Oh yeah! 'Skins rule!
With that said, I hate Solaris 10 patch bundles. The latest issue had a bug where the inetd.xml file didn't get propagated to the non-global zones. Ugh, ugh, ugh. With 6, 7, and 8, you could just get the install script running, go get some coffee/lunch/church time, and come back to reboot. Now you have to babysit the !@#$ things.
Life is good. Melanie needed a nap, so I drove Becca and Melanie out to get some lunch (well lunch for Becca and me and the soothing motion of the car for Melanie.) Panera was good, and Mellie got the soothing motion she needed. Patching is almost done, and I've managed to record 9 hours of overtime for today. Yay me.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Friday, October 03, 2008
Interesting that the stock market went down after Son of Bailout got passed. The last unemployment report before the election shows 150,000 jobs disappeared. More jobs were created under Carter than under Bush II.
I'll admit I'm only mildly for this rescue. I'd rather see a stopgap measure passed, and have Republicans and Democrats run on their own ideas -- and then a bill passed in February/March by a new Congress, signed by a new President, both of which have a mandate.
I'll admit I'm only mildly for this rescue. I'd rather see a stopgap measure passed, and have Republicans and Democrats run on their own ideas -- and then a bill passed in February/March by a new Congress, signed by a new President, both of which have a mandate.
Lost in the news about the VP debate and the rescue package, it seems California needs $7 billion PDQ.
This usually isn't a good sign. I mean, the last time the head of a major city or a state needed money that quickly, it resulted in two cyborgs fighting.
This usually isn't a good sign. I mean, the last time the head of a major city or a state needed money that quickly, it resulted in two cyborgs fighting.
Sarah Palin strung together sentences and formed coherent thoughts. She may not have always directly answered the question, but she at least proved she was not a complete idiot.
This still doesn't mean McCain is not behind as we head into the home stretch, with Troopergate's report coming out in a week, the next Obama/McCain debate happening next week, and the Ted Stevens trial continuing. The economic news continues to be negative and Barack Obama is looking more and more Presidential with each passing day.
My idea to listen to all the British #1 hits since 1952 is headed into 1986. Now playing is Chris De Burgh's 'Lady in Red.'
Melanie's ear infection continues. She's on day #3 of her antibiotics.
This still doesn't mean McCain is not behind as we head into the home stretch, with Troopergate's report coming out in a week, the next Obama/McCain debate happening next week, and the Ted Stevens trial continuing. The economic news continues to be negative and Barack Obama is looking more and more Presidential with each passing day.
My idea to listen to all the British #1 hits since 1952 is headed into 1986. Now playing is Chris De Burgh's 'Lady in Red.'
Melanie's ear infection continues. She's on day #3 of her antibiotics.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
My daughter's sick again a day after I've taken a day off to get over my own cold. I'm not sure who gave who a cold here.
I'm told that after kid #1, the colds don't come quite as fast or furious. I hope this is the case.
The big Quinnipiac poll shows Obama up by 15 (!) in PA, and by high single digits in FL and OH. Unless we hear more, I'm going to treat those as outliers. I think Obama is probably up by 8-10 in PA, 5-6 in OH, and 3-4 in FL. Voter suppression (aka fighting voter fraud) won't be as big a deal with Dem governors in PA and OH.
However, this means McCain is going to have to choose between PA and MI. I'd choose MI, to be honest -- only one major media market as opposed to three (NYC for NE PA, Philly, and Pittsburgh) -- plus there's a large number of voters in the Detroit suburbs that need to regard Kilpatrick as Obama's best bud. The EV tally is about equal between both.
Of course, given that McCain's been totally blindsided by Obama in NC and IN, and that the campaign's response has been to whine about the poll demos (with no specifics), I suspect the McCain camp's probably in a holding pattern until Palin gets through the VP debate without drooling on herself. We'll see McCain's offense against the Kerry states limited to either PA/MI, MN, and NH. After that, McCain is pretty boxed in.
He's losing big in IA, losing in NM, and starting to lose in VA and CO. He has nothing in NC and IN, and things aren't looking so hot in OH and FL. Even WV and MO are starting to look a little too pink for McCain's taste.
The Ted Stevens trial is continuing.
A nice guilty verdict around Oct. 15 would be a gift from Heaven for Harry Reid.
I'm told that after kid #1, the colds don't come quite as fast or furious. I hope this is the case.
The big Quinnipiac poll shows Obama up by 15 (!) in PA, and by high single digits in FL and OH. Unless we hear more, I'm going to treat those as outliers. I think Obama is probably up by 8-10 in PA, 5-6 in OH, and 3-4 in FL. Voter suppression (aka fighting voter fraud) won't be as big a deal with Dem governors in PA and OH.
However, this means McCain is going to have to choose between PA and MI. I'd choose MI, to be honest -- only one major media market as opposed to three (NYC for NE PA, Philly, and Pittsburgh) -- plus there's a large number of voters in the Detroit suburbs that need to regard Kilpatrick as Obama's best bud. The EV tally is about equal between both.
Of course, given that McCain's been totally blindsided by Obama in NC and IN, and that the campaign's response has been to whine about the poll demos (with no specifics), I suspect the McCain camp's probably in a holding pattern until Palin gets through the VP debate without drooling on herself. We'll see McCain's offense against the Kerry states limited to either PA/MI, MN, and NH. After that, McCain is pretty boxed in.
He's losing big in IA, losing in NM, and starting to lose in VA and CO. He has nothing in NC and IN, and things aren't looking so hot in OH and FL. Even WV and MO are starting to look a little too pink for McCain's taste.
The Ted Stevens trial is continuing.
A nice guilty verdict around Oct. 15 would be a gift from Heaven for Harry Reid.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
McCain, apparently, just canceled his town hall meeting that was to be on ABC's This Week.
Apparently, no one told the 300+ undecided voters. In Ohio. Well, an e-mail went out. Supposedly.
WTF?
Apparently, no one told the 300+ undecided voters. In Ohio. Well, an e-mail went out. Supposedly.
