacture flex-fuel Cruisers, and a methanol pump in every pot, or possibly around the corner, or perhaps an outlawing of the use of normalcy as a noun, or any other part of speech for that matter. Guns, free markets, democracy, whiskey, and sexy. You know.)

James Joyner, with his military background, was able to talk me into taking McCain seriously last winter. Prosecuting the War on Terror, James pointed out, was something that Hillary might do well—but mechanically, and without the level of heart, commitment, and intuition that McCain could bring to the job. With her, it would be a matter of politics. She might put on a show, but it would only be that.

And so I began to consider The McCain Idea. And I was ready to vote for him, finally, but with a heavy heart and plenty of libertarian reservations—even after I heard that Johnny Mac had definitely passed on Governor Palin as his Veep pick, despite what I felt to be her pragmatic approach to helping us through the energy transition.

And, yeah, I do have Palinmania. It isn't all a matter of XX team-spirit, either, and I shan't dissect it completely right now. It can wait.

The fact is, Palin gave a great speech last night, though I think it took a lot out of her; she looked really uncomfortable tonight, looking around as if to say, "are the spotlights still on? I thought if I did well, they'd go away." But she knows they won't go away for a little while. Maybe not ever. It's the burden she's taken on.

McCain, though, took my breath away—not because it was a great speech, but because it was a good speech. And because he was willing to speak frankly about how his military family and his POW experiences had shaped him, and because he showed millions of people something he doesn't like to wear on his sleeve—that he is a good man. And that he exposed his basic goodness while giving a speech, which seems to rank a bit lower on his "good time" scale than getting a root canal, impressed me a lot.

And I wept to see it. And I wept that he could go through the hell he went through, and come out of it without bitterness. And humbled. Humbled? I would have become an axe murderer, myself.

This project is not about John McCain's ego; it is about stepping up and doing something that needs to be done right now.

He had kind words for Senator Obama, and he repeatedly declined to throw red meat to the crowd. He aimed, instead, for something higher: rather than devoting ourselves to a political party, he seemed to ask, couldn't we reach a bit higher? And he made it clear that "country first" is not, for him, a matter of nationalism as it has traditionally been understood. But just as a true public servant serves the people, a nation can the world. Directly, and by example.

Not all at once, and not perfectly. But by using some of what we've been blessed with to show other people and other nations what happened when those crazy loons signed that document in 1776, and why some of what that gave us might help them as well.

And it all changed for me tonight. I still disagree with McCain on several policy issues. And I'm sure I'll find plenty to disagree with when it comes to Sarahcudda, too.

But one has to start with the people who are doing this with a minimum amount of ego, and with a vision unobstructed by the remnants of murderous Marxism.

John McCain didn't pander to the crowd tonight. Instead, he chose to bare his soul, and I'll never forget having witnessed it.

I'm, you know. I'm Dumbledore's man.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:19 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 789 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'll agree, Palin is a powerful speaker (or is that reader? who wrote that speech?). But her record is not quite as impressive, as anti-lobbyist, as anti-waste, as she'd like you to believe. And by the way, her newfound passion for special needs families is counter to the GOP tendency to slash special education funding. A brief article of interest: Attacks, Praise Stretch Truth at GOP Convention Wednesday 03 September 2008 by: Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth. Some examples: PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere." THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere." PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars." THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise. MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state --- by population. MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC. THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin." THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

Posted by: rin at September 06, 2008 09:53 AM (f8xXa)

2 McCain voted last year for an amendment that would have effectively abolished the federal minimum wage, leaving states to set their own. How would that help the economy or the poor and working people of America? What does that say about his attitudes toward business and a laissez-faire economy? With no minimum wage, what's to prevent any state, especially a "right to work" state, from allowing employers to pay 2 or 3 bucks an hour? In today's economy, how far is that from starvation? Is abolishing a federal minimum wage a question of states' rights, or a question of unadulterated rapacity and greed? U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On the Amendment (Allard Amdt. No. 116 ) Vote Number: 24 Vote Date: January 24, 2007, 05:11 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 116 to S.Amdt. 100 to H.R. 2 Statement of Purpose: To afford States the rights and flexibility to determine minimum wage. Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---28 Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Sununu (R-NH) Thomas (R-WY)

Posted by: rin at September 06, 2008 11:37 AM (f8xXa)

3 Did you ever watch "Deadwood" Rin? Can you imagine their response to slimy politicians that pander to the electorate by always pushing the minimum wage fallacy? "Cocksuckers!" Can you imagine their response to the AP acting as the arbiter of non-partisan truth in any matter given the state of their credibility? "Cocksuckers!" Given that businesses are already cutting back on costs (including workers) and that for EACH State, increasing the minimum wage by $1 increases unemployment by some 15,000 workers, what do you think they would say? Do you know that raising taxes to business increases the cost of everything those businesses sell? To you. And to me. That recovering their costs-- including taxes-- is part of the price of all goods and services? Did you know that wages are set by the market--by supply and demand--and labor is no more sacred than goods? Did you know that the primary beneficiaries of minimum wage changes are the union members that already receive multiples of the minimum wage and have contracts that link their wages to the minimum wage giving them a raise with every increase? Do you know that the irony of minimum wage increases is that they may hurt the people they are designed to helpÂ—namely the least-skilled workers? That employers that face mandated wage hikes often try to offset higher employment costs by hiring more-productive workers? If $7 and change is good, why not $100/hr? Wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that eliminate the need for other social programs? Except unemployment compensation, of course. What would the Deadwoodians say to the gutless SOBs that are always stuck on the same page? And the ones that couldn't get cabinet positions because they never even paid the required Social Security portion of their help? I would think they would be paying a visit to Mr. Wu's pigs, don't you?

Posted by: Darrell at September 06, 2008 02:14 PM (PHm1M)

4 Larry Elder likes to talk about how, when he was growing up, every time the minimum wage was raised his parents would sit down at the kitchen table and talk about whom his father was going to have to lay off from the restaurant. I like the fact that ACORN once filed a request for exemption from the minimum wage . . . because they pointed out that they could hire more leftist activists if they got a waiver . . .! Minimum laws ALWAYS hurt the people they are supposed to help. Always.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 06, 2008 02:30 PM (TpmQk)

5 How can you say labor is no more sacred than goods? Labor is human beings, and goods is just the stuff they make. Big business is posting record profits while people with jobs are living in homeless shelters, their cars, or a cousin's garage. Labor does not pay enough in America, despite the fact that productivity has gone up decade after decade. If employers will not pay a living wage on their own, and will not reward increased productivity with an increased share of rising profits, then it seems entirely fair to me for government to stipulate some minimum acceptable wage. Even at the California minimum wage of 8 bucks an hour, full-time work pays only 1280 a month... before taxes. Not a living wage! Never mind that it's unfair and obscene. Does the economy really benefit from having millions of people living on subsistence wages, choosing between ramen and mac'n'cheese for dinner, going without shoes and dental work? Surely trickle-up economics would work better than the trickle-down kind? If minimum wage workers took home 12 or 14 bucks an hour, so they could buy shoes and cookies and the odd pizza or dvd, wouldn't that help the economy directly, infusing cash into small businesses all across America? We look at countries that have no minimum wage, or where it's 89 cents an hour, and we call those countries fascist or communist or vile. Those workers are starving. But by first-world standards, with our cost of living, our minimum wage workers are practically starving. And it's not right. The perfect free market economy, with employers paying as little as they have to to maintain the worker's ability to continue to work, is slavery. Bread and a smock in exchange for labor. I'd like to see a maximum wage law, personally. ;-)

Posted by: Rin at September 08, 2008 08:51 AM (54frj)

6 A rise in the minimum wage sometimes leads to temporary layoffs. The restaurant you mentioned above might well lay off a worker initially in response to rising payroll. But when they see that the neighborhood is prospering, that all the local workers have more money to spend locally, at the restaurant and the shoe store and the donut shop and the doctor's office, and that their sales and income are rising, they'll hire that laid off worker back... and add another worker in addition. Raising the minimum wage boosts the economy in the long run.

Posted by: Rin at September 08, 2008 09:54 AM (54frj)

7 supply and demand only works when you can choose to do without something. If the price of apple pie is too high, I can withhold my custom until it drops. But labor cannot withhold its labor, cannot refuse to accept low wages, if all employers collude and pay pretty much the same. Without the intervention of institutions (government, unions, and similar coalitions) we'd still be seeing 14-hour workdays, 6 and 7 day workweeks, no OSHA protections, child labor, no compensation for injury or death on the job, and starvation wages... or no wages at all. The most perfect system for maximum profit/minimum expenditure, unhampered by any legal or moral considerations, is slavery. But the most rapacious exploitative impulses of the owner/employer must be checked, and typically the workers themselves do not have the power to negotiate, withhold, or demand improvements. That falls to larger systems, like democratic governments. If the minimum wage were abolished (as McCain voted to do last year, in the Allard amendment) and large swatches of employers colluded in an area to pay only 3 or 4 bucks an hour, what could local workers do? They are often bound by transportation problems, cultural and regional and family ties, inherited homes they could not sell or replace elsewhere.... They are trapped in a local economy. The company towns of the 18th and 19th (and 20th) centuries had a captive audience of workers who could not negotiate, could not move, and could only barely survive (sometimes not even that) on what they were paid. It's wrong, and it's bad economics. But mostly it's just wrong, repugnant, vile, and counter to human progress and the religious values I bet you espouse.

Posted by: rin at September 09, 2008 10:24 AM (f8xXa)

8 You can always do something! You are free to move to any one of the hundreds of thousand of local employers in a major city. Or millions in the nation. You can apply outside of the food services or retail industries (the principal 'minimum wage' employers) and do better. You can avail yourself to the taxpayer subsidies education programs to advance yourself. Or buy a book and do it yourself. That's the beauty of a free market. No one can control it for long, barring intervention. Collusion breaks down under competition. And I'd like to see you make a compelling case that collusion exists under our current system. The so-called 'Robber Barons" paid wages well above the typical rates. That's why they were able to attract the best and brightest employees of their time. Let's look at Cornelius Vanderbilt, the Northeast Railroad guy that everyone loves to hate. He made his fortune laying thousands of miles of track and buying hundreds of locomotives. He did it all with 15-25-cent rides, depending on distance. He brought tracks into NY City. above ground, and built a clear-span station, Grand Central, that everybody said couldn't be built. After business people complained about noise, soot, and ashes of the above ground system, he put the tracks under street level with grates to release the smoke--all while the trains kept rolling. He later electrified the system. After an accident that killed 20 or so people, he built two levels for the trains--while the system was operating. He topped it off by building one of the greatest stations in the world, the current Grand Central. He still did it for 15 cents to 25 cents a ride. His worker were paid two to three times the prevailing wage. And his foremen were experts at weeding out the drunkards, anarchists, and malingerers/malcontents of the time. His engineers had little formal education, many were from a practical mining background. He'd choose the man for the job by asking workers "How would you do this?" and chose the one that gave him answers that made sense to him. I know this will piss you off, but slavery is more a socialist/Leftist concept. And it is one of the least cost-effective systems, despite what you read in Academia. That's why you see it in agriculture and you rarely see Capitalists even try it. Socialists define slaves as people outside of their group. like in the Nazis, Soviet, and Chinese work camps. Or anyone outside someone born in Rome or Athens. In the end, no one worked in Rome, no one joined the army. The empire existed to provide the needs of the citizens--food, clothing, and shelter. Groups in England defined people as being born "selected" by God. Those same sects are left-leaning today, no? And it isn't because of any new-found wisdom. Machines ended slavery for all time. And machines are a Capitalist concept. As is the energy to run them. Capitalism is NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME. Wealth is created out of thin air by our financial system with money being deposited and loaned, and re-deposited and re-loaned ad infinitum, only mitigated by the reserve requirement at the banks. In a centrally-planned economy, wages go up by some percentage every year with prices doing the same. There are no big price drops like here. Creativity, innovation and competition means sub-$100 DVD players, VCRs, etc when they once started at $1000 or more. That's the real reason Europe needs a bailout. Or needs the US and Japan to join the colllective. --To be continued to thwart Fluffy. . .

Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2008 01:56 PM (GgvCQ)

9 You mentioned American companies paying 89 cents/hr for labor in their foreign plants. What you don't mention is that is three times the prevailing income or more. For that Nike plant, the prevailing local income was something around $3/month equivalent. And remember that people were able to buy food/live on that amount. In other words, Nike was paying three-months wages every day, assuming a ten-hour shift!!! That's why they had to establish hiring rules about one job/family and they had lines for miles with applicants before the opening. One local managed to earn 'employee of the month' for six straight months when the plant opened. To avoid problems they "retired' his title, making him ineligible for future awards. But they offered him a one-time 'wish', within reason. He asked them to hire his sister saying she is a much better worker than he. The papers reported afterward that the brother/sister were flooded with offers of marriage/solicitations to court their daughters. And some of the offers came from the elite class, of which the brother/sister were not members! American unions want American wages for these plants so that the plants will be shut down, or not built to begin with. That sounds humane, doesn't it? "Thanks for looking out for me, cocksucker!" In 1980 or so this guy at work asked to have a friend of his from Yale (that he had not seen for years) join us for a scheduled lunch. He asked about a female that he had once dated that was a relative of this visitor, and asked specifically about her time in the Peace Corp(he last saw her on her send-off). This Yale guy said "She got kicked out, didn't you hear? She created an international incident and everything!" It seems she was sent to a remote African village. In the training sessions, she was told that PC workers were allowed to hire a local to act as a housekeeper and they were to pay them $15/month. Well she had inherited money from two sets of grandparents prior to her graduation(neither liked the spouse of their kid so both left it to the grandchild)so she smuggled cash with her in case of an emergency(forbidden). And she decided to pay her housekeeper $100/month because she thought the $15 wasn't fair(her relative said why not $1200 or what you would pay in the US then and she said "Do I look stupid?') Well, after she paid the $100, word quickly spread and there was a riot. The villagers said it must have been for sex, and she must be a lesbian. The second day her brother facing the crowd smashed her head in with a rock to restore the family honor while denying the charges. The Peace Corp had to bribe a local army commander to come into the village and create a diversion while the PC workers were hurried out in another direction, and flown out of the country. It supposedly took more than a year and payments for past wages to the chief's daughters (who were also housekeepers) to bring anyone back in. In the meantime, the villagers had destroyed the well and other improvements that past Peace Corp workers had provided. You abide by local conditions or you'll destroy the local economy and bring misery to everyone. The worst markets for farmers are in areas with foreign food hunger assistance shipments. People won't pay anything when food is available for free. And farmers won't/can't plant a second crop when they can't sell the first. Areas that were once breadbaskets for the continent are now waste lands. It would be better to sell the food at local prices and use the money to subsidize local farmers until they are re-established. Then work that money into the local economy in a way that will help everyone.

Posted by: Darrell at September 09, 2008 02:47 PM (GgvCQ)

10 Yeah, what he said. The essential requirement for free markets to work is COMPETITION. And, one can argue, free flow of information. And I don't think I can add to what Darrell has mentioned, except the fact that suppliers of manpower (ergo, us), are SUPPLIERS. We're part of the economy, and independent contractors, to a certain degree. How do suppliers of manpower flex their muscle? Through guilds and unions, that's how. It's not as if you have a monolithic 'management' and a bunch of small, scrappy worker-fighters. The 'management', guess what, are suppliers of manpower too! Now, let me give you this; the only time you don't have competition is when you have either a monopoly (in which there are no other providers) or an oligopoly (where there are a small number of providers who are of roughly the same size, roughly control the same amount of market share, and who each supply a significant, but not a majority of the marketplace). Strangely enough, the government is a monopoly. Oligopolies include the oil, beer, tobacco, accounting and audit services, aircraft, military equipment, and motor vehicle industries - which also, strangely enough, suffer the highest amounts of government regulation and interference, increasing masively the barriers to entry. And do you know what a union is? Yes, in a union shop, the union is a MONOPOLY. And not a good one for the putative monopolists either. You have to wonder about that wealth-creation, though, Darrell. It's pretty awesomely jaw-dropping, the way the supply of money goes up simply by banks doing their stuff. I must wonder, though - Attila, you mentioned that Rin is a friend, and that she's plenty smart. Okay, Rin, will you at least concede that we occasionally make sense, and that we did so this one time?

Posted by: Gregory at September 10, 2008 02:28 AM (cjwF0)

11 Dear Darrell; Eh? Well... When I was a high-school student, the 'smart' students went into the pure sciences track (bio/chem/phys), and the 'not so smart) students went into the arts track (acct/eco). Well, come to uni time, and I did my first economics class EVER. And that's where I learnt the basics of the free market. Of course, no econs lecturer worth his salt is going to avoid discussing market failure, and all the 'opolies', and how government is involved in the whole 'public goods' and 'tragedy of the commons' stuff. But if you're asking about 'enlightenment', that's where. Most of my circle of friends are interested in earning and spending money; they have an excellent grasp of economics as it applies in their life. The political stuff? I'd say most of 'em prefer if the pollies just stayed the hell away and out of their lives. Kinda how I feel too, most of the time. You wouldn't want Malaysia as a State, anyway. No welfare, crappy State hospitals (and still some are better than some private hospitals), affirmative action for the majority race, overt racism, teh hate on teh gays (sodomy is still a crime on the books, and still being prosecuted), State and Church (well, Masjid/Mosque in this case) most emphatically NOT separated, dirty, dirty politics, absolutely no Green policies to speak of, Constitution amended more often than underwear changed, 30% flat corporate tax (down to 26 this year), 28% highest personal tax bracket, censorship of TV and all other media EXCEPT Internet, monopoly broadband provider, ~$14,400 per capita GDP - not very encouraging, is it?

Posted by: Gregory at September 11, 2008 02:09 AM (cjwF0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 04, 2008

CalTech Girl:

"Who was that man? And what has he done with John McCain? Well done, Sir!"

Via a Tweet. More of CalTech Girl here.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Aha. Here It Is.

Rudy's entire speech from last night. Magnificent! Pour yourself a cup of coffee or a drink, and get comfy:

h/t: Drew, over at Moron Palace. I was seeing snippets here and there, but this is the entire thing.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

"Alaska's Maverick"

I hear they'll be playing this tonight at the Convention.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Morrissey on the Media's Sexism

Over at Hot Air:

The sexism of the media certainly helped stoke the fires that created the rift between Hillary supporters and the Obama campaign. If a rerun does anything, it will remind these same voters of the Obama campaignÂ’s silence in the face of these attacks. And so far, although Obama warned people off from attacking the Palin children, they have said nothing about the audacity of questioning PalinÂ’s mothering skills.
This sends a more subtle message, too. HillaryÂ’s aides certainly came to PalinÂ’s defense rather quickly. They could just as easily have waited to make this point on November 5th. The media attacks certainly help Obama, at least in the short run, to define Palin as some sort of denizen of the double-wides. If they put a stop to that by getting vocal in the early stages of this media mauling, does that signal Hillary supporters to continue rejecting Obama?

