Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Let the games begin:
The race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 has changed totally in the past few weeks. At the beginning of the summer, Hillary could comfortably deny having national presidential ambitions, because the comfortable conventional wisdom was that it didn
Ace Columnist Cosmo Macero sums up my thoughts regarding Al Franken:
Al Franken is a humorist. And a humorist is a comedian who isn’t funny.
But he hates Republicans, so in some circles, that adds to the humor quotient. Here is Al being funny:
Franken doesn’t merely denounce conservatives. He harasses them, provokes them, gets right up in their faces. He once called up National Review Editor Rich Lowry and challenged him to a fight in a parking garage. Lowry declined.
I’m in stitches. Really. And Let’s not forget the real truth about Al Franken- he isn’t just some comedian who happens to have ‘turned liberal’ because of the evilness of Bush. Al Franken is a party hack.
And at bottom, that reveals what Franken really is: a party hack, a very good, and at times quite entertaining one, but a hack nonetheless. Because he fits a poorly defined niche in American politics
Hi. My name is John Cole and I don’t care about Harrison Ford’s politics:
At a safe distance from his homeland, veteran Hollywood actor Harrison Ford launched a broadside at US policy on Iraq, his country’s gun laws – and the film industry for producing “video games” for teenagers.
“I’m very disturbed about the direction American foreign policy is going,” said Ford, with US post-war casualties having exceeded those during the actual conflict.
“I think something needs to be done to help alleviate the conditions which have created a disenfranchised and angry faction in the Middle East.
“I don’t think military intervention is the correct solution. I regret what we as a country have done so far,” said Chicago-born Ford, 62.
The title for this was “Harrison Ford blasts US Iraq policy,” and I am hard pressed to see how he is blasting policy- this appeared to be pretty mild to me. He disagrees with the policy- he is entitled to his opinion, but who cares?
I also felt the ‘at a safe distance from his homeland’ bit was a little unfair- perhaps he has never been questioned abolut the policy at home? I dunno, but this seems to be pretty tame stuff and a mere policy disagreement, rather than low-rent Bush bashing.
I added another admitted lib to the links- Make sure you go check out Nathan Newman.
[RANT] I don’t know what the hell is going on in Alabama, other than the usual back-woods ignorance that seems to be abundant (here comes the hate mail), but some people down there really need to get a grip. I wish Alabama would get in the headlines more often than only when the citizenry (or small portions of it) are acting nuts, but that does not seem to be the case. At any rate, let’s talk briefly about this absurd Ten Commandments monument issue, and before I get another round of hate mail, I was calling the issue absurd, not the monument or the Ten Commandments.
Initially, I was sympathetic to the cause. I am essentially areligious, and have no dog in this fight to speak of (although I might be wrong- yikes!), but most of the devout Christians and ultra religious others are decent people whom I respect. I did not understand how a statue violated the Establishment clause (and still don’t). My response to people who said “What if some Muslims wanted to put up a monument?” was, quite simply “O.K. Why not?”
However, the federal courts have seen this differently. They ruled against it, and the monument was removed. Fine- case closed until the appeals. Imagine my surprise when I see a bunch of protestors on national television saying things like “I feel like God has been delegated (I think she meant relegated- ed.) to a broom closet,” and other similar statements. My first thought was “What a weak and vain God this must be,” while my second thought was to immediately come to the computer to write about this dolt and to do my best to publicly humiliate her.
That was absurd enough, but then I saw Herb Titus, the attorney for Judge Moore, claim that this is tantamount to ‘judicial tyranny from the Federal judiciary,’ at that point, I lost control. That rhetoric sounds so familiar? Where have I heard it before? Hrmm…. Maybe it was over the TWO CENTURIES when loudmouth assholes like Mr. Titus were using every judicial and extra-judicial method available to make sure that a significant portion of the population STAYED in the REAL TYRANNY that had been created for them? Anyone else remember that? Someone needs to review the treatment a certain minority received at the hands of the Alabama state judiciary, and then, and only then, can they get back to me about ‘judicial tyranny.’ For now, though, you can kindly shut up and stay out of the headlines until you can grow up and act like adults. [END RANT]
*** Update ***
Oliver has some poll results that shocked me.
Whereas earlier I was disagreeing with Matt Yglesias, I couldn’t agree more about this (and yes, I do read other blogs):
I imagine I’m not the first pundit to note that Kim Gandy and the crew down at NOW must’ve been off their rockers when they decided to endorse Carol Moseley-Braun for President of the United States. Clearly, Mosely-Braun is a woman, whereas her opponents are not, but leaving aside the dubious merits of her candidacy, it is simply inconceivable that she’ll be the nominee.
Because they are morons- always have been, always will be, and they reflect the values of the fringe left. At any rate, to save Karl Rove the time, here is a commercial I would run in January/February (and again in September with some modification) 2004, after NOW endorses a viable candidate:
Scrolling text of embarrassing statements by Braun, along with all of her ethical problems and fund-raising scandals, as well as her positions on issues (which will sink her with over half the voters by themselves) over a picture of her face. Have the voiceover state: “Last year, the National Organization for Women decided that Carol Moseley-Braun was the type of candidate they wanted to be President. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the country, that won’t be happening. Given another choice, they have decided that (Dean/Kerry) is the next best thing. Does (Hoard Dean/John Kerry) represent you?”
Clearly, I am not an advertising man, but you get the point. They wanted Moseley-Braun, with her whacky opinions and bizarre politics, now they have decided that Dean or Kerry is the next best thing. If I were Howard Dean, I would ask NOW to endorse Bush.
Yesterday, Matt Yglesias mildly chided me about fundraising (attacking my point that the Democrats are really not in fundraising problems, and that the GOP has the lead in House and Senate fund raising), and today comes this news:
Five months before the first ballot is cast and 15 months before the last will be counted, Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, spent the past four days being ferried from rally to rally in a chartered jet as though in the heat of a head-to-head national campaign rather than in the nascent chapter of a long-shot bid in a crowded field. He hit states like Oregon that have little to do with nominations but could be crucial in a general election and all but ignored his Democratic rivals as he roused rabid audiences against their Republican nemesis, George W. Bush…
Yesterday morning, the campaign took another audacious step, saying that it would broadcast television advertisements in six new states beginning on Friday, and that it expected to raise $10.3 million in the three months ending Sept. 30