WTF?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Boehner's bailout plan was designed to keep economic conservatives on the ranch. I'm not sure how serious they are about passing it, or whether they will even want to compromise -- in the House, if Pelosi wants something done, the most Boehner can do is delay for a few days.
McCain's clearly not suspended his campaign. Can he recover from not even showing up to the first debate?
The social conservatives will be kept on the ranch by the Tax Avoidance Sunday sermons in a week or two where many White evangelical ministers will openly endorse McCain from the pulpit. This is out of no great love for McCain, mind you, it's out of being terrified from being shut out of the halls of power for the first time since 1993.
McCain's clearly not suspended his campaign. Can he recover from not even showing up to the first debate?
The social conservatives will be kept on the ranch by the Tax Avoidance Sunday sermons in a week or two where many White evangelical ministers will openly endorse McCain from the pulpit. This is out of no great love for McCain, mind you, it's out of being terrified from being shut out of the halls of power for the first time since 1993.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
I've got to admit, I enjoy Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" more than Jill Sobule's song of the same name.
But I've also got to admit Katy Perry's set the gay rights movement back a good three to six months there.
But I've also got to admit Katy Perry's set the gay rights movement back a good three to six months there.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Just thought of this --
Nancy Pelosi has nothing to lose by throwing Charles Rangel under the bus.
In an ordinary election year, I suppose she would be afraid of losing support from the Black community. This might be mitigated/stopped by naming another qualified Black to chair the committee. However, with Barack Obama on top of the ticket, the likelihood of flagging Black interest is nearly nil.
Having done away with the corruption in her ranks, she can then point to the Republicans, whose senior Senator (Ted Stevens) is currently awaiting trial.
Actually, Stevens/Rangel is more of a litmus test -- most Republicans are likely to moan about Rangel while ignoring Stevens, while most Democrats will do the opposite. I still think the Democrats deserve a couple of years at the wheel, but too many Rangels will eventually cause me to peel away.
Keith Fimian, the GOP Congressional candidate in my district, seems to be a standard-issue conservative. He's probably too conservative for VA-11, which contains areas of Mid-Fairfax that have trended Democratic over the past 10 years and areas of Prince William that are pretty Republican. But, he's done nothing to make him irrevocably lose my vote the way George Allen did with 'macaca' and 'noose in my office.' I'd vote for Fimian if I thought the Democrats needed to be taken down a peg.
Frankly, since Stevens is actually on trial, Stevens is going to embarrass his party more, unless Rangel does a perp walk or something entirely new (and embarrassing) is discovered. The branch of the DOJ that is trying Stevens has a 90% conviction rate, and the trial is in Washington, as opposed to Alaska (where Stevens might get acquitted or have a hung jury because he's Ted Stevens.) I suspect the best Stevens can hope for in the absence of prosecution malfeasance is to get a lone holdout to hang the jury until after the election.
On the other hand, the media will be talking for the next two weeks about Ted Stevens and the various things he's done. That is, if it's not talking about the economy or about Troopergate. I suspect Stevensgate is going to be story #2-#5 for most of the next few weeks, and a conviction will be story #1 for a couple of days.
Troopergate, I think, is becoming a classic study in 'it's the coverup, stupid.' The more they stonewall, the more non-Republicans are going to think, 'Gee, what's going on here?' Given what we know, the story is moderately damaging to McCain/Palin at worst, and the stonewalling merely delays a one-shot moderate amount of pain while administering minor amounts of pain nearly constantly. Unless, of course, there's something we don't know about.
She could've apologized for misuse of her power while she was just a finalist in Vice-Presidential Idol, while stressing the sins (real and imagined) of her brother-in-law, who is a piece of work. If she had done this in July, no non-Democrat would be caring at this point. But now that she's the nominee, every move she makes automatically becomes one of the top 4-5 stories of the day.
She also lost the chance to put neutral or positive stories about her in the top 4-5 stories because she is shielded from the media -- sure she'd have made some gaffes, but better early on than on October 2 while Joe Biden's on stage with her.
I think Biden will win a unanimous decision in the debate, but Palin's performance will not be so embarrassing as to cause McCain to hemorrhage support. At least I think this is how it'll be. Biden's not gaffe-proof himself but Palin's answers to questions about Troopergate will be very revealing.
I still think Rapekitgate is far more potentially damaging, due to its built-in soundbite friendliness and its more visceral nature. I suspect the discovery of a Wasilla PD rape kit receipt will sink McCain/Palin for good. If what the Huffington Post is reporting is true (that the Wasilla PD under Palin started a policy of charging for rape kits, as opposed to merely continuing a Stone Age-vintage policy) and it can be proven, we're looking at historic levels of fail for McCain.
Nancy Pelosi has nothing to lose by throwing Charles Rangel under the bus.
In an ordinary election year, I suppose she would be afraid of losing support from the Black community. This might be mitigated/stopped by naming another qualified Black to chair the committee. However, with Barack Obama on top of the ticket, the likelihood of flagging Black interest is nearly nil.
Having done away with the corruption in her ranks, she can then point to the Republicans, whose senior Senator (Ted Stevens) is currently awaiting trial.
Actually, Stevens/Rangel is more of a litmus test -- most Republicans are likely to moan about Rangel while ignoring Stevens, while most Democrats will do the opposite. I still think the Democrats deserve a couple of years at the wheel, but too many Rangels will eventually cause me to peel away.
Keith Fimian, the GOP Congressional candidate in my district, seems to be a standard-issue conservative. He's probably too conservative for VA-11, which contains areas of Mid-Fairfax that have trended Democratic over the past 10 years and areas of Prince William that are pretty Republican. But, he's done nothing to make him irrevocably lose my vote the way George Allen did with 'macaca' and 'noose in my office.' I'd vote for Fimian if I thought the Democrats needed to be taken down a peg.
Frankly, since Stevens is actually on trial, Stevens is going to embarrass his party more, unless Rangel does a perp walk or something entirely new (and embarrassing) is discovered. The branch of the DOJ that is trying Stevens has a 90% conviction rate, and the trial is in Washington, as opposed to Alaska (where Stevens might get acquitted or have a hung jury because he's Ted Stevens.) I suspect the best Stevens can hope for in the absence of prosecution malfeasance is to get a lone holdout to hang the jury until after the election.
