Replace Biden? Are You Kidding?

Seeing as how it’s Thursday afternoon and I’m feeling lazy, let’s do a short topic today. . . about the man who rides the short bus to the White House. Should Obama replace Joe O’Biden? Can Obama replace slow Joe? Who would replace Biden?

● Should Obama Replace Joe: Absolutely. Biden is a massive liability on all fronts. The man is a joke. He’s gaffe prone and his gaffes are offensive. Even when he’s speaking intentionally, as he was when he twice suggested that the Republicans want to institute slavery this week, no one takes him seriously because they assume he went off script. He adds no gravitas to the ticket. He bring no worthwhile policy experience. He’s no match for Paul Ryan. And frankly, he does very poorly against the latest Republican line: “could you imagine this man as President?” Indeed, Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that he even doubts Biden has the intellectual capacity to be President. . . and it’s not like the rest of us weren’t thinking it. Said Giuliani:

“I’ve never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there’s a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it.”

Personally, if I were Obama, I’d drop Joe in a heartbeat! Obama has until September 6th to push the reject button.

● Who Would Replace Joe: This is where things get tricky. Sarah Palin yesterday suggested that Obama replace Biden with Hillary; John McCain echoed this last night. That would certainly make their base happy and it might even win back a couple moderates, but I doubt it would change the dynamic ultimately. And that’s the real problem for Obama. Who could he name that would change the dynamic? Hillary... maybe, but no one else.

And if the dynamic can’t be changed, then no one in their right political mind will want to be the wingman on a losing ticket! That’s a ticket to political oblivious and no one with a future will want to risk that. That leaves only people who are past their primes, ready to retire or truly questionable choices like Jon Huntsman, who may want to prove he’s not an evil Republican.

My money is on nothing changing.

But if I had to guess, I would say that Hillary would help the most. Andrew Cuomo would be the boldest choice. And nobody else would really matter.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obfuscating CPAC

With CPAC finishing Saturday, many people are trying to pick winners and loser. Actually, I should put that differently, many people are trying to spin winners and losers, Politico included. And boy are they wrong!

● Santorum the Winner? Politico declared Santorum the big “winner,” even though he came in second to Romney, because last year he had only 2% support and now he has 31%. This is ludicrous.

Let’s start with the obvious fact Politico skipped: Romney won. That makes him THE winner. Indeed, the real story here is that in the “anybody but Romney” world of conservatism, Romney should not have won this straw poll at all. He should have come in dead last. Instead, he won by 7% (38% to 31%) topping last year’s score of 22%. That makes him THE BIG winner.

If you don’t think that’s true, then ask yourself why Ricky went out Sunday and whined that the vote was rigged? He wouldn’t do that if this loss hadn’t hurt him. (As an aside, note that once again a “conservative” is playing into liberal smears by attacking other conservatives as vote riggers.)

And why did this hurt Ricky? Because with his huge margins of victory in Minnesota and Missouri, anything less than a 50% total among a gathering of 10,000 of the country’s most highly conservative activists must be seen as a declaration of a lack of faith in Santorum. That makes this a HUGE loss, and it means the real winners are Romney (as stated above) and Newt. Why Newt? Because this result tells us that Santorum can’t seal the deal and become the “anybody but Romney” guy. To the contrary, this vote shows a tremendous amount of unease among conservatives with Santorum.

That unease, by the way, was encapsulated by Christine O’Donnell who accidentally said into an open mic, “Santorum’s fiscal record is more liberal than Romney’s social record.” That plus some conservatives fear the whole Torquemada thing won’t sell.

● Obama the Loser? Politico also declared Obama a CPAC loser. They claim his contraception policy controversy couldn’t have happened at a worse time because it “galvanized conservatives at the conference.” Give me a break.

Let’s play Devil’s Advocate. Isn’t the timing a win for Obama? With one well-timed policy, he’s got all the CPAC lemmings worked up into a tizzy over abortion. They will now go home, full of rage, and tell all their friends that abortion needs to be THE issue for this race. That means supporting Reverend Ricky, the weakest candidate in the field. It means spouting a LOT of rhetoric that will freak out the straights. And it means taking their eyes off the real issue -- economics. Indeed, on Tuesday, Obama will unveil a new budget with a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit which lavishes money on his crony friends and raises taxes on everyone. . . but these CPACers will be busy foaming at the mouth over abortion.

Call me crazy, but it sounds like a brilliant bit of timing by Obama.

The real problem for Obama on the contraception issue is that the Catholic Church has declared war against him, and they have a lot of power in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where CPAC has less influence than a jelly donut.

Politico also ignored something else that was significant vis-à-vis Obama and CPAC, even after mentioning it in their article. To stop Ron Paul from winning their straw poll, CPAC made it much easier for everyone to vote. And guess what? They still got 300 fewer votes than last year. And that’s despite this being an election year with a highly contested primary. That’s a sign of trouble for conservatives. Win for Obama.

● Palin the Winner? Politico declared Palin a winner because she drew a large crowd. From this, they concluded she would be “a major figure on the right for decades to come.” Ok, but keep this in mind. Despite claiming to be neutral, she unofficially endorsed Newt right about the time polls showed that he would win South Carolina. He did win, which was no surprise. Then he got his butt handed to him in Florida by Romney and then by Santorum in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Which is more telling of Palin’s power, that a group of activists crowded around her celebrity-style at a conference or that conservative voters in four states ignored her endorsement?

