The Wandering Donkey

She didn’t go to Yale but what is she made of?

It’s low hanging fruit, I know it is, but I just can’t resist commenting on Christine O’Donnell’s latest campaign commercial.

When last we saw Ms. O’Donnell, she was, of course, telling us that she was not a witch while wearing a black dress in front of a dark background with and eerie mist/smoke-like effect going on behind here. There are all sorts of nuance to that commercial that made her seem ‘witch-like’ to many people. Not a great start to her ad campaign.

Despite the fact that this ad was widely panned not only for the “I am not a witch….” start to it, but also for the visuals that I just described, it is odd that the campaign has decided to stay with the theme. Obviously, this is the “I’m you.” ad campaign internally. The problem is that it is now the “I am not a witch.” ad campaign to everyone else.

I understand the social conservative aversion to education, but many of us would like our kids to attend an institution like Yale, so I’m not sure that it is a great idea to treat a Yale education as a disease. It’s also interesting that she name drops schools she allegedly attended, like Oxford University earlier in her campaign, but now that is a liability. Finally, given her generally dismal and embarrassing record on her education C.V. in the last few months, why would you want to bring up your opponents education at all?

She looks a bit uncomfortable and awkward early, I think the director should have worked with her on this. Of course, she’s out of character. She’s trying to act the somber, serious part and has to slow herself down to do that.

I am really not sure why, other than money, the campaign would have continued with this theme after the reaction to the first commercial. I really feel that just the whole look and feel of this series was compromised as soon as the candidate uttered “I am not a witch.”

Finally there is the title: “What I’m made of.” There is only one thing that comes to mind when you still have the first commercials’ “I am not a witch.” in your mind. It’s instinctive; indeed, reflexive for many of us, and cannot help Ms. O’Donnell one iota. When she says they “saw what you were made of” there can be only one answer: wood.

I'm sorry. I said I knew it was low hanging fruit but I simply could not resist sharing my impressions.

P.S. – I’m still not you.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

She is not a witch…..

First off, I’d like to say, I like ‘witches’. I’ve known and do know ‘witches’. ‘Witches’ have had occasion to attend and be members in my church (I’m a UU). So, personally, I don’t find it necessary for Christine O’Donnell to to refute the idea that she is now or ever was ‘a witch.’ (Although I seriously suspect our ideas of ‘witches’ are fundamentally different.)

Secondly, I don’t think starting a commercial by refuting the somewhat ridiculous idea that she are a witch is very smart. She’s letting her opposition define the narrative. I don’t hear the “I’m you” part over the “I am not a witch part.” Silly concept for a campaign ad unless she has nothing more substantial to say. (This is entirely possible.)

Finally, if she is going to do a commercial saying “I am not a witch” it might behoove her to not wear black with a dark background that has a smoky mist like effect behind her and have her hair as straight and flat as I’ve ever seen it. Who set this up? Bill Maher? Take a look:

Seriously, I’ve never seen Christine O’Donnell look more witch-like than she does in this commercial. Bright colors, trees, and upbeat background music would be the way to go here. Not this.

Perhaps they are trying to also get away from the cheerleader rah-rah image that haunts most of her 90’s and early 00’s appearances? Trying to make her look ‘serious’ and ‘senatorial’?

Well, they need to pick a theme. Combining  the two themes is an epic fail. Now she looks ‘witch-like’, not serious, while denying that she’s a witch. Not a good start for her first general election campaign commercial. Not that Chris Coons or I particularly mind.

 

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Why would you vote republican?

A nice, to the point video. Why would you vote republican?

 

 

Update: Since the previous video has been removed here is another source:

 

 

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Meg’s husband: It might be my writing but I don’t remember letter

In the wonderful world of today’s Republican party, hours after California GOP Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman held a news conference at which she insisted neither she nor her husband had seen the letter from the Social Security Administration, and suggested that the housekeeper had intercepted it, her husband, present at the news conference, said that the handwriting on letter from the Social Security Administration may be his. His statement:

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would've scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages. Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.

“It is important to note what this letter actually says: 'this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status.'

“The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky's legal status and I certainly don't recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency. When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately. Meg and I played by the rules and followed the law. Ms. Diaz did not. If, as she claims, she received this letter and note of inquiry from me, she never answered my request to look into this. Instead, she choose to continue her deception. This entire matter is a sad one and it's timing is clearly the result of a calculated and cynical political smear by Meg's opponents."