On the other hand, the media will be talking for the next two weeks about Ted Stevens and the various things he's done. That is, if it's not talking about the economy or about Troopergate. I suspect Stevensgate is going to be story #2-#5 for most of the next few weeks, and a conviction will be story #1 for a couple of days.
Troopergate, I think, is becoming a classic study in 'it's the coverup, stupid.' The more they stonewall, the more non-Republicans are going to think, 'Gee, what's going on here?' Given what we know, the story is moderately damaging to McCain/Palin at worst, and the stonewalling merely delays a one-shot moderate amount of pain while administering minor amounts of pain nearly constantly. Unless, of course, there's something we don't know about.
She could've apologized for misuse of her power while she was just a finalist in Vice-Presidential Idol, while stressing the sins (real and imagined) of her brother-in-law, who is a piece of work. If she had done this in July, no non-Democrat would be caring at this point. But now that she's the nominee, every move she makes automatically becomes one of the top 4-5 stories of the day.
She also lost the chance to put neutral or positive stories about her in the top 4-5 stories because she is shielded from the media -- sure she'd have made some gaffes, but better early on than on October 2 while Joe Biden's on stage with her.
I think Biden will win a unanimous decision in the debate, but Palin's performance will not be so embarrassing as to cause McCain to hemorrhage support. At least I think this is how it'll be. Biden's not gaffe-proof himself but Palin's answers to questions about Troopergate will be very revealing.
I still think Rapekitgate is far more potentially damaging, due to its built-in soundbite friendliness and its more visceral nature. I suspect the discovery of a Wasilla PD rape kit receipt will sink McCain/Palin for good. If what the Huffington Post is reporting is true (that the Wasilla PD under Palin started a policy of charging for rape kits, as opposed to merely continuing a Stone Age-vintage policy) and it can be proven, we're looking at historic levels of fail for McCain.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ugh. Amazing how quickly I can forget to update this thing.
Life's going pretty good. I'm getting over my cold as are Rebecca and Melanie. Our tenants are moving in this week.
I had a Scholastic Bowl rules clinic yesterday and another one tomorrow. Questions are coming along nicely and I'll have half the regular season matches ready by tonight or tomorrow. The other half is a vendor I work with and that'll be ready later this week.
I got my SmartTag for riding the Dulles Toll Road, although it seems to take me an hour and 10 minutes either way to get from my wife's work to my worjk.
Only bad thing is our generator -- on Monday, we had a 30-second power blip -- the generator didn't come on. Apparently, the gas hose had a kink in it, and it was only repaired today. Hopefully it'll fire up next time there's a real power outage. The inspector's coming out for the final approval on Monday.
As for the election, I think McCain made a huge mistake in not letting Palin talk to the press or do anything other than give the standard stump speech. Davis' comment about 'respect and deference' didn't help either. That just got the Democratic base fired up. So she would've had a few gaffes. Compared to what's happening now, I'm going to say that would've been the lesser of two evils. (BTW, Obama naming H. Clinton the VP would've done the same thing to the GOP base that naming Palin's done.)
The media then decided to make the story about Palin as opposed to letting Palin make her own story. So we went from 'ZOMG hot hockey momma' to 'Bristol's knocked up LOL' to 'she lied about the Bridge to Nowhere' to 'Hey what about this Troopergate thing.' What'll be next?
Odds are, nothing terribly kind to Palin. Running against the media is one sure way to get the media unsympathetic to your cause. I suspect with McCain, reporters feel it personally, as Straight Talking McCain of 2000 was a chatty sort. Now it's been a month since McCain's had an off the cuff talk with reporters, and Palin may as well be in New Zealand as far as the media is concerned. The negative ads McCain ran were pretty bad, and that probably contributed to the narrative of betrayal many reporters must be feeling.
One thing that has me worried somewhat is MN and WI becoming tighter. Part of me is wondering if there's some movement among Scandinavian-Americans (of which there are many in MN and WI) moving to Palin -- that since Palin is a Swedish name (http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Palin-places-origin.ashx), there might be a few points of movement. I can't think of anything else to explain why McCain bounced so well in MN and WI.
Another thing to consider -- in the debates, Obama held his own against Clinton, but let's not forget that Clinton and Obama were essentially wanting the same things. In the general election debates, McCain will start down a couple rounds since he has to defend how things are well enough to convince voters that staying Republican is the way to go, but not so well that he is portrayed out of touch. Essentially, Obama's got reality on his side. Don't get me wrong, McCain may well win one or more of the debates. But projecting Obama's performance against Clinton to the upcoming general election debates is at best a shaky exercise.
Life's going pretty good. I'm getting over my cold as are Rebecca and Melanie. Our tenants are moving in this week.
I had a Scholastic Bowl rules clinic yesterday and another one tomorrow. Questions are coming along nicely and I'll have half the regular season matches ready by tonight or tomorrow. The other half is a vendor I work with and that'll be ready later this week.
I got my SmartTag for riding the Dulles Toll Road, although it seems to take me an hour and 10 minutes either way to get from my wife's work to my worjk.
Only bad thing is our generator -- on Monday, we had a 30-second power blip -- the generator didn't come on. Apparently, the gas hose had a kink in it, and it was only repaired today. Hopefully it'll fire up next time there's a real power outage. The inspector's coming out for the final approval on Monday.
As for the election, I think McCain made a huge mistake in not letting Palin talk to the press or do anything other than give the standard stump speech. Davis' comment about 'respect and deference' didn't help either. That just got the Democratic base fired up. So she would've had a few gaffes. Compared to what's happening now, I'm going to say that would've been the lesser of two evils. (BTW, Obama naming H. Clinton the VP would've done the same thing to the GOP base that naming Palin's done.)
The media then decided to make the story about Palin as opposed to letting Palin make her own story. So we went from 'ZOMG hot hockey momma' to 'Bristol's knocked up LOL' to 'she lied about the Bridge to Nowhere' to 'Hey what about this Troopergate thing.' What'll be next?
