There’s really no way to look at Sarah Palin’s resignation other than as a means to run for President in 2012. Sure, she could just be leaving politics all together, but then why rush out of office and transfer power in three weeks at the annual “Governor’s Picnic”? Americans hopefully understand that their leaders are, at base, selfish political beasts interested only in survival and advancement. So this idea that Palin’s doing anything to benefit anyone other than herself doesn’t carry water.
Palin knows full well that she cannot run for President from Alaska. That takes campaigning for a second term off the table. But then there are guys like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty out there - viable Republican candidates who are relatively free to spend the next two years unofficially running for President in the lower 48 states. She couldn’t sit on her hands, let them build momentum and infrastructure, and then swoop in once the midterms of 2010 were over. If that were to happen, Palin would be forced to play catch up during the entire primary and have almost no chance at capturing the nomination.
So she resigns. Sarah Palin will serve as Governor of Alaska for slightly more than two and a half years. Her primary claim to fame is not any great policy achievement or proposal, instead it’s disastrous campaign for the Vice Presidency and an ongoing soap opera that includes the father of her grandchild and David Letterman. Running for President does not make someone qualified to be President. The experience question that dogged Palin in the Fall of 2008 will only plague her more in the future.
But Sarah Palin is a fighter and she can’t fight back as Governor of Alaska. If she really wanted to take on her enemies (the “elite” as well as actual and perceived “liberals”) then this is the best more for her. She will now wade neck deep into the culture wars and become a symbol of Republican bitterness. As a Republican, I hope she takes the most of this opportunity to do the work needed to become a serious candidate for President in 2012 (that includes not giving rambling speeches).
I was at a bar Tuesday night with a friend, and all of the TV stations were adding rings to the Michael Jackson circus. CNN was replaying an earlier press conference with Jackson’s father and in typical fashion, Al Sharpton had somehow inserted himself into the situation.
When I got over the irony of seeing the Reverend Sharpton standing next to Joe Jackson, a man who is going straight to Hell, I noticed that Sharpton looked odd. I don’t know if he is sick, on some intensive diet, or just getting old, but look at these two pictures:
Last summer when Tropic Thunder was being promoted before its release, a number of interest groups were up in arms about Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of a white actor playing the part of black character in a film-within-a-film. Upon its release, the controversy died down when advocates realized the part - a least its racial elements - was played sincerely instead of as parody. Downey even received an Oscar nomination.
Though the controversy was largely a non-event (even though passing references to the part continued to completely mislabel it as “blackface”), there was an interesting conversation about the movie that never took place. What would it mean for a person to change races? What would it mean for someone to adopt physical racial characteristics, rhetorical tendencies, mannerisms, attitudes, and sympathies? How would we react if Robert Downey Jr.’s white-to-black character Kirk Lazarus was a real person? Continued…
Vanity Fair is running an article today that contains quotes from several (unnamed of course) former staffers from John McCain’s presidential bid. In it, these staffers bemoan how Sarah Palin turned out to be an even worse VP candidate than they imagined.
I’ve never been a fan of the Alaska Governor. There’s certainly plenty of criticism to go around for her performance on the campaign trail. That said, we’ve been down this road plenty of times already. Quite a few articles came out in the months following the election ripping Palin’s performance. That some Republicans still feel it is their place at this later date to trash her is beyond me. What good comes from it? These anonymous “friends of the campaign” do no good for their careers or their party by raining on one of its most prominent officials. Sure, they get the thrill of seeing their name in the paper, but ultimately it only feeds into the liberal narrative of a GOP at war with itself.
It also makes these staffers look incredibly petty. Yes, at the end of the day the candidate is the one who wins or loses, but Sarah Palin is not the dominant reason McCain is still in the Senate. Perhaps it makes these staffers feel better about themselves and their own failures to trash Palin, but it also exposes them as petty people who can’t deal with their own shortcomings, learn from their mistakes and move on.
If they must continue to speak about their disapointment in Palin, I suppose it’s good for them that they remain anonymous. No one in the political world would ever want to hire them again.
Just kidding. But, seriously, is that what it would take for him to be fired? Or, worse yet, pitching coach Carl Willis?
The Indians are not a bad team. At least not on paper. After all, many picked them to win the AL Central or Wild Card and even go to the World Series going into the 2009 season. While I didn’t agree with this prediction at the time (honestly, it’s true), it was not a silly expectation, especially in a division as bad as the AL Central (no, I don’t believe in the Detroit Tigers).
