Nothing says "new Republican leadership" quite like "Lindsay Graham". . .

NOT.

Excuse me, I need to LMAO at Jonathan Martin and Chris Cillizza (O/T: can we see Jonthan team up with Chris and Dana to create a trio of buffoonish "political analysts" on video? Can we?  CAN WE?)

Evidently Martin and Cilizza independently came to the conclusion that, based on a MTP appearance this weekend, Lindsay Graham was signalling a new silliness, er, willingness to take on a more public leadership role in the Republican Party.

Go for it, Huckleberry!  Because I know that many people, when seeing that the face of the Republican Party is yet another older, white, southern male, will most definitely feel the rush of the thrill of new leadership!

Out of sheer petty annoyance with the decision to fire Froomkin, I won't link directly to WaPo, but instead to Politicalwire, where you can hop on over to the Post and Politico. . .

 

 

Mark Halperin published another one of his lists in which he offers reasons for why something seems to be happening.  The latest version is 16 Reasons Why He's Dominating.  (At least he counted correctly in this edition).

Obama's dominating?  I thought he was The Most Polarizing President in The History Of The Human Race.  How can you dominate if you're so polarizing?  (Stupid question: George W. Bush).

I check in with Halperin, because I like to be aware of what the so-called "conventional wisdom" is these days among the Villagers, if for no other reason than to laugh at how out of touch many in the media seem to be.  But I have to admit.  This edition worries me.  It's not this perplexing reason:

12. He talks to his constituents as if they are adults who are willing and able to deal with complexity-- which is intellectually and practically satisfying to him, pleasing to elites, and gratifying to many citizens.

(Why wouldn't this be pleasing to everyone?  Elites or otherwise?  Hello?)

What worries me is Halperin's track record: In December, Mitch McConnell was one of the 5 (sic) most important people in Washington not named Barack Obama?

So does this mean Obama isn't dominating?  That the Republicans really are?  Texas isn't going to secede?  Michele Bachmann makes sense?

I'm all confused at this point.

 

And some fairly unoriginal reporting, but whatever.

There's a short piece in today's Times essentially providing a paraphrased transcription of Cheney's interview yesterday on CNN.  Besides the fact that the piece provides no new information, there's also no context provided for some of the more breathtaking statements Cheney made.

"I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11," Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he made in an interview last month with the Web site Politico.com.

"I think that's a great success story," he said. "It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles."

 

Did the reporter then include information about the fact that there is in fact, a heated debate about whether the actions taken by the Bush Administration were, in fact, in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles?

Take a guess.

Then there's this:

"Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem," he said. "You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.

"Once you go into a wartime situation and it's a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they've got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources -- everything you can -- in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you

So after 9/11, our actions were taken to "go after the enemy".  OK.  So then WTF is this, at the end?

"We've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do," he said about Iraq. "Now, I don't hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There's been elections, a constitution. They're about to have another presidential election here in the near future."

"We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal," Mr. Cheney said. "And it is, in fact, what we set out to do."

 

Get it?  Our actions in Iraq were to install a democracy.  But actually, he says earliers that our actions were taken to defend ourselves against the terrorist threat against us.  Which is it?  At this point, the Times could have practiced journalism by pointing out that in the lead up to the war, the argument for the war, in the first place, was to prevent Iraq from using those mythical WMDs.  Instead, the article ends there, with no context.

Stenography.

And just imagine if Cheney were a Democrat and Obama a Republican.  Oh, the keening and wailing and outrage over a former VP criticizing a sitting President.

Instead?

Stenography.  And crickets.

 

I think we'd be hearing from the talking blabberheads on cable TV what an inspired and daring leader he is.  I caught a snippet of MSNBC this morning during which the MSNBC host (not Contessa Brewer, but I'm blanking on her name, nonetheless) was speaking with someone from Politico about the lack of "civility" and "bipartisanship", and the gist went something like this:

"So, do you think Obama has learned anything from his attempts to reach out to Republicans?"

"Well, he went up to the Hill, invited them to the White House, and all he got for it was 3 votes.  I think he's learning that that really doesn't work".

The entire discussion was framed to highlight Obama's supposed failure.  The part that Republicans played in all of this, outside of the 3 votes?  Not discussed at all.

So I got to thinking: if Obama were a Republican, how would the blabberheads on cable and places like The Page, Drudge, and Politico describe what's taken place over the last 50 days?

Instead of "Obama obviously needs to learn a little bit about how Washington works", we'd have:

Obama makes an unprecedented effort to end gridlock and partisanship in DC.  Democrats spurn his outreach; seem willing to continue the failed tactics of the past.

Dems, at their peril, shun the President

Instead of "Obama is obviously distracted", we'd have:

"Obama, demonstrating the intellect and vision that was obvious during the campaign, juggles multiple catastrophes and leads the country in the right direction."

 

Instead of "Is Obama dragging the stock market down?",

Stock market is gradually shaking off the hangover from the previous administration

How would the polls be described?  Instead of "Obama has same approval rating as Bush at this point in his Presidency" (thanks to Karl Rove for that insight), we might have:

Country strongly supports the President.  Democrats apparently headed towards minority status.

 

Oh well.

Please feel free to leave your own additions. . .

 

 

A commenter made the point that tarring Republicans with Rush Limbaugh was similar to tarring Obama with every comment of Rev. Wright's.  Obama wasn't responsible for Wright's comments, and Republicans aren't responsible for Rush's comments.  I agree. 

However, a quick google reveals that in the last 10 days, Republicans have been publicly cuddling up to Rush.  Somehow, this strikes me as different from Obama's response to Wright.