● Ron Paul Loser? Politico says Paul lost because he did much worse in this straw poll than the last one, which “shows the limits of his support among conservatives.” Wrong. This completely misjudges Ron Paul’s goals.

There are many forms of winning. Paul knows he will never win the White House. That’s not his goal. His goal is to get the Republican Party to adopt his views. And with guys like Jim DeMint saying the Republican Party better listen to his views, Paul is riding a heck of a winning streak. Judging him on a straw poll he did not contest (at a convention he did not attend) is as stupid as judging Palin’s political reach on her ability to draw a crowd at CPAC. This is insta-nalysis and it’s crap. This is analysis designed to create a trend rather than expose a trend.

● Anybody But Romney Tantruming. Finally, Politico along with several conservatives are attacking Romney over his statement that: “I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”

See, it turns out that no conservative would say this, just as no British secret agent would order red wine with fish. Said a shocked Rush: “I have never heard anybody say, ‘I’m severely conservative.’” Added the always-perfect Newt, “Some things are too funny to comment on.” Several others called for an “explanation.”

The meme behind this is that conservatives shouldn’t trust Romney because he “doesn’t speak the language” of conservatism. This is ridiculous. Splitting hairs over a poor choice of words is not reasoned analysis, it’s a prejudice desperately searching for validation.

But I guess they’re right. How can we trust a man who would say “I’m severely conservative” in an off-the-cuff comment. We should instead put our faith in genuine conservatives like Newt who says conservative things like calling deportation of illegals “heartless” and “inhuman,” who pimped global warming as “settled science,” who attacks “bad capitalism,” and who supported RomneyCare and TARP because everybody was doing it. Or we should support genuine conservatives like Ricky Santorum who supported the creation of new entitlements, gun control, higher taxes, higher spending, a healthcare mandate (i.e. RomneyCare), and illegal immigration, and who also disapproves of “bad capitalism.” Why? Because Rick’s a real conservative, and he would never misspeak, like he did about women in combat this weekend.

My point is this. Conservatives need to stop playing these games. Disagreeing over the importance of particular aspects of the candidate’s records is fine, trying to invent things to dislike is not. Stop parsing words and crowd size. Stop trying to turn mirages of molehills into mountains. Let’s use our brains, not our knee-jerks, and demand that conservative talkers start using theirs as well. . . assuming they have them.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Palin Exposé Exposes Liberal Sexism, Racism

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:

Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:

Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:

Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.

So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Palin Knows How To Win In California

One potential Republican presidential candidate has figured out the only way that the GOP has a snowball's chance of winning in California in 2012. That person is Sarah Palin. The election will be won or lost in the Central/San Joaquin Valley, where a federal government-imposed artificial drought is killing California agriculture and putting thousands of out work while putting California's economy even deeper into the debt hole.

I've been writing about the destruction of the American cornucopia since long before I left San Francisco for that selfsame Central Valley. People who don't know California tend to think of its industrial and entertainment powerhouses without knowing that California is was America's agricultural heartland (peace to my friends in the Midwest). California produced more corn, rice, wheat, cotton and a myriad of other agricultural products than any other region within our national borders. It was an integral and substantial part of the economy that was at one time the fifth largest in the world.

I first saw the sign in the picture accompanying this article as my son and I were driving the moving van from San Francisco to my new digs in Caliente (Kern County, Central Valley). It appears in duplicate form all along the inland route from Northern to Southern California. I drove that route many times over the years from my homes in Downey and Simi Valley to the Bay Area and my residences in Berkeley and San Francisco. I remembered miles and miles upon miles and miles of fertile green fields, farms, citrus groves, vineyards and domesticated animal herds. It was a genuine shock to see cracked earth and brown, untended fields devoid of life-giving water.

All of this green wealth was brought to the Central Valley by the California Water Project begun in the 1920's and continuing through the late 1990's. What was once a desert with fertile but dry soil became the wonder of the agricultural world. Most of the water came from the Delta region of Northern California through a massive system of dams, canals, pumps and pipes. There was (and is) enough water to provide the life-giving liquid to the entire state. That is until the federal Environmental Protection Agency discovered that the pumps endangered an already dying and worthless fish species--the Delta smelt. For the whole background on this fiasco, see The Fish That Conquered California.

Politicians and candidates of both parties come to San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose/Silicon Valley and Sacramento to demagogue and raise funds. None of those cities are directly impacted by the avoidable drought in the Central Valley. In fact, if not properly dammed and diverted, parts of California would be drowning in water after this year's heaviest snow pack and rainfall in fifty years (global warming?). San Francisco Bay is being flushed out by millions of gallons of water from those wet conditions while the Central Valley remains cracked and dry.

Of all the candidates and potential candidates for the presidency, only one has done the right thing and visited the towns of the Central Valley. And she has done it twice. From Fresno to Bakersfield, the unemployment rate is two to four times that of the rest of the state, and bankruptcies and public assistance are nearly three times that of the other regions of California. Just ten years ago, the unemployment rate was half that of the rest of the state. The EPA killed oil production in the Central Valley decades ago (along with farming, it was the largest employer in the region). Now it has brought death and destruction to the agricultural industry.

God love Sarah Palin. Speaking this past Sunday at West Hills College in the small town of Lemoore (about ninety miles from my home in Caliente), Palin said: "A faceless government is taking away your lifeline, water, all because of a three-inch fish. Where I come from, a three-inch fish, we call that bait. There is no need to destroy people's lives over bait." Not exactly "fourscore and seven years ago," but it is more than adequate to sum up the situation.