Yet the Indians are underperforming - again. Remember that the Indians were the fashionable pick to win the American League pennant in 2008, yet they flopped so badly early in the season that they had to trade C.C. Sabathia to the Brewers for prospects and only managed a .500 winning percentage because of a second-half, no-pressure run. In fact, the Indians have only had two winning seasons in Eric Wedge’s six years at the helm, with 2009 unlikely to add a third.
You could blame it on a low payroll. (Although division rival Minnesota has thrived with a similar payroll.) You could blame it on injuries. (Although Cleveland was horrible in April and May, before they started getting hit with injuries.) Or you could blame it on a manager and his staff that have presided over several teams playing well below their potential and defying the expectations of experts year in and year out, in a consistently subpar division no less. (Yup, that’s the winner.) Continued…
I can’t find an electronic version, but the printed version of the DC Examiner runs a side bar called “Prime Numbers” that compares any- and everything. Early this month, they pointed out that President Obama has appointed 21 “czars” so far. Wikipedia claims an even high number at a whopping 30.
Under Obama, the confirmed number of czars is 3 higher than all of the czars (18) during the Romanoff’s entire 300 year dynasty.
I know the president didn’t coin the term - and I know this is a petty request - but I wish we could come up with a title that reflects our own traditions and roots instead of exponentially expanding the use of a Russian distinction.
Pardon the vulgarity, but here are the facts: Michael Bay is a retarded cowboy and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is his tribute to America kicking ass. And God bless the man, he kicks some serious ass.
It is almost unfair to call this movie a thinly veiled political allegory because it is so unsubtle that Bay might as well have laid out his simple worldview on a title card during the opening credits. Continued…
I’d like to take a different approach to Michael Jackson’s death than ConnScript. Yes, the man was embattled, but it is important to remember that he was never convicted of anything and a court-appointed psychologist dismissed his alleged pedophilia by saying that Jackson had mentally reverted to the state of a ten year old boy. All of this, of course, as a result of his completely twisted and tragic childhood and debilitating dermatological conditions. I’d rather leave this stuff aside.
Michael Jackson was a genius, but he was moreover one of the most important geniuses of the last hundred years. As separate elements, Jackson’s groundbreaking music and revolutionary dancing stand firmly at the highest levels of those two types of art. But in combining the two into one supremely creative performance, Jackson revealed himself to the world as a nothing less than a weird visionary. No artist before or after has ever come close to comparing to what he created.
It is fitting, then, that Jackson’s early celebrity as a member of the Jackson 5 in the 70s paved the way for him to act as the symbol of the 1980s. I can think of very few American icons that define entire decades, but Jackson earned and deserved every bit of celebrity he achieved.
As a testament to these claims, I invite you all to re-experience the greatest music video of all time:
Contrary to the behavior of Silda Spitzer, Hillary Clinton and others, Jenny Sanford seems to have had a more human and appropriate reaction to her husband’s infidelity:
“His career is not a concern of mine,” she told reporters as she departed the family’s vacation home in Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina. “He’s going to have to worry about that. I’m worried about my family and the character of my children.”
She added that she would be fine, with or without her husband.
“I have great faith and great friends and great family. We have a good Lord in this world and I know that I’m going to be fine and not only will I survive, I’ll thrive,” she said.
“I don’t know if he’ll be with me, but I’m going to do my best to work on my marriage because I believe in marriage. I believe in raising good kids is the most important thing in the world,” she said.
Sad, yes, for those close with him. Michael Jackson was one of the biggest pop stars in history and I certainly remember listening to “Thriller” and “Bad” growing up. Still, let’s not forget that until yesterday this man’s legacy was going to be his, at best, questionable behavior around children. I generally subscribe to the mantra of not speaking ill of the dead for a respectful period of time, but the totality of what this man was seems to have been lost.
It’s been some time since I posted a Southern Avenger video. In this piece, Jack Hunter (the name of the Southern Avenger) bids one of this site’s favorite Republicans, Mark Sanford, goodbye. I found the final line of the video to be especially poignant and tragic:
The 1974 original The Taking of Pelham One Two Three was all about the characters. As the hostage negotiator, Walter Matthau’s Det. Garber tries to keep the upper hand by never taking the situation too seriously. On the other end, Robert Shaw’s criminal Mr. Blue is all business, but he is a constant gentleman whose motivations and behavior remain tensely unpredictable. The supporting characters (especially Jerry Stiller’s) all have a great amount of depth.
