The Cruel Humiliation Of Chris Christie-- Next Stop, Secretary Of Transportation?

The unseemly spectacle of the Trumpish running mate selection-- culminating in Trump playing the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want" a dozen times in a row for startled reporters before bringing out the hapless Mike Pence-- should serve as a prelude to what a Trump administration would be like. In all things and at all times, Trump's narcissism will hover over every decision. His understandable desire to pick his old crony Christie was thwarted because of a family dispute, Christie having sent Ivanka's crooked father-in-law, Charles Kushner, to prison on a series of campaign fraud felonies. Almost a full year ago, we saw that

Trump, who constantly brags about how rich he is and claims he's financing his own campaign, says he's turning down "millions of dollars." Crooked New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner is an old friend of Trump's, and Trump's daughter Ivanka is married to Kushner's wormy son Jared, publisher of the NY Observer. Kushner was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions and of tax evasion and witness tampering, and served a year of a two-year sentence in prison. [Last August] he had a "non-fundraiser" for Trump at his palatial $6.7 million beachfront mansion in Long Branch on the Jersey Shore. He gave Trump $100,000. The invitation for the non-fundraiser read: "Seryl and Charles Kushner invite you to their home to meet DONALD TRUMP," with Trump’s name in red letters beneath a pair of American flags, just above "Make America Great Again!" Trump insists it was a just garden party.

Kushner, who has primarily given to Democratic crooks like Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, Jon Corzine and Robert Mendoza, blames Chris Christie-- who was the prosecutor who sent him to prison-- for his legal woes. Maybe the only string attached to the $100,000 he gave to Trump's super-PAC was the satisfaction of seeing Christie get buried. But I doubt it; after all, Kushner is well-known for having once retaliated against his own sister by hiring a prostitute for her husband, taping it and sending her the tape. Trump was happy to get the $100,000, but has never allowed himself to be photographed with his pal Kushner.

One GOP sad sack, Mike Murphy, a failed campaign operative who's lost dozens of races for every candidate he's ever worked for, most recent the Jebster, tweeted Saturday morning "I have a vision of Chris Christie hopping around on one foot trying to shake his other foot out of a now smoking, broken TV screen..." And while the Newtster was on Face The Nation yesterday, making a play for a cabinet position in the imaginary universe where Trump becomes president, Christie was dealing with massive Schadenfreude coming at him from every direction, not the least from Trump's rotten little slimy son-in-law. The NY Times was less catty than Jared... but still devastating: Chris Christie Lost Out on the Job He Wanted. And His Bad Year Got Worse. Zate Zernike started her gruesome story by pointing out that on Thursday morning, one of Christie's closest confidants "pleaded guilty to a felony charge of abusing power at the agency that Mr. Christie tapped him to lead. By that afternoon, federal prosecutors had charged a former cabinet official in connection with the same case, which spun out of the George Washington Bridge lane-closing scandal that has dogged Mr. Christie for nearly three years."

And Christie's day on got worse as a storm knocked down tree and a power line in front of his house, starting a fire, and cutting off his electricity. And then, of course Christie failed to "get the job he had been publicly pining for, and on which he had pinned his hopes of political resuscitation" despite an early and ill-advised endorsement of the much loathed Trump "that dragged Mr. Christie’s poll numbers to record lows at home and alienated him from moderate Republicans he once called friends."

“He was such a lap dog and tried for it so hard, he ended up not just losing badly in the presidential stakes-- I think he just looks much weaker than he was before by his rabid pursuit of Trump,” said Ed Rollins, a longtime Republican strategist who is now advising a “super PAC” supporting Mr. Trump. “It was not a glorious couple of years here, or for the citizens of the state.”

When Mr. Trump confirmed on Friday morning that he was picking Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana as his running mate, the initial reports were that they would make their first appearance together in Bedminster, N.J., where Mr. Trump has a golf course and plans to be buried. It would be “the site of Trump’s mausoleum and the burial ground of Christie’s political aspirations,” in the words of Julie Roginsky, a Democratic strategist close to two former Christie administration officials charged in the lane-closing case, Bill Baroni and David Wildstein.

The Trump campaign later said the appearance would be in Manhattan.

But even without an announcement in his backyard, Mr. Christie has suffered embarrassment at the hands of Mr. Trump.

He set off internet ridicule on Super Tuesday when he stood behind Mr. Trump, mute and obedient. As they appeared together, Mr. Trump mocked the governor for eating too many Oreos, and for all but moving out of New Jersey as he campaigned for president in New Hampshire.

Mr. Trump appeared to relish poking fun at his effusive booster: “I hated to do it but I had to make my point,” he said, after accusing Mr. Christie of abandoning his state.

Mr. Christie’s staff had to fight back against reports from within the Trump campaign, quoted in the New Yorker, that the governor had fetched food from McDonald’s for Mr. Trump. (On Friday, the New Yorker humor columnist Andy Borowitz further mocked him with a spoof headlined: “Furious Christie Refuses to Pick Up Trump’s Dry Cleaning.”)

In the end, Mr. Trump seemed to all but ignore any loyalty from Mr. Christie, picking Mr. Pence, who had endorsed a former rival to Mr. Trump, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

“It’s death by humiliation,” Ms. Roginsky, who is also a Fox News contributor, said. “Slow, twisting and played out in public, like a reality show elimination.”

On Friday, Mr. Christie’s office declined to offer a statement on Mr. Pence. The governor appears to be left with the prospect of campaigning even harder for Mr. Trump in hopes of getting a post in the administration, should Mr. Trump win.

But that would have to happen against the wishes of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is said to be no fan of Mr. Christie, who, as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, sent Mr. Kushner’s father to prison. And the governor would face a tough confirmation fight should he be nominated for a post such as attorney general.

Mr. Christie will have to endure more heartburn between now and Election Day.

The trial in the bridge case is scheduled to begin in September, and defense lawyers have promised to savage him and show that he knew about the lane closings, despite his protestations and “tell it like it is” slogans. The charges announced on Thursday-- that Mr. Christie’s associates negotiated bribes with United Airlines--— will continue to play out with the sentencing in the case of David Samson, former chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, in October.

“I was going to say he could be secretary of transportation, but that probably wouldn’t be a very good thing for him,” Mr. Rollins said of Mr. Christie. “Though he has some experience there, controlling bridges and planes and that sort of thing.”

His approval in New Jersey is a dismal 26% but Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute said that "if Trump wins, Trump will find something for him. He’ll take anything, as is kind of obvious." Let's make sure that never happens... never. A Democratic Senate is unlikely to confirm Christie for anything... except a long and well-deserved prison term.

