1.) Best essay by a washed-up celebrity: Dick Cavett of “The Dick Cavett Show” writes an occasional online column at the New York Times, and his take on Sarah Palin’s post-election stardom and her butchering of the English language is really, really great:

Now something has gone wrong with all three television sets. They will get only Sarah Palin.

I can play a kind of Alaskan roulette. Any random channel clicked on by the remote brings up that eager face, with its continuing assaults on the English Lang.

There she is with Larry and Matt and just about everyone else but Dr. Phil (so far). If she is not yet on “Judge Judy,” I suspect it can’t be for lack of trying. …

What on earth are our underpaid teachers, laboring in the vineyards of education, supposed to tell students about the following sentence, committed by the serial syntax-killer from Wasilla High and gleaned by my colleague Maureen Dowd for preservation for those who ask, “How was it she talked?”

My concern has been the atrocities there in Darfur and the relevance to me with that issue as we spoke about Africa and some of the countries there that were kind of the people succumbing to the dictators and the corruption of some collapsed governments on the continent, the relevance was Alaska’s investment in Darfur with some of our permanent fund dollars.

And, she concluded, “never, ever did I talk about, well, gee, is it a country or a continent, I just don’t know about this issue.”

It’s admittedly a rare gift to produce a paragraph in which whole clumps of words could be removed without noticeably affecting the sense, if any.

2.) Most astute analysis of the potential auto bailout: Many times in past months, I’ve directed your gaze to the wise words of Pat Buchanan, former Nixon speechwriter, Reagan adviser and fringe presidential candidate. There are plenty of places I part ways with him, but the man’s political instincts are usually keen — this post about “conservatives” and their strange opposition to a meager $25 million to bail out our auto industry is worthwhile reading, even if (like me) you aren’t sure you agree with it:

Understandably, Republicans are seething.

When Hank Paulson demanded $700 billion to haul away the trash in the dumpsters of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs — assuring us we could hold a garage sale of the junk — they rebelled. They acted as the nation, by 100 to one, demanded. They killed the Wall Street bailout.

The Dow quickly sank another 1,000 points, and, charged with criminal irresponsibility by the elites, the GOP buckled, reversed itself, rescued the bailout — and was wiped out on Nov. 4.

Now we hear from Paulson that the $700 billion Congress voted will not, after all, be used to buy up all that rotten paper on the books of the big banks. Some banks are using the cash to buy other banks.

So Republicans are right to be enraged. They are victims of the biggest bait-and-switch in political history. But they are now about to do something terminally stupid. With GM, Ford, and Chrysler teetering on the brink, they are turning a cold stone face to Detroit …

And to let the auto industry die is to write America out of much of the economic future of the planet. [Bolds mine-R]

Go read the whole thing. You’ll be a little smarter afterward.

3.) Funniest totally lame YouTube thing I just found: Thanks, Nick, for pointing me to this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J6S6mDyNvY[/youtube]

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…)

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.

Somehow I missed this yesterday, but the inimitable Kathleen Parker’s latest outside-the-tent look at the election is really worth reading (full article here). Some choice bits:

Among the hidden factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor’s race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead.

But equally significant this time may become known as the Reverse-Bradley Effect: whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. And, expanding the definition somewhat, Republicans and conservatives who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal. …

I’ve received too many e-mails and had too many conversations that began, “Just between you and me,” and ended with, “I wouldn’t want anyone at work to know,” to believe that this is an insignificant trend.

Sitting quietly at their desks are an unknown number of discreet conservatives who surprise themselves as they mull their options. Appalled by McCain’s erratic behavior, both in dealing with the financial crisis and his selection of an unsuitable running mate, they will quietly (and with considerable trepidation) vote for Obama.

Are they are worried about higher taxes, a premature withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama’s inexperience in matters executive? You betcha. But they do not want to vote for a divisive, anti-intellectual ticket headed by a man who, though they admire him, lately has made them embarrassed to be Republicans. [bolds mine-R]

I sense the same thing, speaking with coworkers and acquaintances who walk into the coffee shop. Even some very close members of my family, who heretofore have had nothing but bad things to say about Democrats in general and whose philosophies are right out of the GOP platform, are having a hard time envisioning themselves pulling the lever for John the Candidate. This is why, weeks ago, I started telling people that not only was Obama going to win, but in terms of electoral votes he was going to dominate. The polls followed my prediction (although some have since gotten much tighter), and I’m putting my chips on a 2-to-1 electoral margin.