In Tony Scott’s remake, Matthau’s cop has been replaced by Denzel Washington’s transit worker and Shaw is now the tattooed Ryder played by John Travolta. In theory, the two acting heavyweights should have been able to carry the movie on their shoulders - and both are indeed engaging in their roles. The problem is that the roles are underwritten, and the supporting characters are basically unwritten at all. Continued…
No, we’re not asking for donations at Mamacoke (yet). Instead I’m talking about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences decision to increase the number of nominees in the “Best Picture” category from five to ten.
While there is historical precedent for ten Best Picture nominees (they last did it in 1943), it begs the question - why change it back now? This move seems like nothing more than a way to generate additional box office revenue. A Best Picture nod can be the difference between total obscurity and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in receipts for a film. Why only limit those cash cows to five when you can double the number?
Given how many of the other top categories (Best Actor, Best Director, etc.) are sticking with five nominees, I wonder if we’ll begin to see films nominated for a host of relatively obscure awards with a Best Picture tag added on. One genre of film this will certainly benefit is animation. With the critical and commercial success of movies such as “Up” it gives the Academy more areas to recognize (i.e. profit from).
Let us momentarily move to an alternate reality. One where everything in the world is exactly the same except South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford did not embark upon an affair with an Argentinean woman, lie about it, deceive his staff, his constituents and his wife and ruin his political career. No, let’s just take that one part of the equation out. So now, is it a good thing that Sanford won’t be a 2012 contender? On some level - maybe.
Sanford was never going to win the White House. A conservative, slow talking, boring, white man from South Carolina who was despised by significant portions of his own state GOP would never have beaten President Obama. Indeed, a Sanford candidacy could have invited a Johnson style landslide as Democrats would have had an easier time painting him as more of an extremist. It’d be tough to do that with to the same extent with Romney or Pawlenty.
That said, however, the loss of Sanford will be felt on the trail and, on the whole, the party is clearly worse off. Sanford’s brand of libertarianism was unique in a party that has lost its way on issues of limited government. Arguably there was no other mainstream Republican political figure in the country who could have carried forward that banner like than Sanford.
Increasingly the ‘12 GOP primary is looking like a battle of ‘08 has beends - Romney v. Huckabee v. Palin v. Pawlenty.
This really isn’t a big deal in the long run and certainly politics has played a role in people’s reactions (i.e. the Lt. Gov.), but Mark Sanford handled this whole “mystery vacation adventure” in the worst way possible. Unexplained absences in South America usually don’t look good, even if there was a completely innocuous reason for going there.
Sanford’s a ‘12 contender, he can’t be marching to the beat of his own drummer all the time. His wife’s reaction of “getting away from the kids” looks awful as well.
Steve Jobs is one of the brilliant minds of our times, and his mysterious term of absence from Apple sparked as much economic instability as it did curiosity. Wall Street Journal sheds some light on the situation:
A Memphis, Tenn., hospital said Tuesday that Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs received a liver transplant there and that his prognosis was “excellent.”
Jobs’ iPod is one of the greatest inventions of the last hundred years, and I know I join many others in wishing him a healthy and full recovery.
The world always seems to be on the brink of destruction, so after a particularly dramatic commute home (for everyone in DC) I thought I’d throw on an escapist made-for-TV movie…about the world being on the brink of destruction as the moon collides with it.
Impact (three word summary: terrible and awesome) stars David James Elliott, who has been basically missing in action from TV for a few years. But upon seeing him, I immediately got the theme song of his most famous show stuck in my head. It is catchy, exciting, and it just sort of pumps you up. So I thought that even though it has been months since my last Top 4, I would share with anybody who cares my four favorite action television theme songs.
This video is very graphic, but it shows the ruthlessness of the Iranian regime and its desperation to suppress the burgeoning grassroots democracy movement. First, here is the back story:
At 19:05 June 20th
Place: Karekar Ave., at the corner crossing Khosravi St. and Salehi st.
A young woman who was standing aside with her father watching the protests was shot by a basij member hiding on the rooftop of a civilian house. He had clear shot at the girl and could not miss her. However, he aimed straight her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than 2 minutes.
The protests were going on about 1 kilometers away in the main street and some of the protesting crowd were running from tear gass used among them, towards Salehi St.
The film is shot by my friend who was standing beside me.