This was a fund-raising event for the inauguration of the school's new Golden Eagle Arena. It raised about $115,000 net for the cause. But the implications of a nationally-known political personality speaking to a crowd comprised largely of California farmers and farm-workers cannot be overestimated. Independents and Democrats in the area who voted for Obama in 2008 are seriously reconsidering their votes. Republicans voted for McCain, but weren't at all enthusiastic about it. But still the Republicans won the majority of votes in the Central Valley districts. Palin is now energizing the Republicans while wooing the Independents and Democrats who are all suffering equally from the predations of the EPA.

Whether Palin will run or if her attention to the Central Valley will help her potential candidacy remains to be seen. But I will tell you from decades of involvement in California politics that one trip to the besieged Central Valley to talk about the crime against California's agricultural industry is worth more than a hundred visits to the big cities. You may raise more money in San Francisco and Los Angeles, but you'll raise far more votes by visiting Lemoore, Weed Patch, Tehachapi, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and my nearby "metropolis," Bakersfield.

Any Republican candidate who is serious about winning in California (or at least adding substantially to his or her popular vote) had better learn from Sarah Palin and follow her lead. Even I might find it in my heart to leave my comfortable retirement, roll up my sleeves, and get back into the fight. The destruction of the lifeblood of the Central Valley by federal bureaucrats and green-weenie Democrats is the issue that trumps all others here. That issue affects millions of California voters.

Democrats constantly talk about "the forgotten man" by which they mean the welfare community, illegal immigrants, and workers now on the unemployment line largely because of Democratic profligacy. The true forgotten man lives right here in the Central Valley and is just waiting for a presidential candidate who remembers him.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Leftists Sink To Vile New Lows. . . Again

Every time I turn around, the left sinks to new lows, especially when it comes to their Palin Derangement Syndrome, which is much viler than their Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is much viler than their Reagan Derangement Syndrome. Their latest spewage involves attacks on Sarah Palin’s down syndrome child Trig. And low doesn’t really describe it. . . subhuman is more accurate. So pardon my anger.

For many weeks now, the left has been promoting a hateful little conspiracy in which they claim that Trig is not actually Palin’s son. Everything from leftist professors to anonymous web-posting idiots are claiming that Trig is actually the son of Bristol Palin, not Sarah Palin. Why would the Palins try to hide this? Because, claim these sickos, it would have embarrassed them to have an unmarried, pregnant daughter during the 2008 campaign. . . which you may recall is actually what happened.

Of course, this is insane and the left knows this. There are copious amounts of photos from the time showing that Palin was pregnant and that Bristol was not. There are also medical records. But that doesn’t stop these sickos because they get off on bullying Palin’s kids, see e.g. Kathy Griffith, as they do with all of their opponents kids. And this is how leftists give themselves delusions of adequacy, by attacking children.

And if you doubt me, pay attention to this story.

Two days ago, jack stuef of Wonkette, a leftist political “satire” site, put up a posting called “Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap” to mark Palin’s youngest son’s birthday. Beyond the incoherent headline, jack included in this post a series of vile attacks on Palin as well as attacks on Trig. For example, jack included “jokes” about Trig like the following:

“What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.”

Funny stuff jack. Your hero Hitler would have been proud. jack then added “jokes” about child rape, incest and fetal alcohol syndrome. For example, jack said:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.)

So jack thinks it’s funny to ridicule down syndrome Trig as a “gentleman scholar” and to imply that Todd Palin has sex with his own daughter. Nice jack, your jackal mother must be very proud. By the way, you better hope there is no such thing as karma jack.

Of course, Wonkette’s readers thought this was funny, at least until conservatives noticed. Suddenly the spotlight got awfully bright as the rest of America didn’t find jack’s bullying of Trig all that funny. Indeed, as this story spread, sponsors started running away from Wonkette. Papa John’s Pizza, Huggies, Nordstrom, and Holland America Line have announced they would no longer advertise on the site. Vanguard Group is trying to have it both ways by trying to continue advertising at the site, but just not on the hateful posts. . . you might want to give them a call.

Eventually, Wonkette had to respond, and this is where it gets even more sick. Did Wonkette distance itself from jack? No. Instead, Wonkette editor ken layne tried to justify this disgusting attack with the following:

I have four kids myself and I wouldn't want them mocked on the Internet by a bunch of cretins on the Internet. And that's just one reason why I wouldn't parade my children around in the media. What kind of mother does that? . . . Anything involving Palin, I want to make it extra clear that *Palin* is the problem with America. Not her kids. Not her little kid, anyway. The older ones seem to be on their own path and you can't really blame Sarah for it, although she certainly encourages the sleaziest possible behavior from her grown children, which is hardly a very "family values" thing to do.

Right, so Palin entrapped jack by “parading” Trig around the media?! Give me a break. Everybody knows Palin did no such thing -- though Obama has done this repeatedly with his own kids. And even if she did, ken and jack should have known better than to attack Trig. Notice, by the way, that ken can’t bring himself to admit that his own hateful writer is actually in the wrong for any part of this. Moreover, notice that ken also can't stop himself from taking shots at Bristol Palin and Sarah Palin in the process. This is evidence of mental illness and ken and jack should stop stroking each other and seek help.