Chris Christie Makes A Bid For Vice President... While Marco Rubio Campaign Hires A Comedy Writer

Maybe that headline isn't fair. Christie, who has no chance of being elected to anything in New Jersey ever again, and will need gainful employment in after next year, might be angling for the Attorney General job. Although... would a Senate-- any Senate-- confirm the Bridgegate guy? Dunno, but his endorsement moment with Herr Trumpf (at the bottom) was better than the Palin one.

Since Thursday night's Texas debate, Michael Steele has been repeating things along this theme: "There was nothing presidential about that debate. Americans got to see kids on the school playground." Someone else said the debate reminded her of "three year olds fighting over who gets to use the monkey bars." And it spilled into Friday when Herr Trumpf and Rubio really got into it. Rubio, who Alan Grayson referred to as "an attack poodle" after watching him barking at Trumpf Thursday night, seems to have agreed to let his campaign hire a comedy writer so he could fight Trumpf on equal footing. Remember, the Kochs have said that unless Rubio went after Trumpf personally and brought him down, there would be none of that legendary and deployable $900 million flowing his way. So Rubio is trying. Will Americans even vote if we wind up with two candidates as unappetizing and embarrassing as Trumpf and Hillary? Will it excite anyone that the pig-faced Bridgegate guy running as Trumpf's VP, while Hillary picks, Julian Castro, an unknown and unaccomplished former mayor of San Antonio who has spent the past half year being tutored... so he could speak Spanish, are added to the mix?

So now the Republican Party primary is degenerating into an argument over who's more likely to punch someone in the face and who's the real tough guy. (I guess Rubio considers himself to have more street cred because he was once a coke runner for his brother-in-law and was later arrested selling his bootie to older gay men in Coconut Grove after he flunked out of school. That's tough, right? But he says Trumpf isn't: "This is a con-job where he is going to Americans who are struggling, Americans who are hurting, and he’s implying, 'I'm fighting for you' because he’s a tough guy. A tough guy? This guy inherited $200 million, he’s never faced any struggle.The other day, he told somebody, a protestor, 'I'm going to punch you in the face.' Donald Trump has never punched anyone else in the face. Donald Trump was the first guy to beg for Secret Service protection."

Bloomberg reporter Sahil Kapur reminded his readers that Christie, aside from frightening Rubio, has opened the door for other establishment types to jump in the Trumpf bandwagon. Not everyone agreed though. A couple of Jeb aides attacked the stout governor. David Kochel: "New lesson kids: sometimes, the best option for the fat kid is to just hand his lunch money over to the bully!" And Tim Miller went down a similar low road: "Like Trump, Chris Christie is a pathetic, corrupt man with a tiny ego. I'm sure they bonded discussing their insecurities over a big meal." So not only has the Republican primary devolved into the candidates calling each other names on a level that would embarrass a junior high school student, but now we're going to have a season of establishment Republicans fat-shaming Christie!

This is beyond silly now... as though a contest for the presidency is made for late night TV hosts to have something to talk about to the sleep-deprived. Trumpf, who is trying to make a mantra out of "once a choker always a choker," is now taking every opportunity to obliterate Rubio. He declared on Friday that Rubio will not be considered for the running mate position. Really; watch:



Rubio responded with his own effort-- or the comedy writer's-- at re-branding Herr Trumpf: "Friends do not let friends vote for con artists"... and then quickly tried to make the case that Trumpf is-- wait for it-- sweaty. Yes, sweatier than Rubio himself. Rubio is now totally in the sty, intent on wrestling the pig. And I am not kidding! Just watch this clip from Friday morning:

Rubio's comedy writer gave him a line he rehearsed and delivered well at the debate too-- something about how if Trumpf hadn't inherited $200 million from his father, he'd be on the streets of Manhattan selling fake watches now with the Somalis and Kenyans. It may or may not be technically true-- about how much Herr got from his father-- but it makes the point of "otherness" that Rubio must convey if he's too make a dent in Herr Trumpf's armor. He flubbed a different line though-- the one about how Trumpf must have hired foreign workers to handle his twitter account, evidenced by all the misspellings, but poor Rubio got all flummoxed the whole thing broke down in he telling. He went home and studied it again and he finally managed to pull it off in the speeches he gave Friday in Texas and Oklahoma. Good boy, Marco! I think that was the line that inspired Grayson to write "What is the best thing that you can say about Marco Rubio?

Let me think for a minute...

He’s well-groomed.

That’s all I can think of. Marco Rubio is well-groomed.

We know this because he used his Republican Party of Florida credit card to pay for his back-waxing. Seriously. I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

But what Christie made up to justify his bizarre endorsement of Herr Trumpf was far more of a stretch. Watch this silliness:

Which Fascist Will The GOP Nominate, Trump Or Cruz... Or Both?

Trump doesn't want to say who he's decided to make the next Vice President (Of the United States) just yet. But he's hinting it could be Texas neo-fascist Ted Cruz. On Laura Ingraham's fascist-oriented radio show last week, the primitive-minded Trump said "Well, I like like him. He’s backed everything I’ve said... Ted Cruz is now agreeing with me 100 percent." (Trump made it clear that two soon-to-be out-of-work Republicans, Rubio and Jeb, can forget about the VP job.) Trump must feel he's entitled to speculate about who he'll make VP because now that crackpot Dr. Ben's numbers are disintegrating-- largely going to Cruz-- he's so clearly out ahead that it's unlikely anyone will catch up with him before Iowa and New Hampshire, all those holidays between now and then, that he's got this thing sewn up.

The newest NBC News poll has Trump at 28%, up two points, while Dr. Ben has lost 8 points and is now at 18%, tied with Cruz, who has huge momentum, up 8 points from 10% to 18%. No one else really comes close. Rubio's at 11% and poor Jeb has sunk down to 4%. The rest of the Deep Bench is bunched up at the bottom of the scale, between zero, like Lindsey Graham, and 3%, like Crazy Carly and the loudmouth from Jersey. And on the right is today's brand new poll from Iowa.

Roll Call's resident elections hack, Stuart Rothenberg isn't worried that the GOP will really nominate Trump, guaranteeing Barry Goldwater-magnitude losses in Congress and statehouses everywhere outside of the former slave-holding states.

Yes, I find it more than a little odd that Republicans have such a favorable view of both Carson and Trump at this point in the race-- Carson had a 71 percent favorable rating and Trump a 69 percent favorable rating in a Nov. 4-8 ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Research.

But Trump’s unfavorable rating is relatively high as well (29 percent, compared to 18 percent for Carson), and most Iowans have not started to firm up their decisions about who they will support when the caucuses actually roll around on Feb. 1, still more than two months away.