Please let the world know.
The power of the Presidency is immense. That said, constantly showing up on television and having the media obssess over everything from your wife’s outfits to killing a fly is beginning the cheapen Obama’s role. I understand it may make him more popular, but it certainly doesn’t elevate the office. Politicians should not be celebrities.
President McCain put down his glasses and rubbed his tired eyes. The 72 year old had only been in office for six months and already its draining effects were beginning to take a serious toll on his mental and physical health. The re-election of Ahmadinejad signaled, he believed, a final suppression of what was once thought to be the simmering glow of real democracy in the Middle East. With 100,000 American troops still stationed in Iraq, any military action taken against Tehran would have to weighed against the further inflaming the Iraqi civil war. Of course, there was still the concern of the Taliban re-emerging in Pakistan and Afghanistan. President McCain was having trouble convincing the American people that a “surge” of American troops was needed in both conflicts. Despite a solidly Republican Congress, the massive bloodshed from the last few years had taken a toll on the nation’s willingness to send more young men and women into what seemed like a meat grinder.
Turning his thoughts to domestic issues, McCain recalled the fight to get his major tax cut stimulus bill through Congress. While it took several vetoes to rid the legislation of pork, it finally passed and taxes on the American people were at historic lows. Still, a growing chorus of commentators, Paul Krugman foremost among them, had been warning the administration that its reckless fiscal policy was inviting huge debt and a return of inflation. All in due time, thought the President to himself. I inherited the worst economy in decades from President Kerry, he said to himself. For all my flaws, I haven’t responded in as haphazard a manner as he did - shutting down the campaign in September to return to the White House and push a $700 billion bank bailout.
Barack Obama made much of his decision to forgo contributions from lobbyists while on the ‘08 campaign trail. As President, he’s kept that standard - kind of. While those who peddle their influence among Washington’s power brokers are not allowed to give money at Democratic National Committee events Obama attends, they are allowed (encouraged even) to donate at any other time:
When President Obama arrived at the Mandarin Oriental hotel for a fund-raising reception on Thursday night, the new White House rules of political purity were in order: no lobbyists allowed.
But at the same downtown hotel on Friday morning, registered lobbyists have not only been invited to attend an issues conference with Democratic leaders, but they have also been asked to come with a $5,000 check in hand if they want to stay in good favor with the party’s House and Senate re-election committees.
So basically Obama doesn’t want to personally contaminate himself with lobbyist cash, but other Democrats who are planning on pushing his agenda should go right ahead and suck up as much as they can. Clearly then, Obama’s rhetoric damning lobbyists is just that - rhetoric. Indeed, this example just evidences how little this man intends on changing Washington.
Responding to criticism from former President George W. Bush, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama’s victory last year was a repudiation of Bush’s policies.
…
Gibbs said Thursday that many of those policies were debated during last year’s election.
“We kept score last November, and we won,” Gibbs said.
Good job, Robert, but you aren’t a very good score keeper. The two policies that Bush was criticizing were the closure of Guantanamo Bay and massive government intervention in the economy.
According to WSJ/NBC, 52 percent of Americans oppose closing Gitmo and only 39 percent support closing it. Moreover, 56 percent oppose GM’s bailout with 35 percent supporting it - suggesting that maybe the government has reached too far into the market.
You might have won the election, Mr. Gibbs, but your boss’ administration doesn’t seem to be listening to the fact that the majority of the people agree with George Bush on these two issues.
With an arrogant statement like “We kept score,” it seems like Gibbs might be riding on the same horse as Barbara Boxer. I guess he’s too high up to hear what the people on the ground are saying.
[H]e vowed to end a cycle of allowing Pyongyang to create crises and then be rewarded with incentives to back down. “This is a pattern they’ve come to expect,” Obama said. “We are going to break that pattern.”
…
[South Korea's President] Lee said he and Obama agreed that “under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.”
This is not policy. This is simply talk, and talk is cheap. Obama and Lee’s agreement is fine on paper, but it is meaningless - North Korea has already tested two nuclear devices and is getting ready to test a third.
The real test for Obama will be how he handles North Korea’s sure-to-be belligerent behavior if they can’t leverage aid out of their nuclear ambitions. If Obama really does break the cycle of rewarding North Korea to back down - and is able to convince other countries to do the same - King Jong Il will most certainly escalate both his rhetoric and actions.
What then? How long do we make public statements while North Korea continues to build nukes?
Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy have a draft version of a bill that would expand health coverage to millions of Americans. There’s been much talk in recent months that Kennedy’s final legislative push while in the Senate will be for some form of government provided health insurance.
Hopefully this bill doesn’t represent that push. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this plan would cost $1,000,000,000,000 over the next ten years while still leaving more than 30 million Americans uninsured. Suffice to say, absent a major overhaul in the legislation, it’s a non-starter.
Do you ever wonder why Hollywood makes so many bad movies? The answer is simple: because people go to see them. In turn, studios exclusively equate box office returns with success - discarding all critical considerations - and they make more bad movies. And then people see them. It is a vicious cycle controlled by the almighty dollar, and everyone is to blame.
Forbes Magazine just released its celebrity power list, and among its rankings is top actors by salary over the last twelve months. Depressingly, though not surprisingly, the average critical rating of the top 5 actors’ movies in the last year (via Rotten Tomatoes) was a whopping 30.5% approval. That’s 29.5% below the best possible failing grade in a classroom. In fact, only a single film from any of these actors scored above a 40%. But I don’t want to complain about terrible movies.
Instead, I’d like to admit total confusion as to how three of these five actors made this list at all, let alone managed to be at the top of it. See if you can guess the 5 actors with the highest salaries before you click below. Continued…
CIA Director Leon Panetta warned Monday against making his agency a pawn in the nation’s partisan political battles, even as Nancy Pelosi’s claim that she was lied to by the CIA continues to reverberate in Washington.
Dick Cheney’s recent criticism of the Obama administration’s national security policies suggests the former vice president is almost “wishing” the United States gets hit with another terrorist attack, according to CIA Director Leon Panetta.
For the current head of the CIA to accuse a former Vice President of “almost wishing” that Americans would die is the height of irresponsibility and strongly suggests partisan influence in the office. This is just another means of shutting down the debate in Washington - don’t question Obama’s policies or you’ll be tagged as wishing for only the worst.
If Leon Panetta wants to get into a wrestling match with Dick Cheney he should go back to Congress. In the meantime, it’s not his job to question Cheney’s motives and launch baseless attacks.
With the integrity of the Iranian elections in doubt and the country gripped with fear and violence, President Obama has a real opportunity to empower moderate and liberal elements within Iran. Through public statements and uses of “smart power,” Obama could send a signal that the electoral stunts pulled by Ahmadinejad will not be tolerated. Indeed, the United States should not stand idly by while the governing party of Iran, whose legitimacy is seriously in question at this point, openly threatens opposition leaders.
“Smart power” is a modification of “soft power,” which the Obama-ites are also huge fans of. Well, isn’t this the time to try some soft power?
For example: Statements of support for fair elections and peaceful protest; personal outreach to endangered opposition leaders (if not by us, then by Europeans–though how dramatic would it be if Sec. Clinton placed a phone call to Mousavi to make sure he’s not under arrest and is free to talk?); an immediate infusion of funds to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Radio Farda service, which provides invaluable information from and within Iran; technical assistance against the regime’s attempts to block websites, shut down cell phone networks, etc.; suspension (by the Europeans) of various cultural and commercial contacts; pressure through international organizations on behalf of the Iranian people
Not taking action now to ensure free and fair election returns in Iran could cause serious problems for the administration and the world in the coming months. Ahmadinejad will likely double down his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons as a means of rallying the disparate factions of Iran together. There’s nothing quite like an external “boogey man” (i.e. “The Great Satan”) to gin up nationalism to pave over domestic strife. If and when Ahmadinejad does that then how can the United States respond? To sit down and negotiate with Ahmandinejad would give legitimacy to the regime while at the same time undercutting those who would otherwise be on our side. Obama’s recognition of Tehran after the events of recent days would only strengthen the authoritarian ruler’s hand at home and stifle oppoisition parties.
The Obama administration must respond forcefully. Not with bombs and guns, but with words, influence and economic pressure. Anything less could sow the seeds for dangerous confrontations in the near future.
If an enterprising White House reporter bothered to do the math, he or she would reach this startling conclusion: Since the passage of the stimulus bill, the U.S. economy has lost one million more jobs than President Obama assured us we would lose if we had done nothing at all.
We are neither journalists nor analysts. We're certainly not experts or scholars. We're not even professionals. We're merely another island of commentary in an internet filled with opinion.
Last summer when 
Recent Comments