Doing things in reverse today, first the punchline: The always pointed Daniel Larison (of The American Conservative) explains Palinonics — the method of decoding the governor’s record-breaking run-on sentences.

I have concluded that the problem that so many people have in understand what Palin is saying is that we make the mistake of assuming that all of the words have some reason for being there. What we have to do instead is decrypt her message by filtering out all of the confusing chatter that keeps her statements encoded and difficult to follow. Let’s take the first sentence, and identify the essential elements in bold:

“Sitting here in these chairs that I’m going to be proposing but in working with these governors who again on the front lines are forced to and it’s our privileged obligation to find solutions to the challenges facing our own states every day being held accountable, not being just one of many just casting votes or voting present every once in a while, we don’t get away with that.”

See? If you just cut out about 60% of what she says, it hangs together nicely … Once reporters and voters acquire sufficient training in Palinonics, there should be no more misunderstandings.

*  *  *  *  *

Another trip to Louisville, another visit with my sister-in-law. She’s really awesome, and of some importance in the GOP of that quite large metropolitan city. She has no problem talking about the faults and flaws of her GOP colleagues locally, and even on a statewide level. However, she’s still under the illusion that Sarah Palin was unfairly “railroaded” by the media. So, as a member (albeit a lowly one) of “the media,” I feel compelled to explain that while “media bias” exists, it’s not really equivalent to what Republican propaganda has long made it out to be.

(more…)

This weekend was the fifth anniversary of my marriage to the most all-around awesome woman I’ve ever met. To celebrate, we left the kids with her parents and headed to Cincinnati for a trip to the Gap Clearance Center (jeans for as little as $5?!), Ikea, the Apple Store (where I walked out with a brand new computer — at no cost — as a replacement for mine, which didn’t make it through drowning, as I thought it had and mentioned in the previous post) and more. Before we headed to Ohio, though, I got into a telling conversation with her dad.

I was never sure if he’d seen my Obama bumper sticker, which I’d placed on my car a couple months ago after deciding he was such a better choice for president that I couldn’t leave well enough alone. Anyway, out of the blue he asked me how much Obama’s tax plans would hurt my business (I own a coffeeshop, for those of you who don’t know). I told him it wouldn’t affect me at all, and he looked at me in some disbelief. 

(more…)

First off, apologies for the delay in writing about the election. When it was all said and done, I found myself at first paralyzed by the sheer magnitude of the moment, and since then so full of thoughts that it was impossible to make much sense of them. I still feel a bit like that, but I’m going to attempt a cohesive thread.

The Obamas: Putting the "first" into the First Family

That Barack Obama won so handily came as no surprise to me (though the electoral numbers ended up even a bit bigger than the most positive polling suggested), given his message and the real wants and needs of mainstream America — not to mention the audacious atrocity that was the McCain campaign. For months, however, the actual narrative of Obama’s journey has been lost in the details (of attack ads and policy pronouncements, gotchas and gaffes, pitbulls and plumbers). It reared its head again on Tuesday as soon as the first results starting coming in, and it is this: Americans have elected a black man as president, and (in modern terms, at least) by a landslide. But a sad truth is that the epochal nature of this moment hasn’t hit everyone — in fact, I’ve talked to a number of people here in southcentral Kentucky who either don’t recognize what a moment this is or who cynically dismiss it as being of little real importance.

(more…)

From Rupert “Fox News” Murdoch’s New York Post, with full story, at 9:50 p.m.:

I’ll be doing that here. Check in early and often, and look for the headlines that begin with “SPIN ROOM,” because those are mine.

First, let’s note that John McCain could win. It doesn’t look likely, and if the polls are correct it’s 98 percent impossible. But he could, and if he does, I’ll be as surprised as anyone and be thrust into rethinking a lot of assumptions I’m now carrying around. And with that out of the way, my thoughts on Election Eve.

(more…)

Politico’s got a nice look at some of the most ludicrous e-mail rumors of the campaign here. Read it, then forward it to your crazy aunt.

For anyone who’s heard something about this and wonders what it’s all about, here’s a good synopsis from a self-proclaimed conservative who sees it for what it is.

If there are six days until the election, it must be time for a ginned-up phony controversy.  The phony controversy derives from the story about the L.A. Times‘ Khalidi tape combined with the confident foreign policy pronouncements of Joe the Plumber Geopolitical Strategist that voting for Obama is voting for the “death of Israel.” …

For those of you who have wisely been ignoring the final days of the campaign, here is the story about the tape: back in 2003 when Khalidi was about to leave Chicago to fill Edward Said’s post at Columbia after Said had passed on, there was a farewell party attended by Obama, and there was a video record of it that was leaked to the L.A. Times that the newspaper first reported on in April.  This party and Obama’s attendance at it have been more or less common knowledge to anyone who has spent much time following Obama’s career, and the party and the relationship between Obama and Khalidi have been made out to be meaningful evidence that Obama harbors some pro-Palestinian attitudes because of things he said at this party about Khalidi. …

Now some are claiming that the tape purportedly has a record of Obama saying things not just about Khalidi, but about Israel and Palestine as well, but as far as I can tell this is just more baseless rumormongering.  It seems that the only reason why anyone suspects that there is something “damaging” (i.e., something not reflexively “pro-Israel”) on the tape is that the Times won’t release it because of an agreement it made with its source(s), but if the Times were to break its agreement with the source(s) and release the tape it would then presumably be accused of violating ethical standards in order to vindicate its preferred candidate. This is a very odd case of a newspaper being accused of “suppressing” evidence after having published a report on the very thing it is supposedly suppressing.  Had it acquired the tape and never reported on it, that would be one thing, but it did just the opposite.  What is most bizarre about all of this is that from everything we do know about what Obama said, his remarks about Khalidi clearly implied that he didn’t agree with his colleague, which is why in classic Obama fashion he applauded Khalidi for challenging him and making him face his own biases. …

Perhaps Joe the Plumber can return to worrying about incipient socialism and leave foreign policy to others. [bold mine-R]

NOTE: All referenced ads are VodPodded at right; the list below is upside-down from the order in the VodPod. Deal with it.

1.) Obama’s wink-and-nod on Palin: Actually, it’s Palin who’s winking and nodding, after a little background on McCain saying he’s not particularly knowledgable on the economy, and that he’ll “rely” on his VP for economic advice. MY TAKE: It’s a very wry, hard-hitting ad, but the fact that people have to read it and not hear it is a big negative. It’s a talkie! Why not use it?

2.) McCain’s dig at the big ad buy: Reminds me of the “Celebrity” ad, but less weird and more potent. It’s always seemed to me that McCain shouldn’t whine about being outspent, but spin it somehow into “look how much money he has to throw around on ads, crowning himself president while you struggle to make ends meet.” He seems to be doing this here, and while I don’t think it’s a game-changer, it certainly can’t hurt. He’s also, on the stump, blaming Obama for delaying the World Series with tonight’s ad (which Fox says isn’t true, they’re just cutting the pregame show) and playing up the “he thinks he’s president already!” angle, which could have an effect on any few rare voters to whom politics is like a football game that you don’t have a vested in (i.e. you vote for the underdog).

3.) Al Franken’s funny ad: The guy is a comedian, right? But he hasn’t followed his Republican ex-govenor Jesse “The Body” Ventura in making a lot of ludicrous ads. This one, however, is kind of funny…

4.) Norm Coleman’s “even Hollywood doesn’t like him” counterpunch: Cliff from Cheers and some other washed-up celebs appear in this ad against Franken. It would be a lot more potent if we’d seen any of these people on something besides re-runs in the last 10 years… but still, in a world of boring political ads, I approve of these messages.

Now, the most absolutely ridiculous ad I’ve seen this election isn’t available anywhere online (if someone finds it, I’ll give you a $5 gift certificate to my favorite coffee shop), but let me paint the picture: Charlene Rabold, a Democrat looking to unseat Republican state Rep. Jim DeCesare here in Bowling Green, has an ad that claims DeCesare is at least OK with, if not downright in favor of, legalizing marijuana. The source: A resolution he voted for, honoring economist Milton Friedman! (Who apparently suggested it would make economic sense to legalize marijuana in order to regulate and tax it.) She was later quoted in my newspaper as “Googling” his name to find this factoid. As a letter to the editor today put it, it should be of more concern that a Democrat who wants to fix the economy would have to Google Milton Friedman! Best of all, it ends with a stoned teenager stumbling out of a smoke-filled van, saying “Thanks, DeCesare doood!!!”

Priceless.

From now through Election Night, I’ll be posting infrequently at my newspaper’s website in a feature I’m calling “The Spin Room.” It’s basically a more pinpointed version of what I’m doing here, only for a specific audience (the online readers in southcentral Kentucky) and on a specific topic: The lead-up and unfolding of the presidential election as portrayed by the networks, webzines and blogosphere.

I’ll be infrequently linking to these posts, ‘cuz they’re worth reading but copyrighted by the Daily News and can’t be reproduced here.

You can read the first one here, taking a look at the Two Americas of Cable News. And, if you’re interested in the Bowling Green mayor’s race or news on U.S. House District 22, visit bgdailynews.com/election on Nov. 4.