And that wasn’t all ken wrote. Indeed, when another website called ken out on this (“Jack Stuef’s column 'honoring' Trig Palin’s birthday is about the most irredeemably vile, unfunny thing I’ve ever seen. . . If there is any expression of disgust that I have failed to convey, consider this my signature on it.”) and wanted to get his response before posting a scathing attack on this, ken responded by first saying the real problem was “Palin fans” who aren’t smart enough to get the satire. Funny, I’m no fan of Palin but I don’t get the satire either. He then tries to defend the column by saying:

“we should always — it is a *moral duty* — show how reprehensible it is to be using *any baby* and especially a special needs baby as a political prop. That is gross, and sane people know it’s gross.”

That’s right ken, what you and jack have done in using Trig is “reprehensible.” It is “gross” and “sane people” don’t do this. So why did you do it? And why do you keep doubling down on subhuman with every fresh sentence? ken continues:

“And with two kids of my own and another on the way, I am obviously a great fan of children, especially mine. And I respect the rights of children to not be mocked on the internet just because their mom is a cow-demon. It’s not the kid’s fault. Who gets to pick their parents? I sure didn’t.”

So it’s not ok to mock kids on the internet? But it is ok to call their mother a “cow-demon” -- a term that should probably get ken fired for misogyny. And since ken still refuses to apologize for jack’s vile attacks on Palin’s son Trig or ken’s own attacks on the other Palin kids, what are we to make of this statement? Is it just hypocrisy or something worse? And let me point out that ken just made his own kids props in the defense of his own hate. ken, you are a sick f#$%.

ken then finishes by claiming that the outrage is “feigned,” before launching into yet another slander of Sarah Palin and her “poor white people” fans. That’s a nice touch ken, finishing on a racist note.

Finally, Wonkette deleted jack’s name and deleted the comments, but left the article.

What we’ve learned here is that the left has become a diseased carcass. They are riddled with hate, racism, and misogyny, and they get off on savaging disabled infants. This is what has become of an entire ideology, an ideology of greed, envy and hate. They have become so blinded by their hate that they no longer have any boundaries. They will attack other people's children, exploit their own, and pass the vilest, most delusional lies all to make themselves feel adequate and smug.

They are subhuman.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mischaracterizing The Tea Party

For those who don’t know, the Politico is an interesting site that gets a lot of good political stories. It also leans left, often very much so. In fact, a couple of their writers are little more than Democratic spokesmen (at least one has Soros ties). Now they’ve written a very deceptive article about the Tea Party. Basically, they’ve mischaracterized it as a gathering of Palin-lovers or Ron Pauliacs, even though the poll they are relying says the opposite.

Here’s what the article says. Let’s start with the headline: “Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul.”

Based on this, you would assume two things about the Tea Party. First, that it is split. Secondly, that its supporters by and large follow one of these two figures, both of whom happen to be the most controversial figures in the Republican Party. This, to the left, is like saying: “Tea Partiers split between Hitler and Satan.”

The article then says the following, which confirms the assumptions we just made:

“The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base. . .”

Note that a fault line, like a rift, is a split and implies a great deal of anger when used in describing human relationships. Do you see the Tea Party splitting in two? The quote continues:

“. . . characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who ‘best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement’ -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Plain and Rep. Ron Paul.”

There it is, the Tea Party is split into two diametrically opposed wings, one that follows the teachings of Sarah Palin and one that follows svengali Ron Paul. Note the particular use of the words "led by." What does that tell you about the relationship between Paul/Palin and the Tea Party? Clearly, the Tea Party is nothing more than a vehicle for Paul/Palin supporters.

To back up this claim of leadership, the article points to a poll. Read this closely:

“Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values.”

There you go, proof that they are indeed the leaders of the movement because Palin gets 43% support and Paul gets 42% support, right?

Actually no, not even close. This misleading quote is the writer trying to create facts that don’t exist. He gives you the truth, but he hides it under the spin. Palin’s support is 15%, not 43%. Paul’s support is 14%, not 42%. That’s 29% support for both combined, not the 85% that is implied by the quote. How can 29% support fairly be turned into the quotes above which suggest that the Tea Party is hopelessly split 43/42 between these two? The answer is that it can’t, but it’s what the left wants to hear.

The idea of painting the Tea Party as beholden to either Palin or Paul or both is ridiculous. In fact, when asked if they would support Palin if she ran for President, a full 53% of Tea Party people said they wouldn’t even consider voting for her. Paul does even worse, with 59% saying they wouldn’t even consider voting for him. That means that 15% support Palin, 53% don’t, and 32% would consider it. That’s hardly the makings of a Tea Party leader. Ditto for Paul.

So why describe the Tea Party as split between these two? Because it makes the party sound like two fringe groups battling for the soul of the right. Moreover, it makes them sound like they are worshipping the cult of personality, rather than presenting rational ideas. But nothing is further from the truth.

Consider that split on values. Seventy three percent of Tea Partiers are “angry” that the government intrudes too much into personal lives. That doesn’t sound like much of a split. In fact, anything above 60% is phenomenally uniform in a poll.

So where does this crap about a split come from? It comes from this. When asked whether the government should promote a particular set of values, 51% said no and 46% said the government should promote traditional family values. Oh my! Clearly, them’s fighting words. . . except that the writer doesn’t factor in one big detail. The biggest issues people identified (those about which they were “most angry”) were: the national debt, bailouts, earmarks and frivolous lawsuits. The least important were the social issues.