Well, Ed. To ask the question is to have answered it. The Clintons will continue to go through the motions of supporting Obama, but they are unlikely to be terribly convincing about it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

September 03, 2008

Nice Address, Sarah.

I sat down with my husband's two remote controls and figured out how to turn on the television. A few minutes later, I'd persuaded it to snap out of some sort of Charter-stupor and give me a news channel; Palin was at the podium, and about to give her speech.

I had just long enough to run to the restroom and pour myself a Tanqueray on the rocks before she started.

It was lovely; the buzz, of course, was that she'd stick to a sort of "getting-to-know-you" speech, rather than taking on the Veep candidate's traditional "attack dog" role.

No.

She re-introduced her family, focusing on her daughters and on her son, who is about to deploy to Iraq (her future son-in-law simply stood up as his fiancee did, when Palin introduced her daughters). Palin introduced her own baby, and talked about special-needs kids. She spoke about small-town values, and how as a mayor she had to actually make decisions, versus just "organizing." Then she spoke about energy, went on the attack, and finished up by highlighting McCain's biography and his qualifications for the job he's, um, applying for.

It's hard to critique the speech because the Palin-mania in the room was already so strong, but I really think she turned in a nice performance. She lost her place once, for just a few seconds, and made two or three little single-word errors that I doubt anyone noticed.

Mostly, though, she held the room. Again, it's hard to say how she would have performed in a crowd that wasn't already so pumped to see her, but I still think she did beautifully.

The makeover was also brilliant: no "Republican red" for Sarah, although I think she's got a soft spot for strong colors. Rimless glasses (the sides in a soft, translucent blue), subtle jewelry, and a light-blue suit that said, "I'm telling the truth, and I can hold my own; but I don't need to be in the spotlight." Hair both up anddown: down, but with a small bun in the back. (I'm including this information because male politicians sometimes complain that women are permitted greater latitude in how they dress, and this is true. But the McCain campaign toned Sarah down considerably for this speech—right down to the glasses and the barely-there lipstick.)

It was a lovely performance, and I think her attacks on Obama were reasonably effective.

I decided I should listen to some analysis, so I tried to turn to another channel. The television went blue, and wouldn't budge. I turned off it and the cable box, and then turned them both on. This time, no pay-per-view menu. No Charter hell. Just a blue television that refused to pay attention to either of the remotes.

And now I'll have to tell my husband that I think I broke the TV, and he'll laugh and show me what I did wrong. And I won't remember, and I'll ask him to write it down.

But I saw Sarah's speech—with any empty bladder, yet, and some bottled water and Tanq-on-the-rocks by my side.

I really think she struck a balance, there. She killed 'em. Softly.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

Experience: Palin vs. Obama

So, if I'm getting this right, Obama supporters are irritated to see Governor Palin's record compared with his.

Hm.

UPDATE: Ah, here we go. Stole it from King Moron.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:23 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Messiah with a thin resume is a frickin joke and the media supporting this no-achievement Barry Hussien Osama/Obama is doubly a joke! Go Sarah go! In fact, dump Juan McAmnesty.....Sarah for President!!

Posted by: RSG at September 03, 2008 01:06 PM (HH3AB)

2 Sarah Palin could choose Lieberman as running mate and I'd still probably vote for her.

Posted by: Desert Cat at September 03, 2008 01:14 PM (6go9w)

3 Women in the media hate Sarah Palin because most of them are east coast elitists who think one like them should be the first woman to win a national election. An independent, frontier, tough-as-nails woman, educated in Idaho for gosh-sakes, doing so would be just, uh, ridiculous. Too delicious!

Posted by: John at September 03, 2008 01:58 PM (lO8Xg)

4 Where's the damn media investigating Barry's father (muslim-communist), step-father (muslim-communist) and mother (radical hippie communist)?

Posted by: Bruce at September 03, 2008 02:10 PM (HH3AB)

5 In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking Barack, what if the development of alternate energy sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations, the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale, while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency, like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as President of the United States.

Posted by: Howard at September 13, 2008 10:32 AM (VUlvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 02, 2008

Now Even Fred Thompson . . .

is stealing my original (and utterly brilliant) comparison of Sarah Palin with Teddy Roosevelt. Dirty Harry (the blogger/film reviewer—not the, uh, "maverick" cop) has a snip of the transcript from Thompson's speech over here, which I actually appreciate, since I'm working a money job today and cannot watch the convention.

Of course, I wouldn't have watched the convention anyway, because it's on television—though I shall really try to watch the next two nights if I'm not too busy and don't get my nose in a book or something.

Really. I will try. But my usual method of watching television goes something like this:

1) at around 3:00 p.m., remember that there's something on that I might want to watch that night;
2) at around 11:00 p.m., remember that there had been a thing on that I thought I might want to watch, but clearly didn't want to watch that much, or I would have remembered.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, Holy F***ing Crap.

The latest smear is that McCain has been playing up his experiences as a POW—rather than playing 'em down:

From: Robert Greenwald
Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Subject: P.O.W.
1. Watch the video;
2. Send it to everyone you know.
"To see McCain resort to playing the POW card when answering legitimate questions, in my mind, cheapens that experience. And by cheapening his own experience in war, he degrades all of our experiences in war. He turns the horrific incidents we've all seen, touched, smelled, and felt into a lame excuse to earn political points. And it dishonors us all."
-- Brandon Friedman, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan
Dear Supporter,
John McCain has been exploiting his prisoner of war experience every chance he gets. He has used this story to justify everything from not knowing how many homes he has to his healthcare plan to his marital infidelities to his taste in music. The McCain campaign is even using his POW story in paid ads. But now a veteran who was a prisoner with McCain in Vietnam is explaining loud and clear that being a POW does not qualify McCain to lead our country.
Dr. Phillip Butler knew McCain as a fellow POW. Watch and listen!
We are sure this video will draw an onslaught of right-wing attacks, but we bring it to you because it is our job to continue to convey the truth together and give these issues national attention. As Dr. Butler has said, McCain does not have the temperament to have his finger near the red button. Get this video to everyone you know: friends, family members, coworkers, and especially those who don't share your political views. The video is designed to reach them. Get it on your social networking sites like Digg. And get it to every blog, newspaper, and TV station that has ever overplayed McCain's POW story. It is time to fight back with truth!
The mainstream press has already begun to call out McCain for overusing his POW story. And it's cut across all political persuasions.
"Whether he's deflecting criticism over his health-care plan or mocking a tribute to the Woodstock music festival, Senator John McCain has a trump card: the Hanoi Hilton. - Edwin Chen, Bloomberg
"Noun, Verb, POW" - Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Monthly
"The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past is weird bordering on irrational..." - Ana Marie Cox, TIME
"I think they are going to it way too many times." - Howard Fineman, Newsweek
Remember how Joe Biden got the press to refer to Rudy Giuliani as "A noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well, let's actually take Andrew Sullivan's lead here and get the media to boil McCain down to a similar phrase: "A noun, a verb, and POW." Considering how often the McCain campaign invokes his POW story, isn't that what they're already doing?
Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New team
---
Paid for by the Brave New PAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Brave New PAC is supported by members like you, please consider making a donation. To stop receiving the latest videos from us, click here. We are located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232.