Odds are, nothing terribly kind to Palin. Running against the media is one sure way to get the media unsympathetic to your cause. I suspect with McCain, reporters feel it personally, as Straight Talking McCain of 2000 was a chatty sort. Now it's been a month since McCain's had an off the cuff talk with reporters, and Palin may as well be in New Zealand as far as the media is concerned. The negative ads McCain ran were pretty bad, and that probably contributed to the narrative of betrayal many reporters must be feeling.
One thing that has me worried somewhat is MN and WI becoming tighter. Part of me is wondering if there's some movement among Scandinavian-Americans (of which there are many in MN and WI) moving to Palin -- that since Palin is a Swedish name (http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Palin-places-origin.ashx), there might be a few points of movement. I can't think of anything else to explain why McCain bounced so well in MN and WI.
Another thing to consider -- in the debates, Obama held his own against Clinton, but let's not forget that Clinton and Obama were essentially wanting the same things. In the general election debates, McCain will start down a couple rounds since he has to defend how things are well enough to convince voters that staying Republican is the way to go, but not so well that he is portrayed out of touch. Essentially, Obama's got reality on his side. Don't get me wrong, McCain may well win one or more of the debates. But projecting Obama's performance against Clinton to the upcoming general election debates is at best a shaky exercise.
Friday, September 12, 2008
This one gently mocking Palin's 'no media' policy.
(People dressed as reporters approach a Sarah Palin look alike, asking questions. A glass dome comes from the sky and falls upon them.)
(pan to Joe Biden answering questions.)
'Sarah Palin says she's ready to run the free world.'
(cut to McCain manager demanding deference and respect for Palin.)
'But John McCain's campaign manager says she's not ready for Jon Stewart and Meet the Press.'
(picture of Osama bin Laden and Vladimir Putin)
'Is Sarah Palin ready for these guys?'
(picture of Obama meeting with foreign leaders)
'Barack Obama is.'
(picture of Joe Biden meeting with foreign leaders)
'and so is Joe Biden.'
'I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.'
(People dressed as reporters approach a Sarah Palin look alike, asking questions. A glass dome comes from the sky and falls upon them.)
(pan to Joe Biden answering questions.)
'Sarah Palin says she's ready to run the free world.'
(cut to McCain manager demanding deference and respect for Palin.)
'But John McCain's campaign manager says she's not ready for Jon Stewart and Meet the Press.'
(picture of Osama bin Laden and Vladimir Putin)
'Is Sarah Palin ready for these guys?'
(picture of Obama meeting with foreign leaders)
'Barack Obama is.'
(picture of Joe Biden meeting with foreign leaders)
'and so is Joe Biden.'
'I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.'
Now one tying McCain to Bush and Rove:
Find out what the positive/negative opinion on Rove is among independents. If it is negative, tie McCain and Rove in the next batch of commercials.
'Karl Rove. Bush's top adviser between 2000 and 2006, when he resigned during the Valerie Plame scandal.'
(pictures of Karl Rove and Dubya)
'Now, he's working for John McCain.'
(cite of this article and others)
'John McCain says he's about change.'
(bits of the convention speech)
'It seems the only change is who Karl Rove is working for.'
(ominous music and fade to black)
'I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.'
Find out what the positive/negative opinion on Rove is among independents. If it is negative, tie McCain and Rove in the next batch of commercials.
'Karl Rove. Bush's top adviser between 2000 and 2006, when he resigned during the Valerie Plame scandal.'
(pictures of Karl Rove and Dubya)
'Now, he's working for John McCain.'
(cite of this article and others)
'John McCain says he's about change.'
(bits of the convention speech)
'It seems the only change is who Karl Rove is working for.'
(ominous music and fade to black)
'I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.'
I just realized I never did post my suggested commercials.
Here's one on foreign policy.
(map of Afghanistan and Iraq)
Announcer: Our soldiers can improve the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(video of Obama meeting with foreign leaders)
Announcer: Most wars are won before they are fought. Barack Obama will utilize our resources, diplomatic and cultural, to ensure our overloaded soldiers aren't given yet another war to fight.
(fade to black)
A war John McCain and Sarah Palin seem to think lightly of.
(John McCain's bomb-bomb-bomb Iran video)
(Sarah Palin's war with Russia quote)
(fade to black)
Barack Obama. Using ALL of America's resources to promote America.
Obama: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve of this message.
Here's one on foreign policy.
(map of Afghanistan and Iraq)
Announcer: Our soldiers can improve the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(video of Obama meeting with foreign leaders)
Announcer: Most wars are won before they are fought. Barack Obama will utilize our resources, diplomatic and cultural, to ensure our overloaded soldiers aren't given yet another war to fight.
(fade to black)
A war John McCain and Sarah Palin seem to think lightly of.
(John McCain's bomb-bomb-bomb Iran video)
(Sarah Palin's war with Russia quote)
(fade to black)
Barack Obama. Using ALL of America's resources to promote America.
Obama: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve of this message.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Well, the generator is installed. Melanie's on a new round of anti-biotics. I'm getting over my cold but my in-laws have gotten it. I'm told the first year of daycare is when kids get the most colds.
My prayers are extended to those facing Hurricane Ike. It still stays at 100mph, a weak Category 2. Although I've heard it is larger than Katrina and is dredging up more water in a storm surge. My fear is that Ike will largely fizzle in the way Gustav did, leaving us vulnerable to a real hellstorm later this year or next.
Is Sarah Palin made of Teflon? Hard to tell after only a week and a half. I'm told Ferraro got a honeymoon of about a month or so before reality set in.
9/11 was a 'reset' of sorts for this campaign. I suspect Obama might have a more effective response to the various attacks, one that won't get swallowed up by 9/11. Although, of course, Monday's the best day to release stories. A teaser going into the weekend should work though and is sorely needed to keep folks' morale up.
Here's a reply I made to someone that liked my commercials:
I suspect smarter people than I have submitted ideas such as mine that are more fully fleshed out. My co-worker is more involved in the social aspect of the campaign than I am, so I sent my suggestion and the ad in another thread to him.