What that tells us is that the Tea Party is a happy gathering of people with a common purpose -- to oppose the government's continued interference in economic and regulatory matters. To the extent they disagree on social issues, they have apparently decided to agree to disagree. And that’s no big deal. It’s the same thing when Catholics and Protestants and Jews come together on common issues. They have agreed to put aside their differences to work toward their common goals. To spin such a gathering as a deeply divided group ready to split apart as they each fight for their theology is dishonest, stupid and wishful thinking.

The reason the left can’t understand this is because the Tea Party people have done something the little tribes on the left never could: they’ve put aside their individual issues in favor of working on the things about which they agree. The left can’t see this because they can’t imagine putting aside their issues. When you are an environmentalist, all other issues come second. Ditto gays, abortion, unionization, blacks, women, etc. To the left, the other guys are there to help you, you aren’t part of a team. That's why they don't understand the Tea Party. The Tea Party people are different. They are working for a common goal.

That must be terrifying to the left.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Anti-Intellectualism Is Not An Answer (By Itself)

I've been around the political world long enough to watch the possession of a degree from an elite university go from being a nice thing to have when you're running for the presidency to a "credential weapon" to beat your opponents over the head with. This is an unhealthy development which has produced an anti-intellectual backlash which is equally unhealthy.

Right at the moment, I'm in "a plague on both their houses" mode. Waving one's lack of education around (or the alternative of a degree from a lesser school) is no better than waving around an Ivy League degree which is supported by no accomplishment and no paper-trail (Obama, anyone?). If you're lacking in the "fancy education" department, prove your worth with intelligent words and deeds. If you're waving around the degree from Harvard or Columbia (or UC Berkeley, LOL), prove that your smarts and acts match your lofty degree.

I've expressed my low opinion of what passes today for "higher education" in past posts, as well as my admiration for people with common sense and good instincts. But I have also made it clear that if you can put common sense and good instincts together with a couple of hard-earned degrees in serious academic disciplines, you might just have the recipe for the perfect candidate.

The latest round of anti-intellectualism and pride in lesser education clearly revolves, in large part, around Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. The moment Palin became the Republican candidate for vice-president, Obama and Biden trotted out their educations (questionable as both are). At first, Palin replied with excellent and funny counter-attacks. Today, I have begun to sense that the battle has hardened into something much more sinister--on both sides.

The Democratic elites are determined to paint Palin as a country rube with little formal education. Palin has rightly struck back by pointing out her accomplishments so far (which I'm not here to dispute). But "so far" is the key expression here. She has yet to show the political acumen, stick-to-itiveness or intellectual rigor that I tend to favor in a presidential candidate. But she might yet do so if she doesn't fall into the elitist trap of pooh-poohing everyone with a degree from the Ivy League or other elite universities.

Since there is no question that I would be more than willing to vote for a high school graduate with the proper temperament and intelligence against an over-degreed intellectual snob, it falls to me to point out why I am defending intellectuals in general while at the same time pointing out the problem with the intellectual elite of the past two or three decades. Part of my higher education was learning to separate an intellectual from a pseudo-intellectual, particularly in the political arena.

This preoccupation with college degrees serves some purpose. It can be a measure of determination or intelligence. But basic education has been so dumbed-down and politicized that smart kids who didn't have the means to get a college education are frequently simply eliminated from the "good jobs" pool by rigid employer rules requiring the possession of a college degree. I would have been one of them had it not been for the California State Scholarships and NDEA loans that made it possible for me to wend my way to Berkeley. As much as you may all have read about radicalism at Berkeley, the simple fact is that all the elite schools I referenced still maintained the old academic standards, remained politically-neutral, or nearly so, in classes, and expected nothing less than high academic performance, or bye-bye. This was all before grade inflation and social promotion.

Today, academic achievement and just plain "smarts" at the lower levels of education no longer are the main criteria used to choose the freshman class at the elites and the Ivies. Much of that derives from the "social experiments" with education over the past two or three (or even four) decades. The public schools today are in dreadful shape, and for a very long time have been the producers of most of the future college professors and college students. The public schools have been the cauldron in which all the crazy ideas of progressive education and social experimentation have been boiling since at least as far back as the late 60s.

The old concept of the rigorous grammar school or Latin school for public school students is dead, dead, dead. Smart parents who want their children to get a good education are left only with good parochial schools and even better private schools, both of which are often far outside the ability of the parents to pay for. Many have resorted to home-schooling, and though that has proven to be highly successful for those who have the brains, time and the means to do it, it is a limited option. Why else would you think that the elites love public schools, but send their kids to expensive private schools and oppose voucher programs?

Only in the private and parochial elementary and high schools is the "old education" preserved. That old education includes moral guidance, largely derived from religion and the ancient philosophers rather than from radical "educators." And it included what is often referred to as the basic "three R's." The even more rigorous "classical education" produced scholars who could do mathematical calculations without a calculator, quote Cicero in Latin, and write passable classical Greek. And that was only the "elementary" schools. Modern philosophers were rarely included at the lower-levels until the students had already studied the classics.

I have seen what National Review's Michael Knox Beran calls "degree fetish" advance from "you must have a bachelor's degree," to "you must have a master's degree," to "you must have a PhD (or its equivalent)." Today's PhD's have no more intellectual ability than the holders of bachelor's degrees that I knew in my youth. And today's PhD holders have exhibited a very old European attitude toward degrees--a PhD holder simply doesn't associate with a mere baccalaureate nor will he take anything the lesser-educated man or woman says seriously. This is the doctrine of unintended consequences writ large. The progressive education public schools were the progressives' way of "giving everyone the same educational advantages." Instead, they created a system in which the old high school diploma was at least equal to the new bachelor's degree. It led to the European-style elitism that we see today throughout academia, and which has been fully foisted on the American people.