And here's their cute little video:

To summarize:

• All Vietnam-era POWs are crazy and physically delicate;
• John McCain has always had a bit of a temper;
• John McCain didn't suffer as much as some of the other POWs in Vietnam;
• John McCain did the worst, most horrible thing that a person can possibly do!—he converted to Christianity. And he isn't sincere about it! And he was really likeable before he did that. Except for the temper, and for the pretending that he had it worse at the Hanoi Hilton than he really did, because there were others who suffered more. You see?

And this man wants to be President, with a hick bimbo next in line!

I think they make a very good case. Like they say—pass the video on!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 687 words, total size 4 kb.

No; Really. There Are Men in the GOP.

It's just that we had this hurricane, so we weren't able to showcase them properly.

Because of the hurricane, you see.

So Laura Bush and Carly Fiorina had to kick things off.

Hurricane. Couldn't be helped.

But we do have males in the party. Some of 'em are even old and white.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Malor,

over at Moron Mansion:

As usual when it comes to any of the -isms embraced by the Left, what would ordinarily be branded a base attack is excused so long as the right credentials are brandished. Here, the writers of this piece (both of them women) are setting up the rest of their article. What follows would be met with the fiercest opprobrium were it to be uttered by a man, but they found bona fide mothers who were willing throw womens' equality away. So it's all chill.

With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.
Indeed, with two pre-teen daughters, Mr. Obama has set off a fierce argument about whether there are enough hours in the day for him to take on the presidency, and whether he is even right to try. Oh, wait a minute. He didn't. Huh.
We catch the drift of the article already: perhaps only childless men and women should run for office? Or those whose children are grown? Or given the free pass Mr. Obama got (and I assure you I'm whispering very softly now), only men?

It’s [sic] the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.
No, it's the War of the Clamoring Fools: Legacy Media Edition. Notice the casual juxtaposition of social conservatives with working mothers. As if the two are mutually exclusive. And as usual, liberals mistake the strawconservative they titter about at parties for the real thing. Social conservatives are staunch protectors of stay-at-home mothers and their prerogatives, but only the most fringe groups advocate forcing mothers to stay home.

I'm going to miss this campaign when it's over: the sheer hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:26 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

1 It's not sexist to say that mothers of infants are usually the primary caretakers. Beyond that, I'm sure a parent of small children can be an effective leader, with enough nannies and a supportive spouse on board. Tough on the kids, maybe. My concerns with Palin are about her policies, her inexperience, and the fact that McCain only met her once before offering her the gig. Her policies, anti-choice (even for rape and incest), anti-same sex health benefits (which is just mean), pro-shooting wolves from airplanes (despite federal law, Alaska allows it), pro-big business and oil, anti-preservation of endangered species, and apparently not terribly interested in the infrastructure of Alaska (the boring stuff like health care and education), strike me as dangerous. Her inexperience, which is not belied by living 70 miles from Siberia, is pretty spectacular. The fact that McCain doesn't know her and may not have vetted her speaks more of his own state of mind, his desire to court the far right, his impulsiveness, and so on.... It's not sexist to have real concerns about Sarah Palin or McCain's choice of her. It's not feminist to choose her over Biden.

Posted by: rin at September 02, 2008 01:41 PM (f8xXa)

2 Rin: Please fact-check. She supports benefits for same-sex couples, and the wolves thing was simply a temporary measure to protect caribou and moose herds in areas where their populations were dropping. She's taken on big business when she had to. She's stood up to the energy companies, too. And the GOP. Her husband is a Democrat, and a union member. Her parents are union members. And while I am pro-choice, as a philosophical matter it seems to me that the anti-choice people who don't make exceptions for cases of rape and incest are much more philosophically consistent than those who do want to make those exceptions, because what the latter are really saying is, "yes, you're right: pregnancy is a punishment for the sin of sex," and/or "a fetus is a person unless the sperm donor was an asshole, in which case it is not." No logic, there. But any effect that a potential President of the U.S. might have on abortion is highly indirect, and presumes (1) that "strict constructionist" judges would want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and (2) that the states would follow such an overturning with their own abortion bans. I don't agree with everything Palin says or does. Nor do I agree with everything McCain says and does. But they seem level-headed enough, and, respectively, internally consistent and intellectually honest.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 02, 2008 02:30 PM (TpmQk)

3 I don't have it in front of me, but Sunday's LA Times said she supported a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex benefits. .... A brief search online suggests that she vetoed a ban on same-sex benefits because it was unconstitutional, but not, apparently, because she disagreed with it. Not encouraging for anyone who believes in gay rights. As for choice, you're right, exceptions for rape and incest are inconsistent with an absolute devotion to the belief that all life is precious at conception. But politicians are supposed to live in the real world, supposed to keep their religious beliefs and their political duties separate, and supposed to be consistent to the extent of feeding, housing, educating, medicating, and otherwise protecting these precious children once they leave the womb. Why does a pro-life agenda so often stop at birth? But surely you'd agree that a President, in appointing pro-life judges with a litmus test, has a profound effect on choice, at least in the long run? Many on the right said in 2000 that their support of Bush was in part predicated on the judges he'd appoint and the way they'd oppose Roe. As for hunting wolves from low-flying aircraft, the state of Alaska (according to what I've read) grants more permits and turns a blind eye to the hunting of more wolves than are remotely necessary. They want to build up the caribou or moose or whatever populations for hunters, and the few herbivores killed by wolves can't be spared. Wolves actually eat more mice and frogs than big game, by the way. They take down a big animal, usually a weak one, every few weeks, and share it with a whole pack. They don't hunt for sport and they don't waste what they kill. Unlike us.

Posted by: rin at September 02, 2008 03:03 PM (54frj)

4 ps, about same sex benefits... http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290025 In a December 20, 2006, release about the Alaska Supreme Court's December 19 order. Palin's office stated: "The Supreme Court has ordered adoption of the regulations by the State of Alaska to begin providing benefits January 1," said Governor Palin. "We have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution." [...] "I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide." A January 1, 2007, Juneau Empire article reported that Palin vetoed the bill despite "her opposition to equal benefits for gay and lesbian government employees." As a candidate for governor, Palin reportedly supported efforts to prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples. Noting that "the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees," the Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. 'I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,' Palin said. She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay." The Daily News further reported on October 31, 2006, that "Palin said that when voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman eight years ago, many believed they were also implying that a gay partner shouldn't get state benefits. 'I wouldn't oppose at all the voters going back to the ballot box to clarify that,' she said during a KTUU Channel 2 debate Sunday."

Posted by: Rin at September 02, 2008 03:08 PM (54frj)

5 There is a huge distinction to be made between favoring same-sex benefits and advocating gay marriage. Also: the idea behind constructionism WRT the U.S. Constitution is not that Roe v. Wade is bad law because it permits abortions, but because it Federalizes what should be a state issue. However, even strict constuctionists are loathe to overturn a precdent on the level of Roe v. Wade, so simply because a given nominee for S.C. Justice believes in "states' rights" does *not* mean that he or she would automatically vote to repeal Roe v. Wade. So appointing constructionists is not tantamount to making abortion "a litmus test."

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 02, 2008 04:44 PM (TpmQk)

6 As requested; Rin, I withdraw my remarks, and hope that you will forgive my insensitivity. I trust Attila's judgement - if she says you're smart, then you are and that's that. No excuse, but I am getting awfully tired of liberal talking points, and I'm banging my head against the wall at work too. No reason to take it out on anyone, of course. Homophobia can be broken down as an unreasoning fear of homosexuals. Sorta kinda, it actually means unreasoning fear against 'the same' (presumably 'the same as yourself') but we'll use the more accepted meaning. Homicide is broken down as deadly towards humans (hominids). Hence, homocide, deadly towards homosexuals. I use the term 'homocidal' deliberately. I wanted to write a whole lot more, but suffice it to say that *fear* is NOT what I feel. Murderous is very close. I won't act on it. But I can't help how I feel. Nobody made or forced me to feel this way - it's just how I was born. I'm an old-school kinda guy. Sex? Man + Woman + United in Holy Matrimony = OK. Otherwise, Not OK.

Posted by: Gregory at September 03, 2008 02:07 AM (cjwF0)

7 Her inexperience, which is not belied by living 70 miles from Siberia, is pretty spectacular. So is Obama's lack of experience. And no, casting "present" votes in the Illinois Senate don't count, nor does two years of campaigning for President.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at September 03, 2008 11:39 AM (1hM1d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I'm, Like, So Above Posting Pix of Sexy Levi Johnston.

But not above linking to them.

I'd also like to point out my restraint in not posting any pictures of Sarah Palin nude, or Sarah Palin in a bikini, nor Bristol Palin nude, nor Bristol Palin in a bikini, nor Todd Palin nude, nor Todd Palin in a tank top, nor Todd Palin shirtless.

I'm you know . . . classy that way.

Of course, since the spouses of candidates are not off-limits, I might be tempted to post pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt if I had access to pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt. So if anyone actually has any pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt, please send me those pictures of Todd Palin without a shirt.

Or, you know: videos of Todd Palin interacting with the mainstream news media who have just libeled his wife and outed his daughter. I'd post that, if it weren't too incriminating. (Todd: Wear a mask! But no shirt!)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Palin as Pit Bull

Just got this via email, and I'm too busy to go find the link for you. Would someone go confirm this, please?

From The Weekly Standard blog:
Kristol on Sarah Palin, Hockey Mom:

McCain aides whose judgment I trust are impressed by Sarah Palin. One was particularly amused by this exchange: A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc.:
Palin: "Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?"
McCain aide: "No, Governor."
Palin: "A hockey mom wears lipstick."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

"He Didn't Vet the Bimbo"

Of course he didn't. And having Palin on the ticket will be a disaster for the Republicans (oh, please God, please!).

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCainÂ’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the stateÂ’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

And the Palins continue to hide important facts from Americans. Not only have we not seen Trig's birth certificate, as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out—we also haven't seen Sarah Palin's obstetrical records during her fifth pregnancy, so we don't know if she was gaining weight at the proper rate, or getting enough beta carotene.

And the American People still, to this day, haven't been told what brand of prenatal vitamins Bristol is taking, so we can verify that they have sufficient iron in them. We haven't been told where Bristol and her boyfriend will be living, or what their childcare arrangements will be. We haven't been reassured who will be watching Trig, should McCain die six moths into the Presidency, as old men so often do, leaving Governor Bimbo as the estrogen-driven supervisor of the nuclear football!

Haven't the McCain people ever heard of "post-partum depression"? And what if Bristol has breastfeeding questions, calls her mother up at night, and leaves the now-President too exhausted to face the Russians with a clear head the next day?

Also, women bleed a lot, whether they have kids or not. Aren't we putting the White House sheets at grave risk?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:58 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sounds like an actual WaPo or NYT column.

Posted by: Cory at September 02, 2008 07:47 AM (q/WOe)

2 OK. Then why did you think it would be a good idea for Hillary to be President?

Posted by: Alexandra NYC at September 02, 2008 07:54 AM (e1gTJ)

3 Oh, noes, Br'er Obama, don't throw me in the briar patch! -- Br'er McCain

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at September 02, 2008 08:45 AM (1hM1d)

4 I'm more interested in seeing all documentation regarding Obama's citizenship (since he was listed as an Indonesian citizen and Muslim) in his grammer school record. I also want Obama to release records to show whether he registered with the Selective Service, as required, failure to do which was a crime. I also want to learn the details of the Obama/Ayers Annenberg Chicago Project, where they dolled tens of millions of dollars to leftist thought-police types, all the while Obama claiming that Ayers was 'just a guy in his neighborhood', a casual acquaintance. Did he forget the 50million?

Posted by: DrPaul at September 02, 2008 09:10 AM (4gHqM)

5 Me, I see this rampant sexism on the left to be rather amusing. Has anyone made the claim that Palin is not an "authentic" woman yet? "Get back on the reservation, bitch!"

Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2008 09:24 AM (6go9w)

6 Me, I see this rampant sexism on the left to be rather amusing. Has anyone made the claim that Palin is not an "authentic" woman yet? "Get back on the reservation, b!tch!"

Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2008 09:25 AM (6go9w)

7 Rich! Wish I'd written that. Laughed until the tears came. I happened to be in the Denver Airport Friday morning when this announcement was made and can I tell you the hush that came over the crowd? There was much crowding around the T.V. sets and then a furious typing on the Blackberries by all the folks wearing press credentials. This announcement took all the wind out of their sails. They KNEW they were in trouble. C'mon, when you've got to pick on a 17 year old girl to try and discredit her mother, you are truly reaching.

Posted by: TxSkirt at September 02, 2008 10:59 AM (P9GhM)

8 An amazing thing to me is the unmitigated gall of liberals to express outright sexists comments and be oblivious to what they are actually saying. They are so full of uncontrollable bitterness and hate toward anything non liberal they have lost ( if they ever had it) all semblance of decency and fair play

Posted by: edward cropper at September 02, 2008 11:03 AM (woj8C)

9 The thing is that women are noticing it, whether they choose to wear the label "feminist" or not. Even the ones who are not opening their mouths ('cause they are still in shock at the sheer level of sexism) are taking notice. This is not playing well, except among people who are desperate to see it play well.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 02, 2008 11:11 AM (TpmQk)

10 A funny thing happened on the way to the Obama Accession . . . Buffy comes through again. In every generation, there is but one slayer.

Posted by: Darrell at September 02, 2008 11:42 AM (akjnr)

11 Pointing out that McCain's camp may not have vetted her very well is not the same as criticizing her or her daughter for a teen pregnancy. I don't care about her daughter's pregnancy, except to say that 17 year olds are too young to have babies, and this pregnancy is unfortunate for the family. I would say that it suggests that the McCain camp didn't think very carefully about Governor Palin as a candidate. And that's a fair critique, since it's the biggest decision he's made as a candidate, and he seems to have made it imprudently and based on pandering to the far right's anti-choice anti-gay pro-gun pro-oil agenda.

Posted by: rin at September 02, 2008 01:31 PM (f8xXa)

12 I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation. Now McCain is putting the whole White House in jeopardy.

Posted by: William Teach at September 02, 2008 01:39 PM (IRsCk)

13 Pro-life. Pro-family. Pro-Second Amendment. Pro-energy independence. Yeah, call it "far" right if you want. Maybe if you live in a coastal city it might seem so. Call it "pandering" if you want, but last time I checked, this is still (nominally) a representative democracy. If McCain expects to get the votes of the party base, he has to make an effort to represent the base.

Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2008 02:25 PM (6go9w)

14 I just think it's cool that we get freedom to choose who we'll vote for in November... Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn would have had us in a totalitarian regime like Vietnam, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or East Germany by now...

Posted by: jtb-in-texas at September 02, 2008 02:32 PM (RAian)

15 The harpies are definitely circling and the foulest harpies are lefty media women who never met an abortion they didn't like. Too bad for them because once the public gets to know Sara-cuda, I believe the platform for such bilge will collapse like a house of cards.

Posted by: Brooksie at September 02, 2008 03:02 PM (LCKih)

16 I am an undecided voter. The thing that really puts me off is, the republician and democrate attacks on what they say the other guy is going to do, i am much more interested in hearing what they are going to do and how they are going to do it. All this BS about 17yr olds pregnent daughters or questioning citizenship. This is just a smoke screen, a distraction. If your biggest concern is who is the mother of a baby or a guy had a muslum father and not the state of our declining nation, your part of the problem. I would much rather hear about tax plans, spending plans. Whats is the future for our military men and women, oil prices, weak dollar, housing market, creating jobs in america, restoring the middle class. We need to focus on the issues that affect us all. Not this tabloid garbage that seems to be the focal point consume the american public. Both sides say the other guy must think Americans are stupid, then again, if this is what they worry about, maybe they are right!

Posted by: Dan at September 04, 2008 07:38 AM (Wctxw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 01, 2008

Hey. Here's Some Palin Video.

I suspect this went out over Memorial Day weekend; that seems like such a long time ago.

h/t: Darrell

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

I Wasn't Going To Run This Video,

because I thought it was beneath my dignity. But it is so perfectly outrageous that I just had to. Also, I remembered in the nick of time that I have no dignity. So, no worries.

This video clip is as good as that Dan Rather-Mary Mapes "National Guard" memo.

How many errors can you spot?—and, how high can you count? *

Delicious, isn't it?

I stole it from Ace, who has some hilarious fun at the filmmakers' expense. Of course, if you want to play spot-the-mistakes, don't read the AoS comments section first thing. King Moron names all the obvious errors in his post, but it's a long list.

Warning: there is a little sarcasm over there. Like, a tinge of drollness.

I've heard it suggested that this vid might make the real Todd Palin angry, and he might be tempted to beat up or sue the perpetrators. My guess? He'll be too incapacitated by fits of helpless laughter to do either of these things.

Though he might—just might—break with the Democratic Party, knowing that this level of malice/incompetence is associated therewith.

Holy shit this thing is funny. A bit too long, but pretty darned good.

* I stole that line, but I'm plagiarizing myself, so it's okay.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Not Just a Bimbo . . . But a Successionist,

The subtext was, "go ahead and secede; then we can re-institute slavery. I'm particularly looking forward to owning Native Americans . . . like my husband."

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

McCain Will Win.

Peter Robinson of the Wall Street Journal has some great analysis on why the John McCain of 2000 is not the John McCain who is running today.

I have no idea whether he had a hand in the headline for his editorial, "Why McCain Still Has a Chance to Win." But it's more than a chance, Mr. Robinson. I'm pretty certain at this point that it's going to happen.

He even offers an explanation as to why McCain attempted that ill-fated misstep on the road to financial reform, McCain-Feingold:

The John McCain of 2008, journalists and activists understandably assumed, would be the same man they encountered during the campaign of 2000. The irreverent, wisecracking John McCain. The John McCain who cared about the good opinion of reporters at least as much as he cared about the good opinion of Republican voters. The John McCain who had proven -- let's face it -- unserious. Why expect anything different this time around?
In the set of his jaw, the cast of his eyes, and the whole attitude of utter sobriety he displays whenever he discusses foreign policy, Mr. McCain has provided the answer. In 2000 the country was still enjoying the untroubled decade that followed the Cold War. Today it faces warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, an Iran racing to acquire nuclear weapons and a North Korea that has already done so, a Russia intent on reclaiming its old empire, a China busy devoting heaping portions of its new wealth to its armed forces, and the constant, inescapable threat of another terrorist attack.
If he sometimes treated his 2000 campaign as a mere attempt to move up the ladder, Mr. McCain treats this campaign as a duty. And this, I think, represents the underlying reason Mr. McCain has been able to defy the odds, keeping the presidential race wide open. Whereas Mr. Obama remains a complicated, enigmatic figure -- in the profile it published the day he delivered his acceptance speech, the New York Times called him "elusive" -- Mr. McCain has come into focus, becoming a candidate voters can understand.
The man is a patriot. Grasp that and you have grasped John McCain. Refusing 40 years ago to accept early release from his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton and running for president today -- both are of a piece. Seen in this light, even Mr. McCain's shortcomings make a certain kind of sense. McCain-Feingold? Bad legislation. But you can almost understand why he backed it.
Mr. McCain sees the money sloshing around Washington as an insult to America -- and he takes such insults personally. Patriot though he is, Mr. McCain is too imbued with the military ethic (which of course eschews ostentatious displays) to trumpet his patriotism.
And this brings me back to the question with which I started. To place himself in the company of President Reagan, I believe, Mr. McCain need only overcome his inhibitions for an hour, using his acceptance speech on Thursday night to tell the American people about his feelings for this Republic.

Well. Scaling back the GOP convention in favor of foregoing the Gulf State delegates (and GOP governors from that region) shows what Senator McCain's sensibilities may not quite allow him to say out loud. As does the fact that we are now being encouraged to donate to Red Cross and similar organizations instead of McCain's campaign (despite the fact that his campaign cannot accept donations after Thursday, and is being carpet-bombed with funds from conservatives and feminists who are impressed by the Palin pick).

I'll give to the Red Cross on Friday, if they need it. Before then, any stray funds I can scrape up by rolling quarters and taking them to the bank are going to the McCain campaign.

And I'll be knocking on doors and/or manning the phone banks this November, just like I did four years ago for G.W. Bush, about whom I may sometimes have mixed feelings.

But these aren't times to indulge my feelings; these are times to put . . . oh, what is it they say? Oh, yes: country first.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 691 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I've never voted for any Republican and I'm 56. Until now I was more anit-Obama than pro McCain. I just sent $90 to McCain-Palin. Even thinking about getting yard signs and bumper stickers. Been a long time since I was this enthusiatic about an election. Not since the NDP won in BC and my MLA from Van East became premier. That's when I began to see that democratic and socialist are mutually exclusive concepts. Let's just say no to Socialism in the good ol' USA, my home sweet home. We have a chance here to get two genuine reformers into the White House. That's golden.

Posted by: Gary Ogletree at September 02, 2008 12:31 AM (AUx3A)

2 "Still Has a Chance to Win"??? Frankly I find such analyses embarrassing. McCain has been in congress for over a quarter century. He is the Republican party nominee. He breezed through the primaries crushing all opponents with ease. Now he is facing a young democratic upstart who didn't even wrap up his own party until only 3 months ago, and conservatives are already writing off their candidate? Maybe they should have voted for someone else if they had such little faith in McCain.

Posted by: ff11 at September 02, 2008 05:01 AM (TVlfZ)

3 The point being, we're not writing off our candidate. We are, however, being more cautious, because these things can sometimes be up in the air. Case in point, Australia's recent elections. Under the Liberal Party, Australia's economy has gone from strength to strength, and all kinds of progress was made. And yet, Labor came in with a bang under Kevin Rudd, with Pater Garrett, a Minister of Environment so nutty and so extreme they needed a woman of Malaysian origin to do the actual work (yes, she's also the Minister of Environment). And yeah, McCain will pretty much crush Mr BHOmbastic under his little finger now, so that's that. Unless some major FUBAR event occurs between now and November (is it November? Holy crap, that's close!)

Posted by: Gregory at September 02, 2008 05:30 AM (eju9F)

4 Uhhh maybe you should look at the post convention post Palin polls. 2 (Rasmussen and USA Today) have Obama over 50%, CBS has him up by 8% Gallup up by 6%. Palin's unfavourables are approaching 50%, nearly 50% think she is unqualified and she has been on the ticket a little more than 72 hours. You really ought to get out of the coccoon now and again

Posted by: Scott at September 02, 2008 05:53 AM (4hmSz)

5 Scotty are you surprised at her unfavorables given the relentless barrage of negative media attention over the last 72 hours? Let the people get a clear, objective look at her and watch that turn around. Of course the objective on the left is to never let that happen. The truth is that Palin is the only one with executive experience on *either* ticket, and outshines the *top* of the Democrat ticket. That fact will not remain obscured forever.

Posted by: Desert Cat at September 02, 2008 09:45 AM (6go9w)

6 Scott, you ought to leave England every now and then.

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 02, 2008 11:31 AM (TpmQk)

7 Gallup poll shows McCain leading 48%-45%. In Rasmussen, it's a tie. I hope McCain wins. I used to be an Obama supporter but after learning he's pro-infanticide and the biggest liar in politics, I'm his biggest detractor.

Posted by: johnny boi at September 07, 2008 11:41 AM (hD7oD)

8 Vote Hottie. That is what people think this is about?? Most people in this post are a bunch of ignorant sheep that deserve a Mccain/Palin administration. First of all there is too much at stake here to vote on issues like pro-life or pro-choice, gays or religion. Those issues should be left to the states and local communities to sort out. This election is about whether the US will continue to be the world Power and whether the economy will survive another 4 years of Bush policies. You guys need to start reading and stop watching FAUX News. Start looking a foreign policy, monetary policy, Education, etc. Stop being cows directed to the slaugherhouse without a fight. Start reading.

Posted by: Maria at September 10, 2008 08:17 AM (uQyWi)

9 I have never voted republican in my life and I am 40 years old but this election will see me break that trend. barack obama is too big a risk to put in the white house. the man isn't about blue collar american values and jobs, he is about himself and whacko incredibly liberal ideas. And imo, he's as unpatriotic a candidate as we've ever seen. I will be voting mccain/palin in november and I will do so with the hopes that these two republicans that think outside the box as evidenced by both their records will bring us some good change for the country.

Posted by: carter at September 13, 2008 09:33 PM (Lp67z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

132kb generated in CPU 0.2076, elapsed 0.3291 seconds.
220 queries taking 0.2752 seconds, 534 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

September 05, 2008

September 04, 2008

September 03, 2008

September 02, 2008

September 01, 2008

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds