I’ve heard it said that the harshest truths — the most spot-on, no-nonsense criticisms — usually come from those closest to you, especially your family. And so I was delighted to see conservative columnist Peggy Noonan’s recent impalement of the Palin Gospel, an absolutely scathing undressing of all the hypocrisy, double-standards and sheer thoughtlessness that surrounds this woman. Because, you see, I could’ve written much the same (though not nearly as well), but no one would listen.

Note that Noonan (nor I) blame Palin per se… if you found yourself in her shoes, a relatively normal woman in charge of a relatively unremarkable (though entirely unique) state, you’d probably jump at the chance to run for vice president, too. No, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of all the Republican elites who put her on such a high pedestal, then cried foul when reporters/commentators/citizens stated the obvious: she just isn’t ready. (more…)

Thursday for me starts at 7 a.m. at the paper, and ends at 11:30 p.m. at Spencer’s, with a couple half-hour breaks in between. Friday starts at 7 a.m. at Spencer’s and ends at midnight or later at the paper, with the same half-hour breaks. So forgive me for a post with little commentary… I can’t form the thoughts into sentences at this point. But these are worth reading (all bolds mine):

Larison, on Obama’s “contrition” tour of Latin America:

Critics have been belittling President Obama’s recent visit with Latin American leaders as a “contrition” and “apology” tour. But a more accurate tag would be “accountability” tour, and it’s long overdue. …

On the one hand, Obama has shown a willingness to engage hostile or critical foreign leaders in discussion. But he has also shown no desire to participate in international polemics, perhaps because he has come to see that the U.S. gains nothing from such confrontations. Better still, by largely ignoring the rantings of anti-American zealots, Obama may be able to split persuadable critics of America from those who are reflexively and genuinely anti-American. In an amusing irony, Obama, who is often accused of being an insubstantial rhetorician, has refrained from the long-winded, idealistic bluster on the international stage that his predecessor frequently indulged in. And it may already be paying dividends. …

Indeed, it seems that the problem Obama’s critics have with him is not that he has been admitting American mistakes, but that he has failed to cringe and apologize to them for pursuing the course of action he thinks best for the United States.

Krugman, on the release of the torture memos:

America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it. …

(T)here are a lot of people in Washington who weren’t allied with the torturers but would nonetheless rather not revisit what happened in the Bush years. Some of them probably just don’t want an ugly scene; my guess is that the president, who clearly prefers visions of uplift to confrontation, is in that group. But the ugliness is already there, and pretending it isn’t won’t make it go away. Others, I suspect, would rather not revisit those years because they don’t want to be reminded of their own sins of omission. …

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws. We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

I try not to blatantly rip off other bloggers very often, but Larison picked this up and it’s too funny not to pass on.

What on earth is this? Well, it is an interview between Michael Steele and ABC Radio’s Curtis Sliwa, but beyond that I don’t know how else to describe it:

SLIWA: Now, using a little bit of that street terminology, are you giving him [Jindal] any Slum love, Michael?

STEELE: (laughter)

SLIWA: Because he is — when guys look at him and young women look at him — they say oh, that’s the slumdog millionaire, governor. So, give me some slum love.

STEELE: I love it. (inaudible) … some slum love out to my buddy. Gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin’ awesome job in his state. He’s really turned around on some core principles — like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff … the easy stuff. [bold mine-R]

No explanation needed on why it’s funny, but I concur with Daniel — no idea what that is. Click the link above to read the whole thing.

THOUGHT 1: Blogging is light, and I’m not even apologetic this time. I’ve rediscovered working in — as opposed to simply owning — a coffeeshop, and while I miss my time at home with Shelley and the kiddos, I’m doing my best to enjoy a few things I’ve missed:

• Wonderfully made coffee within arm’s reach at all times
• Random conversations with people I don’t know
• Listening to “Hot Rail” by Calexico
• Time to blog, if only for a few minutes
• Standing for hours at a time

Most curses are also blessings, I think, and so I’ve no reason to lament my increasingly busy lifestyle… in the midst of all this busyness, I may actually relearn how to relax.

THOUGHT 2: I’ve long said “I agree with conservatives in principle,” and then voted for liberals… Hell, I may still do that. But for everything I liked and still like about Obama — his eloquence, his thoughtfulness, his (seeming) candor — I’m convinced that this “stimulus” idea simply isn’t going to work. My friends who also voted for Obama will here object: “Give the man a chance!” And I am, and shall, and don’t walk around dwelling on the state of things or looking anew for the next great white hope. But it simply doesn’t make sense.

As I mentioned in a pretty recent post, throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at people so they can get their network TV shows and Viagra ads doesn’t seem like a good way to spend tax money (I’ll have a lot to say in coming weeks about tax money). Neither, thinks I, does just spending money on something, anything, make for sound economic policy. Debt got us into this mess — why do we think further debt will get us out? As C.S. Lewis said, it’s telling that we’ve essentially crafted our society around lending w/ interest — the one and only economic policy that God specifically forbade the Israelites from taking part in.

THOUGHT 3 (is related to Thought 2): Larison is always a good read, especially in these Dem-majority times. But he’s outdone himself, tossing out what he may think is a throwaway line that (if only more people read him) should make it into Bartlett’s:

(O)ptimism permits the perpetual deferral of hard choices.

This is the wisest single sentence I’ve read in a long time, and particularly convicting in an age of “hope.” As a spiritual person, I generally aim for optimism. And there’s nothing wrong with optimism, I suppose, when one is speaking in a spiritual sense and of something that’s both realistic and relatively certain. But this refrain of “Americans have come back before, we’ll do it again!” takes all the oomph out of this economic punch to the gut. “Don’t worry, it’ll all be better” is a great message for a 2-year-old who fell and hit his head; it’s at once  condescending and stupid when used on grown men and women who should know better.

THOUGHT 4: My friend Greg has started blogging one idea per day, as well as one haiku per day. I found this one particularly apt (though be warned, it takes a few readings to grasp the meaning):

This sleep that thought thieves
in the new morning will seem
pricey. The thoughts, cheap.

Beautiful.

An interesting read today on the New York Times’ opinion blog… historian Jean Edward Smith looks back at FDR and his ultimate openness with the press.

President Obama stubbed his toe his first week in office when he paid a surprise visit to the White House press room. He wanted to introduce himself informally to the press corps, and was taken aback when reporters began to ask substantive questions. “I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here,” said the president.

The press, for its part, took offense that President Obama dodged their queries. They also bridled at being excluded from the swearing-in redo with Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the president’s first interview (an exclusive given to ABC). …

Franklin Roosevelt, however, adopted a hands-on approach. Rather than meet the press at a formal session in the East Room (as his predecessors had occasionally done), F.D.R. invited them into the Oval Office. Twice a week the White House press corps gathered around the president’s desk and fired away. …

In his first term, Roosevelt held 337 press conferences. That is no misprint. Three hundred and thirty-seven. Normally the conferences were held at 10 o’clock on Wednesday mornings for benefit of the afternoon press, and 4 o’clock on Fridays for the morning editions. When the war came, the conferences became less frequent, but altogether F.D.R. held 998 press conferences as president. [bolds mine-R]

When candidate Obama declared that he wished to restore openness to the White House, this is what I (and many of my press colleagues) had hoped for: A president who would answer questions, answer them himself and — most importantly — just answer them. Hence my dismay in his pre-inaugural “I’m going to let the justice system run its course” cop-outs to questions on the Blago scandal, even when it was pretty apparent Obama had done nothing wrong. I hope he is a great president, and I think he will be a much better one than his predecessor (who gave far fewer press conferences than any other president in the last century… I’ve been googling for a specific number, but can’t find it). Still, the bloom may be off the rose if by “openness” Obama means that everyone who signs up for email updates will get periodic spin bulletins from the White House press office. (more…)

Raise the roof, guv'nah! (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)

Sure, he was taped trying to solicit tens of millions in campaign contributions in exchange for Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Sure, his wife curses like a sailor. Sure, his hair is AWFUL (Stephen Colbert last night called it “his chinchilla brain cozy”). But Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich is purely American! In an age when politicians usually deal with scandal by repeating “no comment” as if it’s at the center of some transcendental meditation program, then stepping down before an investigation can even take place, old Robby is standing up to the media, his constituents, and basically anyone else with an iota of reason. Consider:

“The causes of the impeachment are because I’ve done things to fight for families.” Yeah! Those evil state representatives want you out so the poor will get poorer! The rich will get richer! The last name is hard to pronounce, encouraging literacy amongst the youngsters!
“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” Quoting “Ulysses” here… this may a.) have something further to do with youth literacy or b.) show that, not only is he corrupt, he’s also spent his days in the office boning up on the classics in case Chicago is ever attacked by a giant winged creature.
“I’m going to fight every step of the way.” Spoken like a true American. A real American. A Bill O’Reilly type of American. (UPDATE: If sarcasm isn’t evident here, please be advised that… well, it’s there.)

Can he be an effective governor? Of course not. But this is way better than any “reality” TV show … I’ll take “Pride Cometh” over “Survivor: Cambodia” any day.

(more…)

I posted a bit ago about our president-elect and the seeming continuity in foreign policy with “Bush-McCain” policies… and was roundly rejected by one of my closer friends for intimating that maybe, just maybe, Obama’s talk of change was ringing hollow. Perhaps I went overboard? Perhaps I was grasping for something to write about? Ah, but there’s more evidence that the “change” some of us have sought from “politics as usual” is not actually coming. But let me backtrack a bit.

One of the things (IMO) that got the press enamored with Obama — just as it had years before with McCain, prior to his campaign’s drastic leash-tightening — was his seeming penchant to speak at length about whatever was asked. Sure, he sidestepped some things, but Obama generally gave much more detailed, thoughtful answers than his competitors in a soundbite, CYA atmosphere. He also vowed greater transparency in government, and often urged the Bush White House to come clean with the American people about the topic of the day. (Note, please, that I think those sentiments a fine idea, part of the most attractive aspect of Obama ’08.)

In the face of the scandal involving his governor and his Senate seat, however, Obama is not giving me much hope for the transparency I’ve been waiting for. From Politico:

Obama refused to answer questions about his staff’s involvement with Gov. Rod Blagojevich over filling the vacated Senate seat and whether his successor should now be chosen by appointment or special election.

Obama, speaking to reporters after a news conference announcing his secretary of education, said the internal review he had ordered of his staff’s contacts with Blagojevich was complete but cited the request of the U.S. attorney’s office to hold off on disclosing the results until next week. … Obama flashed some irritation at the line of questioning, cutting off McCormick before he could finish his initial query. [bold mine-R]

This is the oldest trick in the book, and not a very convincing one. How many times in the past eight years has some White House spokesman refused to answer a legitimate question, citing the need for a “full investigation” or “findings to be disclosed” or some such thing? Journalists will write it, yes, but we don’t buy it for a second; it’s a hollow non-answer, and 99-to-1 a pretty blatant lie. Obama has been sidestepping (or refusing to answer) the Blago questions for more than a week now, despite the repeated assertion that Obama had no role in it and did nothing wrong. Truth be told, even most Republicans don’t think Obama was in the middle of Rod’s insane shenanigans, but it portends “more of the same” to hear Obama using the “we need to wait until the investigation is complete” line.

The state of education: Obama’s pick for Education Secretary needs to watch his pronouns:

“I want to thank our mutual friend John Rogers who has been a mentor and friend to me since I was ten years old. He gave my sister and I the opportunity to start a great school in the South side of Chicago…”

Do you see what I see?

Dick Cavett is still awesome: He writes an occasional blog for the Times; this installment is on the Senate Seat Salesman himself:

The question overhanging this sordid mess, you might agree, is, “How did such a specimen ever get elected?”

It’s as if a soldier, tested for his fitness as potential combat leader, passed his physical despite scurvy, pyorrhea, Jake leg, leprosy, the quinsy, contagious influenza and at least two trick knees.

(We all know from childhood that it’s not nice to make fun of people’s appearance. So I will confine myself to merely observing that whatever covers the governor’s head looks to me like a bowling-ball cozy.)

(Hat tip to my wife for the clever title of this post.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8GOrc0-Ygg[/youtube]

Obama and his team of rivals, proving that blue is the new black.

Though you probably figured it out already, I cast my presidential vote for Barack Obama. I didn’t get too caught up in the hype, but was mainly voting for a.) a change in the demeanor of politics in general (a man who doesn’t answer debate questions with soundbites wins? Whoda thunk it?) and b.) a “change” in our nation’s approach to foreign policy.

Well, it looks like I can chalk that second one up to buyer’s remorse.

Don’t get me wrong: I think Obama’s temperament and (seeming) interest in reasoned discourse instead of steadfast ideology is going to serve us much better than McCain’s hard-nosed, “We must always WIN” attitude. But based on Obama’s newly named foreign policy team, I think that (where foreign policy is concerned) we were sold a decidedly false bill of goods. Consider:

Robert Gates, current secretary of defense, who will stick around, despite his earlier saying that he probably wouldn’t.

(more…)

Oh, how I wish I had been fortunate enough to have a presidential candidate walk into my front yard. And have it taped by the media. And have my named mentioned 20 times during a debate. If it had been me, maybe I could have “secured my dream.”

As it stands, it’s not me — it’s Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber. I’d already heard he’d secured an agent in Nashville for a country music career; turns out, that’s not the half of it. Over at SecureOurDream.com, Joe’s not only blogging, but shilling a book that he won’t be writing a word of hasn’t written yet, AND a $14.95 subscription to the Joe the Plumber fan club.

The design is awful (though it’s noted that “SECUREOURDREAM.COM VERSION-2 [why the hyphen?] COMING SOON”), and the blog post too innocuous to really get rabid pro-plumber conservatives on their feet:

Congratulations to Barack Obama. The American electorate has decided that he will be our next president. As I have stated, I will honor and support my president, but there will be no free ride. When President-Elect Obama takes office in January, his term of service to the American people begins. We wish our new president blessings of wisdom and good judgment, and we pray he hearkens to our voice if ever we feel our American Dream is being threatened. It will be a loud voice, so good luck trying to ignore it.

None of the links go anywhere, really, except to “coming soon” or more ads for the book. My friend Adam notes that this is probably about a month too late… who really cares about Joe the Plumber at this point? I do think, however, that he might make a good sitcom star — the straight-laced, hard-luck husband whose wife is always getting into shenanigans and whose friends are always looking to him for advice. He’d definitely be as good as Jeff Foxworthy, right?