Meanwhile, in the “salt in the wound” category, Parker spices up her “McCain’s bound to lose” column with another potent (if all too rare) criticism of the McCain-Palin camp’s painting Obama as terrorist:

“Palling around with terrorists,” as Sarah Palin said of Obama, gets to an underlying xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiment. Using surrogates who strategically use Obama’s middle name, Hussein, feeds the same dark heart. … To McCain’s credit, he has tried to correct his audience — when, for example, a woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. Gosh, wonder where she ever got that idea? But the McCain-Palin bad cop-good cop routine is what it is. The hot babe lathers the crowd; the noble soldier hoses them down. This isn’t a campaign; it’s a sideshow. [bold mine-R]

Everything’s out of whack this year. It’s Democrats who are supposed to be second-guessing their candidate’s strategy and lamenting of his imminent loss, right? More evidence that Obama’s “change” has arrived — to the modern presidential campaign, at least, if not to our actual government.

Short story: Palin unlawfully abused her power in firing her state’s public safety commissioner.

My take: John “Original Maverick” “Campaign Stunt” McCain will use this opportunity as a last gasp at reversing his fortunes — Palin bows out, Mitt “I’m a Businessman” Romney steps in.

Will it work? I doubt it. But it’s the best chance he’s got, and I’d bet good money that he’ll do it. If I had any.

NOTE: This is the most interesting thing you’ll read on my blog this election cycle.

This thread of thought sounded absolutely wacko when I first heard it, and I’ve posted nothing on it. But Andrew Sullivan, who posts about 6 times an hour and must make a good living doing it, isn’t worried about labels:

Births at Mat-Sui Medical Center in April 2008: Here they are listed on the hospital’s website. Trig Palin, who was born there, Sarah Palin tells us, on April 18 at 6.30 am, is nowhere to be found. If you can find any public record of Trig Palin’s birth anywhere, please let me know. I will gladly publish it as soon as I find it. So far, none exists that I have been able to track down. …

As far as the propriety of demanding such basic public records, I am merely following Sarah Palin’s own standards. In her first race for mayor of Wasilla, she demanded the marriage license of her opponent be made public. Why? Because his wife kept her maiden name - and Palin deemed that sufficiently unusual to demand total transparency. If that level of transparency is necessary for the race for Wasilla mayor, why is it “unspeakable” for the vice-presidency of the United States? Is being mayor of Wasilla more significant than possibly being US president? [bold mine-R]

Yes, he’s wondering about Trig. Yes, there is a certain segment of people in the blogosphere who think the baby could be Sarah’s daughter’s. No, I’m not one of them… but we’ve heard a lot in the past few days about “Who is the real Barack Obama?” (sometimes with “Hussein” thrown in there), so you’d think such a truth-seeker would open her medical records. John McCain opened his (if only for a few hours and with no photocopying allowed), what’s the big deal? Put the thing to rest, even if it’s a trivial and relatively embarrasing thing. Right?

Wilfredo Lee/AP

Well, my first two predictions didn’t come true. But the third did: BORING.

Like I’ve said before, that’s just what these things are. Surprising to the pundits in the background are Palin’s saying she’d expand the vice presidency, her misnaming the commander in Afghanistan, her suggesting a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem (which apparently is way out there, but I’m no Mideast expert), and a senseless answer on climate change. Biden, meanwhile, could not form a sentence without the words “John McCain” in there somewhere.

The only time my interest was really piqued was when she said Obama-Biden want to “wave the white flag of surrender” by setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq, and then went on to say something to the effect of “We will leave when our commanders decide the Iraqi government can handle it.” Think about that for a second: In a place where we went in to get weapons of mass destruction unseat an evil dictator fight terrorists help set up a democracy — a democracy that the hawks say was necessary and one that now has an $80 billion surplus — America is going to decide when the sovereign nation of Iraq is sovereign enough to handle itself. If you were looking for “straight talk,” this is it, and it sounds absolutely insane (which is why even Bush has never said such a thing in such stark terms).

Overall, she cleared the low bar and Biden didn’t get in any real knockouts… which, ultimately, means she won.

• Sarah Palin will utter the words/phrases “hockey mom,” “reform,” “old boys’ network” and “brave soldiers” within the first 10 minutes.

• Joe Biden will realize, soon after asking moderator Gwen Ifill what she’s been up to since “227″ went off the air, that he’s made a huge mistake.

• It will be really boring. Seriously.

1.) For once, a non-media conservative defending journalists for doing the work they’re supposed to do.