Most people generally tend to not ignore a government agencies letters, especially when they request ‘prompt attention’. Maybe I just live in a world where we are to ‘in fear’ of the government. Or maybe I don’t believe I’m above the law. Either way, this is California, not Idaho; how do you expect us to believe you didn’t have any suspicions AT ALL that your housekeeper might be illegal?

All of this AND the fact that Meg Whitman claims that after she ‘found out from Nicky Diaz’ herself that she was illegal, she basically just cut her loose.

I would like to remind people that there are no civil or criminal penalties for giving a person, legal or illegal, money or help that can be quanitfied monetarily. You just cannot have them as an employee. Nevertheless, Meg and her husband did not, apparently, offer any monetary help, nor any help in resolving her immigration status. Yet despite this Meg Whitman claims that:

“…considered Nicky a friend and a part of our extended family.”

Yet she did not, and has not, attempted to look out for the welfare of Nicky or her family financially, or otherwise. Way to treat your friends, lady. There are plenty of former Ebay employees who know how you treat your non-friend employees already!

Not looking good for the Whitmans. She already had little chance of capturing the Latino vote. Now she risks losing the anti-Latino vote as well.

Well played, Meg.

Pat McGovern

I blame John

Perhaps that title is a bit much…..then again, perhaps not.  It refers to the role I felt that the senior Senator from Arizona has played in the legitimization of unqualified demagogues being considered appropriate candidates for higher office.  Arguably, this process did not come into full swing until then GOP Presidential nominee decided to nominate the now former half-term Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate in 2008.

I had a post on August 29, 2008 reviewing the likely picks on the eve of the pick itself. It detailed the three main remaining likely candidates; their plusses and minuses (there were plenty of those); and their likelihood to be picked. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin were the finalists I was convinced would be most likely.

Though I had heard of Governor Palin, unlike most Americans, long before this, I admit I didn’t have a lot of information on her. I, like nearly everyone else in the world, assumed that someone with the allegedly superior judgment of Senator John McCain would certainly not offer the vice-presidency to someone who he hadn’t completely vetted and was not comfortable with having one heartbeat away from the presidency. Boy, was I (we) wrong.

While we did not wind up with the demagogic governor as our Vice-President something nearly as bad happened. Rather than reinforce that it was not a great idea for people with little grasp of actual facts and knowledge of current events to run for higher office, her candidacy, because of it’s stalwart defense by the right, legitimized the ability of people who would have previously been shamed out of making a run for public office to now run for public office.

It no longer mattered that you could only name one or two Supreme Court justices; could neither quote nor explain exactly what the second amendment meant despite your stalwart support of it; heck, you no longer had to be able to even present the School House Rock version of how a bill becomes law (not a bad basic explanation).

Rather, when questioned on their grasp of subject matter that would behoove a Vice-President, Senator, Congressman or Governor to know, they can now claim that the ‘liberal-elite media’ is out to get them with ‘gotcha’ questions. These ‘gotcha’ questions were how we winnowed the wheat from the chaff when I was growing up.

It has now become unacceptable to present the chaff as anything other than whole kernal grain. It can look like chaff, speak like chaff and act like chaff but if you accuse, or even imply it might be chaff, you’re a member of the liberal-elite media, even if your name is David Brooks or David Frum.

Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell join the pantheon of demagogues that used to be restricted to the radio and FoxNews airwaves. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck used to have the demagoguery field to themselves. Now the GOP put the demagogues up for election.

Mind you, this is not without pushback from the ‘mainstream’ GOP. But just what is an uncharismatic bunch of people led by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell going to do? Certainly RNC Chairman Michael Steele can’t lead the charge because although I’ve seen him present cogent arguments in the past, he seems to have lost it completely since he took the RNC helm.

But some of these candidates, like Joe Miller in Alaska got nothing but grief from the GOP before their primary win. Now Senator Lisa Murkowski is getting all sorts of grief running as a write-in candidate against the ‘party’s candidate’. The GOP, not knowing what to make of the forces it has unleashed has no choice but to ‘go with the flow’ until it can figure out what is going on.

I haven’t been publishing regularly for almost two years. The last presidential election burned me out. But these events cannot go unchallenged by the left. There has to be pushback from our side. There has to be a challenge to the insanity being spewed by more than a few on the right.

As before, I’m sure many on the left will accuse me of being too centrist and accomadating while those in the middle to the right will accuse me of being anything from liberal, to socialist, to (these people have little understanding of the term or it’s genesis) fascist. Such is the life of a blogger or anyone who speaks out. My skin isn’t the thickest (my downfall) but keep it fairly civil and maybe we can have a conversation.

I look forward to posting regularly again and I hope the next two years don’t burn me out as much as 2007 and 2008 did. Not posting is no longer an option as there is too much in the ‘narrative’ that needs to be disputed and repudiated. My voice may be a small one but I am determined to add to chorus arrayed against these demagogues.

Peace,

Pat McGovern

Saxby Chambliss thinks the President should show “humility”

So, an old white male senator from the southern State of Georgia thinks the United States of America’s first black President should “express some humility” in his speech before a joint session of Congress tonight?

Where, exactly, do you begin with that?

The not so subtle racism?

What has to be either a total misunderstanding of his place in the political spectrum or the over the top hyperbole of the senior Senator from the State of Georgia saying that the man who was elected President of the United States of America needs to show humility?

Regardless of how I feel about the Republican Party, in general, and their views on healthcare, in general, the number of their members, particularly southern, who keep using ‘code words’ when discussing the President has to be appalling even to their own rank and file. You know the words: humble, swagger, uppity, cocky, etc….

The fact that the Republican rank and file are not calling these people on this is what is truly disgraceful. I grew up in deeply Republican Greenwich, Connecticut. I don’t believe anyone there would support this type of language, yet, I do not here any audible objections from quarters such as that.

Part of the problem is that Republican New England and even those in the Mid-Atlantic states have been marginalized and, to a large extent, ostracized. They are what used to be known as the ‘liberal’ wing of the Republican Party. A term that most national Republicans would deny ever applied to any Republican. They don’t even like to admit that they have ‘moderates’ within their party.

What then happens is that rather than fight for their party, they try to ‘fit in’. Thus, they do not object to the rhetoric. They have even come to believe that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are to lead them out of the darkness despite how objectionable they find some of their views.

Democrats learned long ago what following the demagogues can do to your party. Republicans seem to have failed to learn that lesson. In the meantime the rest of us have to listen to this tripe disguised as public debate and free speech.

My belief in America and Americans says that this type of talk will be marginalized, where it should be, soon enough.

Video courtesy of TPM:

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Palin vs. Letterman? Are you kidding me?

The judgment of Sarah Palin and her family, Todd in particular, is amazing. Rather than just taking it in stride and leaving it alone, she decides to take a moral stand against David Letterman?

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Well, at least one question is answered: Sarah Palin has no national political aspirations. No one with even the least amount of political savvy would publicly attack David Letterman if they had a national agenda.

Now, Dave and his writers should have been more aware as to which of the Palin daughters were on the trip before making those jokes, but this is an amateur, headline grabbing way of responding. Much like the miserably failed presidential campaign Palin was involved in, it does rally the base at the expense of that large swath of the middle that she only think she appeals to.

Congratulations, Sarah! The good news is that the presidential campaign season doesn’t really get going for another year and a half or so. There is time to recover although I am confident there will be plenty more forthcoming.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Obama picks Sotomayor to replace Souter

President Barack Obama today introduced U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York as his selection to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter of New Hampshire. (Whitehouse.gov)

This is probably as close to a slam dunk as President Obama could have gotten. Thus far,  pundits have praised the selection of someone with such a wealth of high level judicial experience. That could work against her as well as there is one heck of a long paper trail for Republicans to dig through.

She has however, been seen as a rising star since her nomination to the appeals court in 1998, so they are not likely to dig anything up that has not already been hashed out publicly. I’m sure there will be some hiccups. Ranking Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has plenty of not so well hidden skeletons himself, will see to that.

Despite that, I don’t see people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) or Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) supporting a filibuster on her nomination after they voted for her confirmation 11 years ago. They may vote against her in committee and/or on the floor but I don’t see them supporting an attempt to keep her nomination from a vote.

Thinkprogress has an article detailing the right's attempt to portray Judge Sotomayor as a “liberal Harriet Miers.” For full coverage of who exactly said what click on through.

It is a ridiculous argument starting with the fact that she has more federal bench experience than any Court nominee in memory. As SCOTUSBlog points out, women and minority candidates have a long history of being described as not smart enough for the job. It is also something that may generate an intense amount of backlash, if they wish to pursue it, from two groups the Republican party is allegedly desperate to court: women and Hispanics.

Here is some footage of them sticking their collective feet in their mouths already:

Class, do you know why this worked with Harriet Miers? Yes….you in the back. That’s correct…..because it wasn’t the presumed opposition, in that case the Democrats, doing the hack job. It was the people everyone assumed would support her. The Democrats were more than happy to let Jeff Sessions and company hack away at Harriet Miers intellectual fitness because it wasn’t they who would come out looking badly if it went awry.

