Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon

4 days to Iowa, and I don’t really care about predicting the horse race, so this post should be short by Sunday Funnies standards. As if there are Sunday Funnies standards.

Meat the Press
Huckabee and Obama. One can’t say anything that would make me like him, the other probably won’t say anything new that will make me dislike him. By the way, this picture:

has been touted as an image enhancer. I really, really don’t understand Republicans.

First up, Huck. Let’s see – polls are all over the place; Mitt is lying; Mitt was a bad governor; Republicanism is indefensible in real life; Huck will bomb Pakistan as soon as a target is fixed (!); Huck was “prophetic” for talking about Pakistan in September (eek! all the way back then?!?!?); Huck is a bridge builder; Mitt is running a desperate and dishonest campaign, McCain is not; Huck stands by everything he ever said, although he would like to “clarify” some things; Huck is ok with atheists (ok, that was unexpected); Huck links homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and sadomasochism (ok, that one was not unexpected); abortion is murder, but you wouldn’t punish the mother because she is a victim (?).

Ok, one surprise, but on a claim, not a deed.

Now, the big O. O gets big crowds; O expects a tight race; (side note – Timmeh points out that without a big turnout, O could be in trouble. That’s right up there with football analysts who recommend outscoring the other team in order to win. Just.Fucking.Brilliant.); people are looking for change; O declines to name Bhutto’s killer (for all the right reasons); he also clears Hillary in the case, despite Timmeh pressing; voting against O is a bigger gamble than voting for him; O has been sniffed, prodded and poked; O is ready to lead and change how government works; O won’t mandate insurance enrollment, Edwards and Clinton will (none of them get rid of the insurance companies – the only good solution IMHO), O focuses on affordability; O is “not that far away from normal” (very recently lived an ordinary life).

No surprises, just a reminder of how likable and inspiring the Big O can be. He isn’t perfect, but if he gets the nomination I will enthusiastically support him.

Fawkes News

Nothing says “We’re Rudy!’s network and we don’t care about Iowa” quite like putting Fred! on for the first quarter of the show. Then the next quarter of the show predicting the caucuses.

Now it’s time to bash Huck with the panel, and I’m pretty sure that Huck didn’t say that Pakistanis were “scurrying over the border”. ew.

Time to get back to Rudy!, who Wallace says is in the lead nationally. Ummmmm…. a three-way tie with nobody above 20% isn’t a lead. But let’s continue…

Kristol seems worried that Daddy Warbucks won’t do well if he isn’t competitive in the first several states (as seems likely), says Huck can win if he makes it about likability, McCain wins a commander-in-chief election, and Romney has the resources to win if it becomes a race to the gutter. Ouch. Kristol appears to be in pain, and joins in the Romney-bashing with gusto.

Time to chat about the Dems. Juan Williams makes the most sense, as always, and Kristol can’t hide his sneer, especially when talking about Hillary. Yap.Yap.Yap. Mail. Hummer commercial, Rudy! commercial (Rudy invokes the Greatest Generation and 9/11, follows with threats to enemies – a new strategy!), and we’re out!

This Weak

First up? Hillary. Oh NO! Peggy Noonan says to not vote for Hillary because the right has spent almost 20 years demonizing her. That’s great logic! If you’re a right-wing drooler. I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons to vote against her, but the fact that she’s “polarizing” ain’t one of them. George S goes after her for reports that she didn’t have a security clearance and didn’t get PDBs, and therefor isn’t experienced at all.

Clinton handles questions on Rwanda, Bhutto and Musharraf very well, comes off as presidential. She talks about experience and Obama, focusing on herself and her husband. She’s still not my first choice, but is someone I can enthusiastically support, given who her opposition will be. I get all emotional with the realization that nobody on the D side is running to be torturer-in-chief.

Hillary calls for public financing of elections. I love her a little more for that! She downplays expectations, says she’s working as hard as she can and ducks out. Nicely done.

Now, The Straight-Out-The-Ass Talk Express, beginning with the latest Romney attack ad, and McCain’s response commercial. Jeebuz I have a low tolerance for Johnny Mac, and he’s not going to win anything, so as much fun as it is watching him call someone else mean-spirited, it’s on to the panel.