I suspect the candidate himself is holding back. For what, I'm not sure. There is a difference between 'ignoring all attacks' and 'accusing Sarah Palin of soap opera antics' and 'accusing Sarah Palin of cooking her breakfast over a book barbecue.'
Or, perhaps, he is hoping to keep within striking distance and let the headlines help out with an October ad blitz -- Stevens' trial starts on September 22 and the Troopergate report is October 10. But those are not guarantees. Those would be manna. The true El Dorado for Obama would be a tape of Palin uncorking an N-bomb, whilst the El Dorado for McCain is the Whitey tape.
My belief is to tie McCain to ANYTHING (to which he can really be tied) that is unpopular about today. No half-truths. The full truth is enough. Don't run ads unless they've been 100% vetted in a poll or by your truthfinders. This may be why Rapekitgate is not being pursued outside the blogosphere.
IMO, that picture of McCain and Bush hugging should be burned in the retinas of Americans by November 3. It's not a dirty tactic to tie Bush and McCain together.
As for Sarah Palin's interview -- it all depends on how eager people are for a new Cold War. If they're not, she becomes a new Goldwater. If they are, she just sealed the deal. She is able to repeat the stuff people want to hear, and her advisors can fill in the details.
Here's a post I made in a thread on the airraid that killed 100 civilians.
I appreciate your post, and your service to this country.
That is why when mistakes happen (this strike apparently), psychopaths are allowed in positions of influence (Abu Ghraib), or those who serve are denigrated upon return (the Army bureaucracy as good as spit on our wounded soldiers when they returned), we as a nation must speak out.
We must not cover up and hide behind a thin green line of soldiers/sailors/Marines.
Those responsible are doing a disservice to their country, if not being outright traitorous.
While I disagreed with the reasons for going to war, I certainly believe that the cause we are fighting for is better than the cause Saddam's forces or the various insurgents are fighting for.
/voting for Obama, as Bush and the Republicans have had the reins long enough. I am not so deluded as to think one of our major political parties wishes ill upon our great country.
My prayers are extended to those facing Hurricane Ike. It still stays at 100mph, a weak Category 2. Although I've heard it is larger than Katrina and is dredging up more water in a storm surge. My fear is that Ike will largely fizzle in the way Gustav did, leaving us vulnerable to a real hellstorm later this year or next.
Is Sarah Palin made of Teflon? Hard to tell after only a week and a half. I'm told Ferraro got a honeymoon of about a month or so before reality set in.
9/11 was a 'reset' of sorts for this campaign. I suspect Obama might have a more effective response to the various attacks, one that won't get swallowed up by 9/11. Although, of course, Monday's the best day to release stories. A teaser going into the weekend should work though and is sorely needed to keep folks' morale up.
Here's a reply I made to someone that liked my commercials:
I suspect smarter people than I have submitted ideas such as mine that are more fully fleshed out. My co-worker is more involved in the social aspect of the campaign than I am, so I sent my suggestion and the ad in another thread to him.
I suspect the candidate himself is holding back. For what, I'm not sure. There is a difference between 'ignoring all attacks' and 'accusing Sarah Palin of soap opera antics' and 'accusing Sarah Palin of cooking her breakfast over a book barbecue.'
Or, perhaps, he is hoping to keep within striking distance and let the headlines help out with an October ad blitz -- Stevens' trial starts on September 22 and the Troopergate report is October 10. But those are not guarantees. Those would be manna. The true El Dorado for Obama would be a tape of Palin uncorking an N-bomb, whilst the El Dorado for McCain is the Whitey tape.
My belief is to tie McCain to ANYTHING (to which he can really be tied) that is unpopular about today. No half-truths. The full truth is enough. Don't run ads unless they've been 100% vetted in a poll or by your truthfinders. This may be why Rapekitgate is not being pursued outside the blogosphere.
IMO, that picture of McCain and Bush hugging should be burned in the retinas of Americans by November 3. It's not a dirty tactic to tie Bush and McCain together.
As for Sarah Palin's interview -- it all depends on how eager people are for a new Cold War. If they're not, she becomes a new Goldwater. If they are, she just sealed the deal. She is able to repeat the stuff people want to hear, and her advisors can fill in the details.
Here's a post I made in a thread on the airraid that killed 100 civilians.
I appreciate your post, and your service to this country.
That is why when mistakes happen (this strike apparently), psychopaths are allowed in positions of influence (Abu Ghraib), or those who serve are denigrated upon return (the Army bureaucracy as good as spit on our wounded soldiers when they returned), we as a nation must speak out.
We must not cover up and hide behind a thin green line of soldiers/sailors/Marines.
Those responsible are doing a disservice to their country, if not being outright traitorous.
While I disagreed with the reasons for going to war, I certainly believe that the cause we are fighting for is better than the cause Saddam's forces or the various insurgents are fighting for.
/voting for Obama, as Bush and the Republicans have had the reins long enough. I am not so deluded as to think one of our major political parties wishes ill upon our great country.
Monday, September 08, 2008
A gentleman on Fark called Sarah Palin the Republican Bill Clinton.
If so, raging about Sarah's scandals simply won't work. Nothing this side of her being on tape calling Obama 'Sambo' is going to sink her.
Here's what I said about it on Fark; sadly, it was way downstream and no one replied to it.
I think CanisNoir made the comparison to describe Palin's ability to look like 'just a regular gal.'
He may be right. Let's see how she does in an unscripted moment before declaring this, though.
Clinton was able to convince enough good ol' boys that despite being a Democrat, he was truly a common man that understood their problems.
Are enough urbanites and inner suburbanites (of all races) buying Palin's narrative -- do they think the girl from Wasilla understands the struggles of non-WASPs and of non-married people?
On the other hand, Obama is sui generis. He has been able to inspire hope among former non-participants in the process -- anyone who looks at voter registration figures and the organizational competence of the campaign will understand that Obama is a game-changing politician unlike any since perhaps JFK.
Clinton in 1992 faced a President who was portrayed as out of touch and who was saddled with a Vice-President that was a walking punchline.