Larison says (and you should really click here and read the whole thing):

When someone at a restaurant asked Palin a question about Pakistan that generated some controversy because it seemed to contradict McCain’s previous statement at the debate, the McCain campaign dubbed it “gotcha journalism” and right away when Gibson stumped Palin with his Bush Doctrine question there was a great hue and cry about the “gotcha” nature of this question.  Apparently the questions on her reading habits and Court rulings has also been defined as a “gotcha” question by Palin supporters, even though it is as certain as the sun rising that journalists will ask nominees their views on judicial philosophy and Court rulings … In other words, the “gotcha” is no longer an ambush — it can include any question to which the candidate really should have an answer. …

When this year’s rulings came down, the presidential nominees either volunteered their opinions on the rulings or they were asked about them.  McCain denounced Boumediene and endorsed Heller. Obama supported both, which caused him some trouble because he had said that he thought the D.C. gun ban was constitutional …  If Ifill asks these questions tonight, is she playing “gotcha” or trying to gain information and a window into the candidate’s reasoning and understanding of the relevant policies?  This might be worth sorting out in advance so that we’ll know which flubbed answers to ignore and which ones are important.  If all questions are now “gotcha,” maybe we can just skip watching the debate and go have a drink. [bolds mine-R]

2.) Speaking of Gwen Ifill…

This is the argument: The moderator of tonight’s debate, a woman who is known throughout Washington for being a fair interviewer (and far from tabloid-esque, as with the more partisan likes of MSNBC or Fox News), is writing a book about “politics in the age of Obama.” She is black.

This has been translated into “she’s a member of the liberal media and is writing a book about politics in the age of Obama.”

This is the intellectually dishonest bomb-throwing that otherwise engaged people like myself simply detest, no matter which side of the aisle is throwing it. First, a book about the changing fortunes of black politicians is a far cry from a book “about” Obama or (as some have called it) “PRO-Obama” — she hasn’t event written the chapter about Obama yet. Secondly, do we think Bob Woodward would be a bad moderator? He’s written books about politicians, and all of them have been tough, hard-nosed — and ultimately fair. (There’s a reason President Bush keeps sitting down with the man, even though his books on the Bush White House have provided plenty of embarrassment.)

This is how it stands: Those who begin whining about “unfairness” are usually doing it because they know they’re losing (see previous post on the landslide that now seems imminent)… when Sean Hannity et al brought the Jeremiah Wright story to the forefront, Obama never claimed the story wasn’t credible because it was being reported by a right-leaning news organization; the story was true and so the questions were justified. He tried to spin it, sure, but not by beating up on the press. I’m guessing that’s because he knew he was winning then, and he surely knows he’s winning now.

It’s rare that I find two conservative columns, published in the same paper and on the same day, that I shout “Amen!” upon reading. But these are not ordinary times.

1.) An intellectual eviscerates the bailout: George Will hits another one out of the park. Full article here, choice quotes below:

(A) timeless political trope is: Government should budget the way households supposedly do, conforming outlays to income. But the (financial) crisis came partly because so many households decided that it would be jolly fun to budget the way government does, hitching outlays to appetites. …

Suppose that in 1979 the government had not engineered the first bailout of Chrysler (it, Ford and GM are about to get $25 billion in subsidized loans). Might there have been a more sober approach to risk throughout corporate America?

Suppose there had never been implicit government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Better yet, suppose those two had never existed — there was homeownership before them, just not at a level that the government thought proper. Absent Fannie and Freddie — absent government manipulation of the housing market — would there have developed the excessive diversion of capital into the housing stock? …

The public wanted catharsis and respect for its center-right principles and got both with Monday’s House vote. It still needs protection against obliteration of the financial system.

Now, I disagree on that last point — the majority of people don’t walk around saying, “Boy, I like them center-right principles!”, they just want to pay the bills and get a decent night’s rest. Ultimately, though, the man has some strong, strong points.

2.) Governor’s critic turned conservative effigy: Kathleen Parker, who I noted last week called for Sarah Palin to drop off the GOP ticket, gets her comeuppance for such suggestion. (Full article here.)

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn’t, I should “off” myself.

Those are a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.

Who says public discourse hasn’t deteriorated? …

Palin’s fans say they like her specifically because she’s an outsider, not part of the Washington club. When she flubs during interviews, they identify with that, too. “You see the lack of polish, we applaud it,” one reader wrote.

Of course, there’s a difference between a lack of polish and a lack of coherence. Some of Palin’s interview responses can’t even be critiqued on their merits because they’re so nonsensical. But even that is someone else’s fault, say Palin supporters. The media make her uncomfortable.

Or, it’s the fault of those slick politicos who are overmanaging her. “Let Sarah be Sarah” has become the latest rallying cry among my colleagues on the right. She’ll be fine if we just leave her alone, they say. Between prayers, I might add. …

Such extreme partisanship has a crippling effect on government, which may be desirable at times, but not now. More important in the long term is the less tangible effect of stifling free speech. My mail paints an ugly picture and a bleak future if we do not soon correct ourselves.

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn’t sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.