Just as important, let’s remember who won the last two Iowa caucuses: Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. So even if Carson or, less likely, Trump were to finish first in Iowa, it would not necessarily mean he was headed to Cleveland to be the GOP nominee. Remember, Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Republican caucuses in 1980.

As we all know, 25 percent of the vote can win the Iowa caucuses, but the eventual nominee will need to rally at least half of Republicans around his or her candidacy.

...[I]t is still more likely than not that when Republican caucus-goers really get down to picking a candidate, Trump’s increasingly outlandish comments will make him look less presidential and less appealing.

And then what? Trump has already mowed down Perry, Walker, Jindal, Christie, Kasich and the Jebster-- though the last three are staying the the race zombie-style-- and is working on destroying Rubio-- who is busy fighting a losing what against Cruz-- next. So what's left if Republicans do come to their "senses?" Ted Cruz.

Andy B's promise: In its new home at The New Yorker, "The Borowitz Report will be as inaccurate as ever"

Says New Yorker editor David Remnick "has assured me that I can write whatever I want as long as I don’t make fun of Malcolm Gladwell"

The shocking import of this picture newly released by the Romney campaign is explained in the first Borowitz Report in its new home (see below).

by Ken

So, the dreaded onrush of media consolation has struck The Borowitz Report, whose proprietor announced today that his merry carnival of lies has been sucked up by the expansionist juggernaut that is The New Yorker.

THE BOROWITZ REPORT

July 18, 2012

SHOCKER: The New Yorker Acquires The Borowitz Report
Posted by Andy Borowitz

After eleven years of writing nothing but fake news at the Borowitz Report, I have to tell you something that actually happened.

I’m excited to announce that The New Yorker has acquired the Borowitz Report. Starting today, the column will be moving to its new home at newyorker.com.

Longtime Borowitz Report readers might ask: how will moving to The New Yorker, known for its excruciating fact-checking, change the Borowitz Report, which is composed entirely of lies?

The answer: not at all. The Borowitz Report will be as inaccurate as always, and if I ever write something that turns out to be true you have my deepest apology and my promise that it won’t happen again.

Another question: what will happen to the Borowitz Report’s editorial independence? No worries on that score, either. David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, has assured me that I can write whatever I want as long as I don’t make fun of Malcolm Gladwell.

And now, if you’ll forgive me, I’d like to say one last thing that’s true.

My mom, Helen Borowitz, who died this month at the age of eighty-three, loved The New Yorker all her life and introduced me to it when I was a little boy. Seeing the Borowitz Report at The New Yorker would have made her so happy. I dedicate all my columns to her memory.

Sincere condolences to Andy. I'll bet it must be some consolation to think of how happy this development would have made her.


AND HERE'S THE FIRST POST OFTHE NEW REGIME

So far, at least, Andy seems to be toeing the line on the Malcolm Gladwell front.

ROMNEY CAMPAIGN RELEASES FIRST PICTURE OF V.P. PICK
Posted by Andy Borowitz

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) -- Republican Presidential choice Mitt Romney shocked the political world today by releasing a picture of his choice for Vice-President -- a man who, political insiders admit, was on nobody's short or long list.

The photo shows Mr. Romney's Veep pick, whose face was immediately recognizable to millions of Americans, wearing his trademark top hat and carrying what appears to be a moneybag, with currency of various denominations trailing behind him.

The Romney campaign issued scant information about the source of his running mate’s wealth, saying only that he had made his money "in real estate" and would not be releasing his tax returns.

Davis Logsdon, a political scientist who studies the history of Vice-Presidential selection at the University of Minnesota, called the choice of running mate who might be even wealthier than Mr. Romney "baffling beyond words."

"Is Mitt Romney really going to share the stage at the Republican convention in Tampa with a man clutching a bulging sack with a big dollar sign on it?" Mr. Logsdon asked. "Those are terrible optics."

Moreover, he added, Mr. Romney's Vice-Presidential choice has political baggage that could prove problematic going forward: "We're talking about someone who has gotten out of jail multiple times."

The Romney campaign may have released the picture to distract attention from yesterday's controversial comment by 2008 G.O.P. nominee John McCain, who said that he passed on Mr. Romney as his V.P. pick because Alaska governor Sarah Palin was a "better candidate."

Today, Senator McCain attempted to explain his remark: "Romney had all his money hidden in Switzerland. Sarah Palin was better because she had never heard of Switzerland."

#

The political craziness just gets crazier, and the Infotainment Noozers cheer it on. Thank goodness for E. J. Dionne Jr. and Paul Krugman

As we all know, high prices at the pump are part of an administration plot, at least according to President-to-be Willard Inc. -- "the sort of thing," says Paul Krugman, "you used to hear only from people who also believed that fluoridated water was a Communist plot."

"Thanks to [Rep. Paul] Ryan, we now know that this election is not about deficits at all. It is about whether we will respond to growing inequalities of wealth and income by creating even larger inequalities of wealth and income."

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in his WaPo column today devoted to
this week's three great lessons in real right-wing priorities

by Ken

In case you thought the Republican presidential contest couldn't get any sillier, consider that we've reached the point where mere silliness takes the plunge into preposterousness. On Saturday both the WaPo and NYT political insider junkies advanced to the subject of a running mate for the life form that emerges from the nominating process, now that it's (once again) all but certain to be the Incorporated Willard.

OH NO, IT'S "VEEPSTAKES 2012"!

On washingtonpost.com's "Fix" blog, Fixmaster Chris Cillizza offered "Veepstakes 2012: The Inaugural Edition," with an annotated Top 10 list of his contenders. The initial Fix "line," in case you missed it, minus the nattering verbiage (if you want Fixian "reasoning," you can get it onsite via the link above), was:

10. Paul Ryan
9. Mitch Daniels
8. Tim Pawlenty
7. John Thune
6. Chris Christie
5. Susana Martinez
4. Booby Bobby Jindal
3. Rob Portman
2. Bob McDonnell
1. Marco Rubio

Question: Is there anyone on this list you would trust to watch your cocker spaniel for just the length of time it would take you to dash into the dry cleaner to pick up your stuff?

Perhaps better still, though, is this gem from the NYT, first a post from the nytimes.com "The Caucus" blog, "Vetting a Running Mate in a Post-Palin World," and then an actual newspaper piece by Richard W. Stevenson, "Raising the Bar for Vetting a No. 2." Well, no, I didn't actually read them. Do you really think I'm going to waste a NYT free click on the likes of this? I just think it's delicious to think of the Republicans applying a "raised bar" vetting process to their vice presidential nominee when they've spent all these months trying to distinguish among a pack of would-be presidential candidates who, if you could pool all of their collective brain power, would compare unfavorably with a goldfish.