McCain may well drag Palin down due to lingering resentment from 'the base' and due to being portrayed as old and out of touch. But if Palin doesn't embarrass herself, a loss for McCain will mean nothing. She will be the nominee in 2012.
HRC will launch a Kennedy-style insurrection if Obama flails around helplessly a la Carter.
I will add this: Bobby Jindal's stock went up a LOT this past week. I wish he had been in charge in September 2005. If Palin lives up to the 'Caribou Barbie' meme, he will be the frontrunner should he decide to run. If Palin holds her own but doesn't really sparkle like Clinton, Palin is the frontrunner as the right has fallen in love with her.
But let's hold off final judgment until she does an unscripted interview with at least a neutral reporter (Good Morning America is probably going to be softball.)
If so, raging about Sarah's scandals simply won't work. Nothing this side of her being on tape calling Obama 'Sambo' is going to sink her.
Here's what I said about it on Fark; sadly, it was way downstream and no one replied to it.
I think CanisNoir made the comparison to describe Palin's ability to look like 'just a regular gal.'
He may be right. Let's see how she does in an unscripted moment before declaring this, though.
Clinton was able to convince enough good ol' boys that despite being a Democrat, he was truly a common man that understood their problems.
Are enough urbanites and inner suburbanites (of all races) buying Palin's narrative -- do they think the girl from Wasilla understands the struggles of non-WASPs and of non-married people?
On the other hand, Obama is sui generis. He has been able to inspire hope among former non-participants in the process -- anyone who looks at voter registration figures and the organizational competence of the campaign will understand that Obama is a game-changing politician unlike any since perhaps JFK.
Clinton in 1992 faced a President who was portrayed as out of touch and who was saddled with a Vice-President that was a walking punchline.
McCain may well drag Palin down due to lingering resentment from 'the base' and due to being portrayed as old and out of touch. But if Palin doesn't embarrass herself, a loss for McCain will mean nothing. She will be the nominee in 2012.
HRC will launch a Kennedy-style insurrection if Obama flails around helplessly a la Carter.
I will add this: Bobby Jindal's stock went up a LOT this past week. I wish he had been in charge in September 2005. If Palin lives up to the 'Caribou Barbie' meme, he will be the frontrunner should he decide to run. If Palin holds her own but doesn't really sparkle like Clinton, Palin is the frontrunner as the right has fallen in love with her.
But let's hold off final judgment until she does an unscripted interview with at least a neutral reporter (Good Morning America is probably going to be softball.)
Friday, September 05, 2008
You know what I found out? Lynn Westmoreland, the guy who called Obama 'uppity,' represents a district that is 38.5% black. Basically, assuming equal turnout between the races (likely due to it being a Presidential election AND having Obama on top of the ticket), if the Dem gets 90% of the Black vote, he need only get 25% of the other vote to win.
I made this post on my Facebook notepage. Thought it bore repeating here.
I was genuinely scared in 1992 that we were headed to a second Depression because Clinton was going to tax us all to oblivion.
This didn't happen.
No one is talking about returning to 70% or 90% tax rates that prevailed in the 1950s or 1970s.
If we could innovate, create jobs/wealth, and generally prosper in the 1990s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%, we can do the same thing in the 2010s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%.
The Republicans have had six years in which to achieve their stated goals.
Was abortion reduced? No. In fact, it's gone back up.
Are more people working? Not really, if you consider population growth. More jobs were created during Carter's four years than during Bush's eight, and Carter is rightfully regarded as a Presidential failure.
The stock market is essentially unchanged from 2000. In fact, we've re-entered a bear market.
Are we safer from Islamic terror? Probably. Would Obama make us less safe? No. Clinton acted decisively when he believed the perpetrators of terror could be caught/killed, and came closer with that cruise missile strike than Bush has in the past seven years. I fail to see why Obama would act a radically different manner from Clinton.
And finally -- what are we prepared to give up, in terms of convenience, genuine civil liberty, and treasure, to prevent another 9/11?
I was genuinely scared in 1992 that we were headed to a second Depression because Clinton was going to tax us all to oblivion.
This didn't happen.
No one is talking about returning to 70% or 90% tax rates that prevailed in the 1950s or 1970s.
If we could innovate, create jobs/wealth, and generally prosper in the 1990s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%, we can do the same thing in the 2010s with marginal tax rates of 39.6%.
The Republicans have had six years in which to achieve their stated goals.
Was abortion reduced? No. In fact, it's gone back up.
Are more people working? Not really, if you consider population growth. More jobs were created during Carter's four years than during Bush's eight, and Carter is rightfully regarded as a Presidential failure.
The stock market is essentially unchanged from 2000. In fact, we've re-entered a bear market.
Are we safer from Islamic terror? Probably. Would Obama make us less safe? No. Clinton acted decisively when he believed the perpetrators of terror could be caught/killed, and came closer with that cruise missile strike than Bush has in the past seven years. I fail to see why Obama would act a radically different manner from Clinton.
And finally -- what are we prepared to give up, in terms of convenience, genuine civil liberty, and treasure, to prevent another 9/11?
I didn't get to listen to McCain's or Obama's acceptance speeches -- Melanie was sick for Obama's speech and getting her to sleep was a delicate operation that we didn't want to reverse. Last night, she started to fuss when the crowds really started to cheer (either that or she is a Democrat). So, I wasn't able to listen to McCain's speech.
Hanna is headed our way (sort of) and I am in the midst of getting the generator installed.
I donated $30 to the Obama campaign. In 2004, I donated some to the Kerry campaign and to the DNC. In 2005 (I think), I donated to my (Republican) cousin running for Board of Supervisors back home.
One of these days, I will learn how to add links and make this blog all purty. Right now, it's time to post regularly. I might start adding hyperlinks to my points, but if any reader is confused or doubts my assertions, just make a comment.
The Palin scandal tap seems to have moderated, but the Republicans are hiding her from just about any situation that cannot be controlled. Smart move. However, the media will continue to vet Palin for us, and Independents and some moderate Republicans may not like what comes out.