So Palin has a degree from Nowhere U, and Obama has a degree from Columbia and a law degree from Harvard, and that put her at a disadvantage that required the educated elite, along with too much of the public, to snort at a level of education considered insurmountable. Obama's subsequent failure at almost everything since being elected, however, is not an excuse for anti-intellectualism. It is merely proof that a degree can mean a great deal, or absolutely nothing. What are they saying? What have they done? What are their plans for the future, and how do they intend to implement them while correcting mistakes made along the line? Those are the question that should be asked, not solely "what degrees do they have?"

Progressive education and the public schools have fortunately produced one excellent by-product. And that is smart people who instinctively knew they had been robbed of a real education, and found ways to get them on their own--with or without a degree. The cultural elitism and socialization that have replaced basic education have also left the average Joe with a foul taste in his mouth. As a result, there is a Tea Party movement, fully exhibiting the popular dissatisfaction with "in-groupness," herd thinking, and surrender to one's degreed "betters."

Today's higher-education, combined with all the preparation for it in the progressive social programs fostered in the lower-education levels, have led to a complete disconnect between phony intellectual elites and the realities of the American mind and soul. That doesn't disqualify highly-intellectual and well-degreed Americans from the right from participating fully in the American political process. If you think it does, consider the following: William F. Buckley, Jr. Whatever else she may think or ultimately say and do, Sarah Palin has gotten the underlying issue right. She espouses "American values" and contrasts those with the aspirations of "elite education." She points out the arrogance of the intellectual elite currently in power with the thoughts, dreams and aspirations of the common American. If she can stop there and not turn it into an "us versus them" know-nothing anti-intellectualism, she will do herself a very large favor.

I'm not sure where Palin derives her views on intellectualism, or even what they actually are. But she has gotten the concept of "show me, then I'll believe you" right. Lionel Trilling and Gertrude Himmelfarb (a disciple of Burke) said that knowledge and education, divorced from the moral imagination, are dangerous things. I would add that I believe that rigid application of standardized liberal academic concepts along with "pure science" when dealing with the real world of human beings are likewise very dangerous. They destroy the soul, the intellectual elite become the "higher power," and consensus quickly replaces debate and sound reasoning. And as a final thought, I remind everyone that the great intellectual, that selfsame William F. Buckley, said that he would trust the wisdom of any ten names randomly chosen from the phone book over that of the entire Harvard faculty.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

As promised, I'm going to continue with opening pictures of sights other than the ubiquitous Golden Gate Bridge (at least until I run out of them and return to the most notable symbol of the City by the Bay). Pictured is Coit Tower, visible from almost every spot from downtown to Fisherman's Wharf, high atop Telegraph Hill. In front of the tower is a statue of Columbus, holding out his hand toward the great unknown west. He thought he was looking toward China. Since the tower overlooks the largest Chinese community outside China, he might have concluded he was right if he came to The City today.

The legend, common even among San Franciscans, is that the tower was designed to look like a fire hose and nozzle to commemorate the role of the firemen who so bravely fought the destructive fire following the Great Quake of 1906. It's an understandable mistake. The tower was commissioned by society queen Lillie Hitchcock Coit in 1933. The grande dame donated one-third of her considerable fortune to the beautification of the city she so loved, and Coit Tower was among her bequests. Coit was particularly fond of Knickerbocker Engine Company Number Five which had rushed through the explosive demolitions to attempt to save as much of the Telegraph Hill area as possible. But the design itself had nothing to do with the fire companies. It was meant as an art deco symbol of The City, to be seen by all the ships entering the Bay on their way to their moorings. And it is, indeed, one of the most visible symbols of The City as ships enter the harbor, to be dwarfed by the Transamerica Tower only after the ships have rounded the northern shore before proceeding to their moorings on The Embarcadero.

The interior contains a brew of murals that don't seem to fit Madame Coit's basic beliefs. They are fabulous (as in "like a fable," not like Perez Hilton "fab"). Most were done as early examples of FDR's Public Works of Art depression program. Needless to say, the art was very left wing. But San Francisco, being San Francisco, and Lillie Coit being Lillie Coit, it ended up being a left-right joint venture in defiance of anti-communist outcry. After New York's Rockefeller Center destroyed Diego Rivera's Man at the Crossroads for its depiction of Lenin as a hero of progress, the demand went out for similar destruction of the Coit murals. Lillie stood firm--"Nobody is going to destroy my murals." And she meant it. Still available for view are Stackpole's Industries of California, in which Stackpole depicts himself reading a newspaper describing the destruction of the Rivera mural. Bernard Zakheim's The Library mural depicts a fellow artist crumpling up a local newspaper (The Chronicle?) while reaching for a copy of Marx's Das Kapital. Arnautoff's City Life shows a news rack prominently displaying The Daily Worker and The New Masses. Today it's all campy good fun, and in keeping with Dame Coit's wishes, it's all free to the public.

On Wednesday, the tower got a treatment unlike any it has ever had before. It became a giant movie screen, visible from Nob Hill, Russian Hill and the Wharf. In keeping with crazed San Francisco tradition, the whole dusk to dawn presentation commemorated the 1969 Indian takeover of Alcatraz Island. The producer calls it "a film feature for the spirit." At least he didn't say "The Great Spirit." Any Indians still hiding on Alcatraz would be able to see the projection, if they still have their Native American eagle eyes. Otherwise, binoculars would be in order. At least it wasn't Marxist, so I guess that constitutes a refreshing change.