Vetting, for goodness' sake? More hilariously still, raising the bar? Stop, you're killing me!

I only wish there was any indication that this was meant humorously.

E. J. DIONNE JR. ON THE WEEK'S 3 GOP MOMENTS OF CLARITY

Meanwhile, back in reality, the op-ed heavy hitters are in a groove. The Post's E. J. Dionne Jr. has a sensational column that's misleadingly titled "The right's Etch A Sketch imperative." Oh, E.J. does indeed contemplate the Willard campaign's Etch A Sketch moment, and does so as elegantly as I can imagine it.

Romney later said [aide Eric Fehrnstrom] was talking about post-primary changes that would be made "organizationally," a claim that is plainly untrue. Ironically, the semi-denial reinforced the lesson Fehrnstrom taught: To win, Romney is willing to change not only his own positions but also reality itself.

Conservatives will need an exceptionally powerful Etch A Sketch to wipe the nation’s memory clean of the education it received during the 2012 campaign’s most enlightening week so far.

[Note: I have taken the liberty of correcting the Post's "Etch a Sketch" spelling to "Etch A Sketch," which as far as I've been able to determine is the Ohio Art Company's consistent spelling. -- Ed.]

But as E.J.'s last paragraph indicates, Etch A Sketchgate is only one of three developments he's considering from the week past:

Clarifying moments are rare in politics. They are the times when previously muddled issues are cast into sharp relief and citizens get a chance to look past the spin and obfuscation.

Americans were blessed with three such moments last week.

And Etch A Sketchgate seems almost a tack-on to two that concern basic policy matters:

* the revelation in Paul "The Doofus" Ryan's latest budget nightmare, by means of which he "made absolutely clear that he is not now and never was interested in deficit reduction." E.J.'s devastating (and of course absolutely correct) conclusion:

Thanks to Ryan, we now know that this election is not about deficits at all. It is about whether we will respond to growing inequalities of wealth and income by creating even larger inequalities of wealth and income.

* the cruel exposure, via the belated furor over the killing of Trayvon Martin, of the lunacy of "the 'Stand Your Ground' laws that the National Rifle Association has pushed through in state after state, laws "that perfectly reflect the NRA's utopia. No longer will we count on law enforcement to preserve the peace. Instead, we will build a society where all citizens are armed and encouraged to take the law into their own hands. If you feel threatened, just shoot."

Since when did conservatives start believing that laws should be based on "feelings" and subjective judgments? What kind of civilization does this create? Surely this moment should inspire the peaceable majority to challenge the entire gun lobby worldview -- and that most certainly includes the legions of timid Democrats who have been cowed by the NRA.

AND PAUL KRUGMAN IS ON FIRE

There are now two sensational columns you need to read if you haven't already.

Today, in "Lobbyists, Guns and Money," he too looks at "Florida's now-infamous Stand Your Ground law," but from the standpoint of the long-simmering and lavishly financed right-wing program of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which Howie has written about a lot here but which hasn't received anything like the attention it deserves among the Infotainment Noozemedia. "Language virtually identical to Florida’s law," he notes, "is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states" by ALEC," and all over the country Republican legislators have been introducing ALEC-written bills (more than 50 in Virginia alone), "and these bills often become law."

ALEC tells the same lie that E. J. Dionne Jr. catches Paul Ryan in with regard to deficits.

ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

PK concludes:

Now, ALEC isn't single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters -- a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what's going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

Friday there was another Krugman must-read column, "Paranoia Strikes Deeper," extrapolating from the preposterous lie blithered by Willard Inc., "that gas prices are high thanks to an Obama adminstration plot" (not just nuts but "a sort of craziness triple play -- a lie wrapped in an absurdity swaddled in paranoia . . . the sort of thing you used to hear only from people who also believed that fluoridated water was a Communist plot").

The conspiracy theories are proliferating so fast it's hard to keep up. Thus, large numbers of Republicans -- and we're talking about important political figures, not random supporters -- firmly believe that global warming is a gigantic hoax perpetrated by a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, not one of whom has broken the code of omertà. Meanwhile, others are attributing the recent improvement in economic news to a dastardly plot to withhold stimulus funds, releasing them just before the 2012 election. And let's not even get into health reform.

Why is this happening? At least part of the answer must lie in the way right-wing media create an alternate reality. For example, did you hear about how the cost of Obamacare just doubled? It didn't, but millions of Fox-viewers and Rush-listeners believe that it did. Naturally, people who constantly hear about the evil that liberals do are ready and willing to believe that everything bad is the result of a dastardly liberal plot. And these are the people who vote in Republican primaries.

MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE WORLD OF "GOTCHA"
POLITICS, RICK THE NO-MAN MAN GETS A GIFT

The last thing we need is Infotainment Noozers whose sloppiness undercuts the reality that every word out of the mouth of every right-winger is a lie. For cripes' sake, I'm about to utter words I never expected to run together consecutively: Rick Santorum was right. Only because a reporter got sloppy, enabling him to "correct" him.

Here's the start of an item by Rachel Weiner on the Washington Post's "Fix" blog, "Rick Santorum: Real Republicans curse out reporters":

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum cursed at New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny on Sunday while campaigning in Wisconsin, saying, "Quit distorting my words. ... It's bulls---."

Monday morning, the presidential candidate explained that he was just acting the way a Republican should.

"If you haven’t cursed out a New York Times reporter during the course of a campaign, you're not really a real Republican, is the way I look at it," Santorum told Fox News.

Zeleny had asked Santorum to elaborate on an earlier remark that Romney was "the worst Republican in the country." Santorum responded that his words were distorted, as he actually called his rival "the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama."

First off, saying that using the word "bullshit" is "cursing out" a reporter is nuts. If you're that stupid, you shouldn't be involved in any way in the gathering or dissemination of news coverage. What should you be doing instead? Well, you might explore opportunities in the manufacture of license plates. Or see if there are any circuses in your area in need of help sweeping up after the elephants. Or maybe you could be a "scholar" in a right-wing think tank.