If the Democrats were to attack Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual “heft” it might be a different story this time as well. But they won’t and not least because the woman has been a Federal Appeals Judge for 11 years! (Which, not coincidentally, is 11 years longer, by itself, than Harriet Miers total judicial experience, federal or otherwise.)

I understand that the right is still smarting from the fact that one of the reasons that Miers was nominated was that Sen. Harry Reid thought it might be a good idea. I think they also need to realize, as we Democrats do, that it wasn’t a vast left wing conspiracy when that happened, it was just Harry using his political judgment, which we well know is severely lacking.

Ultimately, the Republicans will cut their own throats with women and Hispanics if they go to far in opposition here. I realize they are capable of it but hold out hope that some of the relatively sane ones, such as Hatch and Collins and maybe even Judd Gregg, will save the party from themselves.

No filibuster will happen here. Fireworks? Perhaps. I think the nominee attracts close to, if not more than, 70 votes on the floor though.

I could be wrong. ;)

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Softball with Sean and the Dark Lord

Here is former Vice-President Dark Lord (also known as Richard "Dick" Cheney) and his 'interview' with wannabe journalist Sean Hannity. I hate posting FOX 'News' links, but you don't get to experience the sheer arrogance of the Dark Lord, or the utter sham of the 'questions' posed by the recently divorced (from Alan Colmes) Hannity.

Someone really needs to put the former Dark Lord in his place. I nominate two people who have excelled at this in the past: former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz. One, or both, of them need to give interviews that put the smack down on a) a former and b) Vice-President openly criticizing the foreign policy and national security policies of his succeeding administration, period. Never mind that we haven't even gotten to 100 days yet!

I realize that Dick still thinks he was his own branch of the government but he really needs to shut up. Baker and Schultz may be able to help that happen. Of course, they'll probably be attacked as liberal pansies by the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks. Never mind that just yesterday they helped end the "Cold War."

---

Next: A particular issue. Sean Hannity is not an interviewer any more than Ron Guidry is currently a major league pitcher. Sure, Guidry can throw batting practice and let hitters smoke balls into the center field stands but that doesn't mean he is still a major league pitcher. Similarly, check out this great big softball, not to mention totally leading, question about how Barack Obama handled his European trip:

Hannity: "Should he maybe have spent a little bit more time talking about the great sacrifice that America has made; While Europe was adopting totalitarianism and embracing appeasement, America was acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism?"

Um. First of all, he is apparently referencing pre-World War II America here. A country in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to struggle with Republicans like Arthur Vandenburg and Robert Taft with their increasingly anti-internationalist and isolationist points of view. We didn't actively stand up to totalitarianism! We, because of these guys, slinked off into our own corner. Things today celebrated as 'schemes' for Roosevelt to work our way into the war such as the "Lend-Lease Act" were vigorously opposed by Republican isolationists especially in the face of drawing us into a war. So any inference that we "were acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism" is utter nonsense. To the extent that we were acting at all, it was in spite of Republican (and to be fair there were Democratic non-interventionists also) non-interventionists and isolationists.

Further: Yes, we made a sacrifice. Was it purely out of the kindness of our own hearts? I don't think so. Roosevelt correctly saw that we had no choice but to go to war with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. He had to battle incessantly for years in order to get us involved in Europe. If we didn't? Well, we'd still be dealing with the ramifications of a German dominated continent. Hitler would never have had to pay attention to his western front, particularly if he did eventually overcome Great Britain. Stalin may never have been able to recover sufficiently to challenge Hitler's eastern front especially if Germany could have devoted more of it's resources there without a western front to worry about. (Admittedly, Stalin getting his ass handed to him does have it's benefits.) There is no way we could have allowed all of that to be the status quo.

So if you want to lord it over Europe. Fine. But don't expect to be considered anything other than an asshole by them for doing that. Just like you would consider the French assholes for lording over us the fact that we wouldn't ever have been a country if they didn't back us in the Revolutionary War. Which, by the way, is true: We would've been done long before 1780 if they hadn't come into the fray.

So, please, save your revisionist history. America is not always perfect. Expecting the world to constantly extol the virtues of this country and wonder why they get offended when you ask them to is idiotic. Obama and we on the left aren't ashamed of our country. Quite the opposite. We're just ashamed about the arrogance of some of our country's recent leaders.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

The Party of Hypocrisy

I haven't posted much lately and I won't promise that the posts will become more regular. I have to see if I can help this video go viral though:

Good jobs Dems. Don't let the country forget the spending spree our "fiscally conservative" friends went on for the last eight years. And don't let them try to blame it all on their "War on Terror" either.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.