The Palin positive potential has already occurred (the base is solidified and women who will support the Sisterhood have coem on board.) I think most of the other Hillary supporters will come on board for Obama, as Palin's initial conciliatory gestures she made in the first 48 hours were booed by the base.
With Palin 100% under lock and key, it will be impossible for anyone to start being impressed with her (as if people vote based on a VP choice, anyway) and either (1) she will be innocent of the various scandals or (2) one of the scandals will really come up and bite her. With the first, there's no plus, and with the second, there is potential for downside, ranging from mild to pretty bad (worst case scenario, Troopergate report reveals hitherto unknown dirt, one other scandal to be named later erupts, and Stevens is found guilty.)
I've heard the Enquirer is digging into the Palin family dirt. Some of it is tabloid fodder. However, if the Enquirer has some evidence about Palin herself having an affair in the past 8-10 years, this might be interesting. For, as you know, character counts and all that.
Hanna is headed our way (sort of) and I am in the midst of getting the generator installed.
I donated $30 to the Obama campaign. In 2004, I donated some to the Kerry campaign and to the DNC. In 2005 (I think), I donated to my (Republican) cousin running for Board of Supervisors back home.
One of these days, I will learn how to add links and make this blog all purty. Right now, it's time to post regularly. I might start adding hyperlinks to my points, but if any reader is confused or doubts my assertions, just make a comment.
The Palin scandal tap seems to have moderated, but the Republicans are hiding her from just about any situation that cannot be controlled. Smart move. However, the media will continue to vet Palin for us, and Independents and some moderate Republicans may not like what comes out.
The Palin positive potential has already occurred (the base is solidified and women who will support the Sisterhood have coem on board.) I think most of the other Hillary supporters will come on board for Obama, as Palin's initial conciliatory gestures she made in the first 48 hours were booed by the base.
With Palin 100% under lock and key, it will be impossible for anyone to start being impressed with her (as if people vote based on a VP choice, anyway) and either (1) she will be innocent of the various scandals or (2) one of the scandals will really come up and bite her. With the first, there's no plus, and with the second, there is potential for downside, ranging from mild to pretty bad (worst case scenario, Troopergate report reveals hitherto unknown dirt, one other scandal to be named later erupts, and Stevens is found guilty.)
I've heard the Enquirer is digging into the Palin family dirt. Some of it is tabloid fodder. However, if the Enquirer has some evidence about Palin herself having an affair in the past 8-10 years, this might be interesting. For, as you know, character counts and all that.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
I posted this on Fark at 9:40pm, and I figured to keep this preserved for posterity.
I'll survive if McCain gets elected. In fact, I'll even stay in America.
I agree with McCain more than Obama on some issues.
I'm pro-life (see: Seamless Garment and Consistent Life Ethic) but I'm willing to see a pro-choice politician oversee a reduction in abortions. The rate of abortions decreased under Clinton and it increased under Bush. I'd hold it doubly against a pro-choice politician if he/she oversaw an increase in the number of abortions.
I don't think coddling Russia does any good, and I am pissed that the US frittered away international goodwill and our ability to react militarily in Iraq. It annoys me when I hear people talk of Russia's right to have a near abroad -- it's as if the opinions of people in the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc., don't matter.
I won't lie, who wouldn't mind seeing more money in their wallet? But if paying more in taxes will help this country prepare for a time when we need to run deficits, then so be it. I don't mind. I've even contributed money to help pay down the public debt (you can deduct it the same as charitable contributions, too.)
I agree with Obama more on environmental issues, trade issues, capital punishment, and Iraq/jihad against Islamic radicalism issues.
But I just can't convince myself that the past eight years have been a success.
While I've done well, it seems many Americans have not.
I want to see a macro-environment where lots of people can succeed. In the late 1990s, even the 20th and 30th percentile of people in terms of ambition and drive were doing well. Today, that bar has gone up to the 40th or 45th percentile. Many Republicans don't seem to care, choosing to blame the victim instead of asking, how can we create a country where there is more opportunity for all.
Reagan gets mocked here a lot -- but it's not as if Carter was tearing up the charts with American success at home and abroad. Instead, Carter blamed the American people. Then Reagan asked, 'Are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and people answered that question at the ballot box.
It was time for the Democrats in 1932.
It was time for the Republicans in 1980.
It is time, I believe, for the Democrats in 2008.
I'll survive if McCain gets elected. In fact, I'll even stay in America.
I agree with McCain more than Obama on some issues.
I'm pro-life (see: Seamless Garment and Consistent Life Ethic) but I'm willing to see a pro-choice politician oversee a reduction in abortions. The rate of abortions decreased under Clinton and it increased under Bush. I'd hold it doubly against a pro-choice politician if he/she oversaw an increase in the number of abortions.
I don't think coddling Russia does any good, and I am pissed that the US frittered away international goodwill and our ability to react militarily in Iraq. It annoys me when I hear people talk of Russia's right to have a near abroad -- it's as if the opinions of people in the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, etc., don't matter.
I won't lie, who wouldn't mind seeing more money in their wallet? But if paying more in taxes will help this country prepare for a time when we need to run deficits, then so be it. I don't mind. I've even contributed money to help pay down the public debt (you can deduct it the same as charitable contributions, too.)
I agree with Obama more on environmental issues, trade issues, capital punishment, and Iraq/jihad against Islamic radicalism issues.
But I just can't convince myself that the past eight years have been a success.
While I've done well, it seems many Americans have not.
I want to see a macro-environment where lots of people can succeed. In the late 1990s, even the 20th and 30th percentile of people in terms of ambition and drive were doing well. Today, that bar has gone up to the 40th or 45th percentile. Many Republicans don't seem to care, choosing to blame the victim instead of asking, how can we create a country where there is more opportunity for all.
Reagan gets mocked here a lot -- but it's not as if Carter was tearing up the charts with American success at home and abroad. Instead, Carter blamed the American people. Then Reagan asked, 'Are you better off than you were eight years ago?' and people answered that question at the ballot box.
It was time for the Democrats in 1932.
It was time for the Republicans in 1980.
It is time, I believe, for the Democrats in 2008.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I won't go on about Sarah Palin's being unqualified. If McCain can hold on for 12-18 months, I suspect she will be perfectly suitable as President -- she won't be going in without any support and will have Condi and other GOP foreign policy figures to advise her. The 'realists' have defeated the 'neocons' and 'paleocons' in America's internal foreign policy battle. Of course, if McCain doesn't last that long, we could be in for a rough learning curve.
But I do think Palin's selection neutralizes any Republican arguments about Obama's 'lack of experience.' The job, of course, is about judgment, and what sort of experience could possibly prepare someone for
With that said, she does have some baggage, and I'm not kooky enough to go on about how Trig is really Bristol's (first) baby.
The first potential problem is Troopergate. My understanding is that the report on Troopergate is due sometime in October, just when a mistimed sneeze can hit the front pages. So McCain is counting on Troopergate to reveal nothing embarrassing that hasn't already been revealed. A report slamming Palin's actions, but not revealing anything, will help the Democrats some, but nothing like a bombshell could help.
The second potential problem is Dairygate. McCain is assuming that (1) Dairygate won't have some sub-scandal float to the surface or that (2) some new scandal, either political or personal, will not float to the surface.
The biggest problem, however, is not Sarah Palin. It is, rather, her erstwhile Senatorial ally, Ted Stevens.
He seems to want a speedy trial, knowing full well that if his trial is not completed, his Senate career is probably over. On the other hand, anything with an (R) after their name will want this trial completed sometime in November or December.
The Democrats' case to 'let us have the reins' will be made all the stronger with a Stevens conviction as opposed to merely an ongoing trial. I honestly think a timely Stevens conviction will be akin to the Mark Foley case from October 2006. Whether Foleygate's convenient timing was due to a brilliant Democratic strategist who can never be named or due to an angry page/staffer vowing timely revenge on Foley and/or all things Republican will never be known.
Should Stevens be convicted, the news will be amplified as the media and the Democrats unearth every single link between Palin and Stevens. We already know Palin headed a Stevens 529 committee, and the media will surely do a better job vetting Palin than McCain would.
A Stevens conviction at this point will mean President Obama winning with 350+ electoral votes, a 58-59 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, and perhaps 255 seats in the House.
If Foleygate was the work of a shadowy Democratic operative who can never be known, I am nearly certain a salacious scandal is in the wings for October. The Democrats marginally succeeded in 2000 with the Bush DUI, failed miserably in 2004 with the Rather memo, and then hit it out of the park with Foleygate in 2006. Given that most voters have political news as background noise until August/September of an election year, embarrassing items about one party or the other have a magnified impact in swing voters' minds.
Foleygate was brilliant because it hit at one of the core 'Value Voters' issues and came entirely out of the blue. It was also too late to remove Foley from the ballot, so the Dems got a free seat from the deal. The 2000 and 2004 pre-election scandals were really no surprise, as everyone knew Bush was an alcoholic and that his devotion to National Guard service was questionable. No one anticipated Foley. The spin machine had to start from scratch. George Allen's 'macaca' comment was just the icing on the cake, as it enabled the Democrats to get seat #51.
So, let's start wondering what the pre-election scandal will be. Will it be something re-inforcing what we already know, or will it be a bolt from the blue?
But I do think Palin's selection neutralizes any Republican arguments about Obama's 'lack of experience.' The job, of course, is about judgment, and what sort of experience could possibly prepare someone for
With that said, she does have some baggage, and I'm not kooky enough to go on about how Trig is really Bristol's (first) baby.
The first potential problem is Troopergate. My understanding is that the report on Troopergate is due sometime in October, just when a mistimed sneeze can hit the front pages. So McCain is counting on Troopergate to reveal nothing embarrassing that hasn't already been revealed. A report slamming Palin's actions, but not revealing anything, will help the Democrats some, but nothing like a bombshell could help.
The second potential problem is Dairygate. McCain is assuming that (1) Dairygate won't have some sub-scandal float to the surface or that (2) some new scandal, either political or personal, will not float to the surface.
The biggest problem, however, is not Sarah Palin. It is, rather, her erstwhile Senatorial ally, Ted Stevens.
He seems to want a speedy trial, knowing full well that if his trial is not completed, his Senate career is probably over. On the other hand, anything with an (R) after their name will want this trial completed sometime in November or December.
The Democrats' case to 'let us have the reins' will be made all the stronger with a Stevens conviction as opposed to merely an ongoing trial. I honestly think a timely Stevens conviction will be akin to the Mark Foley case from October 2006. Whether Foleygate's convenient timing was due to a brilliant Democratic strategist who can never be named or due to an angry page/staffer vowing timely revenge on Foley and/or all things Republican will never be known.
Should Stevens be convicted, the news will be amplified as the media and the Democrats unearth every single link between Palin and Stevens. We already know Palin headed a Stevens 529 committee, and the media will surely do a better job vetting Palin than McCain would.
A Stevens conviction at this point will mean President Obama winning with 350+ electoral votes, a 58-59 seat Democrat majority in the Senate, and perhaps 255 seats in the House.
If Foleygate was the work of a shadowy Democratic operative who can never be known, I am nearly certain a salacious scandal is in the wings for October. The Democrats marginally succeeded in 2000 with the Bush DUI, failed miserably in 2004 with the Rather memo, and then hit it out of the park with Foleygate in 2006. Given that most voters have political news as background noise until August/September of an election year, embarrassing items about one party or the other have a magnified impact in swing voters' minds.
Foleygate was brilliant because it hit at one of the core 'Value Voters' issues and came entirely out of the blue. It was also too late to remove Foley from the ballot, so the Dems got a free seat from the deal. The 2000 and 2004 pre-election scandals were really no surprise, as everyone knew Bush was an alcoholic and that his devotion to National Guard service was questionable. No one anticipated Foley. The spin machine had to start from scratch. George Allen's 'macaca' comment was just the icing on the cake, as it enabled the Democrats to get seat #51.
So, let's start wondering what the pre-election scandal will be. Will it be something re-inforcing what we already know, or will it be a bolt from the blue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)