Even worse, if "The Fix" has gotten the incident right, the No-Man Man was right. That's something I don't think I've ever said in the long, arduous years since the crap-brained scumsucker entered public life. But come on now, saying that Willard is ""the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama" really and truly isn't the same thing as saying that he's "the worst Republican in the country," and the Times is assumed to employ reporters who understand that. Apart from undermining your own paper, you provide a pile of filth like the No-Man Man to mount his high horse, as he did in this statement issued this morning:

Earlier today, while campaigning in Wisconsin, I criticized Romney and Obama for their outrageous healthcare legislation. Predictably, I was aggressively attacked by a New York Times reporter all too ready to defend the two of them, and all too ready to distort my words. Let me assure you, I didn't back down, and I didn't let him bully me. I think it is high time that conservatives find the courage to expose the liberal press for what they are, a defender and enabler of Romney's and Obama's liberal agendas.

Providing him with such an opportunity is, well, inexcusable. What he should be asked is whether he can imagine any circumstances under which he would give any consideration to telling the truth about any subject under the sun. The evidence seems to indicate: not a chance. Even this dump of bullshit is all lies. There is, of course, nothing "liberal" about the Obama health-care package. Lord knows, the Village establishment made sure of that, and as anyone who's been paying attention, the whole thing was a Republican idea to begin with.

But the No-Man Man is a privileged character by virtue of his extreme right-wingedness, which confers on him an absolute Right to Lie. Non-right-wingers may utter actual truths and see them twisted into misstatements by the Right-Wing Noise Machine. But certified (and, yes, often certifiable) right-wingers, can apparently say anything at all -- no limit on the crazy quotient -- and stand untouchably above reality.

#

Another Corpulent, Dyspeptic, Pompous, Self-serving Son Of A Bitch Buys A Ticket On The Double Talk Express... To Nowhere

Most people just dismiss conservative direct mail guru and far right icon Paul Weyrich as a perennial malcontent and a kook. In fact, John McCain has been a good deal less generous in his descriptions of Weyrich, most of which can't be published at DWT because of McCain's overly colorful language-- even worse than what he calls Cindy! But in his 2002 book, Worth Fighting For-- no this isn't the one where he claims (falsely) to have invented the Blackberry, nor the hula-hoop, the Edsel, fire, marbles, paper-- McCain wrote that "Weyrich possesses the attributes of a Dickensian villain. Corpulent and dyspeptic, his mouth set in a perpetual sneer as if life in general were an unpleasant experience, he is the embodiment of the caricature often used to unfairly malign all religious conservatives.... I like to think I know a pompous, self-serving son of a bitch when I see one."

And Weyrich, though not nearly as potty-mouthed as McCain, has been no fan of his either. During the primary season Weyrich was regularly describing McCain as the worst possible case for the GOP and he vowed to vote for a third party candidate if McCain managed to get the nomination. "I will not vote for him. I can't." Of course, that was then.

As Right Wing Watch pointed out this morning, "like just about every other right-wing leader who once declared McCain utterly unacceptable, Weyrich has changed his tune:

They only started speaking again after nineteen years.  Both have been quite open in saying why they held one another in “minimum high regard.” Their animosity toward each other is well known in national political circles.

But Paul Weyrich, one of the godfathers of the modern conservative movement, put all of that aside last week when he strongly endorsed John McCain for President.

And how did this come about? Because McCain once again realized it suited his political interest to grovel:

After he nailed down the Republican nomination, Weyrich [said], the Arizonan “came to my office to see me.  We talked things over and he asked for my support.”

Apparently McCain decided that what his campaign desperately needed was the support of at least one more “corpulent and dyspeptic… pompous, self-serving son of a bitch.”

It was more than that though. According to a report in the National Journal one can conclude that Weyrich promised to support McCain if McCain picked a bona fide far right extremist as his running mate. McCain wanted Lieberman but was convinced that that would be the ultimate kiss of death.

About a month ago, conservative activist Paul Weyrich delivered a message to John McCain's campaign managers: The Republican presidential candidate should make Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin his running mate. Weyrich even dared McCain. "I don't believe he's got the guts to do it," he told a campaign staffer.

...[W]ith the selection of Palin, all is forgiven. McCain understood the stakes, Weyrich said. "He realized he had to listen to the base-- the base was clamoring for her."

And what about McCain's temperament? "He wants this [election] bad enough that he has been restrained," Weyrich told NJ. "I figured he'd be blowing up all over the place. He hasn't. Not once. He has shown extraordinary discipline."

"Palin is right on every issue-- she's better than he is," Weyrich added. "She's for drilling in Alaska and he's not. She doesn't support [the campaign finance law] McCain-Feingold and he does. She's good on immigration and he isn't."

Weyrich even said he will publicly endorse McCain-- a move he resisted when the senator from Arizona asked him earlier this year. "I was going to swallow hard and vote against Obama," Weyrich said. "Now I actually have a reason to vote for McCain."

Other right wing extremists in control of dark corners of the crumbling GOP who have changed their minds about voting against McCain because of Palin:
Phyllis Schafly, who says she hopes McCain will catch up with Palin.
Jimmy Dobson: "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer."
Steve Scheffler: "Picking Palin ignites the bonfire-- people will be excited. I will walk on broken glass or do whatever I can to get this team elected."

Religionists Still Wary Of McCain-- Say He Must Embrace Palin's Lunatic Beliefs

It's finally started to sink in. Palin isn't merely inexperienced and unprepared to be president-- constitutionally, the vice president's only crucial job-- she's also been twisting the truth about her involvement in corruption, earmarks, Bridges to Nowhere, etc. The Anchorage Daily News, which knows her a lot better than John McCain, is asking some questions McCain should have asked before he invited her to be his running mate.

Here are some of the questions Palin should be answering, for Alaskans and the rest of the country:

• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?

• Sen. Ted Stevens' trial is still pending; he has declined to say whether he would accept a pardon from President Bush before he leaves office Jan. Do Alaska voters deserve an answer to that question before they cast their vote for or against Stevens in November? What is your position on a president pardoning a public official before a jury has ruled on guilt or innocence?

• Alaska Congressman Don Young appears to have won his Republican primary, even though you endorsed his opponent. Will you vote for your fellow Republican Don Young, who has spent over $1 million on legal fees without telling his constituents what sort of legal trouble he is in?

• Why have you reneged on your earlier pledge to cooperate with the Alaska Legislature's investigation into Troopergate?

• In spring of 2004, the Daily News reported that you cited family considerations in deciding not to try for the U.S. Senate: "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?" What was different this time as you decided to run for vice president?

• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?

• If you were a fully qualified vice-presidential candidate from the get-go, why did you wait more than 10 days to face reporters?

• McCain spokesman Rick Davis told Fox News the media didn't show you enough "deference." How much deference do you expect to get from Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez?

• You have said victory is in sight in Iraq. In July 2007, when you visited Kuwait, you said, "I'm not going to judge the surge." In the March 2007 issue of Alaska Business Monthly, you were asked about the surge and quoted saying:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. . . . While I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place."

Define "victory" in Iraq? What is the exit plan?

Palin is beloved by religionist fanatics not because of serious policy stands but because her bizarre beliefs are toxic to normal Americans. And, of all people to help the country understand that. is Republican Party religionist agent, Tony Perkins of the GOP front organization, the so-called "Family Research Council." On CNN this morning, Perkins makes it clear that the radical right religionists, as happy as they are to have one of their own on the ticket, still don't trust McCain. Perkins sat down with CNN talking head John Roberts:

Roberts: For a couple of decades, she was a member of the Pentecostal Assembly of God church. Six years ago, she changed to the Wasilla Bible Church. I read an article in which one of her former pastors suggested [the McCain campaign] may be playing down her faith because there may be some misunderstanding about her Pentecostalism. What do you think about all of this?

Perkins: Obviously people, the polling data would suggest people want a leader or leaders that believe in God [and] pray, and I think there's some sense that there's a greater accountability there. But I think the campaign, John, is at a critical point. John McCain made an incredible selection. He has turned around the campaign that I think was moving south, and there's enthusiasm, excitement and hope among social conservative voters.

But ... the next few days, next couple of weeks will be very critical because as you pointed out, her faith has become an issue. It's being attacked, being used as a weapon against her. People are watching. It will be very important how the McCain campaign handles this. If they become defensive and run from it and try to hide the fact that there is this element of faith, then I think it's going to turn off social conservatives, evangelicals, orthodox Christians.

If they say, "Hey, why should someone have to check their faith at the door and move towards the base," I think it's going to energize, you know, the socially conservative voters more. It's very important how they deal with this in the next few days.

Roberts: You say people are attacking her because of her faith. Are they attacking her or asking legitimate questions, such as when she said at the Assembly of God church back in June. ...

[Palin] talked about U.S. troops in Iraq, and she put it this way: "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that's from God." Even some Pentecostals say that could mean that the U.S. is in a holy war with the Muslim world.

Perkins: I think it's important that you see where these convictions lead her on policy issues, and I think that is part of the scrutiny that she will undergo from socially conservative voters.

Roberts: Do you have any idea at this point about how her faith will inform how she governs?

Perkins: No. There's not a lot of evidence in Alaska other than, you know, she's conservative. I mean there's not-- you can't point to a lot of policies that people say [she adopted] because she's a conservative evangelical.

You don't see a lot of that. I think what people are looking for from the McCain campaign is: He's made a great selection. He has their attention. He's built hope and enthusiasm. Are they going to move away from this faith element? Are they going to move away from, you know, the base trying to keep her from being too aligned with him or going to run to their strength?

That will be a critical decision they make in the next several days.

Sarah Palin VP?

by Mags

Sarah Palin begins her campaign as the GOP VP candidate. We learn that our access to her will be granted only if the media treats her with respect and deference. Ah, I see. Well, respect is earned and deference is a privilege of royalty.
 
This is what we have come to expect from the GOP, the new party of victims. Even though they demand total accountability from the Democratic Party, they are not liable to provide that themselves. Amazing.
 
We learn that Ms. Palin will be interviewed by Charlie Gibson, psuedo-journalist and TV morning talk show host. I hear the interview will be in Alaska. Swell. This sets the stage for the sort of show that is reminiscent of a White House tour or a tour of Graceland. I would bet a good deal of money that there will be no substantive question asked or answered. Will Sarah show Charlie her Moose skin rug? Show him her wolf tail trophies? After all, she is a great lover of the environment, right? I bet she will look great though and have on her beauty queen vaselined teeth smile.
 
Today on the trail, Sarah Palin did not know that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were private entities and instead accused them of being a burden to taxpayers. Well, not yet Sarah dear, but thanks to Bush and GOP policies, they will now. I wonder how much that will raise my taxes? Sarah, it seems, does not have a clue about much of anything but earmarks, loyalty oaths, slogans, and smears.
 
Will the GOP propagandizing team teach Sarah to use another term instead of using the words God and Jesus all the time? I am not sure the mainstream America is ready for the lunacy of the right wing religionist Assembly of God folks. If they were, then why is the church shutting down the videos. Come on folks, this is your grand chance to "witness" to the nation. What's the problem? Think it might sound a little crazy to the rest of us?
 
What sort of policy will she be able to absorb if she has little basic knowledge of reality to start with? Let's face it, Alaska is an island unto itself. They do not identify with the rest of the world. It is that simple. As a former Assembly of God fundamentalist, I can tell you, there is no concern with reality there, only their interpretation of the bible. Believe me, real knowledge... they discourage it. In all my time in that church in my youth, I was encouraged to read the bible and listen to my pastor and question nothing else. I can just see Sarah Palin breaking out in tongues at the podium during the public prayer as she would in her own church. Yeah, that will fly.
 
And, what will little Sarah say when she finds out that the team she hooked up with is full of corruption? Will she run screaming back to Alaska and to Jesus? One would hope, but I doubt it. What we know of Sarah Palin is that she is intolerant of disagreement and her "wit" amounts to simple sarcasm. She is part of the GOP which is about mockery, not about country. McCain is Mockery First! Sarah Palin was hardly on the public scene for 5 minutes when she showed that was her main talent. While some might think she will balance out John's bad temperament, my guess is that she will make him look positively gentile.
 
When one begins to listen to the real Palin, they must wonder what this woman will talk about for the next 60 days if a script is not in front of her. Maybe John McCain is better off hiring a motorcade as opposed to drivng around the country in the Straight Talk Express. Think about it Sarah need only practice her pageant wave as she babbled something about world peace.
 
The team in Alaska might want to ask themselves if they really can train stupid? Maybe they should have listened to their parents when they were told, "All that glitters is not gold." Forest Gump was right, "Stupid is as stupid does."
 
Maybe it would be more appropriate for Sarah to stay in Alaska where people understand her, maybe even look up to her. I am not sure we are ready for her here in the real America. Perhaps she does not yet understand that she was tapped to run as a Vice President of the United States of America and not as Vice Princess of the lower 48. This isn't a pageant, this is our future.

As A Mother And As A Woman I DO Call Sarah Palin On Her Family

-by Mags

I find the recent political events to be extremely interesting. So much so that almost any comments I make should be prefaced by "pass that popcorn, will ya?" The only thing that keeps me from being so flip is that we as a nation and as individuals are still reeling from the appointment of the "guy we would like to have a beer with," George Bush.
 
On a personal level, my family is dealing with financial crises from the fall out of unemployment and the credit crunch. We also must commute over 50 miles per day to work so the cost of gas is taking our income even further down the toilet. Over all our income has decreased over 40% and our current job security is tenuous here in Michigan. Our health insurance has been changed to the degree that we are never sure if we can get care, and my husband and I are now cutting our meds in half at times or just discontinuing those which we feel are least necessary.
 
Nationally, we are facing inconceivable debt to foreign nations, increasing unemployment, inflation, and issues of national security due to the actions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And, now we are in trouble as lobbyists via John McCain dabble in foreign policy decisions which threaten to restart the cold war.
 
During the Democratic primary all of our nominees went through rigorous questioning regarding every aspect of their public and even private lives. They faced grilling on their family lives and their religious convictions. There was no area off limits... NONE. The commentators on both sides opened up on Democrats with both barrels.
 
Hillary was told that she must stand up to criticism like a man and that women who ran must act like a candidate, not a woman. Barack Obama was grilled to make sure he was white enough, black enough, American enough, and Christian enough. Not only that, the beliefs of those who were even loosely connected to Barack Obama were considered to be one and the same with his. How dare anyone stop scrutiny or the smearing of Democratic Candidates!
 
Into this scene John McCain stumbles and bumbles. Taking the crises facing Americans about as seriously as one would take a hang nail. Despite the talk that Barack Obama is for himself and self-centered, I have heard nothing from Barack Obama except that he is fighting for the people. Conversely, from the campaign of John McCain all I hear is about the heroism of John McCain and the protectionism of John and his one life accomplishment, being a POW. And, God forbid we should question his age or expertise since being a POW means that he is now qualified to anything anywhere. No matter what question, they play the POW card. It is an all-purpose response.
 
And now comes into the mix, Sarah Palin as a nominee for VP. Wow! None of us knows her. It also appears that she does not know us either. Her trip to the lower 48 was a real experience for her.
 
I know people who live in Alaska. Here is my impression (no doubt assured to anger someone somewhere), Alaskans are there because they are either born there or go there to escape the types of demands that we experience in day to day living here in the contingent states. I do not say this is good or bad, but certainly those who I know there are there because they hated life in the lower 48. The woman chosen to become our president if the aged and sickly John McCain should die really knows little about the types of lives we lead or the demands we face or the values we hold.
 
As a citizen, I am insulted by the choice of this inexperienced small town beauty queen to a ticket for the highest office in our country. But, as an observer of the types of people appointed by the GOP to national offices, I sense that I should not be surprised that the GOP right wing religionist faithful should see her as ultimately qualified for her anti-abortion stance alone. And, I am not surprised.
 
As it turns out Sarah Palin has other issues. Sarah Palin has 5 children. As a woman who had 4 children, I can tell you without being sexist that raising 4 children precludes certain things, if you have a career, it must be flexible enough for you to parent effectively. This is not sexist; this is a fact. There are 24 hours in a day. I did not make the rules. What this means is that if Ms. Palin is to be at the ready, she must immerse herself in policy and affairs of state. Fine. But, the price her family will pay is enormous and she has an infant. Let me repeat, Sarah Palin has an infant. But, so far I have mostly seen the infant in the arms of her daughter since Sarah's nomination. Even the GOP knows that showing a mother with babe in arms invokes the image of a woman fully engaged in pursuits not related to fulltime engagement in government. The right has been telling us forever that we cannot do it all. Will they recant? And, will Sarah Palin make the same as Dick Cheney did? Or will the GOP make sure that she is NOT given equal pay for equal work.
 
Let us be clear. I teach Social Sciences and I am quite aware of the issues regarding teen pregnancy. But, it seems as a parent Sarah Palin has been a poor judge of what her daughter needed to prepare her for sexual activity. As a governor she errs in not understanding what is needed for our families when she says she is against any education except abstinence-only education.
 
As for Palin's anti-abortion stance, let me just say this, any mother who would suggest that her own daughter bear the child of her rapist shows no compassion at any level. This is the ultimate worship of male domination, just another reason why the religious right loves her.
 
Palin was so incompetent that she did not prevent a late life pregnancy of her own, which one can assume was an accident considering her political ambitions. What does she show us in the sense of responsibility to those who are forced to entrust themselves care to her? If Palin's loyalty to the country is like her loyalty to her family, we are all in trouble. She will continually put herself and her beliefs first and not the needs of the country. She will continually pretend she is up to the task, when she has nothing in her personal background to show us she is indeed qualified in the real world. She is the ultimate idealist in denial. Now there are questions about a series of arrests, for vandalism and drugs, that ended up with her oldest son, Track, being offered a stint in the military or a stink in prison. McCain lawyers are plugging stories in Alaska about Sarah's extramarital affairs and about which Levi-- Miller or the newly wealthy Johnston-- is the actual baby-daddy of Bristol's unborn child, as fast as new ones start leaking out.
 
These are not sexist observations. These are observations about personal responsibility. I cannot trust Palin's competence and loyalty to my best interests when she is doing a half-assed job taking care of her own family.
 
Obama has said Palin's family is off limits, but I am not criticizing her family. I am criticizing Palin. I am criticizing Palin in the one role for which I will be required to accept her, as a woman. Since the GOP is playing the gender card, I am to stay away from her failings because she is a woman and a mother. Sorry. It is sexist to not judge her in those roles. Parenting is one of the most meaningful jobs all parents, male and female has. And, by her own admission, she chose to have all the children she has. But, like many on the right, she believes her virtue can only be judged up to that decision. Sorry. That is not reality. That is fantasy.
 
Obama and Democrats have continually pointed out to this nation that our beliefs do not end with their declaration. Our beliefs that all life is precious extends beyond the womb. It extends as Barack has said to both women and men as he exhorts fathers to be worthy and responsible. We have seen responsible parenting in the Obama family. We see it in the Biden family. We see parenting that went beyond the womb. We see parenting skills which have balanced the call of duty to country and to family. Obama and Biden didn't ask for a pass on their familial responsibilities. They don't need one.
 
Sarah Palin boasts of executive experience which is proving to be thin and experience of the worst kind, power abuse, ear marks, hard right wing religious views, and anti-American sentiments of a secession movement. This is another candidate deeply involved in oil politics and wars for God. We have had quite enough of that in the person of George Bush.
 
The Democrats do not have to go sexist. Sarah Palin is not a feminist and has plenty of sexist policies of her own. The Democrats do not have to play any cards to keep from answering questions on tough issues. We do not have to hide from religious forums, Barack went above and beyond for that contingency in America by appearing with Rick Warren. Democrats have answers. Democrats answer questions, over and over they answer questions.  
 