Note: Sarah Palin's blockbuster hit is not faring well in San Francisco. Somehow, I'm not surprised. The venerable Chron headlines "Bay Area Not Maverick Enough To Read Palin Book." So a couple of rogues at Pajamas Media thought it might be a good idea to see what "smart" books made the shelves in San Francisco bookstores. While the Palin book is reluctantly displayed at the megastores, the independents just don't want to take room away from the more intellectual books that San Franciscans so love.

The Chronicle points out that the Palin book "Might as well have cooties. Hardly anyone wants to touch the thing, or even get close to it." They quote bookstore owner Nathan Embretson: "Our customers are thinking people. They're not into reading drivel." So let's take a look at the books which are prominently displayed at the independents, and which are so, so, intellectual.

Inside Job: Unmasking the 9-11 Conspiracies by Jim Marrs. Originally planned for a major publisher, the tome couldn't pass legal muster. After major revisions and editorial support, they still couldn't reach an agreement. Marrs found a minor paperpack publisher after the original publisher cancelled in 2003. Six years later, it's sitting prominently on the shelves of the independents.

Discovering America as It is by Vaidas Anelauskas. Anelauskas has been identified as a white racist anti-semite by several respectable journalists. A quote from the book reveals: "Only from people of that peculiar tribe can we expect such Talmudic hatred for humanity. There is even a famous saying that wars are the Jews' harvest." I seem to remember that this particular saying was very popular among Nazis and neo-Nazis.

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi. A companion piece to Discovering America, from the viewpoint of jihadists rather than Nazis. When will those Jews just go away and leave decent folk alone?

On The Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality by Ward Churchill. Expanding on a theme of Malcolm X, the unwashed, unshaven pseudo-Native American with zero academic credentials other than being fired by the University of Colorado for plagiarism, providing false information, and subversive activity, this is a fine leftist fantasy about terrorist America.

The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems by Van Jones. The communist race-baiting former Green Czar for his soulmate Barack Obama has simple solutions for complicated problems. Par for the course for simpletons.

Inner Paths to Outer Space: Journeys to Alien Worlds Through Psychedelics and Other Spiritual Technologies by various mushroom-shaped authors. "Those who regularly navigate the hyperspatial landscape that some have called the 'tryptamine dimension' have long suspected that the portals to inner and outer space may be one and the same. This book, a collaboration of the most cutting-edge shaman/neuroscientists working in this field, boldly explores this concept in a stunning tour de force." What more can I say?

And the list goes on, seemingly interminably. The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal by J. Patrick O'Connor; Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist by Willam Ayers; Ash Wednesday by Ethan Hawke (there's an "e" at the end of that name. I'm no relative of the sissy-boy actor, I assure you); Underground: My Life with SDS and the Weathermen by Mark Rudd; Cold Fusion: Challenge to U.S. Science Policy by Lyndon LaRouche (remember him?); and finally, J.Lo: The Secret Behind Jennifer Lopez's Rise to the Top by National Enquirer writer Sarah Gallick. They could have cut that last title to: J.Lo: The Not-So-Secret Behind.

I may be a bit of an academic snob, but I gotta tell ya, next to that list Sarah Palin is looking like Ludwig von Mises. You betcha.

Note: Among the multitudinous female candidates for public office, a new one has joined the fray. Meg Whitman is running for governor, and her first urban stop since announcing her candidacy in September is in San Francisco. The second Silicon Valley high-powered woman executive to throw her bonnet into the ring, Republican Whitman has left the Senate race to her counterpart from Hewlett-Packard. Whitman made her bones as CEO of e-Bay. Whitman made a good start by talking to her fellow business owners and execs at the St. Francis Hotel gathering of the Chamber of Commerce. So far, she is ahead in the preliminary Republican polls, and has already spent $19 million of her own money on the campaign. How come I never made that kind of money when I was a business executive?

Whitman is slowly emerging, but so far it's hard to tell if she's a moderate or a full-blown RINO. She is clearly pro-business, but her stands on social issues and government interference in private matters have not yet been fleshed out. An example of her biz-speak includes: "What is remarkable is whether people are talking about a spending cap or the growth of costs in the state, no one ever talks about the government getting more productive. Productivity metrics not in the nomenclature." The last I looked, almost every Republican and conservative was talking about government lack of productivity and how the job could be done better privately (and profitably), and if she means "government actions in places which belong to the private sector," we're all opposed. But those productivity metrics sound cool, don't they?

But she does have a serious image problem. The Sacramento Bee reported that she had registered to vote in California as recently as seven years ago, and only registered as a Republican in 2007. It took a week for her to respond to the charge, and during that interim, she was already labeled a carpetbagger and had developed a public image as a dilettante and a candidate with little previous interest in GOP politics. Her slow response was that she was a registered Republican who voted in Ohio throughout the 80s, but it may have been too late to change the immediate perception of her as just another opportunist who hasn't earned Republican loyalty.

The best candidate in the Republican field is the serious and successful conservative Tom Campbell. But he can't come even close to raising the kind of war chest available to Whitman or his other opponent, Steve Poizner. Though Poizner is a relative unknown like Whitman, he is also a former Silicon Valley success story, having started a couple of Silicon Valley high-tech firms, and selling SnapTrack for a billion dollars.