Gingrey: Sorry. I didn't really mean all that, Rush. No hard feelings, right?

Rush provides safe haven for Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor in 2007: I heart Rush!!!

John McCain: I was against Rush Limbaugh before I was for him....

So, to recap: the party whip and the party's nominee in the last election are defending Rush.  Another apologizes for making a reasonable remark about Rush, and another "cherishes" Rush.  Tell me again why Republicans don't deserve to be linked with this doofus?

Mark Halperin has been printing the list of the "five most important people" who can influence the election, the economy, the orbit of the earth...for weeks at this point.  Never mind that we're racking up hundreds of individuals who are supposed to be the most important people ever, today's list is particularly hilarious.

 

Titled in the usual manner, of course: the five most important people who can....

 

There are only four items on the list today.

Halperin's take: the five most important people. Oops. Left one out.

This is a reposted and expanded upon comment from the Election Central Roundup:

 Eric Boehlert has an interesting examination of how the press, after being accused of favoring Clinton in the election 1992, developed quite a combative relationship with Clinton even before he took office. The "honeymoon" with the media was declared over practically before Clinton was sworn in.

Election Central reported that the McCain campaign was sinking a decent amount of cash into showing the now-infamous Britney/Paris ad around the country. I know that I'm supposed to understand that this ad is a genius ad, with all the subtle imagery included in it, and it might be, but I have some questions about it. 1. Why did the McCain take ownership of this? The RNC should have done it. McCain has provided Obama with a nice opportunity to keep saying "McCain keeps running ads about Britney Spears, and I'm out here trying to help you. Who do you want as President?" He'd have less of an opportunity to make that point had the RNC run the ad. 2. Who were the focus groups? There's a short story in today's McClatchy claiming that the ad might be hurting Obama, but when you read it, there's just not much there. The study says:

But the results that may have been most telling were the changes in whom the participants would vote for and suggested that such advertising could have an impact, especially among independents. Before viewing the ad, 75 percent of the Democrats said they would vote for Obama. After viewing the ad, that percentage was 72, while undecideds rose from 13 to 15 percent and those favoring other candidates rose from 3 to 4 percent.

So 75 to 72? And it goes on:

Similar results were recorded for Republicans and Independents. Republican support for Obama dropped from 8 to 6 percent, while McCain's percentage remained unchanged at 74 percent. Undecideds rose from 16 to 18 percent, however. Only among independents did the drop in Obama's percentage, from 44 to 43 percent, accrue to McCain, whose support went from 33 top 34 percent.

In other words, the ad had no effect. This is a tiny study (N = 300+), and maybe the ad will have a cumulative effect, but right now, I don't see the advantage for McCain. He's spending money to show this, he's tied directly to it, it provides a great soundbite for Obama, and the effectiveness of it remains in question.

Jonathan Martin has the story.  The statement begins with:

"John McCain's new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. "

Zing!  Thank you for being so straightforward, Colonel.

Perhaps this is the start of some pushback on that dreadful ad?

Maybe traditional media might mention this?

Sure.

And tomorrow, I'll wake up and find out that I've won the lottery....

Here's the whole story:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Ramstein_medical_chief_denounces_McCain.html?showall

Some Times' columnists I simply loathe (Maureen Dowd).  Some I have mixed feelings about.  Bob Herbert is one of those.  At times, he seems to overreact, and, to echo conventional wisdom.

Today, though, his column on John McCain is a must-read.

He summarizes, in a single column, everything that voters should be deeply worried about with respect to a McCain presidency.  He lists the persistent slip-ups with respect to foreign policy, describing the gaffe about Iran training al Qaeda like this:

"Mr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe LiebermanMr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe Liebermanv"

All the slip-ups are there.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that Herbert focuses on the one thing that should send shivers up people's spines: his temper.  Pete Domenice is quoted as saying he decided he didn't want McCain near any trigger.

The entire column is a devastating critique of John McCain.  Hopefully, some of it will stick in the minds of the voters.  I highly recommend reading it, and e-mailing it to as many people as you can.

I don't know how to do links in blog posts, so I'll just include the address here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The opportunity to offer your favorite worst song of all time.  To get you started, think of these:

We had joy we had fun we had seasons in the sun....

You're having my baby...What a lovely....

But I've never been to me...

For those of you over 40, some of these should make you cringe.  (Ok, they make me cringe, at least).

But just for fun, offer your own in the comments...

And if you want to share the pain, click recommend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

Enjoy.

If you liked this post (link, really), please click recommend....

Or, we can consider this:

<blockquote>Why don't we try "he is/she is" for a change? Both Democratic candidates represent diversely layered demographics--ones that describe our future. Clinton is a strong, determined, immensely resilient woman; Obama is a culturally amalgamous, quietly brilliant, elegantly intellectual man. They are both tremendously well educated, making all of us the lucky beneficiaries of affirmative action policies that have reconfigured the playing field to include the two of them.

Now we need to direct our attention where it belongs. As President, McCain would do away with what's left of affirmative action, Roe and habeas corpus. He has been schooled for war and more war. He is committed to and implicated in almost all the domestic and economic lunacies of the Bush Administration. It would be tragic if he strolled in for a touchdown while the rest of us were playing card games in the end zone.</blockquote>

Patricia Williams, in the most recent <i>Nation</i>

If you have the time to chime in on every post about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and face it, a lot of us apparently do), then you owe it to yourself, the Democratic Party, and to both candidates to take the time to read the entire piece:

<A HREF="http://http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/williams">Some extremely wise advice from Patricia Williams</a>

 

Thanks.  And pass this along, will you?

that this is EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ATRIOS!