The GOP is playing the same game with the same team that bullied the incompetent George W. Bush into office. The tactics are the same. The politics are the same. The philosophies are the same. And, yes, Sarah Palin IS just another pretty face.

What Does Sarah Palin's Selection Tell Us About John McCain's Readiness To Lead?

I so do not want to write any more about McCain's reckless choice of a completely unvetted-- unless getting the thumbs up from religious fanatics is your idea of serious vetting-- candidate for a possible next president of the United States. I'm sure you've already read how she and her husband have been members of a fringe political party that was pushing Alaska to secede from the U.S. and about how she is embroiled in a scandal the media has dubbed "Troopergate," which she is attempting to coverup and derail.

People may be fascinated-- and even sympathetic-- by the train wreck that is Sarah Palin's personal soap opera, but what does it say about McCain that his first big-- and this is really big, given his age and poor health-- executive decision was made in such a shoddy, slipshod manner? This isn't about Sarah Palin's gender or her family. It isn't about alcoholism, a son busted for vandalism and drugs and then forced into the army to avoid jail, or sexual promiscuity, wild MySpace pages, a flip-flippin' career based on pork and earmarks, outrageous ethical lapses, or sensationalistic stories in the National Enquirer or Us Weekly. And it isn't about Sarah Palin's faith or even the whacky, anti-Semitic, crazier-than-Reverend Wright sermons she sat through. This is about John McCain's inability to live up to the most basic precepts of national leadership. People who know him best-- other than those like Lieberman and Lindsey Graham riding on his coat tails-- all say he has never exhibited any capacities for leadership. From the time he was in the Navy right through his time in the Senate, he was always judged to be severely lacking in leadership and executive abilities. The Sarah Palin debacle should not come as a surprise to anyone, just as another warning.

In case you were wondering what the right-wing talking heads really think about McCain's irresponsible pick, this clip catches GOP shills Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy, two phonies who should each be permanently banned from TV now-- inadvertently talking into open mikes during a break. OMG; this should be devastating. They think the Palin disaster is the end of whatever chances McCain had-- quite the opposite of what they say when the cameras are rolling:



And if you missed any of that, here's a rough transcript:

Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state government work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all how you want to win a Texas race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.

Noonan: It's over.

Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

Todd: Its insulting to Kay Baily Hutchinson ??

Noonan: I saw Kay this morning

Murphy: They're all bummed out. I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

Murphy: Yeah, but what's the narrative?

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.

Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.

Thomas Eagleton Watch: How Long Will McCain Hold Onto This Terrible Pick??

Ari Berman is a pretty smart guy-- and not taken to buying into wildfire tabloid type rumors. In today's Nation he's wondering if Sarah Palin might be John McCain's Tom Eagleton, another VP candidate who wasn't vetted properly... and had to resign after being nominated. Or, worse yet, Bernie Kerik! I wonder if the lobbyists who run McCain's campaign for him knew that she wanted Alaska to secede from the union; that seems like a strange postion for a vice-president, no? But I guess that's what you have to expect from someone who blatantly lied in her very first speech to America about a position that everyone in Alaska knew was false. She said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, but she was a gung-ho supporter when she was running for governor. In a Frank Luntz focus group of swing voters, the assessment was that Palin will probably cause McCain to lose the election. More and more Insiders are coming to the conclusion that even the stubborn McCain won't hold onto this irresponsible, wrong-headed choice for more than another two weeks. Watch Max Blumenthal make Roy Blunt (R-MO) squirm, go into full spin mode and praise Obama. I bet he wishes McCain had had her vetted better!


Republicans are already taking bets on who McCain's next VP pick will be in a week or two. Suddenly a certain ex-governor of South Carolina's stock is skyrocketing-- although Richard Gizbert is betting on either Pawlenty or Willard. If the GOP wasn't so homophobic there's no question it would be Lindsey Graham. But they are and it won't be. So why not just let McCain have the one he really loves:

McCain Salutes The Troops-- And The Rest Of Us

I'm hearing anecdotal evidence-- lots of it-- that Republican-leaning American servicemen in Iraq are mighty pissed about McCain's choice of pot-smokin' Little Miss Sunshine to be backup Commander-in-Chief. But then I read she's undergoing a crash course in all things foreign one day this week from Neocon lobbyist Randy Scheunemann. Ostensibly this is to prepare her for her debate with Joe Biden. It's far worse that it's also preparing her-- just in case many unlikelies happen-- to take over the running of U.S. foreign policy. You see, aside from being McCain's chief foreign policy advisor and a notoriously corrupt lobbyist-- most recently credited with encouraging Georgia to start a war with Russia that helped no one but Vladimir Putin and possibly McCain-- Scheunemann is also credited with being one of the 3 or 4 men most responsible for dragging the U.S. into attacking Iraq. He's the president of the treacherous, and probably treasonous, Neocon group the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was a major player in the shady neo-fascist conspiracy, Project for the New American Century. He is a very close associate of Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi and routinely sells access to top right-wing American officials like Cheney, McCain and Condoleeza Rice. And he's explaining the world outside of Wasilla to someone one heartbeat-- one very old heartbeat-- away from the presidency. The GOP has lost its mind to a pack of medievel religious fanatics.

John Kerry was on with George Stephanopoulos this morning who made the point that McCain's attempt at proving he's a maverick only shows, once again that he's dangerously erratic. Kerry:

With the choice of Governor Palin, it's now the third term of Bush-Cheney, because what he's done is he's chosen somebody who actually doesn't believe that climate change is manmade. He's chosen somebody who has zero-- zero-- experience in foreign policy.

The first threshold test of a president of a nominee in choosing a vice president is to prove to the American people that the person that you've chosen can fill in tomorrow, that they come with the requisite experience to lead the nation in foreign policy and in national security.

You know, she may be-- I mean, I'm sure she's a terrific person. I'm not attacking her. I think John McCain's judgment is once again put at issue, because he's chosen somebody who clearly does not meet the national security threshold, who is not ready to be president tomorrow.

...Do they think Clinton supporters supported Hillary only because she was a woman. For Heaven sakes, they supported Hillary because of all the things she's fought for, because she fights for health care, which John McCain doesn't support; she fights for children and children's health care, which John McCain voted against; she fights for a windfall profits tax on the oil company, which John McCain opposes.


I mean, for Heaven sakes, the people who supported Hillary Clinton are not going to be seduced just because John McCain has picked a woman. They're going to look at what she supports.

The fact that she doesn't even support the notion that climate change is manmade-- she's back there with the Flat Earth Caucus. And I don't see how those women are going to be fooled into believing-- I think it's almost insulting to the Hillary supporters that they believe they would support somebody who is against almost everything that they believe in.