Most of the buzz about Whitman is related to her organizational skills rather than her political positions. Poizner said of Whitman: "She's a marketing expert. That's an important skill. I've hired a lot of these people. If folks want to re-brand the state, they'll vote for her. If they want to rebuild it, they'll vote for me." Sorry, Mr. Poizner, that honor should go to Campbell.

But still it's clear that she couldn't do any worse at destroying the state's once leading economy than RINO Schwarzenegger or her likely opponent in the general election, former Governor Moonbeam Jerry Brown. Although Brown's leftocrat party holds a thirteen point registration lead over Republicans, Whitman has shown as being in a dead-heat for the governor's job in several recent polls, including Rasmussen. For that reason she goes out of her way not to come off as a celebrity know-nothing running against a liberal machine. Ahnuld has damaged that image, perhaps forever. But she does attack professional politicians. "If the professional politicians had done such a great job in Sacramento, maybe California would be in better shape than it's in."

It's unlikely that any issue, even gay marriage, will be able to push the economic crisis off the top of the list of "fix it now" issues. And Whitman thrives on that. She says, with a large amount of veracity, that her experience running a large company can translate into success at a state capital held captive by strong union interests and an unruly legislature. Brown has never done much of anything except dither around in state politics, and his best friends are Hollywood celebrities, big unions, state employees, and ACORN.

Much about Whitman remains to be seen. But for now, it looks like she's a relatively sensible candidate who knows how to read a balance sheet and hasn't taken any radical views along with her on the campaign trail. And she won't be intimidated by Brown's dismissive snarl and snarky one-liners the way so many others have. This may turn out to be one of the more exciting contests in recent years.

Note: Gavin Newsom, illustrious missing mayor and former candidate for governor, is well known for his reluctance to fire any city appointee. But he just fired Stefanie Coyote (wife of renowned actor, drug advocate and general all-around lefty Peter Coyote) from her position as Executive Director of the San Francisco Film Commission. The $132,000 annual job is supposed to promote the desirability of San Francisco as a spot for Hollywood filming. Two years ago, she caused a major flap by making the Marine Corps jump through liberal, politically-correct hoops to film a recruiting ad featuring San Francisco backgrounds. The Marine Corps allowed that next time it would film in less hostile territory, like Berkeley.

Apparently, Newsom blindsided Coyote. She was away on a Thanksgiving leave, and got the news second-hand. I have to give Newsom credit--his action served up two turkeys on one platter. Attaboy, Gavin. There may be hope for you yet.

Note: Speaking of banana republics (We were speaking of banana republics, weren't we? Or was that an earlier column?). Banana Republic, the popular clothing store for yuppies who want to live in the South Seas in the 30s, is owned by The Gap. San Francisco's unemployment rate is approaching 17 percent, and Banana Republic is doing its part to alleviate that. At their main store on Grant Avenue, they just hired 39 greeters. Unfortunately, that doesn't actually help our unemployment rate, since 35 of the 39 hirees are neither Californians nor San Franciscans. In fact, they're not even Americans.

All 35 are visiting tourists or foreign students. Banana Republic insists that the minimum wage jobs were open to anyone, but no locals applied. Well, as your intrepid reporter, I must let you know that I have low friends in high places. I am friendly with several business owners in the nearby Westfield Shopping Centre where Banana Republic has its second largest San Francisco store. They all report daily applications from locals willing to take any job for any pay rate that's legal, and more than a few have mentioned that both Banana Republics had told them there were no jobs available.

Note: Not to be outdone by the local booksellers, Mad Mark Morford has his own opinion on Sarah Palin's blockbuster hit book. If you want to know his suggested usage of the book (he doesn't clarify if you should wait for the parperback or not), here it is: Top Ten Uses for Going Rogue.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is Barack Obama A Misogynist?

As I watched Barack Obama give his healthcare address this morning, something struck me. No doubt, you have already guessed where I’m heading, but I’ll go there anyways -- always give the audience what they want, right?

At the end of Obama’s press conference on healthcare today, Nancy Pelosi asked to make a final comment. She then gushed about how Obama’s leadership has done more to muck up. . . er reform healthcare than anyone else ever, anywhere, any time. Barack looked annoyed. When she finished, he wished everyone good day but never acknowledged Pelosi’s comments. Not even a “thanks.”

This struck me as rude. Sure, Pelosi asking to make an additional comment was a bit of a breach of protocol, but still, simple politeness says that you acknowledge her comments. He didn’t.

Then I remembered the rather sexists things he said about Palin during the election (remember “small town mayor”?) and how he never once disowned the misogynistic comments that his followers threw at her. Then I remembered the dismissive and condescending manner in which he treated “Hillary” -- note he never uses her last name as he does with males. Even his joke about her at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner seemed kind of nasty.

So is it just that he views these particular women as competitors? Or is there more.

He abandoned Nancy Killefer, but he fought for Tim Geithner, even though both had the exact same problem. Indeed, Geithner’s was arguably worse on many levels. He did dump Daschle, but not until feminists started to complain that after Killefer/Geithner, he better not protect a second male (he also didn’t abandon Daschle until Daschle’s lobbying became a big issue).

He seems to have appointed many more men than women. And come to think of it, I can’t think of a woman he’s been particularly nice about since Oprah.

Does this mean he’s a misogynist? No, not yet -- I’m not a leftist so I don’t accuse first and look for proof later. But this is an issue that is worth watching.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...