Ugh. It’s a Bhutto-off montage between the candidates. I have to admit that George Will says what I was thinking about the propriety of John Edwards calling Musharraf in the wake of the murders. (Basically, What the FUCK?) George Will, of course, is a “serious” commentator who thinks the assassination will make a difference in how we choose the next president. Yeah. Right. He really has no more feel for the electorate than David Brooks, who is also on this panel. If Donna Brazile wasn’t on it, I’d be outie. Shockingly, Brooks is only impressed by candidates who expressed support for the Bush policy for Pakistan. Didn’t see that one coming.

Lots of inside baseball on Iowa, and the fracturing of the Republican party. Will and Brooks are worried about Huck’s “economic populism”. Some talk about the Dems in Iowa and the excitement on that side, worry about Edward’s populism by Brooks and Will (I’m spotting a theme here).

A very moving In Memoriam closes the show for the year. We lose big names every year, but this year we lost real pioneers and leaders – Benazir Bhutto, Kurt Vonnegut, Luciano Pavarotti, Lady Bird Johnson, Boris Yeltsin, Eddie Robinson and 1014 service members in illegal wars as of air time. Of course we also lost Jerry Falwell, so it wasn’t all bad.

10 Responses to “”

  1. angelo Says:

    Can anyone really say they are enthusiastic about Barrak ‘they-can-have-a-seat-at-the-table’ Obama?

    RIP Kurt Vonnegut.

  2. TheDon Says:

    If he’s running against Rudy, Mitt, Fred, etc.

    Until then I’m hiding my enthusiasm very, very well.

  3. ellwort Says:

    Been voting in the US for thirty-five years. Never seen “voting against” as an option. Never been awarded a cash prize when I’ve happened to pick the winner. This practice of strategic voting based on so-called electability is a lot of undemocratic crap. I ignore the polls (except as entertainment) and try to get a sense of where the candidates stand and which ones may be telling the truth.
    Then I make a choice. Then, unless something happens that significantly changes my perspective, I put that name on the ballot on voting day. That, as I understand it, was the founders’ idea in the”by the people” documents.
    Yeah, almost all of the Republican candidates are fucking frightening. Thanks.

  4. TheDon Says:

    John,
    I don’t think we disagree, but you might have misunderstood my response to a very specific question about a line in my post about the general election. I have written against strategic voting and I’m not advocating that now – hell, I voted for Ralph Nader. The fact is that our country can’t afford anyone who gets the R nomination. If the only way to stop them is by campaigning for the Democrat, than I consider that a duty. Until then, the duty is to get the best possible candidate, NOT the “most electable” one.

    And I count my candidate losing the nomination as something that significantly changes my perspective on the race.

  5. ellwort Says:

    TheDon: I know. And your response shows you hear what I’m sayin’. Thanks.
    I get especially dismayed when demonstrably perspicacious people get dogmatically bent on outsmarting the concept of democracy, a practice we know all too well has menacing consequences.
    And (like you maybe) I’m still smarting from the memory of swimming upstream against smarmy “wiser” discouragement from from otherwise friends when I voted for Nader:

    http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/12/25/tomo/index.html

  6. ellwort Says:

    PS: And I still think Nader was a better choice than the Gore (more Clintonesqe erosion of noncorporate power) of 2000.

  7. angelo Says:

    In a place like California, I just vote for the most visibly lefty person I can find. That way, at the end of the day, Hillary or Obama can look and see that there are people to the LEFT LEFT LEFT of them. As a Californian, whose vote is truly meaningless, I have that luxury.
    On that note, anything we can do to prove to the rest of the country that there is something to the left of Hillary, can only improve discourse.

  8. ellwort Says:

    Right, angelo. But the comfort & beauty of our secret (and on-faith “reliable”) ballot system is that you have to explain or brandish your decision only to yourself. And pray that sufficient other secret selves are with you. Iowa’s caucus is just weird.

  9. Anonymous Says:

    Who’s that guy that looks like Elmer Fudd?

  10. ellwort Says:

    Yo TheDon! Gimme five! “Huckabee and Obama,” you said? The Dimpled Murderer and the Procorporate Warmonger. Iowa – big fucking deal. Ain’t it great to live long in an absurd world?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: